Political Forums  

Go Back   Political Forums > Current events
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

We appreciate your help

in keeping this site going.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-15-2012, 10:52 AM
Wasillaguy's Avatar
Wasillaguy Wasillaguy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,737
Well, MPHolland asked for a civil debate, and Dave couldn't do it.
The kind of people I would restrict from gun ownership are those who show no respect or consideration for others.
Perhaps if we made explosives and lethal gasses more readily available, the gun death numbers would go down.
__________________
"You can't always get what you want" -Rolling Stones
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-15-2012, 11:06 AM
JCricket's Avatar
JCricket JCricket is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: colorado
Posts: 1,595
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wasillaguy View Post
Well, MPHolland asked for a civil debate, and Dave couldn't do it.
The kind of people I would restrict from gun ownership are those who show no respect or consideration for others.
Perhaps if we made explosives and lethal gasses more readily available, the gun death numbers would go down.
I doubt it, I bet they would go up and used in conjunction with the gasses and explosives.
__________________
Instead of a debate, how about a discussion? I want to learn, I don't care about winning.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-15-2012, 11:10 AM
mpholland's Avatar
mpholland mpholland is offline
reflexionar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Oregon
Posts: 2,273
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wasillaguy View Post
Well, MPHolland asked for a civil debate, and Dave couldn't do it.
The kind of people I would restrict from gun ownership are those who show no respect or consideration for others.
Perhaps if we made explosives and lethal gasses more readily available, the gun death numbers would go down.
I didn't find his post uncivil. At least he he didn't call anybody out by name and try to make them look bad. I believe I said to try to be realistic also. Try to remember that when you point a finger there are three pointing back at you.
__________________
“Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.” Douglas Adams
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-15-2012, 11:20 AM
JCricket's Avatar
JCricket JCricket is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: colorado
Posts: 1,595
A thought.

The right to bare arms is guaranteed in the consitution - some debate as to it meaning, but it is there.

The right to buy ammunition is not.

Out law premade or manufactured ammunition and control who can buy the supplies and tools to make ammunitions.

Just a thought like I said.
__________________
Instead of a debate, how about a discussion? I want to learn, I don't care about winning.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-17-2012, 05:02 PM
wgrr's Avatar
wgrr wgrr is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by JCricket View Post
A thought.

The right to bare arms is guaranteed in the consitution - some debate as to it meaning, but it is there.

The right to buy ammunition is not.

Out law premade or manufactured ammunition and control who can buy the supplies and tools to make ammunitions.

Just a thought like I said.
Let's examine the 2nd Amendments text as ratified by the states in 1791:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Until very recently, when the nine kings and queens of the US ruled that individuals have the right to bear arms without that first clause, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state." getting in the way. So, effectively the the SCOTUS rewrote the Second amendment to read, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." completely ignoring the first half of the amendment.

A true "strict Constitutionalist would interpret the 2nd amendment to mean that people could own a muzzle loaded rifle, pistol, or a blunderbuss to be called into service at anytime to serve in a "well regulated militia." The founding fathers never envisioned Glock "9's" with thirty round clips or AR15's with 100 round clips.

Don't kid yourself, the semi-auto assault style weapons can be more deadly than a fully automatic weapon. Even the modern military M-16 is no longer fully automatic, short burst or single shot only. If you have ever fired a full auto weapon, and I have, it is very difficult to control. It is fun though.

I am by no means an anti-gun nut. I have owned hundreds of firearms since I was eleven yeas old. I love to shoot. Many of my Liberal and Conservative friends love to hunt and shoot at the range with me.

In the Newtown shooting the weapons that belonged to the crazy survivalist mother should have never been accessible to her obviously mentally ill son. Owning all those weapons did not do a damn thing to save her life; did they?

There has to be some logical controls on high capacity clips. I think any clip should not hold more than seven shots. Pausing to reload in the most recent shooting could have saved lives. More heavy doors locked to protect the children in the pause between reloading and shooting. This psycho was not a pro by any stretch of the imagination. Reloading would have taken more time with smaller capacity clips.

Then we have to discuss the underlying problems with our society. The 20 year old MAN was living with his mother. He should have been out on his own, going to college, or working to provide for himself. The feeling of depression and worthlessness will drive people insane.

It is a fact that these mass killings have accelerated rapidly in the 2000's. This correlates with the massive income inequality and the lack of jobs for the disappearing middle class.

Income disparity has been proven in study after study that if monkeys, human children, apes, etc... are unfairly rewarded in their environment the losers tend to become violent.

A subject for another thread.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-15-2012, 11:31 AM
Wasillaguy's Avatar
Wasillaguy Wasillaguy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,737
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpholland View Post
I didn't find his post uncivil. At least he he didn't call anybody out by name and try to make them look bad. I believe I said to try to be realistic also. Try to remember that when you point a finger there are three pointing back at you.
"nobody should have to be told they are idiots or that their ideas are stupid."

Dave said "you fucking people are whacked"

Whacked is generally interpreted as either "crazy" or "assassinated".
Did you think Dave was telling us we'd been killed by a hit man?
__________________
"You can't always get what you want" -Rolling Stones
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-15-2012, 02:17 PM
BlueStreak's Avatar
BlueStreak BlueStreak is offline
Area Man
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: The Swamp
Posts: 27,407
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wasillaguy View Post
Well, MPHolland asked for a civil debate, and Dave couldn't do it.
The kind of people I would restrict from gun ownership are those who show no respect or consideration for others.
Perhaps if we made explosives and lethal gasses more readily available, the gun death numbers would go down.
"In summation; You people are fucking whacked and you're beginning to frighten me."

What, because of that? Note the smilie.() This means the comment was little more than a friendly jab at people in general, not a personal insult.

Regards,
Dave
__________________
"When the lie is so big and the fog so thick, the Republican trick can play out again....."-------Frank Zappa
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:03 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.