RE: Defending the House with Guns!

RE: Defending the House with Guns! (Full Version)

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

Message

DesFIP -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 1:38:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether This would be the result of a society that ignores the reality for a fantasy. Its been well documented that one does not need a mental or emotional disorder to sudden erupt and kill people (including their loved ones). Just because someone has not been diagnosed with a mental or emotional disorder does not mean they do not have one. The absence of a diagnosis of illness does not mean you are proven to have good health. Think about how many people don't go to the doctor when they feel a lump, for fear of a diagnosis of cancer. It doesn't mean they don't have it.

epiphiny43 -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 1:41:22 PM)
As much as it discomfits many today, it's incredibly obvious the 2nd Amendment didn't legalize an armed militia, it allowed an Armed Citizenry. Even the briefest of acquaintance of the history of life of the times means it was inconceivable for much of the population OR the communities at every level to survive without firearms. Most lived in rural settings, conflict with the First Nations was still ongoing, and actual wars had been fought recently. Wild animals were seen as constant dangers outside of urban settings, food depended on hunting for many during Winters and the British/French imperial conflict was part of most colony's direct experience. Local histories show many militias were basically all the local white males with ownership of a firearm as well as some others. (Community protective organization in Quaker and similar communities would be interesting study) Current focus on militias as military organizations ignores how that was very dependent on current threats. The situation of each community led to various existing arrangements to provide mutual assistance where no other government was often present. War, fires, natural disasters, common infrastructure and ecostructure efforts all were a continuum with armed combat at one extreme. Drilling with weapons and military discipline was absent for most areas and regions till a imminent threat emerged. The history the amendment was reacting to includes the history of England and the Continent where various governments had disarmed segments of the population for political control. The powers of the King and the even more abusive short alternatives to Royal rule (Cromwell) were current memes in the Founder's experience. The very idea of standing armies and permanent local forces was both unsupportable economically in much of the colonies as well as anathema to those seeking an alternative to the strong central government of the Royal/Imperial pattern. The present focus on criminal use of hand guns may soon be mooted by the approaching universal CCTV coverage of public life as drone technology merges with microminiturization of video. I'm a lot more worried about other lethal technologies becoming parts of public life as they mature under the current militarization of drones, 3d printing and biology tech. I think it's going to get a Lot more interesting than some idiot kids shooting up the neighborhood in drug turf wars and the occasional crazy with light arms trying to make the front page.

thompsonx -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 1:48:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether "A well regulated militia...." is not Bob, with his pistol. If bob was a white male, at the time of the constitution, he was. quote: The framers had in mind a group of individuals whom would handle problems as an organization that protects the citizens from criminals and invaders alike. That was not the position of the anti-federalist. Who as you know were the ones who demanded a bill of rights as a precondition of signing the constitution. quote: They had no idea how this organization would evolve over time. If you had ever had access to a history book written for somene beyond the fifth grade you might have been aware that the militia had been in existence for quite some time before the revolution. quote: Just like they had no idea how firearm technology would change with the passage of time. That you can not seem to understand this basic concept, is your problem, not mine! The revolver was invented in the 15th century and an example of which is on display in the tower of london. The semi-automatic rifle was invented in the 16th century and one was carried on the voyage of discovery (lewis and clark) . The first casualty of that particular rifle was a female bystander who was struck in the head with a .46 cal. ball when one moron allowed another moron to inspect the first morons loaded rifle. The lady in question lived but some say she was a little different. quote: With the passage of the Posse Comitatus Act, it further required townships to devise a force of individuals to exist as a police force, rather than (using a modern term) national guard. This organization would have protections from local, state, and even federal laws thanks to the 2nd amendment. You probably ought to acquaint yourself with the dick act. It would go a long way towards getting your head out of your ass. quote: So, Jim the farmer and Bob the deer hunter own a musket. Jim is part of the local militia. Bob is not. If a law came down (through what ever legal group) that muskets can only be used in a law enforcement capability. This would mean Jim the farmer could have and use his musket without change (being as he's part of the militia). Bob however, will either have to hunt deer with some other instrument of destruction or find a new career. That is how the 18th century (an un-corrupted) 2nd amendment operated. Might want to consult the anti federalist on that. quote: Within the last twenty years, the amendment has slowly been 'modified' so that any thug could have a gun. That any person, could have a gun, for any reason. The laws original meaning was forgotten and destablized from existing interpretations. The primary purpose of the militia was to deal with runaway slaves. Now you point out that the thugs(primarily the decendents of former slaves)have unfettered access to gun that seems to make a lot of white people afraid. quote: A corrupt law is one in which one or more individuals use it to gain a financial, political, or philosophical advantage that is well outside the confines or spirit (two separate document types) of the law. That the constitution was a document that ensured the perpetuation of the ruling class is hardly debatable. Look who is allowed to hold office? quote: When this happens, the law starts to undermine the harmony the nation has enjoyed. From 1789 till right now when has this nation enjoyed harmony at any level? quote: None of us should be surprised that tragedies like the one in the OP take place almost weekly now. Shit happens] quote: Because the 2nd amendment is being used and abused in a manner it was not designed to accomplish. This tragedy was caused by a negligent gun owner and not your hyperbola quote: The framers never stated firearms would be the sole property of government either. This means that unless one belonged to the local militia, they could have a firearm however they would have to abide by regulations at the local, state, and federal level. Once again you have your head up your ass. Read the anti-federalist papers where patrick henry and george mason address this very issue.

