Why do the liberal Democrats want to take guns away from Americans? page 217

Originally posted by jhco50:

donseptico, you are becoming almost as prolific in text as Karma. Whew! I have explained this many times and I’m sure you have seen it. The 2nd Amendment is part of the first ten amendments called the Bill of Rights. These are inalienable rights (they are called god given rights, rights every human being has.) These are rights our government cannot access, although they would love to. What is happening is our government writes laws that try to limit these rights. Our forefathers new our government would try to become more and more powerful and took precautions. You will never see our 2nd Amendment right go unless our government completely takes over and our Constitution is burned.

Well yes, it’s called having a conversation / addressing the points and questions raised therein.

And there’s nothing in any of the reading I’ve been doing that says the 2nd amendment could not be repealed nor replaced. I know you raise it later, but in an effort to keep the ‘wall of text’ down, I haven’t said anything like ‘you should give up your constitution’… nor have I said ‘it will change’… ALL I said is that it can be changed, by due process, to better reflect the world in which we live (for example).

I also added, mainly for the benefit of clarity, that while it can change it probably wouldn’t… and why did I even raise this? Your almost rabid insistence that ‘any form of regulation was the first step to an outright ban’… as a ban would only be possible by removing the 2nd – which we agree isn’t going to happen.

As I bought this bit forward… your constitution mainly unchanged for 250 years? Really? I’m sure all the blacks, women, 18 year olds, etc who are no longer enslaved, can now vote, etc… for example, would disagree. Nothing has been removed? Umm, prohibition was repealed (ok, only one thing, but there’s precedent).

Different country, different people. Obviously, your society likes a strong central government. I have tried to explain this several times and it just doesn’t seem to get through. We do not shoot on site. We have laws we follow just like the police are supposed to. If you are not in fear of your live, deadly force is not called for. I don’t know how many ways I can explain this.

Different countries, different people… yes… and as I illustrated, and you seem to have ignored completely, within any given country people with different views… different from mine, different from yours!

I didn’t say you, or anyone else does shoot on sight. It is, however, an opinion that has been expressed in this and other threads by certain people and seemed a perfectly reasonable example of how I/we could both want to be more like your country (less gun control) and not like you (the section of your society that have repeatedly espoused that opinion) at the same time.

It would take too long to explain how to get a hearing in front of the supreme court.

But there is a process… so IF the government’s done something unconstitutional start the process. Let the court decide if they’ve acted illegally or if you’re barking up the wrong tree.

Our misfits, I mean minority, wishes to change our country into something we aren’t. This makes them wrong. The majority like our country as it is. If the minority managed to become a majority America would no longer be.

(Our misfits, I mean minority, wishes to change our country into something we aren’t.) The minority wishes to change our country from how I believe it should be. The majority like our country as it is (Excellent news, the majority are in favour of universal healthcare, etc). (If the minority became the majority America would no longer be) “I’m scared of change.” – there fixed it for you.

Bad news for you, everything changes… sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse depending on your opinion. Oh and congratulations, you gave me a real chuckle as I pictured America imploding and disappearing from the planet on the theoretical day the minority opinion becomes mainstream (my first thought when you said America ceases to be).

And here I am making a wall of text just like you and Karma. Sigh……..

Yes, congratulations you’re having a conversation!

Originally posted by jhco50:

You know, I wonder if my mother could get one? I don’t know. I do know our government is paying for phones to give to those on welfare.

Wow. Are you deaf? There is no “welfare phone”. See posts right above yours.

Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

Originally posted by jhco50:

You know, I wonder if my mother could get one? I don’t know. I do know our government is paying for phones to give to those on welfare.

Wow. Are you deaf? There is no “welfare phone”. See posts right above yours.

Actually there is. As per Ketsy’s link we have established that it does exist, and was brought in by that great liberal mind, Ronald Reagan. They have been in existence since 1984, and have continued up to the present day. It’s just that modern ones take the form of a cheaper cellphone than an actual landline. Saves the program money that way.

The whole point is to give those at the bottom end of welfare, access to a phone to jobhunt, make appointments over the phone – like a hairdressers, and to be able to call 911 in an emergency.

