Vandeervecken
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2005
- Messages
- 744
- Reaction score
- 1
- Location
- Midland MI USA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Scarecrow Akhbar said:I said:
"Okay. You've demonstrated you're not capable of understanding that harm can befall from imprudent speech and that persons causing such harm should be subject to both criminal and civil actions."
That's a rather esoteric form of name-calling, I must say. Usually when I have the urge to describe someone as a blank blank, I just fill in the blanks.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:Since you disagree with that assessment, do you in fact agree that harm can come from imprudent yap flapping?
Scarecrow Akhbar said:If you do agree that harm can come, do you assert that it's still permissible? If the speech is permissible, then the Constitution grants people the freedom to harm others without consequence. Do you think the Constitution does that?
Scarecrow Akhbar said:Clearly you do make that assertion, else you'd be agreeing with me.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:I'm sorry if the facts frustrate you.
Che said:Guns should be curbed to the best of our ability.....
http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm
"America is losing too many children to gun violence. Between 1979 and 2001, gunfire killed 90,000 children and teens in America. (Children's Defense Fund and National Center for Health Statistics)"
"The National School Boards Association estimates that more than 135,000 guns are brought into U.S. schools each day. (NSBA, 1993) "
Every day, more than 80 Americans die from gun violence. (Coalition to Stop Gun Violence)
"The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)"
"American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined. (Centers for Disease Control)"
Vandeervecken said:I'd like you to link to the source of each claim as the link you provided doesn;t back the claims you made.
jamesrage said:Here is a image that I think is amusing.
Che said:Actually it does. If you look under the claims they have links to center for diesease control.
I don't want to ban guns completely, but I think there's no reason for someone to have an automatic weapon. I also personally think hollow tips should be outlawed.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:If you had an EXPERIENCE with the subject, you'd know perfectly well that people go off their meds, adjust their dosages, and self-medicate all the time without clinical supervision. Funny how you just ignored that part of what I've been saying.
No. I'm not one of the canaries, nor will I be. Lunacy and perfection don't go well together.
Vandeervecken said:So in your world the choices are God or careless? Interesting. No range in between? It takes 2 separate acts to vote in the poll, did you not double check the first before performing the second?
Vandeervecken said:Not in our country, to put them there would require the court hearing.
vergiss said:What two actions? Click the option, click the submit button. They're generally done in rapid succession and it's easy to get options mixed up. When you're mortal anyway..
vergiss said:I meant once they get to the point when they're actually certified as such.
Billo_Really said:I support the 1st totally and completely. I am against all kinds of censorship (with the possible exception of a parent to their child).
I could care less about the 2nd Amendment. I don't own a gun, and never will.
What the hell are you talking about? Who is denying who rights?Originally Posted by Vandeervecken
So you have no problem with others having their rights denied becasue you don't care about exercising it? I have no religion, doesn't mean I don't think freedom for others to worship as they choose is very important.
Billo_Really said:What the hell are you talking about? Who is denying who rights?
Just how would government break that Amendment?Originally Posted by Vandeervecken
You said that you said you could care less about the 2nd amendment. To me that means you do not care if the government breaks it.
Billo_Really said:Just how would government break that Amendment?
TurtleDude said:lets see-I will call it LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1) The 1934 NFA
2) The 1968 GCA
3) the 1986 Dem poison pill attachment to the FOPA known as the Hughes Amendment banning the future manufacture of Automatic weapons for civilians
4) The Bush I executive Order on rifle importation
5) THe BRADY BILL
6) The Clinton "assault weapon" Ban
70 years of outcome based rapes of the second amendment due to the FDR intimidated court interpretations of the commerce clause.