joether -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 1:50:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: joether A well regulated militia (according to colonial history): According to the dick act there are no more militia. Consequently your opinions about a non existant organization are less than interesting to the point of irrelevancy If that was true, then the understanding from the 2nd amendment would have to be updated. Since that interpretation of the 2nd lasted until 2006 when the US Supreme Court basically rewrote the 2nd for political advantages rather than constitutional understandings. Therefore your understanding of the Militia Act of 1903 and its amendments in 1908, 1916 and 1933, show you are not well studied on the law.

BamaD -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 1:51:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: epiphiny43 As much as it discomfits many today, it's incredibly obvious the 2nd Amendment didn't legalize an armed militia, it allowed an Armed Citizenry. Even the briefest of acquaintance of the history of life of the times means it was inconceivable for much of the population OR the communities at every level to survive without firearms. Most lived in rural settings, conflict with the First Nations was still ongoing, and actual wars had been fought recently. Wild animals were seen as constant dangers outside of urban settings, food depended on hunting for many during Winters and the British/French imperial conflict was part of most colony's direct experience. Local histories show many militias were basically all the local white males with ownership of a firearm as well as some others. (Community protective organization in Quaker and similar communities would be interesting study) Current focus on militias as military organizations ignores how that was very dependent on current threats. The situation of each community led to various existing arrangements to provide mutual assistance where no other government was often present. War, fires, natural disasters, common infrastructure and ecostructure efforts all were a continuum with armed combat at one extreme. Drilling with weapons and military discipline was absent for most areas and regions till a imminent threat emerged. The history the amendment was reacting to includes the history of England and the Continent where various governments had disarmed segments of the population for political control. The powers of the King and the even more abusive short alternatives to Royal rule (Cromwell) were current memes in the Founder's experience. The very idea of standing armies and permanent local forces was both unsupportable economically in much of the colonies as well as anathema to those seeking an alternative to the strong central government of the Royal/Imperial pattern. The present focus on criminal use of hand guns may soon be mooted by the approaching universal CCTV coverage of public life as drone technology merges with microminiturization of video. I'm a lot more worried about other lethal technologies becoming parts of public life as they mature under the current militarization of drones, 3d printing and biology tech. I think it's going to get a Lot more interesting than some idiot kids shooting up the neighborhood in drug turf wars and the occasional crazy with light arms trying to make the front page. I would like to add one thing to your statement. By federal law, (early 19th century) the "militia" is every able bodied male from 18 to 55, drills or no drills, meetings or no meetings, structure or not. This means, of course, that even if Joe were right, he would be wrong. And you are correct, the 2nd protects the rights of citizens to own weapons. On this you have Joe's expert opinion aganst the "obviously flawed" opinions of the people who wrote and passed the 2nd, but what would they know, they didn't have the benifit of Joe's great wisdom. Ironically Ma was one of the states most strongly supportting that veiw of the 2nd before it became PROM.

