RE: Breaking News on Gun Control (Full Version)

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



Message


WhoreMods -> RE: Breaking News on Gun Control (6/16/2016 12:47:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz


quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

So why did such a simple statement require you spending seven posts refusing to make it?


Why didn't you just answer the question, Claire?


I asked you first.




WickedsDesire -> RE: Breaking News on Gun Control (6/16/2016 12:59:35 PM)

Cloudboy STUDY: AMERICANS SAFE FROM GUN VIOLENCE EXCEPT IN SCHOOLS, MALLS, AIRPORTS, MOVIE THEATRES, WORKPLACES, STREETS, OWN HOMES
That actually made me laugh. Absurd yet so true.

Constitutionally-protected rights - what an obtuse peice of shit your argument is Your constitution was eroded a very long time ago: fragments and remnants are all that remain. Yet all those poor, poor armless bears (oh come on the right to bear arms keep up) an ambiguous archaic piece of shitery seems to go completely unscathed. But fuk he would have had to wait three days for a handgun, yet he had to wait zero days for an assault rifle.

Gun deaths per year, the exact figure is hard to come by 30 000 to 40 000
Population of wickeds' town 10 1000...3-4 of my towns snuffed out per annum
Population of his nearest big town/city 40 000. 1 per annum
population of Glasgow 700 000 the biggest of our 5 cities 18 years
Population of Scotland 5 million - 125 years it would take for you gun fuckers to wipe out my country No wonder Scotland annexed America 60 millions years ago ( some one who knows things they should know will state didn't some of your people write our constitution - yes)

Oh I forgot to add why do you fukers need tommy guns eg gatlin gun inventedish 1862






WhoreMods -> RE: Breaking News on Gun Control (6/16/2016 1:00:49 PM)

Slipping, sport: you're supposed to start your posts by pointing out that nobody else is verified.




mnottertail -> RE: Breaking News on Gun Control (6/16/2016 1:18:22 PM)

You haven't been verified, so how are you able to verify that?




WickedsDesire -> RE: Breaking News on Gun Control (6/16/2016 1:26:28 PM)

Slipping, sport: you're supposed to start your posts by pointing out that nobody else is verified. Have I ever told you about this new sport I invented whilst intoxicated on cheapest Chardonnay its called catch the ravenous irate piranha in a pool of magma

Whoremods You chose to exist here with multiple profiles when the number exceeds two I have an issue... Do you find this site grows and swells with genuine souls?. Do you believe there are even 50% genuine people here? The site actually offered a verification. >99.9(9)% of it have not. I do understand the need for anonymity. Userbase make sites what they are and my how they have spoken and how I stand apart form them
i have covered this in depth many times before and it is irrelevant to your thread which didn't actual ask anything

But I am am reasonable man.

What makes your opinion of value
What makes a socks opinion of value
What makes a liars opinion of value


Oh, and the piranhas are wrapped in tinfoil: be no continuity errors in my posts 99% of the time

Now, stop hijacking your own thread




ifmaz -> RE: Breaking News on Gun Control (6/16/2016 1:56:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods


quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz


quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

So why did such a simple statement require you spending seven posts refusing to make it?


Why didn't you just answer the question, Claire?


I asked you first.


I posed the question to cloudboy before you asked me anything, thus I technically asked first. As I've now answered your question would you kindly answer mine?




WhoreMods -> RE: Breaking News on Gun Control (6/16/2016 2:32:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire
Whoremods You chose to exist here with multiple profiles

News to me.




DesideriScuri -> RE: Breaking News on Gun Control (6/16/2016 3:00:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
And (once again), you're refusing to discuss a situation where what you're bitching about hypothetically has possibly happened to somebody already.


