RE: Nobody wants to take your guns.

RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (Full Version)

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

Message

BamaD -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/25/2015 6:43:07 PM)
Now if you don't want to be in a a militia, you do not have to be in a militia. But then, you do not get the protections afforded under the 2nd amendment. This has been repeatedly been demonstrated to be a false position. Once upon a time you even admitted that it was not the position taken by the people who wrote and approved it. But you insist on it because you are wiser than the founding fathers.

joether -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/25/2015 7:14:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether Regardless of how objective those running the tests are; there will be gun nuts whom refuse to accept reality because it interferes with their fantasy of reality. You can run simulations of carefully crafted scenarios, but there is no way to model the myriad possibilities represented by real people in real life situations. Yes, we do not have a technology that allows the computation of a billion events to be complied over a few hours, right? You really never heard of computers? The last general election was predicted by billions of scenarios that ran for about two weeks. They could predict the outcome within 97% accuracy. I thought it was a strange number, which is why I still remember it even now! They tried every combination of events to see how they might effect the final outcome. In the majority of situations, President Obama had a 2nd term. Apply that to situations we are talking about now in the discussion. We could arrive at thirty situations to test rather than a few billion to figure out. Save much in the way of time and money to perform. In those thirty some-odd situations we may even know the likelihood of survival for the attackers and defenders. Why do we test in these areas? The Human Element. Yes, humans are known to be unpredictable at times. So when the experiment is taking place, we are looking for those moments to see what happens. But for you to say "it cant be done" is a cope out, Kirata! Its very dishonest and you know it! quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Fortunately, however, we have something better, namely, very large samples of the actual experiences and outcomes of real people encountering real life situations, and these have been extensively studied. A 2013 review of those studies conducted by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council found the following: Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was "used" by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies ~Source But of course, there will still be nuts "whom" refuse to accept reality because it interferes with their delusions. That's curious and interesting. Where does it appear in the document? Its a 110 pages. That is 109 pagers longer than you typically read. Page 15 towards the bottom. How do I know this? I took the time to read the document. Here is the part you 'conveniently' left out: "Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings." See that bold part? Yeah, that is the party that effectively destroys your argument. Within the document they acknowledge three distinctive elements that contribute to your original quote: Strength of Attackers (abilities, equipment, knowledge/tactics), Location, and Circumstances. These things contribute heavily towards the final outcome. You really should try reading the whole of the document. Very interesting stuff. Here's a tip for you Kirata: Don't Cherry Pick stuff from a document you did not read fully. The document actually agrees with much on many areas than it does for you. Here's another one: Don't take a quote out of context. Because when the whole quote is read within context, it states something else. In fact, I'm going to keep this document around on file when one of you gets out of line on the subject. Just smack you around with it. Thanks Kirata for the document :)

jlf1961 -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/25/2015 7:16:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether Ok, I have to explain things....AGAIN. Do you want your firearms protected under the 2nd amendment? Yes? Then your part of the local militia. You have duties, responsibilities, and a chain of command you will follow. The guns used by the militia are protected (i.e. the original intent of the 2nd's "the right to bear arms') from federal laws. That might mean you have to switch out some of your arms for the militia's approved arms (how that works is debatable I guess). Now if you don't want to be in a a militia, you do not have to be in a militia. But then, you do not get the protections afforded under the 2nd amendment. This was actually true of the nation in the first twenty years of its existence. Many hunters had firearms but were not part of any militia in which they operated. If the government decided that muskets were banned, those hunters using firearms that were not a member of a militia (whom used muskets as their arms), would have to get rid of the musket. Back in the old days, when the militia met up to drill, it was usually a social event that drew the town's people together. They got to know each other, trade information and products. The wives got together to gossip. Kids played. In 2015, most people are lucky to know the people living next door to them let alone those living just 1000 feet from their house. So you get to know other people in the militia. Makes for good networking and maybe some friends that like guns in a manner you do as well. Are you opposed to making friends, BamaD? quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You insist that there is no individual right to bear arms. No, there is no Constitutionally, individual right, under the 2nd. Very big difference between the two concepts. Mine is explained above. For yours to be true, I would have to be advocating a total and complete ban on firearms. Yeah, let me say it for the 217th time.....I'm NOT in favor of banning firearms. The individual, in good standing with a militia, could have their militia approved arms in their house or business. They would be handled at a higher standard for those arms then other Americans (much like how we handle police officers). You break laws in any form (even speeding 1 mph over the posted limit) calls your credibility to become questioned. To many of violations or a severe one could remove you from the militia (and the protections it gives). If you were kicked out, does that mean you have to hand over your arms? Only if the law states so. Uh, the supreme court pretty much threw away this argument more than once, but the best response to this is: quote: Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation! And the acquisition of Texas may be considered the full fruits of this great constitutional right. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a "right" attributed to "the people" refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention "the people," the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase "the militia" in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the "militia" in colonial America consisted of a subset of "the people"— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to "keep and bear Arms" in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as "the people" Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in Heller