thompsonx -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 2:00:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether If that was true, then the understanding from the 2nd amendment would have to be updated. Not much gets by you does it?[8\|] quote: Since that interpretation of the 2nd lasted until 2006 when the US Supreme Court basically rewrote the 2nd for political advantages rather than constitutional understandings. That would be your ignorant unsubstantiated opinion. When you learn what and how the scotus works you will admit the ignorance of the above. quote: Therefore your understanding of the Militia Act of 1903 and its amendments in 1908, 1916 and 1933, show you are not well studied on the law. From your cites it would appear that you have read the documents in qustion. Does the dick act do away with the militia? If your reading of it says yes then all you need do is bring that particular issue to scotus and your anti gun dreams will all come true.

joether -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 2:05:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Yea... funny how many guns do... in fact i would say a good many crimes are committed with stolen guns... just this week in my little town there have been two guns stolen from parked cars at our local Wall Mart... we gun owners are just too careless as a whole I'm afraid. Butch No, some gun owners are careless. Gun owners as a whole are not. Part of the problem is with the stores, in those cases did Walmart ban guns from the store? If they did it forced the owners to store their guns in less than preffered situations. Here they are only allowed to ban open carry. If the gun owner had his firearm on him it couldn't be stolen from his car. Yet the problem is BamaD, that the few bad apples destroy the barrel! A few individuals drive recklessly on the roads; the rest of us pay for it in additional traffic laws. That when people misuse drugs, the rest of us pay for it in regulations. So it is consistent that when a few bad firearm owners fuck up, we have to create policy and situation to limit or eliminate it. I'm not an advocate of banning firearms. Yet, the availability of firearms is so pathetic in this nation, that we are allowing more problems to exist. We have better laws that actually are enforceable; and we'll see a drop in careless firearms being used or lost. I understand many of your positions on this topic. The thread's purpose is showing that as a society, we are failing in dealing with this issue properly. That we can either keep ignoring the situation, in which case more families will experienced murder-suicides for any number of reasons. Or we behave like responsible adults and figure out how we limit or eliminate the problem. The problem, BamaD, is that doing this task, takes effort and serious discussion. Are Americans really up to handling this?

joether -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 2:17:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Since that interpretation of the 2nd lasted until 2006 when the US Supreme Court basically rewrote the 2nd for political advantages rather than constitutional understandings. That would be your ignorant unsubstantiated opinion. When you learn what and how the scotus works you will admit the ignorance of the above. If that was true, than, the US Supreme Court could not have arrived at its decision in 2006. I understand how the court works. I understand how it operates. I know each member is limited to what is known of medical science. I know each member is open to corruption. That each member could rule due to a political viewpoint rather than a constitutional. The 2006 decision is a great example. The GOP needed a win because it was failing across the board in 2006. They needed some 'win' from somewhere to justify to the American people that they were not full of shit. As you might know, the GOP lost control of Congress in the 4th quarter of 2006 (a few months after the decision). If SCOTUS ruled on constitutional grounds, it would have sided with the lower courts. Mr. Heller's privately owned gun was not a protected entity under the 2nd amendment. Since it was not used directly with his duties in "A well regulated militia....". Mr. Heller stated this gun was for protection when he was not on duty. So rather than file paperwork and push things through into legislation; Mr. Heller and the gun lobby tried to circumvent the system! An they succeeded. Which if you were following along at the national level at the time; quite a few other people (on all political fronts) started to push their viewpoints through the courts rather than the Legislative branch of government. This is the origins of the 'liberal/conservative activist judge'. Yes, I think I understand SCOUTUS and how they operate....better than you! quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx Therefore your understanding of the Militia Act of 1903 and its amendments in 1908, 1916 and 1933, show you are not well studied on the law. From your cites it would appear that you have read the documents in qustion. Does the dick act do away with the militia? If your reading of it says yes then all you need do is bring that particular issue to scotus and your anti gun dreams will all come true. The Dick Act was formally known as the Militia Act. To answer your first question, perhaps you should read the act. Thereby gaining a better understanding of what it does. Make sure you also read the amendments that go along. It look me less than five minutes to understand the nature and depth of the Militia Act. Why are you having problems? My anti-gun dreams are to eliminate criminals from having firearms. To eliminate (or severely limit) firearms from falling into the wrong hands. To eliminate or reduce firearms being used in careless and harmful ways. For them to be used as intimidation and threatening manners. Is it really anti-gun, or just desiring society to handle firearms correctly?