And, you're refusing to discuss a situation where there have been times when a person is on the "no-fly list" incorrectly.
Far Right "News" Source
    quote:

    1. You could raise “reasonable suspicion” that you’re involved in terrorism. “Irrefutable evidence or concrete facts” are not required.
    2. You could post something on Facebook or Twitter that raises “reasonable suspicion.”
    3. Or somebody else could just think you’re a potential terror threat.
    4. You could be a little terrorist-ish, at least according to someone.
    5. Or you could just know someone terrorist-y, maybe.
    6. And if you’re in a “category” of people determined to be a threat, your threat status could be “upgraded” at the snap of a finger.
    7. Finally, you could just be unlucky.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/07/the-no-fly-list-is-a-terrible-tool-for-gun-control-in-part-because-it-is-a-terrible-tool/
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/15/one-woman-s-case-proves-it-s-basically-impossible-to-get-off-the-no-fly-list.html
http://www.aclu-or.org/nofly
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/unlikely-terrorists-on-no-fly-list/
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/no-fly-list-offers-no-hope-correcting-mistakes-judge-rules-n139896




Politesub53 -> RE: Breaking News on Gun Control (6/16/2016 3:37:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

We understand...like a lot of your ilk, you seem to state things from an emotional standpoint rather than a rational one.



You wouldnt know rational if it bit you on the arse oh creative one. [8|]




ifmaz -> RE: Breaking News on Gun Control (6/16/2016 4:29:52 PM)

[image]https://i.imgur.com/mNW97T5l.jpg[/image]




Musicmystery -> RE: Breaking News on Gun Control (6/16/2016 5:03:02 PM)

Trouble there is that your first dilemma is false -- it's not about guns/no-guns, but about the readily available ability to spew bullets vs. more appropriate hunting/self-defense choices (the two most common reasons cited for firearm ownership). Further, this "one" psychopath is the latest in a parade of psychopaths. One psychopath crashes planes into buildings one day, and commercial airline travel changes forever. Definitely a double standard with firearms.

Your second dilemma I agree with in principle, but, like the 2nd Amendment issue, there's that pesky presumption of innocence (a legal right in several states).






lovmuffin -> RE: Breaking News on Gun Control (6/16/2016 5:51:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz

[image]https://i.imgur.com/mNW97T5l.jpg[/image]





Good one LOL




lovmuffin -> RE: Breaking News on Gun Control (6/16/2016 6:02:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Trouble there is that your first dilemma is false -- it's not about guns/no-guns, but about the readily available ability to spew bullets vs. more appropriate hunting/self-defense choices (the two most common reasons cited for firearm ownership). Further, this "one" psychopath is the latest in a parade of psychopaths. One psychopath crashes planes into buildings one day, and commercial airline travel changes forever. Definitely a double standard with firearms.

Your second dilemma I agree with in principle, but, like the 2nd Amendment issue, there's that pesky presumption of innocence (a legal right in several states).



Oh Gawd, I hope you never find out what a more appropriate hunting/self-defense choice gun can do whatever that is.

Though I'm curious to know, if the more appropriate hunting/self-defense choice guns are not readily available with the ability to spew bullets, what good are they for hunting or self defence ??




CreativeDominant -> RE: Breaking News on Gun Control (6/16/2016 6:14:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53


quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

We understand...like a lot of your ilk, you seem to state things from an emotional standpoint rather than a rational one.



You wouldnt know rational if it bit you on the arse oh creative one. [8|]

You're wrong. But then, you're somewhat emotion-driven also.




Awareness -> RE: Breaking News on Gun Control (6/17/2016 7:13:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz


quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

And I asked about a case that would demonstrate this happening.
Got anything on that?


Once again, I asked if one would support the loss of Constitutionally-protected rights if one's name appeared on the "no-fly" list.
Yes, because if you're appearing on the no-fly list, there's a good chance you're a traitor to the United States and mean it and its people harm.

So yes - if you're on the no-fly list then no fucking guns for you. Jesus Christ, you gun nuts are fucking insane.




