Has anyone noticed
-
Is that all? Cars kill 40,000 a year: [^] Why not ban cars then?
-
The laws we already have would help if they were actively enforced. We could start by looking at returning the 500,000 individuals to the NICS database that Obama ordered removed (if they truly belong on the list of prohibited persons). Then we could make sure that people that belong on the list are put on it. Beyond that... "I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery" - Thomas Jefferson, 1787 ------------ "The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil Constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted them to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men." "If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin." - Samuel Adams
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013Our Liberties Worth Defending At All Hazards: Samuel Adams - Self-Educated American[^] Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia[^] It may reflect your own personal beliefs, but you can't hijack that quote and assume it applies. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy...!
-
Our Liberties Worth Defending At All Hazards: Samuel Adams - Self-Educated American[^] Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia[^] It may reflect your own personal beliefs, but you can't hijack that quote and assume it applies. Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy...!
See, the problem is that anti-2nd Amendment people refuse to consider the basis for why the 2nd Amendment is even included in the Bill of Rights. This is one of those supporting quotes. I'm not being sloppy at all. You're simply refusing to understand. I could cite many other references to the natural right of self defense that were expressed by the framers of the Constitution.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
See, the problem is that anti-2nd Amendment people refuse to consider the basis for why the 2nd Amendment is even included in the Bill of Rights. This is one of those supporting quotes. I'm not being sloppy at all. You're simply refusing to understand. I could cite many other references to the natural right of self defense that were expressed by the framers of the Constitution.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I could cite many other references to the natural right of self defense that were expressed by the framers of the Constitution.
Then maybe you should do that next time instead of picking quotes that are either intellectually dishonest or copypasta from NRA forums... :laugh: Also, I'm not anti 2nd amendment. I may be anti-your-interpretation-of-the-modern-applicability-of-the-2nd-amendment, but I'm sure you can dismiss that as easily as you say "crisis actors" and "I'm just asking questions..." :-\
-
And malaria kills 400,000 a year. And 2.5 million people a year in the US die from natural causes. I guess we should just all fucking give up because there's always something more lethal. :rolleyes: seriously, is this argument still a thing?
Yes. It is. Ireland has 4/5ths the gun ownership of the UK, yet 30 times the murder rate. Gun control does not mean less murders.
-
Yes. It is. Ireland has 4/5ths the gun ownership of the UK, yet 30 times the murder rate. Gun control does not mean less murders.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Ireland has 4/5ths the gun ownership of the UK, yet 30 times the murder rate.
This is not the same argument as "gun deaths vs car deaths" - but it's just as vapid, because correlation is not causation in the absence of convincing evidence. I could do something equally stupid and compare Zambia and the UK - Zambia is permissive with guns and has 50 times the murder rate! It must be the guns! On the other hand, there's plenty of evidence that reducing access to guns reduces the rate of completed suicides, accidents, homicides. Because guns are impulsively lethal. Gun control is a social health and harm reduction issue.
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I could cite many other references to the natural right of self defense that were expressed by the framers of the Constitution.
Then maybe you should do that next time instead of picking quotes that are either intellectually dishonest or copypasta from NRA forums... :laugh: Also, I'm not anti 2nd amendment. I may be anti-your-interpretation-of-the-modern-applicability-of-the-2nd-amendment, but I'm sure you can dismiss that as easily as you say "crisis actors" and "I'm just asking questions..." :-\
Sablerz wrote:
Then maybe you should do that next time instead of picking quotes that are either intellectually dishonest or copypasta from NRA forums... :laugh:
Both quotes were within the context of what I was trying to convey. Neither were "intellectually dishonest", nor copied from the NRA web site. I've stated several times that I'm not a member of the NRA. When I heard (more than 40 years ago) that the NRA is responsible for most of the anti-gun laws we have right now, I decided then and there that they did not represent my concerns regarding the 2nd Amendment.
Sablerz wrote:
Also, I'm not anti 2nd amendment.
What's really funny is that that's exactly how every anti-2nd Amendment advocate starts out every conversation about guns. So, sure, I'm gonna believe you when you say it.
