Why do the liberal Democrats want to take guns away from Americans? page 166

5861 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by MooseDishes:

Would you rather confront a rapist with a condom, a gun, or a phone?

Condom; I don’t wanna get preggers.

 
This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MooseDishes:

Would you rather confront a rapist with a condom, a gun, or a phone?

If I were a woman…a gun. I wouldn’t need the other two at that moment.

 
Flag Post

Yes, Obama is a socialists with socialist tendencies when he pushes his agenda. His healthcare is socialist. It is not Constitutional and this will show true when it is ruled on by the Supreme Court. He sued Arizona for closing it’s boarders after his (and former) administrations refused to.

No he is not. His healthcare bill does not nationalise any part of any industry, it merely changes a few details (important details) of the regulations of the private healthcare industry.
It is constitutional. Arizona does not have the right to deal with international issues, nor to be racist pricks.

Obama has pushed legislation that has been proven not to work during the great depression. He has turned his back on the plight of the people in order to give the rich big chunks of taxpayer money.

No he hasn’t. Nor that. His stimulus was supported by the sane parts of the GOP, they just differ in how much of it should be in the form of tax breaks for the rich, as opposed to investments in infrastructure and so on.

Even those in his inner circle have told other countries (such as Egypt) to not use our Constitution to make theirs. I would ask why but it is pretty obvious that our Constitution is too restricting.

Prove it.

His rule thees last couple of years (since the 2010 election) has been by executive orders. The reason is because the democratic senators and house members are trying to distance themselves from him. they have seen what loyalty to Obama gained them…lost elections and Obama turning his back on them. He has thrown them to the dogs.

Utter rubbish.

You really don’t know that your country is safer to live in compared to ours as you are not a citizen of our country and really cannot make a judgment from reality.

Statistics are reality. Your country is one of the least safe of the developed nations.

Your gun control is a joke and yes your government begged ours to enter the war. It is a matter of record. Your government begged our people for their private firearms to arm their army and like fools we sent them our guns which they destroyed after the war.

Rubbish. The UK at the time had one of the largest weapons industries and armies in the world, larger than the US. What we needed from you was raw materials and food mostly, after the u-boat blockade started as the UK Navy was overstretched. We did not lack for small arms or ammunition for them (or larger arms for that matter). The idea that the UK was somehow desperate for rickety assorted small arms from the US is a myth. We had more guns than the US army had. You seem to be under the impression that the modern UK was anything like the UK was in WWII, this is not the case. At the time, the UK still had the world’s largest Empire, and they took and kept that through massive military might.
The US, on the other hand, was not even a player on the world’s military stage.

 
Flag Post
No he is not. His healthcare bill does not nationalise any part of any industry, it merely changes a few details (important details) of the regulations of the private healthcare industry.
It is constitutional.

The court may be proving you wrong in about a month.

Arizona does not have the right to deal with international issues, nor to be racist pricks.

1) The court may also prove you wrong on this.

2) The law forbids police to stop people specifically because of race, there has to be probable cause. But that would require you to actually read the legislation in order to know that.

 
Flag Post

The court may be proving you wrong in about a month.

I doubt that.

2) The law forbids police to stop people specifically because of race, there has to be probable cause. But that would require you to actually read the legislation in order to know that.

I’m aware of that, unfortunately writing it on paper does not make it so, the only thing that differentiates potential illegal immigrants from everyone else is their race and that is precisely how it was being used. Raids on Mexican businesses and so on.

 
Flag Post

How do you regulate prostitution, so that victims of sex trade don’t get into prostitution?
What about all of the young girls who get put into said “legal” prostitution.
Is this “crime” just sweeped under the rug by statisticians?

The irony is that regulation only improves standards. Without said regulation, there are no rules on age, no rules on forced entry. With regulation, you can minimise these problems. I may not be an expert, but it’s quite easy to see that age has to be checked upon entry, and minor background checks can pretty much reveal whether or not you’re forced into it. Any way, this isn’t the point of the topic, so let’s leave it at that.

Noso pretty much answered your post

I countered that, so I’m not sure what you’re saying here.

Would you rather confront a rapist with a condom, a gun, or a phone?

Loaded question.

 
Flag Post

If you use a gun against someone wielding a gun one of you is going to be shot… Most burglars robbers ext. will have a chance of less then 50% of shooting you.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

Loaded question.

LOL. Did you mean that with a pun?

 
Flag Post

It was a great coincidence, so all the more reason to use it, no?

 
Flag Post
I doubt that.

Based on what? Kennedy completely laying into the solicitor general or the solicitor general being unable to make a coherent argument in support of Obamacare?

