Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Good Points on Firearms


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Good Points on Firearms Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Good Points on Firearms - 2/10/2015 6:02:45 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
Because we just....need....another thread on firearms right? Seems every week a new thread starts up with people rehashing the 'reasons' from the previous weeks to have, own, use, trade, make, sell, buy, possibly collect them. Or that they create threads were the underlying reason is in favor of more firearms. Since firearms solve all problems, right?

Well I stumbled upon this individual. And he does make quite a few good points. Can we discussion in a rational and mature manner on what the person brings up?

Take a look for yourself.

< Message edited by joether -- 2/10/2015 6:03:02 AM >
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Good Points on Firearms - 2/10/2015 6:15:50 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Because we just....need....another thread on firearms right? Seems every week a new thread starts up with people rehashing the 'reasons' from the previous weeks to have, own, use, trade, make, sell, buy, possibly collect them. Or that they create threads were the underlying reason is in favor of more firearms. Since firearms solve all problems, right?

Well I stumbled upon this individual. And he does make quite a few good points. Can we discussion in a rational and mature manner on what the person brings up?

Take a look for yourself.

Or with people rehashing the same old arguments for trickle down crime fighting.
In order to have a mature rational discussion we have to start with an acknowledgement that firearm ownership in this country is a Constitutional right. We also have to divest ourselves of the notion that the villain is the criminal, not the tool.
However I have the feeling that a "rational and mature discussion" means talking about why gun ownership has to be curtailed and excuses to pretend that it is a privilege earned by militia service and not a right.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Good Points on Firearms - 2/10/2015 6:17:59 AM   
ExiledTyrant


Posts: 4547
Joined: 12/9/2013
From: Exiled
Status: offline
Well, there are two glaring errors in this post:

#1 You asked for rational.
#2 You asked for mature.

Clear the runway for the imminent crash and burn.

_____________________________

Gnothi Seauton
To lead, first follow: Aurelius, Epictetus, Descartes, Sun Tzu, to name a few.

Semper fidelis (which sometimes feels like a burden)

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Good Points on Firearms - 2/10/2015 6:22:26 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ExiledTyrant

Well, there are two glaring errors in this post:

#1 You asked for rational.
#2 You asked for mature.

Clear the runway for the imminent crash and burn.

I would love to have a mature rational conversation on the subject but I don't think I have been in one of these yet where I have not be given some form of telling me that I don't care how many people get killed as long as I get to fondle my guns.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to ExiledTyrant)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Good Points on Firearms - 2/10/2015 6:39:36 AM   
ExiledTyrant


Posts: 4547
Joined: 12/9/2013
From: Exiled
Status: offline
That's because "reckless" ownership makes headlines and "necessary" ownership doesn't. Most people cannot relate to the necessity of ownership if it is not a necessity.

_____________________________

Gnothi Seauton
To lead, first follow: Aurelius, Epictetus, Descartes, Sun Tzu, to name a few.

Semper fidelis (which sometimes feels like a burden)

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Good Points on Firearms - 2/10/2015 6:44:26 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Because we just....need....another thread on firearms right? Seems every week a new thread starts up with people rehashing the 'reasons' from the previous weeks to have, own, use, trade, make, sell, buy, possibly collect them. Or that they create threads were the underlying reason is in favor of more firearms. Since firearms solve all problems, right?

Well I stumbled upon this individual. And he does make quite a few good points. Can we discussion in a rational and mature manner on what the person brings up?

Take a look for yourself.

Or with people rehashing the same old arguments for trickle down crime fighting.
In order to have a mature rational discussion we have to start with an acknowledgement that firearm ownership in this country is a Constitutional right. We also have to divest ourselves of the notion that the villain is the criminal, not the tool.


No, firearm ownership is not a Constitutional Right (at the individual level). The 'right to bear arms' and 'shall not be infringed' are related to the first sentence of the amendment. Cant have one without the other. Can "A well regulated militia...." have firearms? Yes. Can an individual in good standing with said '....well regulated militia...' have firearms? Yes. Could an individual thrown out of the 'well regulated militia' or never join it? Depends on the laws at the state and federal levels. The firearms the individual has are for their duty with the militia, not their own whims and wishes. They screw around with the militia, the general citizens, or behave irresponsibility, those arms are removed.

