RE: Good Points on Firearms

RE: Good Points on Firearms (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

slvemike4u -> RE: Good Points on Firearms (2/10/2015 12:31:23 PM)
No attraction at all...I value intelligence above everything else in deciding attractiveness. Since you exhibit none....no attraction.

lovmuffin -> RE: Good Points on Firearms (2/10/2015 12:42:06 PM)
And all this time I was thinking you're the one who does not exhibit intelligence. Thanks for setting me straight. I mean if all someone can come up with to speak to what I posted is "fuck you", that's just got-a mean he's intelligent..........and quite original and thought provoking too[8D]

slvemike4u -> RE: Good Points on Firearms (2/10/2015 12:44:15 PM)
If all you have read from my posts is the "fuck you" ,well my point is made. Now go away and scare some children or something,cause you are making no headway here [;)]

BamaD -> RE: Good Points on Firearms (2/10/2015 12:50:28 PM)
At one time the nation thought drinking beer was bad. They made an amendment about it. Then later they decided getting drunk can be a good thing. So they removed the previous amendment. Did you have a right not to drink beer in 1919? Typical of your lack of understanding. Nobody decided that getting drunk was good. They decided that the amendment caused too many problems such as the growth of organized crime. Rather than follow yours and Mikes path they had the guts to repeal it. No owning a car is not a specifically enumerated right. And much as you and Mike would like to pretend otherwise I and as near as I can tell all other pro 2nd people agree that MISUSE of a firearm can and in most cases should (knowing that you and others have weird definitions of misuse) cost the right to own a firearm. Commonwealth Peoples Republic it is just a matter of what we want to call it.

lovmuffin -> RE: Good Points on Firearms (2/10/2015 12:52:35 PM)
That's all I read from your rebuttal to what I posted. As for the rest of the crap you and joether keep going on about, it's all the same crap that's been proven wrong so many times on all the gun threads, over and over again. It's not worth repeating. The only thing of real importance I had to say, and not to you, is stock up on ammo[8D]

slvemike4u -> RE: Good Points on Firearms (2/10/2015 12:53:07 PM)
Of course there are dead people lying all over the place before you see a need for that particular citizen's second to be removed. Maybe the rest of us are sick and tired(I know....you care too [&o] )of waiting for that to happen......again and again (rinse wash,repeat)and again.

mnottertail -> RE: Good Points on Firearms (2/10/2015 12:58:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD At one time the nation thought drinking beer was bad. They made an amendment about it. Then later they decided getting drunk can be a good thing. So they removed the previous amendment. Did you have a right not to drink beer in 1919? Typical of your lack of understanding. Nobody decided that getting drunk was good. They decided that the amendment caused too many problems such as the growth of organized crime. Rather than follow yours and Mikes path they had the guts to repeal it. No owning a car is not a specifically enumerated right. And much as you and Mike would like to pretend otherwise I and as near as I can tell all other pro 2nd people agree that MISUSE of a firearm can and in most cases should (knowing that you and others have weird definitions of misuse) cost the right to own a firearm. Commonwealth Peoples Republic it is just a matter of what we want to call it. Yeah, that was republicans, just like individual income tax. You guys sure were for a lot of things before you were against it.