joether -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/25/2015 7:24:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Now if you don't want to be in a a militia, you do not have to be in a militia. But then, you do not get the protections afforded under the 2nd amendment. This has been repeatedly been demonstrated to be a false position. Once upon a time you even admitted that it was not the position taken by the people who wrote and approved it. But you insist on it because you are wiser than the founding fathers. In this 'once upon a time....' where did I say this? Did the founding fathers have muskets that could fire thirty musket balls within 3-4 seconds? Good accuracy at 300 yards? Reload times of less then 4-5 seconds? Penetration ability that can tear wide holes into humans? Have the founding fathers visited some of the ER rooms in 2015 to see, observe and discuss with medical doctors the effects of bullets on the human body? For you to have a leg to stand upon, the answer to all five questions has to be....YES. Because it is 'No', that implies the founding fathers had no idea how technology would soon turn a single shot, un-rifled firearm that takes 20-30 seconds to reload, accurate to about 250 feet and might penetrate a wooden barricade at 80 feet; into any of the firearms found today in gun stores. You want to make a bet that if they were alive today (by way of a Time-Traveling Delorean for example) they would side with you or me? I'm pretty damn confident, how about you? And.....I could handle their answer like an adult. Someone I dont think you could muster (oooh...pun!).

joether -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/25/2015 7:49:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 quote: ORIGINAL: joether Ok, I have to explain things....AGAIN. Do you want your firearms protected under the 2nd amendment? Yes? Then your part of the local militia. You have duties, responsibilities, and a chain of command you will follow. The guns used by the militia are protected (i.e. the original intent of the 2nd's "the right to bear arms') from federal laws. That might mean you have to switch out some of your arms for the militia's approved arms (how that works is debatable I guess). Now if you don't want to be in a a militia, you do not have to be in a militia. But then, you do not get the protections afforded under the 2nd amendment. This was actually true of the nation in the first twenty years of its existence. Many hunters had firearms but were not part of any militia in which they operated. If the government decided that muskets were banned, those hunters using firearms that were not a member of a militia (whom used muskets as their arms), would have to get rid of the musket. Back in the old days, when the militia met up to drill, it was usually a social event that drew the town's people together. They got to know each other, trade information and products. The wives got together to gossip. Kids played. In 2015, most people are lucky to know the people living next door to them let alone those living just 1000 feet from their house. So you get to know other people in the militia. Makes for good networking and maybe some friends that like guns in a manner you do as well. Are you opposed to making friends, BamaD? quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You insist that there is no individual right to bear arms. No, there is no Constitutionally, individual right, under the 2nd. Very big difference between the two concepts. Mine is explained above. For yours to be true, I would have to be advocating a total and complete ban on firearms. Yeah, let me say it for the 217th time.....I'm NOT in favor of banning firearms. The individual, in good standing with a militia, could have their militia approved arms in their house or business. They would be handled at a higher standard for those arms then other Americans (much like how we handle police officers). You break laws in any form (even speeding 1 mph over the posted limit) calls your credibility to become questioned. To many of violations or a severe one could remove you from the militia (and the protections it gives). If you were kicked out, does that mean you have to hand over your arms? Only if the law states so. Uh, the supreme court pretty much threw away this argument more than once, but the best response to this is: quote: Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation! And the acquisition of Texas may be considered the full fruits of this great constitutional right. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a "right" attributed to "the people" refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention "the people," the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase "the militia" in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the "militia" in colonial America consisted of a subset of "the people"— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to "keep and bear Arms" in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as "the people" Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in Heller Yeah, what was going on in the nation in 2008 there jlf1961? The GOP/TP was having a tough time forming even a single argument on anything useful to the American population. They were the ones that wrecked the national economy. The schools were in disarray. We had two countries we never dlecared war on taking place. Gitmo was a source of 'violations of the 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments'. Did I mention the economy was sinking from the semi-recession of 2006 into a full on depression not seen since the early 1930's? All the while bashing a young, black President with anything and everything, regardless of how racist, silly, or absurd it was. Hey, even you guys on this board tried to pile on the bullshit! In essence, the GOP/TP needed a win from somewhere. Why did the Court take up the Heller case? The lower courts were in agreement on the issue. The US Supreme Court RARILY takes up cases in which the lower courts are in agreement upon. This case was taken for political reasons...NOT...Constitutional ones. You have a conflict of interest that prevents you from viewing this objectively. You sure you want to go head to head with me on this discussion? Since because of the ruling, sets this nation on its current course in which the 2nd is revoked in the not to distance future. I'm not all excited about what happens around that time. The ruling created circumstances in which people would become more and more disgusted by those whom take an almost 'religious' view in defending the 2nd amendment. The amendment was corrupted. The conservative justices did an 'end run around' the 2nd amendment. Something THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO! The only people allowed to change the amendment or the spirt of the amendment, is the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH. Even then, by one of four ways. Country was screwed by conservative activist judges..... But it didn't end there. The conservative propaganda machine started issuing out 24/7/365 day brainwashing moments to 'educate' people to the new way of thinking. The results we have experienced: more mass gun violence. Did we have mass shootings in the nation taking place every few weeks in the years that led up to 2008's decision? No of course not! What you do not understand is that your already in Checkmate. Twelve moves away. But Checkmate is not bad for you. Its bad for the nation. Either by civil war or something else just as terrible. However, I do believe the nation will avert the crisis by allowing cooler heads to ponder and think on a better way to handle the problems. You will not like that outcome; but oh well....