BamaD -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 2:29:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Yea... funny how many guns do... in fact i would say a good many crimes are committed with stolen guns... just this week in my little town there have been two guns stolen from parked cars at our local Wall Mart... we gun owners are just too careless as a whole I'm afraid. Butch No, some gun owners are careless. Gun owners as a whole are not. Part of the problem is with the stores, in those cases did Walmart ban guns from the store? If they did it forced the owners to store their guns in less than preffered situations. Here they are only allowed to ban open carry. If the gun owner had his firearm on him it couldn't be stolen from his car. Yet the problem is BamaD, that the few bad apples destroy the barrel! A few individuals drive recklessly on the roads; the rest of us pay for it in additional traffic laws. That when people misuse drugs, the rest of us pay for it in regulations. So it is consistent that when a few bad firearm owners fuck up, we have to create policy and situation to limit or eliminate it. I'm not an advocate of banning firearms. Yet, the availability of firearms is so pathetic in this nation, that we are allowing more problems to exist. We have better laws that actually are enforceable; and we'll see a drop in careless firearms being used or lost. showing that as a society, we are failing in dealing with this issue properly. That we can either keep ignoring the situation, in which case more families will experienced murder-suicides for any number of reasons. Or we behave like responsible adults and figure out how we limit or eliminate the problem. The problem, BamaD, is that doing this task, takes effort and serious discussion. Are Americans really up to handling this? Crime has been dropping over the last 20 years as firearm ownership has gone up. Firearms accidents have dropped over the last 20 years. You have failed in your attempts to re-interpret the 2nd amendment (though you still repeat your montra) so now you are saying that we have to have really tough laws restricting gun ownership for everyone since a few misuse them. Firearm ownership and sales is by far the most regulated right in the country. To parralell your argument, we would have to get federal permission to buy a car, and any violation involving one would stop the sale. Up there in PROM you may not know this but there are already thousands of laws concerning guns. Where drunk drivers only affect drunk driving laws and all laws in the areas you mention only affect MISSUSE of the things in question. You want laws based on the notion of guilty until proven innocent. First you want me to prove that there is nothing in my past to disqualify me (already on the books by the way) then you want me to prove that I need a firearm (right there is a problem you don't have to prove anything to exercise a right) then you want me to prove that I will not in the future misuse a firearm. You must have loved the idea behind Minority Report because that is the kind of society you would live on. Everything about your approach is a violation of most of the constitution, and not just the 2nd, little things like innocent untill proven guilty, due process, trivia like that.

BamaD -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 2:33:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Yea... funny how many guns do... in fact i would say a good many crimes are committed with stolen guns... just this week in my little town there have been two guns stolen from parked cars at our local Wall Mart... we gun owners are just too careless as a whole I'm afraid. Butch No, some gun owners are careless. Gun owners as a whole are not. Part of the problem is with the stores, in those cases did Walmart ban guns from the store? If they did it forced the owners to store their guns in less than preffered situations. Here they are only allowed to ban open carry. If the gun owner had his firearm on him it couldn't be stolen from his car. Yet the problem is BamaD, that the few bad apples destroy the barrel! A few individuals drive recklessly on the roads; the rest of us pay for it in additional traffic laws. That when people misuse drugs, the rest of us pay for it in regulations. So it is consistent that when a few bad firearm owners fuck up, we have to create policy and situation to limit or eliminate it. I'm not an advocate of banning firearms. Yet, the availability of firearms is so pathetic in this nation, that we are allowing more problems to exist. We have better laws that actually are enforceable; and we'll see a drop in careless firearms being used or lost. I understand many of your positions on this topic. The thread's purpose is showing that as a society, we are failing in dealing with this issue properly. That we can either keep ignoring the situation, in which case more families will experienced murder-suicides for any number of reasons. Or we behave like responsible adults and figure out how we limit or eliminate the problem. The problem, BamaD, is that doing this task, takes effort and serious discussion. Are Americans really up to handling this? No the purpose of this thread is to give you an excuse for another of your sensless anti gun threads and to allow you to fool yourself into thinking you are smarter than the rest of us. It isn't that we don't have enough gun laws, it is that we don't have enough for you, since the last time I checked you are not the final authority on anything, they are not the same thing.