They are severely limited. Those who are issued them, are given 70 minutes airtime a month. When it is gone, it is gone. That should be sufficient time to make as many calls as are necessary for job hunting and personal presentation. If they are using that time to yak to their friends, then yes they are abusing the system, but once they hit the end of those 70 minutes, the line falls silent and they have to wait till next month.

Short of monitoring everyone’s calls – which is a violation of their rights – there is no real way to determine if they are using the devices responsibly or not.

As an aside, Jhco’s mother can claim one – if she can convince the welfare department that she is active, seeking employment and cannot afford a phone of her own. They then pass her details on to the telecom firm, and the firm issue a limited phone called a Lifeline.

Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

Originally posted by jhco50:

You know, I wonder if my mother could get one? I don’t know. I do know our government is paying for phones to give to those on welfare.

Wow. Are you deaf? There is no “welfare phone”. See posts right above yours.

No, he’s much worse than “deaf”.
He has the horrid capacity to hear exactly what he wants//needs to in order to feed his ravinous bigotry for all things he disagrees with….so it would appear from the many issues he presents on this forum. It must be a living hell to be afraid of the bogeyman.

Is there a reason you can’t discuss the subject, old fella?

Originally posted by jhco50:

Is there a reason you can’t discuss the subject, old fella?

I’m happy to do so. I just thought the “subject” was guns….NOT, “welfare telephones”.

Since that “bogeyman” of yours was pretty much SHOT (lol…get the pun) down, I thought to present the germane conclusion as to how the scenario usually goes here.

NOW, shall we go back to GUNS….
OR, shall we continue to discuss all the “ills-of-liberalism” as the black conspiracy behind efforts for gun CONTROLS, old fella?

BUT, in lieu of discussing guns for awhile—after all, we are on pg. 217—let’s do discuss “social ills”. Tell me, just what do YOU so HATE Obama, welfare ppl, Gays, abortion, etc…..all things that really truly “rub ya the wrong way”? I mean, not preferring them for your self is one thing. Even not seeing them as being “good” for others & society as a whole is understandable. BUT, why such heated animosity over things which ya really have little-2-absolutely-no-control over? THAT seems a little “odd” to me.

BTW, ya’ve NEVER made a good case for why Gays shouldn’t have EQUAL rights to LEGAL marriage. Wanna start there? Or, shall we just go back to making huge circles w/ our “gun talk”? Either way, I’m good.

I luv watching how deftly YOU avoid an actual answer to challenges to YOUR: Give in an inch and they will take a mile….on this “regulations” thing.

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Originally posted by Twilight_Ninja:

Originally posted by jhco50:

You know, I wonder if my mother could get one? I don’t know. I do know our government is paying for phones to give to those on welfare.

Wow. Are you deaf? There is no “welfare phone”. See posts right above yours.

Actually there is. As per Ketsy’s link we have established that it does exist, and was brought in by that great liberal mind, Ronald Reagan. They have been in existence since 1984, and have continued up to the present day. It’s just that modern ones take the form of a cheaper cellphone than an actual landline. Saves the program money that way.

I’ll clarify—I’m aware there is some type of subsidy (I’m familiar with the “Lifeline” landline program myself), I just wanted to dispel this myth that there are state of the art iPhones given out to welfare recipients. I was on welfare, so I know; that level of service is just not true.

Well, at least by ‘was’, welfare did its job.

They offer the bare minimum only. Most likely the cellphone version of lifeline is the cheapest phone on the market. Or the cheapest they can get in bulk. Everything I look at says only basic services are available.

Originally posted by karmakoolkid:

Originally posted by jhco50:

Is there a reason you can’t discuss the subject, old fella?

I’m happy to do so. I just thought the “subject” was guns….NOT, “welfare telephones”.

Since that “bogeyman” of yours was pretty much SHOT (lol…get the pun) down, I thought to present the germane conclusion as to how the scenario usually goes here.

NOW, shall we go back to GUNS….
OR, shall we continue to discuss all the “ills-of-liberalism” as the black conspiracy behind efforts for gun CONTROLS, old fella?

BUT, in lieu of discussing guns for awhile—after all, we are on pg. 217—let’s do discuss “social ills”. Tell me, just what do YOU so HATE Obama, welfare ppl, Gays, abortion, etc…..all things that really truly “rub ya the wrong way”? I mean, not preferring them for your self is one thing. Even not seeing them as being “good” for others & society as a whole is understandable. BUT, why such heated animosity over things which ya really have little-2-absolutely-no-control over? THAT seems a little “odd” to me.