BamaD -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/25/2015 7:51:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Now if you don't want to be in a a militia, you do not have to be in a militia. But then, you do not get the protections afforded under the 2nd amendment. This has been repeatedly been demonstrated to be a false position. Once upon a time you even admitted that it was not the position taken by the people who wrote and approved it. But you insist on it because you are wiser than the founding fathers. In this 'once upon a time....' where did I say this? Did the founding fathers have muskets that could fire thirty musket balls within 3-4 seconds? Good accuracy at 300 yards? Reload times of less then 4-5 seconds? Penetration ability that can tear wide holes into humans? Have the founding fathers visited some of the ER rooms in 2015 to see, observe and discuss with medical doctors the effects of bullets on the human body? For you to have a leg to stand upon, the answer to all five questions has to be....YES. Because it is 'No', that implies the founding fathers had no idea how technology would soon turn a single shot, un-rifled firearm that takes 20-30 seconds to reload, accurate to about 250 feet and might penetrate a wooden barricade at 80 feet; into any of the firearms found today in gun stores. You want to make a bet that if they were alive today (by way of a Time-Traveling Delorean for example) they would side with you or me? I'm pretty damn confident, how about you? And.....I could handle their answer like an adult. Someone I dont think you could muster (oooh...pun!). Did the founding fathers have computors to write news stories on? For your argument to hold any water any right that employees technology that didn't exist then is invalid. No right to trial because at that time they didn't have fingerprinting, ballistics, or Dna lame, lame argument. I believe Kirata has saved a copy of that statement by you about your superior wisdom taking precidence over the writers and the numerous court rulings that say you are wrong.. He has postied it once when you deied it .