Can we agree on this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
However I have the feeling that a "rational and mature discussion" means talking about why gun ownership has to be curtailed and excuses to pretend that it is a privilege earned by militia service and not a right.


If you had watched the video, you would understand why firearm ownership at the individual level would be curtailed. Just watching the first 30 seconds and basing your entire view....doesnt count. You are being asked to watch the FULL VIDEO. You can handle it, BamaD. Your a big guy!

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Good Points on Firearms - 2/10/2015 6:45:26 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ExiledTyrant
Well, there are two glaring errors in this post:

#1 You asked for rational.
#2 You asked for mature.

Clear the runway for the imminent crash and burn.


I know, I know, what are the odds, eh?

Better go get that powerball ticket....

(in reply to ExiledTyrant)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Good Points on Firearms - 2/10/2015 6:48:43 AM   
ExiledTyrant


Posts: 4547
Joined: 12/9/2013
From: Exiled
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: ExiledTyrant
Well, there are two glaring errors in this post:

#1 You asked for rational.
#2 You asked for mature.

Clear the runway for the imminent crash and burn.


I know, I know, what are the odds, eh?

Better go get that powerball ticket....




_____________________________

Gnothi Seauton
To lead, first follow: Aurelius, Epictetus, Descartes, Sun Tzu, to name a few.

Semper fidelis (which sometimes feels like a burden)

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Good Points on Firearms - 2/10/2015 7:18:43 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Because we just....need....another thread on firearms right? Seems every week a new thread starts up with people rehashing the 'reasons' from the previous weeks to have, own, use, trade, make, sell, buy, possibly collect them. Or that they create threads were the underlying reason is in favor of more firearms. Since firearms solve all problems, right?

Well I stumbled upon this individual. And he does make quite a few good points. Can we discussion in a rational and mature manner on what the person brings up?

Take a look for yourself.

Or with people rehashing the same old arguments for trickle down crime fighting.
In order to have a mature rational discussion we have to start with an acknowledgement that firearm ownership in this country is a Constitutional right. We also have to divest ourselves of the notion that the villain is the criminal, not the tool.


No, firearm ownership is not a Constitutional Right (at the individual level). The 'right to bear arms' and 'shall not be infringed' are related to the first sentence of the amendment. Cant have one without the other. Can "A well regulated militia...." have firearms? Yes. Can an individual in good standing with said '....well regulated militia...' have firearms? Yes. Could an individual thrown out of the 'well regulated militia' or never join it? Depends on the laws at the state and federal levels. The firearms the individual has are for their duty with the militia, not their own whims and wishes. They screw around with the militia, the general citizens, or behave irresponsibility, those arms are removed.

Can we agree on this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
However I have the feeling that a "rational and mature discussion" means talking about why gun ownership has to be curtailed and excuses to pretend that it is a privilege earned by militia service and not a right.


If you had watched the video, you would understand why firearm ownership at the individual level would be curtailed. Just watching the first 30 seconds and basing your entire view....doesnt count. You are being asked to watch the FULL VIDEO. You can handle it, BamaD. Your a big guy!


There you go again.
When you first came on here you admitted that the 2nd was an individual right but claimed greater wisdom.
The writers of the 2nd said it was an individual right, you ignore this.
By Federal law every male from 18 to 54 is part of the militia even if they don't participate in drills.
Part of the militia at the time was a function now filled by neighborhood watches.
If it was what you pretend it is, the 2nd would be a privilege of militia membership and not a right.
I can't watch a video that will not load.
As always you jump to a conclusion as to what I have done, and as usual you are wrong.
If you want a mature conversation don't be condescending.

< Message edited by BamaD -- 2/10/2015 7:25:57 AM >


_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Good Points on Firearms - 2/10/2015 7:24:19 AM   
BitYakin


Posts: 882
Joined: 10/15/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Because we just....need....another thread on firearms right? Seems every week a new thread starts up with people rehashing the 'reasons' from the previous weeks to have, own, use, trade, make, sell, buy, possibly collect them. Or that they create threads were the underlying reason is in favor of more firearms. Since firearms solve all problems, right?

Well I stumbled upon this individual. And he does make quite a few good points. Can we discussion in a rational and mature manner on what the person brings up?

Take a look for yourself.

Or with people rehashing the same old arguments for trickle down crime fighting.
In order to have a mature rational discussion we have to start with an acknowledgement that firearm ownership in this country is a Constitutional right. We also have to divest ourselves of the notion that the villain is the criminal, not the tool.