BTW, ya’ve NEVER made a good case for why Gays shouldn’t have EQUAL rights to LEGAL marriage. Wanna start there? Or, shall we just go back to making huge circles w/ our “gun talk”? Either way, I’m good.

I luv watching how deftly YOU avoid an actual answer to challenges to YOUR: Give in an inch and they will take a mile….on this “regulations” thing.

I shall respond old one (hey, you are older than I am). :) You are right, we are way off topic and I would just as soon get back on subject. Yes, I got the pun and it was good. Let’s go back to guns. We can take the ills of liberalism to the presidential election thread.

Just when I thought you were going to align with the subject, you tilted. Come on man?! Oh, alright. Yes gays, abortion, illegal influx of non-US people, and too many social programs rub me the wrong way. Karma, we are on a game site and although this is supposedly serious discussion, nothing but an outpouring of opinions surface here, The meat of the problem comes when it is time for the citizen to speak…either with their vote or attending meetings on legislation that affects what they believe and hold dear. But, let’s have a go at it just this once.

The gay lifestyle is abnormal. There is no other way to put it. They are a very small minority who wish to be part of the majority, but with their rules. Rather than accept themselves as who they are, they want the majority to accept them as their equals. This in itself is fine, they should be accepted as human beings, even with their lifestyles. The problem comes in when they can’t accept the normal rights of all Americans, including them. Our constitution covers them the same as it covers everyone else. But certain traditions and the perks that come with those traditions are not theirs to have. Religion is the basis of marriages. A newly married couple is accepted by their God and the church as man and wife. This has always been in this country. This is our tradition from our countrys inception. This is something very few are willing to sacrifice in order to please a small, and I stress very small, minority.

I understand they want to be accepted by the church as normal, but to do that our religious institutions have to turn their backs on their beliefs. This would be the deterioration of the religious institution. People are not going to accept this. I also understand gays feel this is a right they don’t have. It is a right (privilege) they will not get. Our constitution, says there will be no religion established by our government. This and the fact that our government has made a point to infer a separation of church and the state. for them to turn around and mandate to the church gay marriage would be an embarrassment to them. You know as well as I, they won’t do that.

So gays go to state governments to push the agenda they want, even though the people have said no. Yet states, in order to look like they care, try to pass this agenda. But even if it gets through, will the people accept the legislation pushed on them? Probably not. Let’s face it, gays are not making a lot of points with their glaring displays to the public.

So let’s stop calling marriage a legal right as it isn’t a right, but a privilege. Now, can we get back on the gun subject. This is my favorite thread you know.

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator

for them to turn around and mandate to the church gay marriage would be an embarrassment to them.

This is where you are incorrect. LGBT and rational people are wanting for the STATE to recognise same-sex marriage, not RELIGION. The STATE.

Our constitution, says there will be no religion established by our government.

Yes, so why are we adhering to the discriminating views of RELIGION and not ignoring them since the STATE should ignore religion in this sense? They are in seek of the STATE legalising their love; RELIGION cannot legalise their love nor should it have an opinion, because of the First Amendment.

You know as well as I, they won’t do that.

Actually, more and more countries and states are legalising same-sex marriage. My guess on this issue is that all states will have legalised it by 2030, except Mississippi and a few other openly homophobic ones. Then the country will make it federal.

Does this remind you of anything? Oh, slavery, which Mississippi illegalised in 1995. 1995. Nineteen ninety-five—that’s right.

But wait, the Bible is in favour of slavery. Same thing here with the killing of homosexuals. There is no difference at all. Same issues with miscegenation—where yet again, religious conservatives thought it would destroy the institution of marriage and all it stands for.

Also, let me ask you this: why does the government have a right to dictate people’s personal lives? This is the totalitarianism you despise, and not the liberty you promote. Legalising same-sex marriage is having the state no longer care about marriage, because it is a PERSONAL thing, not a government event. Legalising same-sex marriage is having people be in liberty, and it does not affect your life whatsoever.

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator

Karma, would you please go start a new thread or bring back the original?

