|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
This discussion about how many lives are saved or lost is not the important thing to me. The important thing is retaining our second amendment right. Whatever can be done to improve safety without imperiling that right is fine with me. I find that hard to fathom. You are saying that your second amendment rights, as you understand them, are more important than the lives of American citizens. Hmmmm... WWJD. Let me just answer this piece of sophistic trash. OUR second amendment rights PROTECT AMERICAN CITIZENS, THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT you Bible twister. You all emphasize possible dangers in the possession of firearms that you can't even prove and you ignore all the claims of many here that their defensive uses are underreported and far more telling than your supposed stats. And you ignore the facts many have reported on how Americans have always had guns and taken them for granted until these vicious homicides started happening AND NOW YOU WANT TO TAKE THEM AWAY FROM US, and you don't even recognize how CRAZY that is and how it would put the entire nation in danger. How many lives are saved or lost by the NORMAL possession of guns is a trumped-up issue in the service of depriving us of the means of self defense as NORMALLY possessed by NORMAL citizens since the beginning of this country, and yes is FAR less important TO THE SAFETY OF AMERICAN CITIZENS than preserving our right to possess them. This is evil twisted logic that you've all swallowed that can only lead to the destruction of this nation. You may not think that's what you want but it's what your thinking would bring about. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
IT IS KNOWN THAT THESE MURDERERS WILL NOT RISK BEING KILLED UNTIL THEY"VE SUCCEEDED IN DOING THE JOB OF MURDER WHICH IS THEIR PLAN. THIS HAS BEEN POSTED ON HERE BEFORE BUT YOU ALL INSIST ON YOUR SOPHISTIC LOGIC ANYWAY. THEY ARE WILLING TO DIE BUT ONLY IF THEY'VE KILLED AND KILLED AND KILLED FIRST TO TAKE AS MANY AS POSSIBLE WITH THEM. IF THEY DIE FIRST THEY DON'T GET THAT SATISFACTION. YES, THEY WILL NOT RISK GOING TO A PLACE WHERE THEY KNOW THERE MIGHT BE GUNS FACING THEM.
I need a break from you crazy people. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
OUR second amendment rights PROTECT AMERICAN CITIZENS, THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT you Bible twister. The Juice is loose. Again. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1
|
Here is an interesting link to an article saying that there have been 919 gun related deaths since and including Newtown in the US. Several were gun accidents that killed children.
WordPress.com
Faith writes: Let me just answer this piece of sophistic trash. OUR second amendment rights PROTECT AMERICAN CITIZENS, THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT you Bible twister. You all emphasize possible dangers in the possession of firearms that you can't even prove and you ignore all the claims of many here that their defensive uses are underreported and far more telling than your supposed stats. And you ignore the facts many have reported on how Americans have always had guns and taken them for granted until these vicious homicides started happening AND NOW YOU WANT TO TAKE THEM AWAY FROM US, and you don't even recognize how CRAZY that is and how it would put the entire nation in danger. How many lives are saved or lost by the NORMAL possession of guns is a trumped-up issue in the service of depriving us of the means of self defense as NORMALLY possessed by NORMAL citizens since the beginning of this country, and yes is FAR less important TO THE SAFETY OF AMERICAN CITIZENS than preserving our right to possess them. This is evil twisted logic that you've all swallowed that can only lead to the destruction of this nation. You may not think that's what you want but it's what your thinking would bring about. It is you Faith that said that it is your second amendment rights that are of primary importance and that the number of lives it might cost is secondary. My point remains. The US is a more dangerous place because of the number of guns that are readily available. To me it is obvious but just as obvious is the fact that you don’t see it that way. The second amendment was signed in 1791. The world and specifically the US was a very different place back then. The idea that a bill passed into law to deal with an issue that existed in 1791 should not be reviewed and possibly revised 221 years later is bizarre. The US is quite obviously a far different country today than it was then and the constitution should be a living thing that adapts to current realities. However, there have been others who have made that argument far better than I ever could.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
YES, THEY WILL NOT RISK GOING TO A PLACE WHERE THEY KNOW THERE MIGHT BE GUNS FACING THEM. That's right Faith. The shooting on the Fort Hood Army base never happened. And Gabby Giffords could not possibly have been shot in Tuscon AZ, because that's just about the most gun friendly, concealed carry allowing, jurisdiction in the country. Except that those things did happen in places where any sane person would expect guns. Further, the shooters were captured alive in both cases.
I need a break from you crazy people. Enjoy your break, Ms. Pot. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Oh for crying out loud. Deal with the matter on the table instead of changing the subject.
As for choosing a place where people ARE armed, the Fort Hood shooter was a Muslim serving Allah's jihad against a military target, and the shooter of Gabby Giffords was aiming for her and her colleagues. These shooters were limited by their choice of target. The fact that they got away with it is too bad but it is NOT an argument AGAINST guns. These are not the homocidal maniacs who shoot up schools and theaters, whose objective is just to kill as many random victims as possible and who WILL choose a gun-free zone if they can. If they merely wanted to die they'd have shot themselves at home. Their objective is MURDER and armed defense definitely could have made a difference. Why do you point out FAILURES to take down a killer where guns are present? What kind of logic is that? There is NO chance of taking him down if guns AREN'T present. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I have not said anything about how dangerous the country is in general, except in response to the topic of this thread, the increase in random murders.