joether -> RE: Good Points on Firearms (2/10/2015 12:59:17 PM)
Finally....someone talks on the nature of the thread. Took us 70 posts.... quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 You have said, at least a couple of times, that the guy in the video had brought up several "good" points. Most all of what I saw in viewing the whole (wasted time) video was him attempting to be humorous using the same old talking points that anti-gun people have been bringing up over and over again. How about if you tell us which points it is that he is making that you think is so important, or at least tell us at what point in the video he makes the points that you would like to discuss? The guy comes up with a very large number of good points. But its how he delivers the points is both funny and truthful. Yes, he is a comedian. Comedians are suppose to get us to laugh at stuff. Yet a number of comedians have used concepts and topics in everyday lives that bring forth a point. South Park, if you get past all the immature crap, usually had a good moral viewpoint. The Daily Show with John Stewart often shows many examples of things in daily life that are wrong, but in an amusing manner. That is because delivering information in a normal manner is not entertaining to us humans. More people tune into Mr. Stewart than NPR (which does give out really good information without the opinion). But NPR is (yawn), boring. 0:43= Jim talks about the biggest massacre in his country, and that to this day, it hasn't been beaten. Do we....really....have to have something more hellish than Sandy Hook? That in the time after they took the guns away, there haven't been any massacres since. I haven't done the research to clarify if that is true or not. But he makes the point that since all the firearms were taken away, nothing bad has happen. Clarification: I'm not for taking all the firearms away. That there is tough for some to understand. 2:07= "Fuck off, I like guns" Yes, that is the only argument to have one. Why are there no Protection Rifles? Plenty of Assault Rifles. 3:27= That he actually got attacked while naked. That there was no were he could have had the firearm, or that he should be fully ready for the attack without knowing the attack would originate from a certain window. Do you go to home security conventions? Read Padlock Monthly? Got that facebook picture of you behind a secured door looking badass with your gun? Yeah, try to say 'yes' with a straight face.... 4:18=That he makes the example of some guy wanting to steal your TV not hurt anyone in your house. "How many fucking enemies do you have?" I could keep going, but that's enough to start.... quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 As I said, throughout the whole video it seemed to be the same old talking points that people have been arguing about, hashing, and rehashing, since forever. I did come up with a few points that I thought were worth mentioning. That's the nice thing with comedians; they can take the ordinary and make it something worth laughing at. That you couldn't laugh at this stuff makes me ask: Can you laugh in a healthy manner or reasoning? Did you ever laugh at stuff Robin Williams spoken on? quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 (1) At about the 7:20 mark in the video he starts a bit about the percentage of people that don't agree with him. He mentions that of the 50% that don't agree with him there is about 10% that seethe about what he has to say. If guns are so bad, and people (Americans) are so crazy, and 10% of those gun owners (what would equal about 5% of the American population, using his estimates) absolutely hate him...why is he so NOT afraid to rile them? Wouldn't he be afraid of being shot by some gun-crazed American? Maybe guns and gun owners aren't as bad as some people want to try to make them seem to be. Who says he not afraid to rile that 10%? Maybe he is afraid, but through humor, defuses things. If that guy was shot by some gun crazed American; could you imagine the windfall for the gun controllers in the nation? Would be like Sandy Hook all over again. That person (doing the shooting) is against freedom of speech of anyone that doesnt agree with them. And willing to act in a deadly manner to accomplish it. Why do you think many on the right breathed a sigh of relief when it was found the movie theater and gabby giffords guys were insane and NOT, gun nuts? Because the fallout would have been huge! Or if that guy that killed the kids in Sandy Hook was fiften or twenty years older, had tea party material in his bedroom, and all sorts of 'I hate America' and gun materials/books? Sandy Hook was...BAD. Try to imagine the hell if those things were in there. I'm not saying this with glee or 'I hope I wish'. Fuck no! I say with dread and hoping it...DOESNT....happen. quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 (2) At about the 9:00 mark he clearly states that Australia (where he is from) has a constitution, but he has no idea what it says. Yet he knows all about the U.S. constitution, and argues about his own interpretation as to what it says. Isn't it wonderful that our constitution is more important to him than his own? He's going to a host country. What do the Australians think on when they think of America? Guns. Lots of Guns. An that the gun culture to those outside the nation is as much a fascination to them, as all the accents found in the British Isles to us. So he learns about it. Studies it. Figures out good material. And speaks on it. He always knows his audience is in Boston and open to many different ideas. Not like a Tea Party rally.... quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 (3) And lastly, at about the 13:00 mark, he argues about how in Australia it costs $34,000 on the black market to buy a Bushmaster rifle, and that anyone with that kind of money doesn't need to be a criminal. Okay, he was trying to make a point by using what he considers humor. The fact of the matter is, if a criminal wants a Bushmaster (or any other type of hard to get gun), he is likely either going to find a way to steal it, or he will raise the money through other criminal activities such as dealing drugs, burglary, and/or theft of some other nature. Making something more difficult to buy will, IN MY OPINION, likely cause an over all increase in illegal activities. An yet the rate of violence with firearms in that country compared to ours is staggering small. Would you drive your brand new car into a demolition derby? Or that clunker you got for $250 that barely operates? The point is, that if that criminal can afford a $34,000 gun, would he be so quick to use it? Verse obtaining one that cost $1,000? Because acquiring items of high price tag value does attract law enforcement attention. Particularly firearms. When was the last time you saw an M-60 used in a bank robbery In the United States? quote: ORIGINAL: igor2003 Anyway, I would like to know exactly which points you think he is making in the video that are not simply a rehash of the various talking points already covered many, many times in the forums. I'll have to look at the video again, the make other observations.