I’m aware of that, unfortunately writing it on paper does not make it so, the only thing that differentiates potential illegal immigrants from everyone else is their race and that is precisely how it was being used. Raids on Mexican businesses and so on.

So states shouldn’t help enforce federal law when the feds won’t? Interesting.

 
Flag Post

Based on what? Kennedy completely laying into the solicitor general or the solicitor general being unable to make a coherent argument in support of Obamacare?

Based on the trend of current interpretations of the supremecourt.

So states shouldn’t help enforce federal law when the feds won’t? Interesting.

They were not attempting to enforce federal law, they were attempting to supersede it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Redem:

Even those in his inner circle have told other countries (such as Egypt) to not use our Constitution to make theirs. I would ask why but it is pretty obvious that our Constitution is too restricting.

Prove it.

I actually find it believable that they told others to not use the American Constitution, but if then not because of the reason Jhco thinks is obvious(which does not make much sense unless your paranoid and/or gobble up and adhere to everything thats anti-obama).

The most obvious reason for anyone thats studied the theory of law/contract making(as how laws/contracts should be made so that its clear what they do), is that the US constitution in most parts is very poorly formulated. This is a criticism directed not at the ideals and ideas behind the constitution but the lacking clarity in the expression of those ideals.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thijser:

If you use a gun against someone wielding a gun one of you is going to be shot… Most burglars robbers ext. will have a chance of less then 50% of shooting you.

Robbers? You mean the guy who already has his weapon trained on you before you even notice that something is up? Either you worded that poorly or did not think enough.

 
Flag Post
Based on the trend of current interpretations of the supremecourt.

We shall see, most legal scholars seem to think it can go either way. Even liberal legal analysts don’t express nearly as much confidence as you have.

They were not attempting to enforce federal law, they were attempting to supersede it.

Damn them for deporting illegals!

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Redem:

Yes, Obama is a socialists with socialist tendencies when he pushes his agenda. His healthcare is socialist. It is not Constitutional and this will show true when it is ruled on by the Supreme Court. He sued Arizona for closing it’s boarders after his (and former) administrations refused to.

No he is not. His healthcare bill does not nationalise any part of any industry, it merely changes a few details (important details) of the regulations of the private healthcare industry.
It is constitutional. Arizona does not have the right to deal with international issues, nor to be racist pricks.

Obama has pushed legislation that has been proven not to work during the great depression. He has turned his back on the plight of the people in order to give the rich big chunks of taxpayer money.

No he hasn’t. Nor that. His stimulus was supported by the sane parts of the GOP, they just differ in how much of it should be in the form of tax breaks for the rich, as opposed to investments in infrastructure and so on.

Even those in his inner circle have told other countries (such as Egypt) to not use our Constitution to make theirs. I would ask why but it is pretty obvious that our Constitution is too restricting.

Prove it.

His rule thees last couple of years (since the 2010 election) has been by executive orders. The reason is because the democratic senators and house members are trying to distance themselves from him. they have seen what loyalty to Obama gained them…lost elections and Obama turning his back on them. He has thrown them to the dogs.

Utter rubbish.

You really don’t know that your country is safer to live in compared to ours as you are not a citizen of our country and really cannot make a judgment from reality.

Statistics are reality. Your country is one of the least safe of the developed nations.

Your gun control is a joke and yes your government begged ours to enter the war. It is a matter of record. Your government begged our people for their private firearms to arm their army and like fools we sent them our guns which they destroyed after the war.

Rubbish. The UK at the time had one of the largest weapons industries and armies in the world, larger than the US. What we needed from you was raw materials and food mostly, after the u-boat blockade started as the UK Navy was overstretched. We did not lack for small arms or ammunition for them (or larger arms for that matter). The idea that the UK was somehow desperate for rickety assorted small arms from the US is a myth. We had more guns than the US army had. You seem to be under the impression that the modern UK was anything like the UK was in WWII, this is not the case. At the time, the UK still had the world’s largest Empire, and they took and kept that through massive military might.
The US, on the other hand, was not even a player on the world’s military stage.

1. Yes, the federal government cannot dictate for instance, that we buy any product of any kind. That is just for starters. If you acatually read all 3000 pages I would confeed to you, but you are just blowing smoke about someting you don’t know about. It would eliminate all of the insurance companies and make it against the law to seek private healthcare.

Arizona, in fact any state, can pass laws that don’t supersede federal cintrols. Although the feds have jurisdiction with the laws they have, Arizona did not supercede federal law and they are perfectly legal to pass the law they did.

2. Oh yes he has. Why do you think onlly sane reps supported his bill? In other words, if reps don’t agree with the annointed one, they are insane? Give me a break!