The "fear" you impute to me is CREATED by the sort of attack in this thread against our gun rights. Take away our guns THEN there will most definitely be reason for fear. CAUSED BY THE GUN-O-PHOBES, not the gun owners. And otherwise all I've done is suggest that armed people in schools would be the best defense against these homicidal maniacs. "Culture of fear" suggests something irrational, but this is a REAL threat, as I assume you agree or you wouldn't have started this thread in the first place. If it isn't all that much of a real threat then why are we discussing guns anyway? Again, Americans have always had guns. Why now when these murders are increasing does it suddenly seem necessary to take them away from us? This is all just emotion-driven propaganda-driven demagoguery aimed against the second amendment. The millions of gun owning citizens are NOT the cause of these murders. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
Why do you point out FAILURES to take down a killer where guns are present? What kind of logic is that? It ought to be argument ending logic. You have repeatedly claimed that such events do not happen where guns are expected to be present. Surely you are not objecting to my using facts even you cannot dispute to refute your claim?
The fact that they got away with it is too bad They didn't get away with it. Where did that bit of nonsense come from? It is true that the shooters did not die in a killing field created by untrained civilians, but they were caught.
There is NO chance of taking him down if guns AREN'T present. Sheesh... Here is how the Gabby Giffords' shooting incident ended.
quote: That's right. Gunman subdued without guns. How could you be more wrong?Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison. If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You have repeatedly claimed that such events do not happen where guns are expected to be present. Surely you are not objecting to my using facts even you cannot dispute to refute your claim? I have most certainly NOT argued that such events DO NOT HAPPEN where guns are present, I have argued that GUNS ARE THE BEST DEFENSE AGAINST SUCH EVENTS but you are adding the nonsense about some claim to perfection. Do you guys stay up nights thinking of nonsensical ways to distort what your opponents say? And all I meant about "get away with it" was that they succeeded in killing people. Again, you must work hard at finding ways to make it seem I said something I couldn't possibly have meant.
Isa 29:21 That make a man an offender for a word, ... for a thing of nought. And are you REALLY suggesting that unarmed people can do BETTER at taking down an assailant as they did at the Gabby Giffords shooting? What's the point? Guns weren't where they were needed when they were needed so when the opportunity occurred some courageous people brought the guy down without them. Good for them. What ARE you trying to prove anyway?
CONCEDE THIS POINT FOR A CHANGE. ADMIT YOU DISTORTED WHAT I SAID. Or do you just like winning lunfairly? Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined: |
the constitution should be a living thing that adapts to current realities. Spot on, GDR. Thomas Jefferson seemed quite visionary about this point himself - have a look at his letter here, to James Madison: Page not found | Teaching American History (You can speed read through the slightly obsessive reasoning on generational ages and national debts. The three paragraphs starting "On similar ground" are the heart of what he was saying).Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
And do you get out of what Jefferson wrote that if half the nation (my half) passionately opposes what the other half (yours) deems to be "current realities" that your half can force that on the other, either by the Supreme Court's making the Constitution mean whatever seems to favor those supposed "current realities" or by the Executive Branch's declaring it by executive order?
I'd call that despotism myself, which Jefferson SEEMS to desire to prevent. Or do you simply define the "backward" or "restrictionist" half as incompetents or something so that they don't have a voice in the matter? Despots have always been very clever at defining their opponents into silence, death or concentration camps, just wondering how you plan to go about it. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined: |
Oh the point which GDR and I are making in these two posts is an extremely discrete and specific one - that a two hundred year old constitution should not be a barrier in the way of a current and relevant debate by a people as to how they should govern themselves today.
That current and relevant debate can certainly include passionate opposition to different views, but that passion and that intellectual struggle should not be influenced (at least not unduly influenced) by the thoughts of a generation long since dead. I think that Thomas Jefferson exhibited some great perception.Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1472 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Sounds like a very clever form of despotism to me, certainly if my half of the country believes that the Constitution is the rule of law and you want to disregard it even for the purpose of debate which would effectively nullify our concern to retain the second amendment.
I don't see that that's what Jefferson is saying myself, I have my problems with the man but I don't think he was that stupid. His opinion that the needs of different generations call for different Constitutions wouldn't imply that NO Constitution is the answer which you seem to be thinking. If so why have one at all? The Constitution has built-in methods for accommodating to changing times, I doubt he'd have meant that any generation can just define away its original intent without following the rules. But if he did please find something a little more clear on the subject than this particular quote. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 101 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined: |
Not today I can't - I'm off to work.
However, for the record, nothing whatsoever in my post seems to imply that I am thinking that the answer is that there be no constitution, as you claim. My read of Jefferson's letter is that he is suggesting that a constitution should expire after a period of time (he suggests 19 years), so that a subsequent generation can then determine its own constitution for its own time. To put it in rather colourful terms, that way it's only the living who get to vote in decisions as to how they govern themselves - the dead don't get a vote.Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Heathen Member (Idle past 1311 days) Posts: 1067 From: Brizzle Joined:
|
I was replying to the statement "er... right...". Which was concerning how the constitution could be changed
No, the "err...Right" comment was relating to your contradictory statements re: unchanging but can be changed. the mechanism for amending the constitution does not concern me, my point was that it can, is, and should be changed where necessary.The Idea that the second amendment is some holy text that shall never be removed is barmy. If and when it no longer applies to the society it is supposed to serve it should be changed. i.e. there is NO GOOD REASON for US citizens to have assault rifles.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024