slvemike4u -> RE: Good Points on Firearms (2/10/2015 1:00:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin That's all I read from your rebuttal to what I posted. As for the rest of the crap you and joether keep going on about, it's all the same crap that's been proven wrong so many times on all the gun threads, over and over again. It's not worth repeating. The only thing of real importance I had to say, and not to you, is stock up on ammo[8D] You do understand there is a world of difference between "you don't agree with " and "proven wrong " right ? Or perhaps we are right back to you being as dumb as a bag of rocks. Which is it ?

tevinters -> RE: Good Points on Firearms (2/10/2015 1:03:46 PM)
If you're going to post on a public forum, could it please be requested that some of you learn the language and grammar pertaining to your post before citing your most obvious progressive and intellectual ideas? There are three periods in an ellipsis followed by a space. And groups of words, sprinkled in with other forms of punctuation, form sentences. These are then partitioned into paragraphs regarding the emphasis of new lines of subject matter. It's either me being overly critical and unable to comprehend broken (murdered) English, or a GED is no longer a "good enough degree". Of course, no one has a GED here (by which I mean no insult to those possessing them): everyone clearly works for NASA or CERN. But carry on with the trolling. Sure can't wait 'til page 5 of yet another tinderbox thread. It always ends up so... pleasant.

joether -> RE: Good Points on Firearms (2/10/2015 1:09:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin FR Yeah the video was funny, LMAO ha ha ha, full of crap and misinterprets a few things but such is the nature of comedy. One good point he makes is you can change the fucking amendment. It's the only argument you guys could have that makes any sense but I rarely see anyone going there. I would be against it of course unless the new amendment was to clarify the militia clause but the arguments on this subject just end up being too redundant to go point by point refuting joethers and others silly interpretations of the Second Amendment and especially the stupid notion that ya need to be a part of some organized militia before the Second Anendment applies. Been there a bunch of times, done that and it's pretty useless. You guys will never get it no natter how many times you've been proven wrong, nor would you want to. As for the rest of you guys on my side of the isle, stock up on ammo. I had suggested another amendment. That it update the 2nd amendment to apply towards organized groups that might augment local police forces in a time of need. An that the recognition that self defense is important to the individual to experience liberty. How the exact wording would work, I never clarified nor decided upon. Most of the gun nuts were fully against it just the notion. Sort of bewildered me at the time, as I thought I was making a decent compromised. That we might flesh out the exact writing of it. That perhaps we might understand the troubles the founding father's had with the 1st and 2nd amendments (and they did have problems). Its all there in the search feature if you want to look it up. Given the number of 2nd amendment threads on here, that process might take you some time to uncover. I don't need to look it up, I'll take your word for it. I'll suggest the new amendment clarifies the individual right to bear arms as intended by the founders. No, not as intended by the founders. As we indented. That we make our own destiny for America. "The right to bear arms" I think has gotten this nation into quite a pickle of issues already. Could we learn from the mistake(s) of keeping things vague? Look at the first ten amendments. Then look at the more recent amendments past into law. Each of them have a definition. But only the later ones have a 'spirit' or 'what the author(s) of the amendment were trying to explain. That a law can not handle each and every possible instance that could take place in the future. The idea of a 'spirit' to the law would help in the event the amendment was to vague to be properly interpreted. Since technology, culture, history, and even viewpoints can change with time. Its been 220+ years. Alot has changed in America. So what if technology provides for say....Bolters? A weapon found in the game Warhammer40K. Since the 'ammo' from a bolter is not gunpowder but miniature rockets or bolts; would that be an arm? Or would it be a whole new level of weapon? Would the military have access to it only; or could civilians have it? I bring it up, because the founding fathers never had the idea of 'an assault rifle' much less a rifled barrel. To use a 'real world' alternative to bolters; how about the drone? Do you or I have a right to use an armed drone to protect ourselves?