joether -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 3:44:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Crime has been dropping over the last 20 years as firearm ownership has gone up. Yet, there is nothing linking the two concepts directly together. Crime has been dropping due to many factors. We once had this discussion, BamaD! Within that discussion you eventually came to the understanding (and even honestly admitting) that while firearm usage has some effect, its impossible to judge 'by how much'. Just like all the other factors that are also bringing down the crime rate. Do you wish to have this discussion again? I suggest making a separate thread. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Firearms accidents have dropped over the last 20 years. I find that hard to believe given evidence. That there would be less accidents even though firearms have increased in number within the nation. You and your firearm lobby are at odds with the medical community! I'm more likely to take the medical community's understanding on two reasons: 1 ) they accept science and the need to be honest with information, 2 ) They do not like patching up gun wounds! How honest is the gun lobby? The gun industry? I disagree with you. Due to the statistics and understanding of human nature in a variety of circumstances. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You have failed in your attempts to re-interpret the 2nd amendment (though you still repeat your montra) so now you are saying that we have to have really tough laws restricting gun ownership for everyone since a few misuse them. Let's see, Australia has a huge firearm massacre 19 years ago. They decided to heavily restrict firearms by the citizens. How many massive shootings have taken place since that time, in that nation? In each of the nations to which firearms are restricted, we do not observe massive shootings. Does seem to be a collaboration could be argued here.... You do not accept my understanding of the 2nd amendment, because your politically compromised and have a conflict of interest! My understanding allows for better firearm usage to private citizens. Yours allows thugs easy access to firearms. An you can not be intellectually honest given all this! Why is that? Why can you not answer the questions objectively? quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Firearm ownership and sales is by far the most regulated right in the country. As it relates to 'arms' in the 2nd amendment..... Nuclear arms are the most regulated in the nation right now. Then other WMDs. Followed by military arms. After which comes automatic weapons. THEN, we get to firearm ownership. An you know what I'm saying here is true and factual. So why lie about it? Because your trying to push a bullshit argument! Why do we regulated sales of WMDs? This should be an easy one. Hell, its a freebie question! quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD To parralell your argument, we would have to get federal permission to buy a car, and any violation involving one would stop the sale. You do understand that the federal government can and does regulated cars? How they are built? How they are sold? How they are maintained? How they operate on the roads? Where they can and can not go? If Congress wished, they could ban the usage of cars on the roads. Would be political suicide for them! But they can do it according to the US Constitution. An on the grounds that cars are more often used than firearms. I'll be fair with you. I understand the direction of this argument. We can go down that path, and you'll eventually lose the argument. I know this from previous discussions with you. Stick to better arguments than 'anything you can get your hands on'. I can destroy the 'anything you can get your hands on' arguments with ease. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Up there in PROM you may not know this but there are already thousands of laws concerning guns. An there are already thousands of laws concerning aircraft. Does that mean we should allow anyone to fly? Or those whom are train, examined, and tested? Often....? I've admitted with you that there are some silly gun laws that do not help the situation. An I think you know there are some types of laws that should be on the books. For example: A background check on a firearm purchase. That looks at the criminal and even the mental/emotional problems the individual has on record (i.e. they were involuntary committed to a mental hospital). An that it takes a few days rather than minutes. This allows the possibility of someone REALLY pissed off the chance to cool down before doing something they and others would regret. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Where drunk drivers only affect drunk driving laws and all laws in the areas you mention only affect MISSUSE of the things in question. No, drunk drivers effect EVERYONE on the roadway. Not just other drunk drivers. We understand how alcoholic drinks effect the human body thanks to medical science. You want to play 'ignorant' here and say you don't know what those effects are? Because that is the basis of your argument here! Yes, we place limitation because of observations. Teenagers are known for their stupid mistakes. We know that alcohol impairs judgement. Put the two together and what happens? I think there are many ER doctors that could explain from observation. NOW.....let's put them behind the wheel of a car. What do you think the likelihood of even more bad stuff takes place? Which is ALSO why I think its a bad idea allowing alcoholic beverages being served at gun ranges. A 'great way' of handing gun controllers victories is to allow that practice to continue! quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You want laws based on the notion of guilty until proven innocent. Actually, I'm a big supporter of the 5th and 6th amendments. That I'm often the one on these forums telling others "the individual is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers". I've done this when the person had liberal or conservative political views. Its a normal conservative reaction to assume guilt until a person proves their innocence. Need examples? President Obama's handling of (insert any of a thousand issues here). Or Mrs. Clinton with emails and Benghazi? Go ahead...LIE....to me that you did not assume Mrs. Clinton was automatically guilty on Benghazi? Between the two of us, your more likely to assume guilty than innocence of an individual. That becomes more so if the individual's political viewpoints do not match up to yours! A law that assumes guilt and the person must prove their innocence is at odds with the US Constitutions. Why do you think I'm so against the idea of photo ID laws? quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD First you want me to prove that there is nothing in my past to disqualify me (already on the books by the way) then you want me to prove that I need a firearm (right there is a problem you don't have to prove anything to exercise a right) then you want me to prove that I will not in the future misuse a firearm. I do not bash someone with glee due to their English failures. I have plenty of them myself. But....dude...that's one heck of a run-on-sentence! I'm going to try 'restating' what your stating as honestly as I can an let you decide if that's how you should have asked the question. Once you confirm, I'll try to answer the question, OK? "You want me to prove the following: A ) There is nothing in my past that could disqualify me from obtaining a firearm B ) The reason(s) why I need a firearm C ) An prove in the future I will not pose a problem to society with the firearm "right there is a problem you don't have to prove anything to exercise a right" Curiously enough, many 1st amendment cases require the plaintiff proving they have a right to exercise one or more protections under the law's definition. For example: 'Freedom of Speech Online'. Does a person have a 1st amendment right against censorship when online? The answer is: If its a government discussion board, yes, you have 1st amendment protection. For private entities (i.e. collarpsace.com), no, you do not. Which might explain the very few discussion threads found on ".gov' sites, eh? If you feel something is protected under the law; it is up to you to give the burden of evidence in court. Just saying "I have this right" is not enough. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You must have loved the idea behind Minority Report because that is the kind of society you would live on. Minority Report with Tom Cruise? While that movie was interesting, it was ALSO, a work of fiction. Like "Red Dawn". It has its basis in technology and law; but the concepts define within the movie are not reality right now. You want to argue fantasy or reality here? Since fantasy will get you more firearm laws on the books. I'm up for it, if you are.... quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Everything about your approach is a violation of most of the constitution, and not just the 2nd, little things like innocent untill proven guilty, due process, trivia like that. Really? Presenting information of an evident that took place in Minnesota is a violation of the US Constitution? Perhaps you can show me.... Stating a viewpoint shared by millions if not tens of millions of Americans as it relates to firearms? That too is unconstitutional? PROVE IT! When did 'due process' arrive in this thread? To quote Kirata: "Your making shit up again!"