No, firearm ownership is not a Constitutional Right (at the individual level). The 'right to bear arms' and 'shall not be infringed' are related to the first sentence of the amendment. Cant have one without the other. Can "A well regulated militia...." have firearms? Yes. Can an individual in good standing with said '....well regulated militia...' have firearms? Yes. Could an individual thrown out of the 'well regulated militia' or never join it? Depends on the laws at the state and federal levels. The firearms the individual has are for their duty with the militia, not their own whims and wishes. They screw around with the militia, the general citizens, or behave irresponsibility, those arms are removed.

Can we agree on this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
However I have the feeling that a "rational and mature discussion" means talking about why gun ownership has to be curtailed and excuses to pretend that it is a privilege earned by militia service and not a right.


If you had watched the video, you would understand why firearm ownership at the individual level would be curtailed. Just watching the first 30 seconds and basing your entire view....doesnt count. You are being asked to watch the FULL VIDEO. You can handle it, BamaD. Your a big guy!



No, firearm ownership is not a Constitutional Right (at the individual level).

well the supreme court disagrees with you, but YOU know better so why bother trying to have this RATIONAL CONVERSATION you speak of?

of course you know constitutional law better than EVERY judge who ever ruled on it though!

_____________________________

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Good Points on Firearms - 2/10/2015 7:47:27 AM   
CreativeDominant


Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Because we just....need....another thread on firearms right? Seems every week a new thread starts up with people rehashing the 'reasons' from the previous weeks to have, own, use, trade, make, sell, buy, possibly collect them. Or that they create threads were the underlying reason is in favor of more firearms. Since firearms solve all problems, right?

Well I stumbled upon this individual. And he does make quite a few good points. Can we discussion in a rational and mature manner on what the person brings up?

Take a look for yourself.

Mature and rational starts from a standpoint of recognizing that other people with differing views than yours may be right in some areas. You've shown no such recognition.

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Good Points on Firearms - 2/10/2015 7:53:38 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Because we just....need....another thread on firearms right? Seems every week a new thread starts up with people rehashing the 'reasons' from the previous weeks to have, own, use, trade, make, sell, buy, possibly collect them. Or that they create threads were the underlying reason is in favor of more firearms. Since firearms solve all problems, right?

Well I stumbled upon this individual. And he does make quite a few good points. Can we discussion in a rational and mature manner on what the person brings up?

Take a look for yourself.

Or with people rehashing the same old arguments for trickle down crime fighting.
In order to have a mature rational discussion we have to start with an acknowledgement that firearm ownership in this country is a Constitutional right. We also have to divest ourselves of the notion that the villain is the criminal, not the tool.


No, firearm ownership is not a Constitutional Right (at the individual level). The 'right to bear arms' and 'shall not be infringed' are related to the first sentence of the amendment. Cant have one without the other. Can "A well regulated militia...." have firearms? Yes. Can an individual in good standing with said '....well regulated militia...' have firearms? Yes. Could an individual thrown out of the 'well regulated militia' or never join it? Depends on the laws at the state and federal levels. The firearms the individual has are for their duty with the militia, not their own whims and wishes. They screw around with the militia, the general citizens, or behave irresponsibility, those arms are removed.

Can we agree on this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
However I have the feeling that a "rational and mature discussion" means talking about why gun ownership has to be curtailed and excuses to pretend that it is a privilege earned by militia service and not a right.


If you had watched the video, you would understand why firearm ownership at the individual level would be curtailed. Just watching the first 30 seconds and basing your entire view....doesnt count. You are being asked to watch the FULL VIDEO. You can handle it, BamaD. Your a big guy!



No, firearm ownership is not a Constitutional Right (at the individual level).

well the supreme court disagrees with you, but YOU know better so why bother trying to have this RATIONAL CONVERSATION you speak of?

of course you know constitutional law better than EVERY judge who ever ruled on it though!


Yes, the Heller vs DC case? The one in which the US Supreme Court with its 5 conservative justices did an 'end-run-around" the 2nd amendment and reinterpeted to make a decision that was a political win for the GOP. Now what is wrong with that, you might ask? THEY ARENT ALLOWED TO REINTERPRET ANYTHING IN THE US CONSTITUTION! Only Congress, and only in one of four ways (two of which have been used since the country's start). Objectively speaking, Mr. Heller's personal firearm was not in use with 'a well regulated militia...' like his police issued firearm. That he could have have his police issued firearm when off duty was partially the reason to obtain the second firearm. The other is the area to which Mr. Heller lived in was not exactly 'federal ground'. D.C. had two firearm regulations in place that in all regards rendered having a firearm illegal unless one was with law enforcement.

