Sorry I'm late answering your post.
You make a good point .
In my opinion doesn't make a difference if the political party is left , right or any other , if a mistake is being made it's still a mistake.
To think different would be like me saying I am an Independent ,therefore I never ****up.eace
You seem reluctant to accept the inescapable fact as long as people are alive, there are going to be murders. Sometimes one or two victims and sometimes many more. It doesn't mean we do not seek ways to prevent them but it does mean realizing **** happens.
That is a very good experiament I think I am gona steal it.Interesting experiment today. one of my employees got emotional this morning about the shooting and went on a rant about better gun laws. I briefly explained they are a waste of time but she countered with a strange claim: that a baseball bat was good enough for self defense. I dropped it so she could get back to work. Around lunch I stopped at c-store to get ice.....and a shiny new water pistol. (job is residential remodeling)
After lunch I gave her an extension pole, walked about ten paces away and told her to try and hit me with it. She was perplexed until I showed her the water gun. She then said "that isn't fair" so I said I was uncomfortable with using a real gun for the experiment. I then explained that from that moment until the end of the day, if she could even touch me with the pole (extends to 12 feet long) before I could hit her with water she would get a paid day off tomorrow.
She made a single attempt about an hour later and she ended up swinging blind because of the water hitting her face. She threw the pole down and stomped off. She did admit the point was made but she is so upset because she feels helpless. I think this is how many people feel and their emotions trump reason.
Interesting experiment today. one of my employees got emotional this morning about the shooting and went on a rant about better gun laws. I briefly explained they are a waste of time but she countered with a strange claim: that a baseball bat was good enough for self defense. I dropped it so she could get back to work. Around lunch I stopped at c-store to get ice.....and a shiny new water pistol. (job is residential remodeling)
After lunch I gave her an extension pole, walked about ten paces away and told her to try and hit me with it. She was perplexed until I showed her the water gun. She then said "that isn't fair" so I said I was uncomfortable with using a real gun for the experiment. I then explained that from that moment until the end of the day, if she could even touch me with the pole (extends to 12 feet long) before I could hit her with water she would get a paid day off tomorrow.
She made a single attempt about an hour later and she ended up swinging blind because of the water hitting her face. She threw the pole down and stomped off. She did admit the point was made but she is so upset because she feels helpless. I think this is how many people feel and their emotions trump reason.
I actually have no problem with that, what I have a problem with is the idea of registration after the fact. It's the law of the land that felons and those involuntarily committed to mental health institutions may not own weapons and the only way to enforce that is an ID requirement. If the law changed to allow those individuals to possess then that debate can be renewed.Are you OK with you right to bear arms being subjected to that test?
No, the founders own writings admitted they were hypocritical about what rights applied to whom. They knew slavery was wrong and admitted as much, however they made it clear that voting wasn't a right. Agree or disagree that is the history.So? Freedom was considered a privilege until 1865. The founders got **** wrong. :shrug: The appeal to authority/tradition argument you are making is still irrelevant to our discussion. Repeating it yet again hasn't changed that.
Here's the difference, only criminals engage in fraud, the ID requirement is to make sure fewer of them do so. This does not pertain to the right to keep and bear, in which criminals and citizens in good standing engage, yet I have to prove who I am to engage in my second amendment rights, whereas people are arguing that a priveledge converted to a right does not hold the same scrutiny.It is certainly mythical because it is being overblown by people who wish to do nothing more than legally suppress the votes of those who are more inclined to vote against their party.
Actually, stopping fraud is stopping fraud, doesn't matter which side is engaging/not engaging.I mean, you can't really be naive enough to believe these tards who are calling for voter ID's are actually interested in stoppping that which they gleefully take part in when it benefits them.
It didn't work THAT time. If an election comes down to less than 1k votes it could make a difference.And how did that work out for them?
I'm saying it's an apples to elephants comparison. My right to keep and bear has existed throughout our history, the right to vote not so much. Yet the newer right is expected to carry less scrutiny? You cannot see my point here? Less people suffer misuse of a weapon than a fraudulent election, not trying to be callous but that is a fact.SO are you saying you cannot use a logically valid and non-hypocritical argument justify your choice to designate the rights you wish to infringe as "created" ones, while designating those that you do not want infringed as "fundamental"?
Sure it does if you follow the logic.Because nothing you have written above does that.
I can't stand either, but is not an uninformed vote just as dangerous as an idiot with a gun? If I as a citizen held a gun to your head and demanded 45% of your income is it not just as bad to elect someone to effect policy to do the same?Question: What difference is there between a stupid uninformed voter who just votes party line and a stupid informed voter who just votes party line?
Answer: Sweet **** all.
I disagree, the "two party system" is, not the fundamentals behind the republic.The difference in my opinion is that I really do want to scrap our current system because I think it's ****ed.
Democracy is direct vote on law, the only part we held over was direct vote of those who make it, and with prior restrictions upon even their authority.......at least when they play by the rules and don't make **** up as they go along.Yep. That's the democracy part of our Representative Democracy.
Same response as prior.Yep. That's the representative part of our Representative Democracy.
I do realize **** happens , but even so ,one need not supply the ****. for **** to happen.eace
I just wonder what "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is so difficult for the left to understand?
They want to make you register every gun.