CreativeDominant -> RE: Breaking News on Gun Control (6/17/2016 9:33:36 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness


quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz


quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

And I asked about a case that would demonstrate this happening.
Got anything on that?


Once again, I asked if one would support the loss of Constitutionally-protected rights if one's name appeared on the "no-fly" list.
Yes, because if you're appearing on the no-fly list, there's a good chance you're a traitor to the United States and mean it and its people harm.

So yes - if you're on the no-fly list then no fucking guns for you. Jesus Christ, you gun nuts are fucking insane.

Except...there's just one little problem with your, and Obama's, line of thinking:

The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies), is the principle that one is considered innocent unless proven guilty.

In many states, presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, and it is also regarded as an international human right under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11. The burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which has to collect and present enough compelling evidence to convince the trier of fact, who is restrained and ordered by law to consider only actual evidence and testimony that is legally admissible, and in most cases lawfully obtained, that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused is to be acquitted. Under the Justinian Codes and English common law, the accused is presumed innocent in criminal proceedings, and in civil proceedings (like breach of contract) both sides must issue proof. Under Anglo-American common law, the accused is always presumed innocent in all types of proceedings; proof is always the burden of the accuser. The same principle is recognized by Islamic law.

This right is so important in modern democracies, constitutional monarchies and republics that many have explicitly included it in their legal codes and constitutions:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, article 11, states: "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.".
The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe says (art. 6.2): "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". This convention has been adopted by treaty and is binding on all Council of Europe members. Currently (and in any foreseeable expansion of the EU) every country member of the European Union is also member to the Council of Europe, so this stands for EU members as a matter of course. Nevertheless, this assertion is iterated verbatim in Article 48 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
In Canada, section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: "Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal".
In the Colombian constitution, Title II, Chapter 1, Article 29 states that "Every person is presumed innocent until proven guilty according to the law".
In France, article 9 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen 1789, which has force as constitutional law, begins: "Any man being presumed innocent until he has been declared guilty ...". The Code of Criminal Procedure states in its preliminary article that "any person suspected or prosecuted is presumed innocent for as long as their guilt has not been established"[15] and the jurors' oath repeats this assertion (article 304).[28]
In Iran, Article 37 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran states: "Innocence is to be presumed, and no one is to be held guilty of a charge unless his or her guilt has been established by a competent court".
In Italy, the second paragraph of Article 27 of the Constitution states: "A defendant shall be considered not guilty until a final sentence has been passed."[29]
In Romania, article 23 of the Constitution states that "any person shall be presumed innocent until found guilty by a final decision of the court."
The Constitution of Russia, in article 49, states that "Everyone charged with a crime shall be considered not guilty until his or her guilt has been proven in conformity with the federal law and has been established by the valid sentence of a court of law". It also states that "The defendant shall not be obliged to prove his or her innocence" and "Any reasonable doubt shall be interpreted in favor of the defendant".
In the South African Constitution, section 35(3)(h) of the Bill of Rights states: "Every accused person has a right to a fair trial, which includes the right to be presumed innocent, to remain silent, and not to testify during the proceedings."
Although the Constitution of the United States does not cite it explicitly, presumption of innocence is widely held to follow from the 5th, 6th, and 14th amendments. See also Coffin v. United States and In re Winship.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence




WickedsDesire -> RE: Breaking News on Gun Control (6/17/2016 1:09:14 PM)

Whoremods I have the capacity to reduce soup, and burn boiled potatoes......I concede I think I am wrong with that blase statement I made. But when you read it all in entirety I am not.,,and have no issue, none at all, with finishing you off with a potato masher

But that is neither over there or near...deleted the rest - your crucifixion, you dismantled (de-atomised same would say), your reason for exiting in your current format here - and when i was done I left you to a crazed biker bang of cannibal chickens - for these are fun times are they not. But the one who talks in Latin seems likes he knows stuff and utter shit, who has has just cited the Geneva convention and Waldorf salad





ifmaz -> RE: Breaking News on Gun Control (6/17/2016 6:18:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness


quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz


quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

And I asked about a case that would demonstrate this happening.
Got anything on that?