slvemike4u -> RE: Good Points on Firearms (2/10/2015 1:09:56 PM)
Nah,that's just you being overly critical. And if punctuation lessons is all you intend to add to the conversation.....well than make your first post your last post. Other than that,welcome to the forums.Bless your heart [;)]

joether -> RE: Good Points on Firearms (2/10/2015 1:12:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tevinters If you're going to post on a public forum, could it please be requested that some of you learn the language and grammar pertaining to your post before citing your most obvious progressive and intellectual ideas? There are three periods in an ellipsis followed by a space. And groups of words, sprinkled in with other forms of punctuation, form sentences. These are then partitioned into paragraphs regarding the emphasis of new lines of subject matter. It's either me being overly critical and unable to comprehend broken (murdered) English, or a GED is no longer a "good enough degree". Of course, no one has a GED here (by which I mean no insult to those possessing them): everyone clearly works for NASA or CERN. But carry on with the trolling. Sure can't wait 'til page 5 of yet another tinderbox thread. It always ends up so... pleasant. Grammar Nazi You must be a 'sock' of Kirata. He hates my grammar with a passion! I have a BS. A GED is NOT a degree, but a "Diploma" (meaning is the equivalent to a high school diploma). That is often why its abbreviated from General Educational Development. Now here is a helmet, the foxholes are clearly marked. When you hear 'inbound' jump in one. Just dont jump in mine! Welcome to the forums.....

slvemike4u -> RE: Good Points on Firearms (2/10/2015 1:18:45 PM)
Is there anything more irritating than a grammar Nazi......I mean wtf ,if I want to separate my sentences and thoughts by a good number of..... than I will do so. If someone can not grasp the intent of what I write due to the mistaken use of punctuation's......Than simply ask and I will break it down for you [:)]

Kirata -> RE: Good Points on Firearms (2/10/2015 1:20:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether No, firearm ownership is not a Constitutional Right (at the individual level). The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals ~Albert Gallatin The great object is that every man be armed ~Patrick Henry The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed ~Alexander Hamilton As discussed earlier, the "militia" itself referred to a concept of a universally armed people, not to any specifically organized unit. When the framers referred to the equivalent of our National Guard, they uniformly used the term "select militia" and distinguished this from "militia". Indeed, the debates over the Constitution constantly referred to organized militia units as a threat to freedom comparable to that of a standing army, and stressed that such organized units did not constitute, and indeed were philosophically opposed to, the concept of a militia... The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner. ~Report of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution The Court reached this conclusion after a textual analysis of the Amendment, an examination of the historical use of prefatory phrases in statutes, and a detailed exploration of the 18th century meaning of phrases found in the Amendment... Finally, the Court reviewed contemporaneous state constitutions, post-enactment commentary, and subsequent case law to conclude that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended beyond the context of militia service to include self-defense. ~S. Doc. 112-9 - Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis, and Interpretation K.