joether -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 4:27:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD No the purpose of this thread is to give you an excuse for another of your sensless anti gun threads and to allow you to fool yourself into thinking you are smarter than the rest of us. It isn't that we don't have enough gun laws, it is that we don't have enough for you, since the last time I checked you are not the final authority on anything, they are not the same thing. No, I proposed a real question at the very end: "How many have to die, before we decide to take steps to rein in the bullshit from the gun lobby and the lunatic right?" An you, BamaD, are not the final authority on anything....EITHER! However, unlike you, I understand the direction of the 2nd amendment since the moment it was corrupted. That I have time and human psychology on my side. I do not like its direction. It will have some serious problems for this nation and its citizens. That I believe your not aware of those problems, keeps you from objectively re-thinking your arguments. All you have is one realistic argument: "Fuck off, I like guns". You can not answer any of my questions honestly or as an informed adult. You attack them and myself with a child like temper tantrum. And you do not realize, that sort of behavior is undermining many of your efforts and viewpoints! The moments you have behaved like an adult. When you approached my questions sensibly, honestly, and with thought; I've gained a better understanding. Understand (as I do), that this subject is HUGELY passionate for most Americans in the nation right now (regardless of where one lies on the political spectrum). That when someone behaves like a little child, the rest of society should treat them as a child. When someone behaves in a threatening manner; the rest of society should treat them in response to that threatening manner. It REALLY undermines your political argument to behave like an immature child or in a threatening manner. We do not allow little children legal right and access to firearms; why should we allow those whom possess only the ability to behave like a child to have a legal right or access to firearms? You have to keep your passion on this subject in check at all times. Otherwise, why should we believe you could control a firearm safely? So it really is up to you to approach this topic level headed, on point, and showing a good argument/counter argument.