Further, that the US Supreme Court acted out in political game's manship and not Constitutional ability. When does the US Supreme Court step into an issue? When the lower and appealette courts are in disagreement. Notice the US Supreme Court did not enter into gay marriage until one court was in disagreement with the lower court. In the Heller case, the lower court ruled that Mr. Heller's personal firearm was not allowed under DC laws and it was not protected under the 2nd, because the arm was not with use to the police department. The next court up, also sided with DC. So by rights, the US Supreme Court should have....NEVER....entered into the equation.

Now then, the US Supreme Court does weigh in on matters under special circumstances. For example, whether Mr. Obama was a US Citizen and born in Hawaii. Since he's a US President, I'll wager they gave the 'ok' on that one.

That you can not look at the case objectively states all that needs stating.

(in reply to BitYakin)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Good Points on Firearms - 2/10/2015 7:59:21 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Because we just....need....another thread on firearms right? Seems every week a new thread starts up with people rehashing the 'reasons' from the previous weeks to have, own, use, trade, make, sell, buy, possibly collect them. Or that they create threads were the underlying reason is in favor of more firearms. Since firearms solve all problems, right?

Well I stumbled upon this individual. And he does make quite a few good points. Can we discussion in a rational and mature manner on what the person brings up?

Take a look for yourself.

Or with people rehashing the same old arguments for trickle down crime fighting.
In order to have a mature rational discussion we have to start with an acknowledgement that firearm ownership in this country is a Constitutional right. We also have to divest ourselves of the notion that the villain is the criminal, not the tool.


No, firearm ownership is not a Constitutional Right (at the individual level). The 'right to bear arms' and 'shall not be infringed' are related to the first sentence of the amendment. Cant have one without the other. Can "A well regulated militia...." have firearms? Yes. Can an individual in good standing with said '....well regulated militia...' have firearms? Yes. Could an individual thrown out of the 'well regulated militia' or never join it? Depends on the laws at the state and federal levels. The firearms the individual has are for their duty with the militia, not their own whims and wishes. They screw around with the militia, the general citizens, or behave irresponsibility, those arms are removed.

Can we agree on this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
However I have the feeling that a "rational and mature discussion" means talking about why gun ownership has to be curtailed and excuses to pretend that it is a privilege earned by militia service and not a right.


If you had watched the video, you would understand why firearm ownership at the individual level would be curtailed. Just watching the first 30 seconds and basing your entire view....doesnt count. You are being asked to watch the FULL VIDEO. You can handle it, BamaD. Your a big guy!



No, firearm ownership is not a Constitutional Right (at the individual level).

well the supreme court disagrees with you, but YOU know better so why bother trying to have this RATIONAL CONVERSATION you speak of?

of course you know constitutional law better than EVERY judge who ever ruled on it though!


Yes, the Heller vs DC case? The one in which the US Supreme Court with its 5 conservative justices did an 'end-run-around" the 2nd amendment and reinterpeted to make a decision that was a political win for the GOP. Now what is wrong with that, you might ask? THEY ARENT ALLOWED TO REINTERPRET ANYTHING IN THE US CONSTITUTION! Only Congress, and only in one of four ways (two of which have been used since the country's start). Objectively speaking, Mr. Heller's personal firearm was not in use with 'a well regulated militia...' like his police issued firearm. That he could have have his police issued firearm when off duty was partially the reason to obtain the second firearm. The other is the area to which Mr. Heller lived in was not exactly 'federal ground'. D.C. had two firearm regulations in place that in all regards rendered having a firearm illegal unless one was with law enforcement.

Further, that the US Supreme Court acted out in political game's manship and not Constitutional ability. When does the US Supreme Court step into an issue? When the lower and appealette courts are in disagreement. Notice the US Supreme Court did not enter into gay marriage until one court was in disagreement with the lower court. In the Heller case, the lower court ruled that Mr. Heller's personal firearm was not allowed under DC laws and it was not protected under the 2nd, because the arm was not with use to the police department. The next court up, also sided with DC. So by rights, the US Supreme Court should have....NEVER....entered into the equation.