ifmaz -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/25/2015 7:55:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz Please cite sources. Please also cite sources showing an unarmed person able to successfully defend themselves against one or more individuals with fully automatic rifles. You cite the two pieces I would use. In both cases those who did not have a weapon....lived. In fact the few times the person with the weapon fled, they too lived to tell the tale! In every case in which the CCW challenged the attacker, they were killed. In the grand majority of cases, they managed to injure but not kill at least one attacker. Those who were unarmed "lived" because the simulation ended after the armed defender was "killed" or because an armed defender provided cover fire allowing unarmed people to exit the building (situation #3, TTAG Hebdo reenactment). I do not recall reading a situation in which there was never an armed response but I can guess how that would end. When using a firearm in a defensive situation the goal is to stop the threat, not necessarily kill the attacker. quote: ORIGINAL: joether Now, is this enough evidence to say 'case closed'? No of course not. We should do much more testing. Trying different things and situations out. But yet, the folks that resist and stop all this are the same individuals that live in a fantasy: the right wing. That's right, the people that have the biggest gun fantasies and myths, whom say they are brave; are afraid of a scientist. Even though the majority of things being tested are already known from other sources. Much of this would be to show the ass-clowns of the right wing how full of shit their arguments are. By placing them in those situations. Yes, afterward they all come out saying things were rigged, or its fake. What they can not admit is reality is far different from their fantasy. Easier to admit a lie then tell the truth. That's one of the problems with the greater level firearms' debate: most gun owners and some gun controllers can not be objective. If you use the terms "ass-clowns", "gun nuts", "full of shit", "fantasies", and "right wing", how could you possibly consider yourself "objective"? quote: ORIGINAL: joether We can sit here ad quote firearm stats left and right and get no where. Or simply go an test things out in as safe environment as we can. We set up some questions that we would like to have answered. We give what we think the answers to those questions would be. Then set up a facility to run the experiments. Collect some people (the testees, confederates, and control group). I am trying very hard not to snicker at "testees". quote: ORIGINAL: joether The control group could vary depending on what we are testing. It could be uniformed police officers, or those who infrequently fire a gun. Then we run the experiments. Collect the data and analysis it. After we make one or more conclusions. Then we publish all the material for peer review. Then other people take our experiments and run their own. As more tests are performed, we gain a better knowledge on what works and what doesn't work. Who pays for it? The US Government? A group of Gun Nuts/Gun Controllers splitting the costs 50/50? The general public? In this case, a group of firearm/self-defense advocates paid by volunteering their time (and presumably renting warehouse space). I'm more than willing to chip in $50 to spend a weekend being pelted by plastic BBs or paintballs because SCIENCE!, what about you? quote: ORIGINAL: joether Regardless of how objective those running the tests are; there will be gun nuts whom refuse to accept reality because it interferes with their fantasy of reality. Maybe those are the people whom shouldn't have firearms? Or many we study them to find things out. Now, how many people on this board are in favor of more scientific testing? From the TTAG school shooting simulation: quote: Based on the limited data collected from this experiment it appears that an armed teacher would save lives in an active shooter scenario. The caveat: the teacher’s effectiveness depends on their level of training. Maximum effectiveness of an armed teacher of any skill level is achieved with advanced warning of the approaching shooter and implementation of a classroom “lockdown.” and from the TTAG Hebdo reenactment/simulation: quote: Even when confronted with heavily armed and well trained attackers, a single armed defender is capable of stopping at least one of the attackers. If a single armed defender is capable, it stands to reason multiple armed defenders would be even more capable. In the absence of additional data, would you now be in favor of arming teachers or do you refuse to accept this until more tests come in, perhaps holding out until your "objective" views are affirmed?