BamaD -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 4:32:25 PM)
Yet, there is nothing linking the two concepts directly together. Crime has been dropping due to many factors. We once had this discussion, BamaD! Within that discussion you eventually came to the understanding (and even honestly admitting) that while firearm usage has some effect, its impossible to judge 'by how much'. Just like all the other factors that are also bringing down the crime rate. As always your memory is seriously flawed. When pointing this out I specifically pointed out that it does not prove that more guns equal less crime. You on the other hand could not comprehend the damage it does to the idea that more guns equal more crime. If more guns equal more crime then regardless of the other factors a 100% increase in firearms could not happen at the same time as a 50% decrease in crime. You also managed to forget that over 3/4 of the studies done show that ccw laws result in a slight (3-5% except for FL which had a large enough drop that Lott and all others have thrown it out as an anamaly), the rest except for handgun control have declared it to be a wash. Handgun control won't even tell where they got their figures. To the main point YOU DID NOT MAKE ME ADMIT THAT GUNS WERE NOT THE ONLY FACTOR, I HAD BEEN POINTING OUT THAT THE MAIN FACTOR WAS DEMOGRAPHICS MONTHS BEFORE YOU WON YOUR "VICTORY'.

BamaD -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 4:37:36 PM)
Really? Presenting information of an evident that took place in Minnesota is a violation of the US Constitution? Perhaps you can show me.... Stating a viewpoint shared by millions if not tens of millions of Americans as it relates to firearms? That too is unconstitutional? PROVE IT! When did 'due process' arrive in this thread? To quote Kirata: "Your making shit up again!" Again you resort to your favorite tactic, pretending I said somthing I didn't say. I was talking about your solutions, I never said your saying anything was unconstitutional. So I am not making up stuff.

BamaD -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 4:41:03 PM)
You do not accept my understanding of the 2nd amendment, because your politically compromised and have a conflict of interest! My understanding allows for better firearm usage to private citizens. Yours allows thugs easy access to firearms. An you can not be intellectually honest given all this! Why is that? Why can you not answer the questions objectively? I am "politically compromised" because I don't agree with you. I am "not objective" because I don't agree with you. Wrong on both counts.

BamaD -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 4:45:18 PM)
You do understand that the federal government can and does regulated cars? How they are built? How they are sold? How they are maintained? How they operate on the roads? Where they can and can not go? I don't know about PROM, but in the U S we don't have to undergo a back ground check before we buy a car. Before you spout off garbage about needing to show a drivers license you would be stating that all I should have to do is flash my CCW permit.

BamaD -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 4:48:43 PM)
You want to argue fantasy or reality here? Since fantasy will get you more firearm laws on the books. I'm up for it, if you are.... I am arguing reality, you are right it is only in a fantasy world like you live in that more gun laws are needed.

Kirata -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 5:09:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether First off, your 'position' is to attack me on any topic and subject, irrelevent of the topic or subject. I don't even read most of your posts, joether. You're not that important to me, and they usually make my eyes bleed. K.

BamaD -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 5:12:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether First off, your 'position' is to attack me on any topic and subject, irrelevent of the topic or subject. I don't even read most of your posts, joether. You're not that important to me, and they usually make my eyes bleed. K. Less stressful than my approach of pointing out the absurdity of his posts.