They want to make you be limited on how many you can buy, and how much ammo you can buy.
They want to limit the size of the weapons you are able to own.
They want to limit the type of weapon you can own.
They want to limit the action of the weapons you own.
They want to limit the type of stock on the weapon you own.
They want to make it illegal for you to silence the weapon you own.
Oh well, so much for "shall not be infringed."
Wow, you should her...:roll:
That is a very good experiament I think I am gona steal it.
I just wonder what "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is so difficult for the left to understand?
They want to make you register every gun.
They want to make you be limited on how many you can buy, and how much ammo you can buy.
They want to limit the size of the weapons you are able to own.
They want to limit the type of weapon you can own.
They want to limit the action of the weapons you own.
They want to limit the type of stock on the weapon you own.
They want to make it illegal for you to silence the weapon you own.
Oh well, so much for "shall not be infringed."
You know, I dont need a gun to take care of business and defend myself, but it sure makes things easier. There is this little thing called the Constitution, and the 2nd amendment. Besides whats more humane, being beat to death or shot?I do realize **** happens , but even so ,one need not supply the ****. for **** to happen.eace
:lamo Thats good.if it is a particularly stubborn person, mix in a little lemon juice.
I can, problem is courts dont follow the Constitution, in fact they "leaglly" violate it all the time.Public safety trumps every right.
"probable cause" "emanate danger" "kiddie porn" in all these situations your rights come second to the states interest in public safety.
Assault weapons are weapons of war. Why can't you own an RPG? Or a tank?
I wasn't suggesting you give guns to people planning social terrorist attacks.
Anybody saying that shooting him would make things worse is speculating even more.
Flint,Columbine, Virginia Tech, Arizona, Denver funny they keep getting guns.eace
That situation was iffy all around, the assailant had the advantage. I think a few armed theater goers could have swung either way, but being that none of us were there it's impossible to say one way or another what would have helped/hurt. I personally would have preferred to have been armed in that situation but that's definitely an individual preference.Well, when you consider the fact that the killer had 70 targets and that any person who would have had a gun has one target in a dark theater with tear gas in the air, the so-called "speculation" starts to disappear. Things like these happen very quickly and there is also a lot of confusion on top of that. There was a marine in the audience who had no idea what was going on. Everyone fancies themselves as a hero, but the reality is that people panic in highly stressful situations like these no matter how much they would like to pretend that they would be macho. It's incredibly easy to be a tough guy on a message board where you are discussing the thing from afar and you have a tremendous amount of distance from it.
I'd still check that kid for "soap bombs" before every appearance. He went the gamut from full out assault to chemical deployment to booby trapping. No clue what he's fully capable of.They got him drugged up pretty bad and I really don't blame them.
Saw a story earlier where three boyfriends saved their girlfriend's lives but placing their bodies between the shooter and the girlfriends. The whole thing effing sucks.
Are you OK with you right to bear arms being subjected to that test?
So? Freedom was considered a privilege until 1865. The founders got **** wrong. :shrug: The appeal to authority/tradition argument you are making is still irrelevant to our discussion. Repeating it yet again hasn't changed that.
It is certainly mythical because it is being overblown by people who wish to do nothing more than legally suppress the votes of those who are more inclined to vote against their party.
I mean, you can't really be naive enough to believe these tards who are calling for voter ID's are actually interested in stoppping that which they gleefully take part in when it benefits them.
And how did that work out for them?
SO are you saying you cannot use a logically valid and non-hypocritical argument justify your choice to designate the rights you wish to infringe as "created" ones, while designating those that you do not want infringed as "fundamental"?
Because nothing you have written above does that.
Question: What difference is there between a stupid uninformed voter who just votes party line and a stupid informed voter who just votes party line?
Answer: Sweet **** all.
The difference in my opinion is that I really do want to scrap our current system because I think it's ****ed.
Yep. That's the democracy part of our Representative Democracy.
Yep. That's the representative part of our Representative Democracy.
If it makes you feel any better, just about every legitimate gun dealer would kick out anyone who showed any signs of being a danger to others. I've known many gun dealers here and they take gun safety VERY seriously.Tucker, First of all let me say I have always supported the 2nd amendment and the right to bear arms , hell I even support the right to carry a concealed weapon.
What I do not support is the background checks that make it easy for some nut to buy a gun or guns and a lot of ammunition.
I have a question.
Say you are in a gun dealers shop, now you see this gun dealer selling a gun to a person you know is deranged , you have heard this person say he was going to kill everybody he could in his neighborhood, and he lived down the street from you , would you let the sale go through for 2 glocks and an automatic with a lot of ammuntion?eace
Like I said, you could take away all guns tomorrow and people would still be killing each other. Or did your history textbooks say murders only began with Winchester?
If it makes you feel any better, just about every legitimate gun dealer would kick out anyone who showed any signs of being a danger to others. I've known many gun dealers here and they take gun safety VERY seriously.
Yeah, same with Laughner, both cases there were red flags not reported before they engaged in violence. The system is only as good as the record and reporting, if police think someone is a danger they MUST flag them, otherwise there are no further tools to go off of.That's good but you do know that the Virginia Tech shooter was stopped by the police for irradic behavior , that was before he bought the guns from a licenced gun dealer.eace
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?