Now then, the US Supreme Court does weigh in on matters under special circumstances. For example, whether Mr. Obama was a US Citizen and born in Hawaii. Since he's a US President, I'll wager they gave the 'ok' on that one.

That you can not look at the case objectively states all that needs stating.

A person of your great knowledge and wisdom would know that there is far more case history than Heller, and it overwhelmingly supports my viewpoint on the 2nd. Your view requires that you
A Ignore this fact
B Ignore the fact that the people who wrote the 2nd had the same view on it that I do, that is where I got my view
C Heller was not an end around on the 2nd but a conformation of the view anti gun people have been trying to deny for decades.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Good Points on Firearms - 2/10/2015 8:00:49 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Because we just....need....another thread on firearms right? Seems every week a new thread starts up with people rehashing the 'reasons' from the previous weeks to have, own, use, trade, make, sell, buy, possibly collect them. Or that they create threads were the underlying reason is in favor of more firearms. Since firearms solve all problems, right?

Well I stumbled upon this individual. And he does make quite a few good points. Can we discussion in a rational and mature manner on what the person brings up?

Take a look for yourself.

Mature and rational starts from a standpoint of recognizing that other people with differing views than yours may be right in some areas. You've shown no such recognition.


I'm ok with that, CD. Address the number of points the Comedian made. Rationally and honestly. Because he makes quite a number of good points. I haven't seen you or anyone else that is 'against' this thread acknowledge let alone give a fair and objective rebuttal.

I have in the past (on many threads I might add), acknowledge that other people have a right to an opinion. Unfortunately, we still have kids getting killed in droves with firearms. Ever attend one of those funerals? They really are not joy-est events of 2nd amendment freedoms....

(in reply to CreativeDominant)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Good Points on Firearms - 2/10/2015 8:04:17 AM   
BitYakin


Posts: 882
Joined: 10/15/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitYakin
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Because we just....need....another thread on firearms right? Seems every week a new thread starts up with people rehashing the 'reasons' from the previous weeks to have, own, use, trade, make, sell, buy, possibly collect them. Or that they create threads were the underlying reason is in favor of more firearms. Since firearms solve all problems, right?

Well I stumbled upon this individual. And he does make quite a few good points. Can we discussion in a rational and mature manner on what the person brings up?

Take a look for yourself.

Or with people rehashing the same old arguments for trickle down crime fighting.
In order to have a mature rational discussion we have to start with an acknowledgement that firearm ownership in this country is a Constitutional right. We also have to divest ourselves of the notion that the villain is the criminal, not the tool.


No, firearm ownership is not a Constitutional Right (at the individual level). The 'right to bear arms' and 'shall not be infringed' are related to the first sentence of the amendment. Cant have one without the other. Can "A well regulated militia...." have firearms? Yes. Can an individual in good standing with said '....well regulated militia...' have firearms? Yes. Could an individual thrown out of the 'well regulated militia' or never join it? Depends on the laws at the state and federal levels. The firearms the individual has are for their duty with the militia, not their own whims and wishes. They screw around with the militia, the general citizens, or behave irresponsibility, those arms are removed.

Can we agree on this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
However I have the feeling that a "rational and mature discussion" means talking about why gun ownership has to be curtailed and excuses to pretend that it is a privilege earned by militia service and not a right.


If you had watched the video, you would understand why firearm ownership at the individual level would be curtailed. Just watching the first 30 seconds and basing your entire view....doesnt count. You are being asked to watch the FULL VIDEO. You can handle it, BamaD. Your a big guy!



No, firearm ownership is not a Constitutional Right (at the individual level).

well the supreme court disagrees with you, but YOU know better so why bother trying to have this RATIONAL CONVERSATION you speak of?

of course you know constitutional law better than EVERY judge who ever ruled on it though!


Yes, the Heller vs DC case? The one in which the US Supreme Court with its 5 conservative justices did an 'end-run-around" the 2nd amendment and reinterpeted to make a decision that was a political win for the GOP. Now what is wrong with that, you might ask? THEY ARENT ALLOWED TO REINTERPRET ANYTHING IN THE US CONSTITUTION! Only Congress, and only in one of four ways (two of which have been used since the country's start). Objectively speaking, Mr. Heller's personal firearm was not in use with 'a well regulated militia...' like his police issued firearm. That he could have have his police issued firearm when off duty was partially the reason to obtain the second firearm. The other is the area to which Mr. Heller lived in was not exactly 'federal ground'. D.C. had two firearm regulations in place that in all regards rendered having a firearm illegal unless one was with law enforcement.