3. No, this is utter truth. Luckily, the next president will be able to easily reverse his bullshit.

4. Statistics? LOL. Statistics can be manipulated, which your country has done to make it look like their illadvised banning has worked.

5.

The U.S. National Rifle Association collected and shipped large numbers of privately donated rifles for use by the Home Guard. These were collected and destroyed after the war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Guard_(United_Kingdom)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/650257/posts

 
Flag Post

1. Yes, the federal government cannot dictate for instance, that we buy any product of any kind. That is just for starters. If you acatually read all 3000 pages I would confeed to you, but you are just blowing smoke about someting you don’t know about.

Sure it can.

It would eliminate all of the insurance companies and make it against the law to seek private healthcare.

What the hell are you talking about? No it won’t.

Although the feds have jurisdiction with the laws they have, Arizona did not supercede federal law and they are perfectly legal to pass the law they did.

Nope, they have no power at all to override the federal government’s border control policy. Moreover, the federal government had not failed in their duty.

4. Statistics? LOL. Statistics can be manipulated, which your country has done to make it look like their illadvised banning has worked.

Prove it. Shouldn’t be hard.

The U.S. National Rifle Association collected and shipped large numbers of privately donated rifles for use by the Home Guard. These were collected and destroyed after the war.

Uh-huh, I’ll take the word of “free republic”, a totally neutral and not at all biased site that has no history of lies, slander or making shit up. Totally!

Besides that, the home guard was not the army, they were short on weapons only because the obvious priority was given to the actual army. They played no part whatsoever in the war.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JohnnyBeGood:
Originally posted by thijser:

If you use a gun against someone wielding a gun one of you is going to be shot… Most burglars robbers ext. will have a chance of less then 50% of shooting you.

Robbers? You mean the guy who already has his weapon trained on you before you even notice that something is up? Either you worded that poorly or did not think enough.

Poorly worded they have a chance of less then 50% if you don’t try to shoot them but probably more then 50% if you do.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Redem:

The U.S. National Rifle Association collected and shipped large numbers of privately donated rifles for use by the Home Guard. These were collected and destroyed after the war.

Uh-huh, I’ll take the word of “free republic”, a totally neutral and not at all biased site that has no history of lies, slander or making shit up. Totally!

Besides that, the home guard was not the army, they were short on weapons only because the obvious priority was given to the actual army. They played no part whatsoever in the war.

Not just because of priority of the actual army, but because the government and military did not want the Home Guard. They could have armed and trained them a lot quicker if they wanted too. They did not because, the Home Guard was seen as problem maker(for many and partially very good reasons).

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Redem:

1. Yes, the federal government cannot dictate for instance, that we buy any product of any kind. That is just for starters. If you acatually read all 3000 pages I would confeed to you, but you are just blowing smoke about someting you don’t know about.

Sure it can.

It would eliminate all of the insurance companies and make it against the law to seek private healthcare.

What the hell are you talking about? No it won’t.

Although the feds have jurisdiction with the laws they have, Arizona did not supercede federal law and they are perfectly legal to pass the law they did.

Nope, they have no power at all to override the federal government’s border control policy. Moreover, the federal government had not failed in their duty.

4. Statistics? LOL. Statistics can be manipulated, which your country has done to make it look like their illadvised banning has worked.

Prove it. Shouldn’t be hard.

The U.S. National Rifle Association collected and shipped large numbers of privately donated rifles for use by the Home Guard. These were collected and destroyed after the war.

Uh-huh, I’ll take the word of “free republic”, a totally neutral and not at all biased site that has no history of lies, slander or making shit up. Totally!

Besides that, the home guard was not the army, they were short on weapons only because the obvious priority was given to the actual army. They played no part whatsoever in the war.

1. No, it cannot dictate that citizens buy a certain product. You seem to lack a certain knowledge of the makeup of our government by the founding fathers. Not to worry, the Supreme Court will figure it out for you.

2. Obama’s healthcare boondoggle. It eliminates the medical insurance business. Of course, you can close your eyes to it, but it won’t change the facts.

3. Wow! I cannot believe the lack of knowledge you are arguing with. The states do, I repeat, do have jurisdiction over their boarders. Arizona did not override federal jurisdiction, they just restated what the laws were and took action to implement them. Again, the Supreme Court will decide on this in a couple of months.

4. Why don’t you prove me wrong.

5. Uh, that quote was from your favorite source, Wikipedia. The Free Republic was just an extra link I threw in there to collaborate it. Why is it so hard for you to accept a part of history that is fact? The home guard was called to fight eventually. Yes, priority was given to the army, but our manufacturers over here were making rifles for the UK by the thousands to try and catch them up and allow them to arm your army.