joether -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/25/2015 8:07:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether Cherry picking for evidence, again, eh? You're making shit up again. But hey, you want a different poll? Fine. Here's CNN's October 2015 numbers: 17. Do you favor or oppose stricter gun control laws? Favor Oppose No opinion 46% 52% 3% Did they ask the people being interviewed what they would define as 'stricter laws'? Since 'Stricter' laws to a gun nuts means having to wait two minutes on a background check. To a liberal its something different. To use a metaphor here, its like the question: "Do you support or oppose the Iran Treaty?" Regardless of what they stated, the next question should have been: "Have you completely read and understood the Iran Treaty?". That would have given us a fairly better understanding of information. Its like in school: we can all tell that Johnny didn't read the assign chapter like the class was told; because he is bullshitting out of his ass. quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether You distrust your fellow Americans. Well, your fellow Americans distrust you, Kirata! You and your conservative ideology created that distrust. You're a lying piece of shit, and if you believe you've got links to prove any of those statements, I recommend you show them to a psychiatrist. I think you'd find the experience enlightening. If I'm lying why are all the gun nuts on this board attacking me? I'm presenting reasonable information. I'm presenting evidence that is easy to obtain online. I'm presenting a view that runs counter; not because you disagree, but you assume its in place for something more....sinister. That by definition, is distrust, Kirata. You distrust me. Therefore, I'm allowedto distrust you. I'm being truthful and you are the "...lying piece of shit...". That you can't handle the understanding of Americans not trusting each other shows your level of maturity. This is a BDSM site, Kirata. It REQUIRES MATURITY. If I was lying, wouldn't the moderates be coming on here and attacking me? Don't see any of them doing that. Just the conservatives. Not just any conservatives, but the ones that have a conflict of interest. The ones that cant handle a discussion like adults. Which might help explain why people are distrusting of immature conservatives with access to guns, whom are prone to losing control. If you want the gun, you have to be in control. When you...flip out...you are not doing your side any favors. If anything, your undermining your own position! quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether You know how I mentioned cherry picking? This is 2015, not 2014. The Pew Research Center is pretty good about updating its information on a variety of topics. Gun Rights/Gun Control being one of them. It shows a difference in viewpoint. The graph shows that for the last five years, the two concepts have been dueling for supremacy... At the moment, more people are in favor of gun control then gun rights. After each shooting, that distance will climb. What the graph shows is a trend favoring gun rights that has been rising since 2000, and rather spectacularly since 2007. In other words, a "broad increase in support for gun rights" despite school shootings, which should sound familiar because it's exactly what I said. Thanks for playing. No, actually it shows a trend towards gun control. Look at the graph from pre-2010 to 2015. It easily shows support for 'gun nuts' to diminish to a dead heat in 2015. With more shootings taking place every few weeks, there will be more people in favor of better firearm laws. Now you and your lame arguments could get on the band wagon. Or when it gets much, much worst; we pass REALLY restrictive laws and really do not give a fuck what you have to say. I'm suggesting, lets talk it over now. Thereby avoiding later, which REALLY isn't in anyone's best interest. You are saying "fuck no, I'm not smart enough to understand where this train is going just yet'. Later on, I'll point out that you had a chance and in typical conservative fashion....pissed away opportunity. quote: ORIGINAL: joether I'm not going to do what you demand: cave into your demands. Well to be fair, I've never demanded that you stop being a lying piece of shit. Yeah, I've shown the evidence and the facts. You have no counter argument worth shit. So, without facts or evidence to back up your bullshit, you resort to pettiness. Yeah, not really a good tactic. Since it gives me more credibility and you much less in the eyes of the objective viewer. I behave like the adult on the BDSM site, and you behave like a child.

BamaD -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/25/2015 8:46:51 PM)
If I'm lying why are all the gun nuts on this board attacking me? Because you are lying.

Kirata -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/25/2015 8:54:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether Regardless of how objective those running the tests are; there will be gun nuts whom refuse to accept reality because it interferes with their fantasy of reality. You can run simulations of carefully crafted scenarios, but there is no way to model the myriad possibilities represented by real people in real life situations. Yes, we do not have a technology that allows the computation of a billion events to be complied over a few hours, right? You really never heard of computers? There is no comparison between the complexity of what you're suggesting and calculating statistical predictions for election outcomes. quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Fortunately, however, we have something better, namely, very large samples of the actual experiences and outcomes of real people encountering real life situations, and these have been extensively studied. A 2013 review of those studies conducted by the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council found the following: Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was "used" by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies ~Source But of course, there will still be nuts "whom" refuse to accept reality because it interferes with their delusions. That's curious and interesting. Where does it appear in the document? Its a 110 pages. That is 109 pagers longer than you typically read. Page 15 towards the bottom. How do I know this? I took the time to read the document. Here is the part you 'conveniently' left out: "Effectiveness of defensive tactics, however, is likely to vary across types of victims, types of offenders, and circumstances of the crime, so further research is needed both to explore these contingencies and to confirm or discount earlier findings." See that bold part? Yeah, that is the party that effectively destroys your argument. Yeah, no. It doesn't destroy my argument, because my argument is that we should go with what we know, because there's good evidence and plenty of it. quote: ORIGINAL: joether You really should try reading the whole of the document. Very interesting stuff. Here's a tip for you Kirata: Don't Cherry Pick stuff from a document you did not read fully. The document actually agrees with much on many areas than it does for you. Here's another one: Don't take a quote out of context. Because when the whole quote is read within context, it states something else. In fact, I'm going to keep this document around on file when one of you gets out of line on the subject. Just smack you around with it. Knock your socks off, bozo. Every circus needs a clown act. K.

ifmaz -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/25/2015 9:05:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether ... Yeah, I've shown the evidence and the facts. You have no counter argument worth shit. So, without facts or evidence to back up your bullshit, you resort to pettiness. Yeah, not really a good tactic. Since it gives me more credibility and you much less in the eyes of the objective viewer. I behave like the adult on the BDSM site, and you behave like a child. [image]https://i.imgur.com/LVBim9J.jpg[/image]

Kirata -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/25/2015 10:27:09 PM)
Looks like he's been hitting the bottle again.... [image]http://sr1.wine-searcher.net/images/labels/57/00/10335700.jpg[/image] K.