Sablerz wrote:
I may be anti-your-interpretation-of-the-modern-applicability-of-the-2nd-amendment
I've never accepted the concept of "modern applicability" of the 2nd Amendment. It is what it always has been, and I offer no comprise in that regard, with the possible exceptions of: 0) People that are proven insane probably should not be allowed to have them 1) Criminals that commit a felony with a gun or some other violent crime shouldn't be permitted, but then, well, you know, they're criminals, so good luck having them obey any law. However, NON-VIOLENT felons that did their time and are not on parole should not be on the prohibited persons list. 2) The age thing is tricky. I think every citizen from the day they're born, to the time they indicate they fall into one of the two groups I already cited, should be allowed to exercise their 2nd Amendment right to keep/bear arms. Before you get all psycho, yes, anyone under the age of consent should be supervised by a parent or guardian when using a gun of any kind (even if it's just a pellet gun). I also think that guns should be properly secured (in a gun safe, unloaded, and with a trigger lock installed) when not in use when there are children under the age of consent in the house. And finally, I don't see anything humorous about a discussion like this. Your use of LOL icons proves that you're trying to bolster your general lack of respect and knowledge of the Constitution and why we have it. I'm done with this exchange, because I've determined that you're not worth any more of my time r
-
Sablerz wrote:
Then maybe you should do that next time instead of picking quotes that are either intellectually dishonest or copypasta from NRA forums... :laugh:
Both quotes were within the context of what I was trying to convey. Neither were "intellectually dishonest", nor copied from the NRA web site. I've stated several times that I'm not a member of the NRA. When I heard (more than 40 years ago) that the NRA is responsible for most of the anti-gun laws we have right now, I decided then and there that they did not represent my concerns regarding the 2nd Amendment.
Sablerz wrote:
Also, I'm not anti 2nd amendment.
What's really funny is that that's exactly how every anti-2nd Amendment advocate starts out every conversation about guns. So, sure, I'm gonna believe you when you say it.
Sablerz wrote:
I may be anti-your-interpretation-of-the-modern-applicability-of-the-2nd-amendment
I've never accepted the concept of "modern applicability" of the 2nd Amendment. It is what it always has been, and I offer no comprise in that regard, with the possible exceptions of: 0) People that are proven insane probably should not be allowed to have them 1) Criminals that commit a felony with a gun or some other violent crime shouldn't be permitted, but then, well, you know, they're criminals, so good luck having them obey any law. However, NON-VIOLENT felons that did their time and are not on parole should not be on the prohibited persons list. 2) The age thing is tricky. I think every citizen from the day they're born, to the time they indicate they fall into one of the two groups I already cited, should be allowed to exercise their 2nd Amendment right to keep/bear arms. Before you get all psycho, yes, anyone under the age of consent should be supervised by a parent or guardian when using a gun of any kind (even if it's just a pellet gun). I also think that guns should be properly secured (in a gun safe, unloaded, and with a trigger lock installed) when not in use when there are children under the age of consent in the house. And finally, I don't see anything humorous about a discussion like this. Your use of LOL icons proves that you're trying to bolster your general lack of respect and knowledge of the Constitution and why we have it. I'm done with this exchange, because I've determined that you're not worth any more of my time r
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
What's really funny is that that's exactly how every anti-2nd Amendment advocate starts out every conversation about guns. So, sure, I'm gonna believe you when you say it.
Oh, well let me be clearer: I don't specifically give a shit about your second amendment because: 0) I'm not American 1) Therefore, the 2nd amendment does not determine whether or not I can own a gun 2) I own several guns despite the fact that we don't even have a second amendment so whoop-de-doo, I'm ready for a foreign invasion but if the government shows up with tanks and automatic rifles I'm just as fucked as you would be if they showed up at your house But gun control is harm reduction for homicides, suicides, and accidents, so yeah I do have an opinion about that.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I've never accepted the concept of "modern applicability" of the 2nd Amendment
Well, that's stupid, because everything is different since the late 1700s. Roads. Health. Communication. You don't regulate the internet based on telegram laws. You don't regulate modern surgeries based on "we hold them down once they agree because there's no anaesthesia." This is just selective blindness.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I'm done with this exchange, because I've determined that you're not worth any more of my time regarding the topic.
Bye! Don't raise any false flags!
-
Protecting their guns IS being patriotic. Because 2nd Amendment. BTW, your link goes to a blank page.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
BTW, your link goes to a blank page.
