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

Originally posted by tenco1:

Originally posted by scoopolard:

Originally posted by Draconavin:

I can kill someone with my bare hands to.
People should be banned!
God damn it. Why aren’t people banned?

Eh…that’ll cost too much…concentration camps tend to eat up a lot of taxpayer dollars…couldn’t we just, ya know? Cut off everybody’s hands instead?

Why not just paralyze everyone from the neck-down?

Hmmmmmm. I guess that would work…but in what way could we go about doing this? Most methods I’m thinking of have a high probability of killing the individual.

LOL! Ok Crow…a little wild there fella.

no, you need to find a way to stealthily, not like throw a nuke at a person’s face, like put a poisoned bear trap on someone’s yard, etc

Originally posted by Draconavin:

I can kill someone with my bare hands to.
People should be banned!
God damn it. Why aren’t people banned?

On a serious note:
Civilians for the most part are untrained, or lack skill with proper use of a gun.
Most lack fundamentals like many women that are told by their patriarchal husbands, fathers, etc. that they need a gun in their purse to defend themselves on the unsafe streets where someone is sure to rape, rob, or accost them in same way. These sorts of individuals are very likely to not only harm themselves, but those around them.

Cops on the other hand are required to be somewhat proficient, and able to use guns as a last resort.
We aren’t lawless cowboys who shoot at everything and everyone like buffoons like you often tend to espouse as something you are proud of doing.

What you want a gun for is for an imaginary demon that will never show it’s face in your lifetime unless you avidly seek it. Then this is of your own doing, and no one is to blame, but yourself.

I trained all of my kids in the use of a firearm, both handguns and rifles. There are a lot of newbie’s in the fraternity right now because of the Obama scare, but they are at the shooting ranges and getting instruction like they should be. Many of us older guys are teaching them as well. Guns are not magic or complicated to learn.

What cops are supposed to know and what they can get away with are two different things. Don’t rely exclusively on them for your protection.

I hope you are right that I never have to use my firearm for defense, but I would rather be prepared than waiting until a crime is commited to decide I need to take care of myself.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

Loaded question.

LOL. Did you mean that with a pun?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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).