Once again, I asked if one would support the loss of Constitutionally-protected rights if one's name appeared on the "no-fly" list.
Yes, because if you're appearing on the no-fly list, there's a good chance you're a traitor to the United States and mean it and its people harm.

So yes - if you're on the no-fly list then no fucking guns for you. Jesus Christ, you gun nuts are fucking insane.



The question was not about the 2nd Amendment: should one lose all of their rights because their name appears on a list?

Would you be surprised to learn this no-fly list, ostensibly containing only the names of known terrorists, contained Ted Kennedy's name? How about Nelson Mandela? How many on the list are false-positives and what can someone like Mikey Hicks do to remove their name, apart from simply changing their name? Do you think terrorists are unable to change their names? Do you think just having a name is secure enough?

How does one even get on the list in the first place?

What if your name was on the list? What rights are you willing to give up?




mnottertail -> RE: Breaking News on Gun Control (6/17/2016 7:05:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Trouble there is that your first dilemma is false -- it's not about guns/no-guns, but about the readily available ability to spew bullets vs. more appropriate hunting/self-defense choices (the two most common reasons cited for firearm ownership). Further, this "one" psychopath is the latest in a parade of psychopaths. One psychopath crashes planes into buildings one day, and commercial airline travel changes forever. Definitely a double standard with firearms.

Your second dilemma I agree with in principle, but, like the 2nd Amendment issue, there's that pesky presumption of innocence (a legal right in several states).



Oh Gawd, I hope you never find out what a more appropriate hunting/self-defense choice gun can do whatever that is.

Though I'm curious to know, if the more appropriate hunting/self-defense choice guns are not readily available with the ability to spew bullets, what good are they for hunting or self defence ??


If you lived in a palatial home, or ever really knew anything about guns, your bedroom if you are bill gates is at most 16 feet wide, if you need to spew more than one or two bullets out of your john wayne sidearm to hit somebody, then you are a waste of american oxygen and should be shot. Consider the reality of gunfights. Or fights period, they are nearly at arms length. Or swat gun fights, you have heard one on tv although you dont understand it. But 11 people trained in targeting and shooting as a job at least 40 hours a week, for many years, withe the best protection on the market, and an actual strategy and tactics plan, against some deranged fool. Barring that the next level is idiots who really think brandishing guns is going to cow the government and then the government kills all of them.

For those of you rising up and fighting the tyranny after you are all done beating your little pud, the first line of defense is the local cops. Yes, virginia they are the government, and none of your fat stupid john wayne asses can even win that level.See, even while you are sleeping they are awake and working on getting your ass, and there is one of you and a pile of them.




mnottertail -> RE: Breaking News on Gun Control (6/17/2016 7:07:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz


quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness


quote:

ORIGINAL: ifmaz


quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

And I asked about a case that would demonstrate this happening.
Got anything on that?


Once again, I asked if one would support the loss of Constitutionally-protected rights if one's name appeared on the "no-fly" list.
Yes, because if you're appearing on the no-fly list, there's a good chance you're a traitor to the United States and mean it and its people harm.

So yes - if you're on the no-fly list then no fucking guns for you. Jesus Christ, you gun nuts are fucking insane.



The question was not about the 2nd Amendment: should one lose all of their rights because their name appears on a list?

Would you be surprised to learn this no-fly list, ostensibly containing only the names of known terrorists, contained Ted Kennedy's name? How about Nelson Mandela? How many on the list are false-positives and what can someone like Mikey Hicks do to remove their name, apart from simply changing their name? Do you think terrorists are unable to change their names? Do you think just having a name is secure enough?

How does one even get on the list in the first place?

What if your name was on the list? What rights are you willing to give up?


I dont know, what is the list? americas funniest home videos?




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

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.296875E-02