Thanks, I updated the link. There are much, much bigger constitutional problems in the US than gun rights. The article I reference is a particularly huge problem where all three branches of the US government have been subverted by your plutocrats and which is rapidly reaching a point of no return. My opinion is the entire point behind gun control discussion (and other comparable issues) is to distract the population from the real problems in America. It keeps the people focused and squabbling about petty issues. Edit: An example of how your plutocrats have run amok is to look at the many wars[^] they start and strife they cause. Every one of your politicians is a bought puppet that is vetted and paid for by your plutocrats (e.g. think PACs, super PACS and even AIPAC). Your constitution is for a democracy but all you have left is an illusion of one where the average persons vote is meaningless and literally inconsequential. You like to quote America's founding fathers but they would not even recognize your country today as the one they formed way back then.
History is the joke the living play on the dead.
-
Austin package bombs - They're not blaming the bombs, they're blaming the bomber? Also, CNN keeps pushing the race card despite the fact that no specific race was being targeted. (Evidently, the bomber blew himself up early this morning, saving citizens the cost of a lengthy trial, followed by lifetime support in terms of shelter and food.) Maryland school shooting - An armed resource officer shot and killed the 17-year old shooter. No mention by the state-run media that a) a 17 year old isn't permitted to own/possess a handgun, and b) that an armed school employee prevented anyone from being killed. A blogger in the UK posted a poll asking people to select the biggest danger to the UK. You could chose BREXIT, Russia, Far-right extremists, and Islam. 70% of the voters picked Islam, and the blogger claims that bots and far-right extremists were responsible for skewing the poll results. When asked if she would accept the results if it was proven that no bots were identified, she said "No". What have we learned from this? 0) The media is trying to start a race war. 1) "Gun control" isn't about "guns", it's about "control". 2) Liberals don't like it when their poll results don't produce the expected/desired outcome.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013 -
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Ireland has 4/5ths the gun ownership of the UK, yet 30 times the murder rate.
This is not the same argument as "gun deaths vs car deaths" - but it's just as vapid, because correlation is not causation in the absence of convincing evidence. I could do something equally stupid and compare Zambia and the UK - Zambia is permissive with guns and has 50 times the murder rate! It must be the guns! On the other hand, there's plenty of evidence that reducing access to guns reduces the rate of completed suicides, accidents, homicides. Because guns are impulsively lethal. Gun control is a social health and harm reduction issue.
I know it isnt and no, it is not vapid because correlation is not causation. Guns dont kill, people do, and limiting guns in the US will no more reduce the murder rate substantially than doing so in ireland has done.
Sablerz wrote:
there's plenty of evidence that reducing access to guns reduces the rate of completed suicides, accidents, homicides.
I dont believe the data, if you actually have any, because I know the facts about Ireland vs the UK run contrary to this.
-
Munchies_Matt wrote:
True, but those arent intentional causes of death.
Neither are some of the gun deaths. But again, state run media isn't interested in pointing out facts about how the gun deaths occur. Despite that, saying people in the US "like" to kill each other with guns is preposterous.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
A guy let out of prison recently, stopped by the police, decided to drive off, and gets into an armed standoff at his home
Imagine that, a bad guy that ILLEGALLY possesses a gun. He's a bad guy who doesn't obey the law. Why penalize the law-abiding citizens for what a criminal does? And oh yeah, if the cops killed him, that counts as a gun death for the state run media.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
But what is going on in his head that puts him and his family at risk, that makes him push it to such an extreme.
HE.IS.A.CRIMINAL. He doesn't care about other people's welfare.
Munchies_Matt wrote:
Why doesnt a criminal realise that at that critical point it is better to 'come quietly' than to escalate it and get killed or end up in prison for far longer?
Why does the inside of a black hole really look like? See? I can ask unanswerable questions, too.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
some
The exception proves the rule.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Why penalize the law-abiding citizens
I wasnt saying ban guns John. Read it again. And if you cant answer tha last question, or even attempt to, then the US will have to live with its very high murder rate, regardles of the tool used to carry out the act.