Further, that the US Supreme Court acted out in political game's manship and not Constitutional ability. When does the US Supreme Court step into an issue? When the lower and appealette courts are in disagreement. Notice the US Supreme Court did not enter into gay marriage until one court was in disagreement with the lower court. In the Heller case, the lower court ruled that Mr. Heller's personal firearm was not allowed under DC laws and it was not protected under the 2nd, because the arm was not with use to the police department. The next court up, also sided with DC. So by rights, the US Supreme Court should have....NEVER....entered into the equation.

Now then, the US Supreme Court does weigh in on matters under special circumstances. For example, whether Mr. Obama was a US Citizen and born in Hawaii. Since he's a US President, I'll wager they gave the 'ok' on that one.

That you can not look at the case objectively states all that needs stating.


I can't look at it objectively? but YOU are the one that says you KNOW BETTER than the SUPREME COURTS

OOOOOOOOOOOOOK

and NOOO they didn't do an end run, the just upheld what most people ALREADY KNEW to be the correct interpretation...

maybe you can explain this lil constitutional detail to us all

throughout the constitution the word PEOPLE refers to individual rights, EXCEPT in this ONE PART where you claim is doesn't mean that...

only someone who refuse to see things objectively would pretend that in this ONE PART of the constitution a word means something DIFFERANT than in EVERY OTHER PART OF IT

_____________________________

"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Good Points on Firearms - 2/10/2015 8:09:09 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Because we just....need....another thread on firearms right? Seems every week a new thread starts up with people rehashing the 'reasons' from the previous weeks to have, own, use, trade, make, sell, buy, possibly collect them. Or that they create threads were the underlying reason is in favor of more firearms. Since firearms solve all problems, right?

Well I stumbled upon this individual. And he does make quite a few good points. Can we discussion in a rational and mature manner on what the person brings up?

Take a look for yourself.

Mature and rational starts from a standpoint of recognizing that other people with differing views than yours may be right in some areas. You've shown no such recognition.


I'm ok with that, CD. Address the number of points the Comedian made. Rationally and honestly. Because he makes quite a number of good points. I haven't seen you or anyone else that is 'against' this thread acknowledge let alone give a fair and objective rebuttal.

I have in the past (on many threads I might add), acknowledge that other people have a right to an opinion. Unfortunately, we still have kids getting killed in droves with firearms. Ever attend one of those funerals? They really are not joy-est events of 2nd amendment freedoms....

Now you ignore the fact that contrary to the impression you are trying to give kids are not being killed "in droves", in fact firearm related accidents are at an all time low. The just get a lot more coverage. To give the benefit of the doubt this could be because with news dedicated networks and a 24 hour news cycle they have to fill the time with something.
If you get your political views from comedians this explains a lot.

< Message edited by BamaD -- 2/10/2015 8:10:49 AM >


_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Good Points on Firearms - 2/10/2015 8:16:45 AM   
CreativeDominant


Posts: 11032
Joined: 3/11/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

Because we just....need....another thread on firearms right? Seems every week a new thread starts up with people rehashing the 'reasons' from the previous weeks to have, own, use, trade, make, sell, buy, possibly collect them. Or that they create threads were the underlying reason is in favor of more firearms. Since firearms solve all problems, right?

Well I stumbled upon this individual. And he does make quite a few good points. Can we discussion in a rational and mature manner on what the person brings up?

Take a look for yourself.

Mature and rational starts from a standpoint of recognizing that other people with differing views than yours may be right in some areas. You've shown no such recognition.


I'm ok with that, CD. Address the number of points the Comedian made. Rationally and honestly. Because he makes quite a number of good points. I haven't seen you or anyone else that is 'against' this thread acknowledge let alone give a fair and objective rebuttal.

I have in the past (on many threads I might add), acknowledge that other people have a right to an opinion. Unfortunately, we still have kids getting killed in droves with firearms. Ever attend one of those funerals? They really are not joy-est events of 2nd amendment freedoms....