joether -> RE: Good Points on Firearms (2/10/2015 1:37:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: joether At one time the nation thought drinking beer was bad. They made an amendment about it. Then later they decided getting drunk can be a good thing. So they removed the previous amendment. Did you have a right not to drink beer in 1919? Typical of your lack of understanding. "I find your lack of faith disturbing." If your going to act like Vader, at least get the damn line right! quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Nobody decided that getting drunk was good. You obviously have never been to college, a NASCAR race, a political rally, in software companies, or invited to a Super Bowl Party! quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD They decided that the amendment caused too many problems such as the growth of organized crime. Which problems were those? Exactly? Since there is plenty of organized crime today whom smuggle in the other eight of ten deadly addictive substances (not including tobacco and alcohol). quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Rather than follow yours and Mikes path they had the guts to repeal it. You heard it here first, guys, BamaD wants us to repeal the 2nd amendment..... quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD No owning a car is not a specifically enumerated right. Oh, because its a law and not an amendment? Hate to break it to you, but amendment is a form of law. If we decided to make driving cars a constitutional right, you would be 'ok' with it, right? If the American people wanted to ban automobiles, there would be some problems with it. Actually, many problems. Are firearms being ban anywhere on the same scale? quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD And much as you and Mike would like to pretend otherwise I and as near as I can tell all other pro 2nd people agree that MISUSE of a firearm can and in most cases should (knowing that you and others have weird definitions of misuse) cost the right to own a firearm. Unfortunately it doesnt. Because folks like you keep opposing said bills before they can become laws. That you dont bother to read the actual laws and instead regurgitate what others tell you on the bills. Then we come on here, express support for the bill and what it does. Then you call us liars, stating the bullshit someone has fed you without an ounce of question. We call you an uneducated, and nothing happens. Want to take a guess how many times this has happened so far in the last few years? I'm all in favor of someone losing the firearm(s) until they can show evidence of being responsible with them. Do we put a time period to it? A fine? Require jail time? Combination of any of these together? Or do we get....creative? quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Commonwealth Peoples Republic it is just a matter of what we want to call it. Go right ahead, insult Virginia, Kentucky, and Pennsylvania while your at it! Which state do you live in? Oh that state that just allowed those two cute young women to marry each other. Are you proud your state just join the other 37 states that are in favor of equal marriage rights?

Kirata -> RE: Good Points on Firearms (2/10/2015 1:38:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u I value intelligence above everything else in deciding attractiveness. Well that raises a couple of interesting questions. Do you consider yourself attractive? And does anyone else agree with you? [:D] K.

lovmuffin -> RE: Good Points on Firearms (2/10/2015 1:39:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin That's all I read from your rebuttal to what I posted. As for the rest of the crap you and joether keep going on about, it's all the same crap that's been proven wrong so many times on all the gun threads, over and over again. It's not worth repeating. The only thing of real importance I had to say, and not to you, is stock up on ammo[8D] You do understand there is a world of difference between "you don't agree with " and "proven wrong " right ? Or perhaps we are right back to you being as dumb as a bag of rocks. Which is it ? Yes I understand the difference and your silly insults don't bolster your case. If you look back on all the gun threads you'll see joether puts forth the exact same argument related to the militia clause that you seem to agree with. He goes on and on with walls of text trying to argue that the Second Amendment is not an individual right. In those same threads we show the quotes from the founders some of which are contained in the Federalist Papers along with SCOTUS rulings proving his arguments are completely false. I think it was you who tried to argue on one of those threads that 3 of the founders said the Second Amendment was so the south could keep their slaves from revolting or some silly shit. I brought up quotes from those same 3 proving you or whoever wrong yet again. I could do it all over again for you and joether but what's the point ?

mnottertail -> RE: Good Points on Firearms (2/10/2015 1:41:53 PM)
Well, since the constitution defines militia, as does the USC, and in eiher case they are not defined as loose individuals, the legislating from the bench is of some issue

lovmuffin -> RE: Good Points on Firearms (2/10/2015 1:46:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether No, firearm ownership is not a Constitutional Right (at the individual level). The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals ~Albert Gallatin The great object is that every man be armed ~Patrick Henry The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed ~Alexander Hamilton As discussed earlier, the "militia" itself referred to a concept of a universally armed people, not to any specifically organized unit. When the framers referred to the equivalent of our National Guard, they uniformly used the term "select militia" and distinguished this from "militia". Indeed, the debates over the Constitution constantly referred to organized militia units as a threat to freedom comparable to that of a standing army, and stressed that such organized units did not constitute, and indeed were philosophically opposed to, the concept of a militia... The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner. ~Report of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution The Court reached this conclusion after a textual analysis of the Amendment, an examination of the historical use of prefatory phrases in statutes, and a detailed exploration of the 18th century meaning of phrases found in the Amendment... Finally, the Court reviewed contemporaneous state constitutions, post-enactment commentary, and subsequent case law to conclude that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended beyond the context of militia service to include self-defense. ~S. Doc. 112-9 - Constitution of the United States of America: Analysis, and Interpretation K. There you go again, confusing these guys with facts. Not only that but we can look forward to yet even more walls of nonsensical text from joether[8D]

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625