Now let me be fair, our army was also short of weapons and when the contracts were filled for the UK, our military re-chambered the same rifles for 30-06 for our military. They were the M1917s. We chose to use the same design with slight modifications because our manufacturers were already tooled to make them and we needed expediency.

 
Flag Post

1. No, it cannot dictate that citizens buy a certain product. You seem to lack a certain knowledge of the makeup of our government by the founding fathers. Not to worry, the Supreme Court will figure it out for you.

5. Uh, that quote was from your favorite source, Wikipedia. The Free Republic was just an extra link I threw in there to collaborate it. Why is it so hard for you to accept a part of history that is fact? The home guard was called to fight eventually. Yes, priority was given to the army, but our manufacturers over here were making rifles for the UK by the thousands to try and catch them up and allow them to arm your army.

Now let me be fair, our army was also short of weapons and when the contracts were filled for the UK, our military re-chambered the same rifles for 30-06 for our military. They were the M1917s. We chose to use the same design with slight modifications because our manufacturers were already tooled to make them and we needed expediency.

1. Typical press coverage / analysis from this side of the pond indicates the court is likely (although not guaranteed) to side with the president… (example)

What might the court decide?

It could uphold the ACA, it could strike the law down, or the justices could do something in between, like upholding the law but declaring the “mandate” part unconstitutional. Whether the ACA can function without the “mandate” is the subject of a separate argument.

A final option would be to kick the whole thing into touch before the election – “the punt”, in US legal parlance. This ruling would find it is illegal under US law to review a tax before it comes into force (The Anti-Injunction Act), but would depend on a separate argument over whether the ACA, which comes into force in 2014, is indeed a tax.

What’s the likely outcome?

Dangerous making predictions, but the consensus is that the Supreme Court will probably uphold the law. The nine-member bench is split 50:50 between liberals and conservatives, but in the past healthcare is not an issue, like abortion, that has fallen along strict ideological lines.

Legal pundits also predict the Supreme Court, as the unelected portion of the US legislature, will be wary of being seen to meddle in the democratic process by striking the law down before the election.

It will, indeed, be interesting to see which way they vote.



5. :) I can find absolutely no reference to the Home Guard ever having fought anywhere… if you know of some these folk would probably like to know about it.

As you state, most of the arms issued to the Home Guard during WW2, which came from the US, were the Enfield US service rifle M1917 (P17), produced originally for US Army use in WW1. “Longmate gives the impression that the Americans generously cleared out their attic to help the embattled Brits, although, as we have seen, the American war reserve was maintained, and the Americans sold that which they could be persuaded to part with. More importantly, how can M1917 rifles be ‘ancient’, compared to the SMLE (1907), 86 P14 (1914), or Ross (1910) and what is a ‘cumbersome’ ‘Springfield 1917’, and how does it relate to a ‘light, handy and accurate Remington’?”. (An interesting Doctoral Thesis)

NB This does not preclude the possibility that some/many were donated… but I can’t find any substantive evidence thereof.

Addressing a point made earlier, by whoever it was, concerning ‘England and her allies begging the US to enter the war’… I’m sure there was diplomatic pressure exerted by all parties trying to persuade various countries to enter / refrain from entering the war… however, the US only declared war on Japan following the attack on Pearl Harbour.

Sure, you may of eventually been convinced to join the war in Europe at some point however it wasn’t necessary as Germany declared war on the US a few days after your D.o.W. against Japan.

 
Flag Post

Well donseptico, I won’t say they absolutely won’t, but keep in mind that Obama has insulted the court several times and his latest rant to them is that they don’t have the power to usurp him. Although they are not supposed to get involved politically, he has not made them allies of late.

I don’t know, that would be your history. I just know they begged us for our personal weapons and then instead of returning them like they promised, destroyed them. It left a bad taste in the our mouths toward the UK.

The UK wanted the US to enter the war badly and FDR wanted to join in but couldn’t get public sentiment on his side. It took Pearl Harbor for us to enter the war.

 
Flag Post

All invasion plans by Russia during the cold war always never had Texas in them.
This is because the citizens alone could repel their whole damned army.
And what did they use and train to use?
Firearms.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Goobler402:

All invasion plans by Russia during the cold war always never had Texas in them.
This is because the citizens alone could repel their whole damned army.
And what did they use and train to use?
Firearms.

I call bull.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheLoneLucas:
Originally posted by Goobler402:

All invasion plans by Russia during the cold war always never had Texas in them.
This is because the citizens alone could repel their whole damned army.
And what did they use and train to use?
Firearms.

I call bull.

Wait, you can understand what he’s saying?