mnottertail -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/26/2015 5:56:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: The concept of some huge pro gun lobby is a nice smoke screen for the anti-firearm insanity. Please don't say stupid shit in public. Looks like the anti nuts are less than half as nuts as the gun nuts. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/gunned-down/how-loaded-is-the-gun-lobby/ This years figures are in, but opensecrets is down at the mo. According to the link, total gun-rights spending from all sources in 2014 was $28.6 million. Michael Bloomberg Will Spend $50 Million To Fight The N.R.A. ~Forbes K. The NRA will spend 100 billion this year to fight Bloomberg. ~roland the headless thompson gunner. Still, surprisingly, opinion is not always related to fact.

lovmuffin -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/26/2015 6:24:02 AM)
Where did you get that from ? The Inquirer ? Inquiring minds want to know.

mnottertail -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/26/2015 8:00:32 AM)
~Forbes opinion piece.

lovmuffin -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/26/2015 9:42:39 AM)
I didn't find it in the article you linked to but even if I had, that figure of 100 billion is way too far out there in outerspace to be believable. Ya got any information from down here on earth ?

mnottertail -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/26/2015 9:49:24 AM)
as much as the 'militia' does. Do you?

lovmuffin -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/26/2015 9:58:09 AM)
Whatever does that mean ?

joether -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/26/2015 11:39:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD If I'm lying why are all the gun nuts on this board attacking me? Because you are lying. I'm being truthful and honest. You just can not handle it like a mature adult. Which is why the level of distrust towards gun owners/nuts is growing each day. You do not handle yourself like a mature, reasonable, rational, and responsible adult. So you try every which way to attack me, not realizing your not behaving the way you report to everyone to behave. The only people you are fooling at this point are yourselves. I've been telling you that your thought patterns, your viewpoints, hell, even your arguments....suck! Your best argument BamaD is...."Fuck off, I like guns" (to quote Jeff Jefferies). Because a mature, reasonable, rational, and responsible adult, would realize quickly enough events in this nation are swinging from towards very heavy firearm regulation if not a ban. The number of people becoming distrustful of gun owners/nuts is sharply increasing. They see that Americans are getting tired of all the lame and bullshit excuses produced by the NRA and people like you. You, are one of the reasons which is motivating people to place those restrictions down into law. You can not even acknowledge it. That is what is called 'taking stock of one's self'. Can you even look at yourself, your views, and agenda objectively, BamaD? I do not like the direct the nation is headed to on firearms. Liberals and moderates are well meaning and good people. But conservatives are ever becoming the most unstable group within the nation. I'm wondering if we'll have another 4/19/95. That you can not understand this concept is troubling. That the ones attacking me, can not understand this concept either is more troubling. You look at me as 'the enemy', not able to state I'm a fellow American whom has just as much right to how the laws in this land effect us with regards to firearms. The real enemy to the 2nd amendment is people like you BamaD. I regard you as a fellow American. I understand your position. Would like to find the middle ground together. We both agree that criminals and terrorists should not be able to get firearms so freely. We both agree that a total ban on firearms is neither feasible or in our best interests. We both agree that firearms in the hands of private individuals does have some positive effect on lowering the crime rate. Unfortunately neither of us know by how much of a percentage point. We understand that individuals whom are compromised (i.e. mentally/emotionally unstable) should not have access to firearms. Nor should those whom beat their wives, intimidate fellow Americans with violence or destruction. We both agree that the current trend on firearms in our society is not making us a safer place for tourists to visit. Do we really need to have nations issue travel bans to our nation on account of gun violence? So what is the real problem? People distrust each other. Gun Owners/Nuts distrust Concern Citizens/Gun Controllers and vise versa. If you and others on this board behaved liked mature, responsible, reasonable, rational, adults; would we have problems? No, of course not! We could actually have some healthy and deep discussions. We generally know where the other person's hard limits are and do not cross them. You do not want those sort of discussions. In fact any discussion on any topic more complicated than 140 characters, is way to complicated and complex for your minds to handle. Well, hate to be the one that informs you, BamaD. Things have gotten complicated and complex. Is it really hard for you to be a mature, responsible, reasonable, rational adult?

joether -> RE: Nobody wants to take your guns. (10/26/2015 11:40:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Looks like he's been hitting the bottle again.... Nothing but the Blue Label when drinking Alcohol.... Preferable the older the better!

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625