So what. Why does the average American need to have an assault weapon? I thought the Clinton ban expired. Canada has stricter gun laws and less murders than we do. Why is the 2nd Amendment so important? Militia's with pea-shooters will not stop armored assault vehicles.Originally posted by Timmyboy:
lets see-I will call it LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1) The 1934 NFA
2) The 1968 GCA
3) the 1986 Dem poison pill attachment to the FOPA known as the Hughes Amendment banning the future manufacture of Automatic weapons for civilians
4) The Bush I executive Order on rifle importation
5) THe BRADY BILL
6) The Clinton "assault weapon" Ban
70 years of outcome based rapes of the second amendment due to the FDR intimidated court interpretations of the commerce clause.
Originally posted by M14 Shooter:
Lets not forget the federal courts upholding state and local gun bans.
Billo_Really said:So what. Why does the average American need to have an assault weapon?
Much to the chagrin of the liberal left.I thought the Clinton ban expired.
Take away all the gun murders, and our murder rate is still higher than Canada's. Thus, our problem isnt the guns, and their solution isnt stricter gun laws.Canada has stricter gun laws and less murders than we do.
Tell us about how we lost the war in Vietnam.Why is the 2nd Amendment so important? Militia's with pea-shooters will not stop armored assault vehicles.
I suppose you'd lobby for the right to carry RPG's.Originally posted by M14 Shooter:
As far as "assault weapons" go - given that the 2nd is intended to protect weapons suitable for use in the miltia, these are -exactly- the kids of weapons it protects.
What's this, the old 'guns don't kill, people do' mantra again? Or is it, 'guns are a tool just like any other' mantra? I got news for you, guns are not tools!Originally posted by M14 Shooter:
Take away all the gun murders, and our murder rate is still higher than Canada's. Thus, our problem isnt the guns, and their solution isnt stricter gun laws.
In any event, it is absolutely proveable that more guns do not = more gun deaths.
By realizing we never should have been there to begin with.Originally posted by M14 Shooter:
Tell us about how we lost the war in Vietnam.
Funding from a super-power allied with bin Laden.Originally posted by M14 Shooter:
Tell us about how the Russians lost in Afghanistan.
See first comment above.Originally posted by M14 Shooter:
Tell us about how we're losing the war in Iraq.
I'd prefer an AT4 - but, clearly, an argument could be made for its protection under the 2nd.Billo_Really said:I suppose you'd lobby for the right to carry RPG's.
Then what are they? Weapons?What's this, the old 'guns don't kill, people do' mantra again? Or is it, 'guns are a tool just like any other' mantra? I got news for you, guns are not tools!
And we 'supposedly' came to that realization, because?By realizing we never should have been there to begin with.
Thats a nice, general statement.Funding from a super-power allied with bin Laden.
I see that you;re doing everything you can to keep from having to admit that lightly armed irregulars CAN defeat a strong standing army. I am, of course, not surprised.See first comment above.
A hammer is a tool. A gun is for killing.Originally posted by M14 Shooter:
Then what are they? Weapons?
Weapons are a tool for projecting force.
You can't win a guerilla war with a conventional army.Originally posted by M14 Shooter:
I see that you;re doing everything you can to keep from having to admit that lightly armed irregulars CAN defeat a strong standing army. I am, of course, not surprised.
Yes. A tool for killing.Billo_Really said:A hammer is a tool. A gun is for killing.
So... a lightly-armed group of irregulars CAN defeat a standing army.You can't win a guerilla war with a conventional army.
Billo_Really said:Just how would government break that Amendment?
Billo_Really said:So what. Why does the average American need to have an assault weapon? I thought the Clinton ban expired. Canada has stricter gun laws and less murders than we do. Why is the 2nd Amendment so important? Militia's with pea-shooters will not stop armored assault vehicles.
Billo_Really said:I suppose you'd lobby for the right to carry RPG's.
Billo_Really said:What's this, the old 'guns don't kill, people do' mantra again? Or is it, 'guns are a tool just like any other' mantra? I got news for you, guns are not tools!
Billo_Really said:By realizing we never should have been there to begin with.
Billo_Really said:Funding from a super-power allied with bin Laden.
Billo_Really said:See first comment above.
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?