Acknowledgement of the right to an opinion is NOT the same as acknowledging that...in some areas...their opinion may be right. A subtle difference but one which you consistently ignore. e.g.: your consistent refusal to accept that the Supreme Court has decided that an individual has the right to possess a firearm. You start every one of your gun arguments with the belief in mind that gun owners have no right to be gun owners. Therefore, in your mind, the only rational discussion to be had is one in which gun owners acknowledge that you are right about gun ownership and therefore need to give up their guns.

That is why people like MM can have a more reasonable discussion about this subject than you.

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Good Points on Firearms - 2/10/2015 8:37:51 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
A person of your great knowledge and wisdom would know that there is far more case history than Heller, and it overwhelmingly supports my viewpoint on the 2nd. Your view requires that you
A Ignore this fact
B Ignore the fact that the people who wrote the 2nd had the same view on it that I do, that is where I got my view
C Heller was not an end around on the 2nd but a conformation of the view anti gun people have been trying to deny for decades.


There is far more case history that Heller vs. DC. Before than, it was recognized that freedom with firearms rested with militias that were well regulated. That individuals could have firearms, but, there were rules that had to be followed.

Ignore facts?

Lets discuss 'ignoring facts'....

At the current rate of violence by firearms, the 2nd gets nullified in 16-22 years. That the young population has more access and know-how with technology to glean historical records on up to the present with relationship to firearms. That they have seen, been part of, or known someone that was involved in localized shootings or 'massive shootings'. They have no fear of firearms, but do not want people that have an axe to grind for no decent reason easy access to firearms. All the really gun controllers have to do is show remarks from republicans, tea partiers, conservatives, and other screwballs whom come dangerously close to 'crossing the line'. That such 'language' and 'words' is used for intimidation purposes....AND NOT....with advocating a political viewpoint under the 1st amendment.

That firearm used to take something from others brings more headlines in sensational media coverage than someone being slapped upside the head for their lunch money. An we can all blame ourselves for allowing that crap to persist for this long! An of individuals whom want to use their firearms to push an ideology of fear, rage, and threat. That its not saying "hey, we are responsible firearm owners, and we would like to have firearms". How it comes across is "You better not take my gun rights away, or I'll kill you dead!" Yeah, that really doesnt win you over much support.

A comedian comes forward from another nation, makes fun of the gun culture. While most laughed, he did make quite a few good points (none of which are being opposed). Stuff like that tends to seep into the minds of the viewers. People whom might have given you a fair chance at things, now say "yeah that does seem pretty crazy; who the heck behaves that way?" Doesnt take them to long to find examples of that 'crazy'.

You have some good points. But the manner in which they are delivered does you incredible injustice. In ways, your doing damage to your own cause; irrelevant of what anyone else is stating. The only people that listen to 'fear talk' are conservatives. FOX 'news' and other conservative media proves that on a daily basis. Check out the Drudge Report. The whole thing is one massive 'fear, Fear....FEAR!'. People have done their homework and know how you behave and react to things. Its called psychology.

You want to have an individual right to a one or more firearms, right? No strings attached. You'll never get that. Not in this day and age, technology as it is. The facts are heavily against that notion. What is worst here? Its a 'sellers' market. And your not the seller, BamaD. The seller can wait you out. Eventually you will buy, and buy on their terms, NOT, yours. An it will....SUCK....big time! So why go down that path? Doesnt do you any good. Because you have not considered any other paths before you. Keep going down that path, the 2nd is nullified by amendment (i.e. 28th or 29th) in 16-22 years.

So.....

Make a deal. What do you have to lose? Your going to lose the 2nd amendment if you do nothing, right? So how about making a deal with the rest of the nation. That involves dealing with what you cant lose and what you can afford to give up to keep what you cant lose. The other side(s) will do the same. They'll give ground according to their perceptions of what your giving up on. So if you decide not to give up anything at all, or very little; they'll do the same and you'll be right back on the same path as you are now. So the trick is to give up just enough, to keep what you want. That is what is called 'haggling'.

Be objective, BamaD; you'll score more points. No one cares about statistics. Both sides use them to justify a point of view the other side doesn't give a shit about. As the comedian points out, its not you personally whom are getting laws put up; its that guy that missed used his firearm. Or that lady that left her purse open for her child to shoot her in the head. Or the imbecile that shot up a car full of teenagers because he couldn't ask in a polite manner "hey guys, is it possible turn down the music?" These are the people, and their actions (or lack of action) that cause your side headaches. It just adds more 'ammo' for the other side to convince those still in the middle, their side has the right viewpoints.