-
Austin package bombs - They're not blaming the bombs, they're blaming the bomber? Also, CNN keeps pushing the race card despite the fact that no specific race was being targeted. (Evidently, the bomber blew himself up early this morning, saving citizens the cost of a lengthy trial, followed by lifetime support in terms of shelter and food.) Maryland school shooting - An armed resource officer shot and killed the 17-year old shooter. No mention by the state-run media that a) a 17 year old isn't permitted to own/possess a handgun, and b) that an armed school employee prevented anyone from being killed. A blogger in the UK posted a poll asking people to select the biggest danger to the UK. You could chose BREXIT, Russia, Far-right extremists, and Islam. 70% of the voters picked Islam, and the blogger claims that bots and far-right extremists were responsible for skewing the poll results. When asked if she would accept the results if it was proven that no bots were identified, she said "No". What have we learned from this? 0) The media is trying to start a race war. 1) "Gun control" isn't about "guns", it's about "control". 2) Liberals don't like it when their poll results don't produce the expected/desired outcome.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013- The media is about selling their product at whatever cost. 1) it's about guns and controlling those guns. (You see that otherwise I know) 2) I consider myself somewhat a liberal, yet I'm don't consider myself someone who would not accept any outcome. Really, this one is just your opinion.
V.
-
Austin package bombs - They're not blaming the bombs, they're blaming the bomber? Also, CNN keeps pushing the race card despite the fact that no specific race was being targeted. (Evidently, the bomber blew himself up early this morning, saving citizens the cost of a lengthy trial, followed by lifetime support in terms of shelter and food.) Maryland school shooting - An armed resource officer shot and killed the 17-year old shooter. No mention by the state-run media that a) a 17 year old isn't permitted to own/possess a handgun, and b) that an armed school employee prevented anyone from being killed. A blogger in the UK posted a poll asking people to select the biggest danger to the UK. You could chose BREXIT, Russia, Far-right extremists, and Islam. 70% of the voters picked Islam, and the blogger claims that bots and far-right extremists were responsible for skewing the poll results. When asked if she would accept the results if it was proven that no bots were identified, she said "No". What have we learned from this? 0) The media is trying to start a race war. 1) "Gun control" isn't about "guns", it's about "control". 2) Liberals don't like it when their poll results don't produce the expected/desired outcome.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
What have we learned from this? 0) The media is trying to start a race war. 1) "Gun control" isn't about "guns", it's about "control". 2) Liberals don't like it when their poll results don't produce the expected/desired outcome.
Rather certain "we" haven't learned anything like that. I suppose you might have viewed it with your own political filter though.
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
They're not blaming the bombs, they're blaming the bomber?
..because there is no habit of people running around with bombs, claiming to need them as a God-given right to defend against bears. There's no debate on open carrying of bombs, nor the right of a teacher to carry one.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
The media is trying to start a race war.
The media makes money of dividing headlines. What did you expect?
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
"Gun control" isn't about "guns", it's about "control".
Those are TWO words John. It is about control of the guns, not about control of the milk. It is specific about guns.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
Liberals don't like it
Because the definition makes the man, and all conform to the definition. You're also implying that the opposite of a liberal doesn't. Of course, they are all formed by the definition, not by their actions. X|
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
I'm a liberal, and I while I think it self-evident that without guns there would be little threat form them, I also accept that removing all guns from the USA is simply never going to happen, so it's pointless to even pursue that line. The USA will have to find a way to live with them, somehow. And the way to solve the threat of Islam is to open your eyes and say" Threat? What threat?" The so-called "threat" of Islam in the West is miniscule. 99.9% of al Islamic terror attacks are in Muslim countries and aimed at other Muslims. I do not feel in the least "terrorised" by Islam. I am more terrified of crossing the main road on the way tot eh shops than any friggin' terrorist. The goddam IRA in the 70's were more of a threat than Islam. Get real.
A_Griffin wrote:
The so-called "threat" of Islam in the West is miniscule. 99.9% of al Islamic terror attacks are in Muslim countries and aimed at other Muslims. I do not feel in the least "terrorised" by Islam.
Certainly a lot of Christians attacking people in the US though. So seems like banning that would be a good start.
-
A_Griffin wrote:
The so-called "threat" of Islam in the West is miniscule. 99.9% of al Islamic terror attacks are in Muslim countries and aimed at other Muslims. I do not feel in the least "terrorised" by Islam.
Certainly a lot of Christians attacking people in the US though. So seems like banning that would be a good start.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
.because there is no habit of people running around with bombs
Not to mention bombs that actually work effectively and which one can walk into a store and buy off the shelf ready to go.
jschell wrote:
Not to mention bombs that actually work effectively and which one can walk into a store and buy off the shelf ready to go.
Thank you for proving my point. The supermarkets are filled with hazardous materials, but keep the toys away from the brainless and there's no problem :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
Hey, asshole, if you're online, how about responding in the thread that you shotgunned 2 replies to me about the same thing?