joether -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 5:26:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: Yet, there is nothing linking the two concepts directly together. Crime has been dropping due to many factors. We once had this discussion, BamaD! Within that discussion you eventually came to the understanding (and even honestly admitting) that while firearm usage has some effect, its impossible to judge 'by how much'. Just like all the other factors that are also bringing down the crime rate. As always your memory is seriously flawed. When pointing this out I specifically pointed out that it does not prove that more guns equal less crime. You on the other hand could not comprehend the damage it does to the idea that more guns equal more crime. If there was evidence to show that 'more guns = less crime', it is up to you to produce the burden of evidence. From a non-gun nut source. Good luck..... When it comes from a gun nut source, the information is most likely bias, the facts are not, and the data was filtered. Basically, the information is false and the argument is a lie. We have many guns in the nation. Yet, no actual unbiased document exists that shows their direct effect on the overall crime rate. Meaning that if firearms were ban or restricted, crime would rise by so many percentage points. The problem is not devising a unbiased study. Or getting funding for it. Its not in the data collected. Its handling the concept of "two possibility existing at the same time in which only one possibility can take place". We can only speculate on the possibility rather than the facts. If we ban guns today, what would happen to the crime rate in 10 years? Compare that if we didn't ban them over the same time frame. We can speculate on the decision we did not take, but never truly know. Many of the arguments from your side of the fence have this basis: That if 'this' happens, then 'that' will happen. Guns were taken away in Nazi Germany, THEN, evil things happened. Yet, evil things were happening in that nation BEFORE the guns were taken away. That firearms prevent the government behaving in a tyrannical manner. Yet George W. Bush allowed hundreds of violations of the 8th amendment; where were all the gun nuts marching on the national lawn, firearm in hand, demanding his removal? Could you point that US Historical moment out for me, BamaD? quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD If more guns equal more crime then regardless of the other factors a 100% increase in firearms could not happen at the same time as a 50% decrease in crime. Seems the number of guns in circulation has no direct effect on the crime rate. Nor of it being owned by private citizens. Citizens, whether they have guns or not to protect themselves; get killed every day. In fact, the history of this thread shows that to be true. The shotgun was for 'defense of the home' from criminals. Yet the husband/father used the shotgun to kill everyone. There is your gun myth being destroyed by reality.... quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You also managed to forget that over 3/4 of the studies done show that ccw laws result in a slight (3-5% except for FL which had a large enough drop that Lott and all others have thrown it out as an anamaly), the rest except for handgun control have declared it to be a wash. And whom created those ccw studies? Where did the funding come from? The problem with firearm studies. Be they statistical or scientifically studied have two initial problems: 1 ) What is the political view of the person performing the study as it relates subject matter? 2 ) Where did the funding originate and what are those people's motivation for funding the study? The people doing the studies and those funding it, have to be as truthful and ethical with their work. That for it to have credibility, the funding needs to be either 50/50 from anti gun types and pro gun types. The information provided could be of use, depending upon how things were conducted. The CBA/Phildelphia PD and the 2nd amendment group from Texas after Charlie Herbo showed evidence that a long person with a ccw was not even an obsticle to attackers. It was immediately attacked as anti-gun. Even thought the 2nd amendment group was pro 2nd amendment! I give that 2nd amendment group credibility on the grounds they released their findings, as shocking as they were. There are plenty of dishonest pro-2nd amendment groups that would have fudged the numbers just to push an ideology. This nation, BamaD, suffers, if we allow ideology alone to dictate social policy. On the issue of firearms or any other issue. There has to be a decent amount of scientific study performed in a ethical and truthful manner. Anyone can use statistics to bullshit their argument. Much harder within a 'live fire' exercise. That if we were to take thirty groups of ten individuals (300 people). One group at a time inside the testing area. One of those individuals (selected at random) gets a ccw that fires paint rounds (because safety is a major key component in scientific research). Then have two attackers charge in to the 'area' and see what happens. I think such a test would be interesting to study if not participate! Particularly if those groups are not aware that anything is about to happen. Then we'd see how humans react. The hypothesis is that most will flee away from the attackers. A very small percentage would resist (those without the ccw). The question is: What does the person with the ccw, do? Do they resist or flee? How successful are they at both? I'm all in favor of performing studies like this, BamaD. Your side of the fence is not! Because many of the myths your side uses, will most likely be busted! An that, shows dishonesty on your side's arguments. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Handgun control won't even tell where they got their figures. Usually the studies will have an index at the end of their white paper as to where they obtained external information. A study that does not have such a thing, or a very small index, should raise a red flag! Most scientific studies will have anywhere from 12-34 references. quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD To the main point YOU DID NOT MAKE ME ADMIT THAT GUNS WERE NOT THE ONLY FACTOR, I HAD BEEN POINTING OUT THAT THE MAIN FACTOR WAS DEMOGRAPHICS MONTHS BEFORE YOU WON YOUR "VICTORY'. Demography are but one factor in the overall picture. The status of the economy. Access to healthcare. Employment situation. Sanitation situation. Educational background. Maturity. Sense of Community Service. These and many hundreds of factors go into the actual crime rate. Frankly we have no way of knowing how much of a percentage point (or fraction there of) any one concept helps to reduce the overall crime rate. Does ccw help reduce crime? I'll fairly concede it is possible. By how much or what factors are involved, I could not possibility give an informed answer on. I really do not think anyone can. Unless you have a bias.....

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.054688E-02