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Good Points on Firearms - 2/10/2015 8:52:37 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
The original 1930s (or whenever exactly) gun restriction laws were authored by the NRA with their full support.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Good Points on Firearms - 2/10/2015 8:56:14 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
Because we just....need....another thread on firearms right? Seems every week a new thread starts up with people rehashing the 'reasons' from the previous weeks to have, own, use, trade, make, sell, buy, possibly collect them. Or that they create threads were the underlying reason is in favor of more firearms. Since firearms solve all problems, right?

Well I stumbled upon this individual. And he does make quite a few good points. Can we discussion in a rational and mature manner on what the person brings up?

Take a look for yourself.

Mature and rational starts from a standpoint of recognizing that other people with differing views than yours may be right in some areas. You've shown no such recognition.


I'm ok with that, CD. Address the number of points the Comedian made. Rationally and honestly. Because he makes quite a number of good points. I haven't seen you or anyone else that is 'against' this thread acknowledge let alone give a fair and objective rebuttal.

I have in the past (on many threads I might add), acknowledge that other people have a right to an opinion. Unfortunately, we still have kids getting killed in droves with firearms. Ever attend one of those funerals? They really are not joy-est events of 2nd amendment freedoms....

Acknowledgement of the right to an opinion is NOT the same as acknowledging that...in some areas...their opinion may be right. A subtle difference but one which you consistently ignore. e.g.: your consistent refusal to accept that the Supreme Court has decided that an individual has the right to possess a firearm. You start every one of your gun arguments with the belief in mind that gun owners have no right to be gun owners. Therefore, in your mind, the only rational discussion to be had is one in which gun owners acknowledge that you are right about gun ownership and therefore need to give up their guns.

That is why people like MM can have a more reasonable discussion about this subject than you.


I acknowledge the other side has one and more opinions on the present topic. And they might be right in somethings. Unfortunately the manner to which they push forth these opinions is not in a peaceful manner. But one using intimidation and threat. What sort of individuals use intimidation and threat to force a people to obey and do as they demand? TYRANTS! Tyrants, as its been observed, use guns very frequently.

This may come as a shock to you, but the US Supreme Court is not a religious court. I have a freedom to disagree with their viewpoint. Its not a group that dictate terms to me, the individual. The purpose of the judicial branch of government is to keep the other two branches in line with things. Since this is the same US Supreme Court that states Corporations are people too; and they have a religious right that trumps the individual's right to freedom of speech. Yes, I disagree on both viewpoints. And those are for other threads.

I stated why the US Supreme Court was wrong on the Heller Case. Not one person has rebuttal. Are you sheep? Unable to debate the issue? Or do you just accept what your told without thought or consideration? No ability to admit you could be wrong? There is lots of stuff I can state I'm wrong about in the past. And I learned from those things! Which is why I'm not 'all happy, joy-est' about watching the 2nd get nullified. It would be a really bad thing. But I cant convey that to any of you, because you just wouldnt understand. Its not because your stupid or uneducated. The viewpoint is just unique. Not something your used to observing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
You start every one of your gun arguments with the belief in mind that gun owners have no right to be gun owners. Therefore, in your mind, the only rational discussion to be had is one in which gun owners acknowledge that you are right about gun ownership and therefore need to give up their guns.


Here is an example of 'gun nuttry' on display. The view that this whole issue is one gigantic football game. That you REALLY do view things from a ....ZERO SUM.... perspective. One side has to lose for another side to win. And if your losing, that just means its 'ok' to go to even more deadly levels to push your viewpoint. Hence all the intimidation and fear tactics employed that I mentioned above.

I started this discussion with a video. So right there, incorrect on your 'analysis' of things. A video of a comedian whom makes quite a few good points on the nature of firearms in the United States. How many of you have taken his points and refuted them in a sane, objective, and intelligent manner? NONE. So your 'analysis' is still incorrect about me.

An that I kept things open for the discussion. Your the ones that have narrowed the conversation down to a trickle, not me! So, there is point three, that shows your 'analysis' is neither accurate nor truthful of its facts.

I've rebutted and answered your questions. Why cant you answer ....ANY...of mine? Or the Comedians? WHY? You cant really address that, can you?

(in reply to CreativeDominant)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Good Points on Firearms Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.125