Originally posted by jhco50:

Karma, would you please go start a new thread or bring back the original?

Interesting how you say that once your point about same-sex marriage has been defeated.

Also, I am not KarmaKoolKid. You and DumbObamaVoters need to stop trolling.

Originally posted by DumbObamaVoters:

Heads up jhco50 and other conservatives reading this, don’t respond to JaumeBG without first reading what he said about Republicans in the thread he created.

The word satire seems to not be in your vocabulary; nevertheless, Republicans do openly legislate homophobia, mysogyny, etc.

My point has not been defeated, except in your mind. If you aren’t Karma, you could be his twin.

Well, if you cannot make a rational argument against my point, then you are admitting to defeat.

Having a separation of church and state leads to having same-sex marriage. Legalising same-sex marriage does what? It tells the people that the state is not following the morality or immorality of any particular religion. Right now the Congress is conveying that it is a Christian nation as it does not want same-sex marriage at the federal level. Congress is adhering to Christian morality, and therefore not following the First Amendment. Conservatives dislike government, yet they like government to interfere with people’s relationships here.

And please stop trolling. No, I am not Karma. I came here ages before he did and we live in different parts of the world. You are aware or can access information that allows you to know that just a click away. Yet here you are trolling. This is Serious Discussion, not Off-Topic; just because you disagree with someone you cannot use ad hominem. That is not a discussion, that is a shouting contest.

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator

Originally posted by JaumeBG:

This is Serious Discussion, not Off-Topic; just because you disagree with someone you cannot use ad hominem. That is not a discussion, that is a shouting contest.

He will; he always does. It means he doesn’t have to address the points raised by the other poster. Most of us now post to point his flaws out to others, not to argue with him directly.

Originally posted by jhco50:

You had no point, you just babbled on about gays in a thread about firearms. Really, who is the troll here?

Well, I did look your profile up and you are a 17 year old kid who thinks he knows all there is to know about the world, but really doesn’t.

Wow, there’s some really “interesting” things above this post,,,
but, being short on time, I’ll only address this bit-0-shit.

Indeed, jake-o, the “kid” has EXCELLENT points. I truly wish deeply that I had his astuteness when I was his age. And, YOUR “hyperblolization” of his being a “know it all” is just sickeningly base & crass. BUT, such is what ya usually do when your feet are held to the fire and ya can’t find your asbestos shoes.

As far as his “babbling on” (nice to see ya adding that to “ranting”) in a firearms thread goes, wasn’t it YOU who jumped the track w/ YOUR welfare diatribe (phones)? I gave ya the option of returning to the topic OR: “NOW, shall we go back to GUNS….
OR, shall we continue to discuss all the “ills-of-liberalism” as the black conspiracy behind efforts for gun CONTROLS, old fella?”

THEN, ya procede to RANT on about Gays. THEN, upon having YOUR ideology on them challenged….YOU did your typical avoidance by calling “off-topic-foul”….AFTER ya had your say. OR, in other words, simply closing discussion on an issue w/ the attitude of: I’m right…ergo, no need for further discussion. Adding: “Karma, would you please go start a new thread or bring back the original?” I’ll respond to YOUR rant later.

vika pretty much explains it w/ the simple:

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Originally posted by JaumeBG:

This is Serious Discussion, not Off-Topic; just because you disagree with someone you cannot use ad hominem. That is not a discussion, that is a shouting contest.

He will; he always does. It means he doesn’t have to address the points raised by the other poster. Most of us now post to point his flaws out to others, not to argue with him directly.

NOW, still…after 217 pages of talk of guns (barring some new development of gun “violence”), we’ve pretty much covered all aspects of those shitty liberals wanting to go door-2-door, collecting EVERY SINGLE LAST GUN on the planet. So, we could do as I suggested: ..shall we continue to discuss ALL the “ills-of-liberalism” as the black conspiracy behind efforts for gun CONTROLS,…,,, or we can just agree w/ what donseptico said above (second from the top)? His post pretty much nails the whole issue surrounding the OT.

OH, ya can drop the crap about inferring that I have an alt. Just because there are many posters who,, to varying degrees,, have positions similar to mine….this doesn’t mean that your lame supposition (of my actually being any of those posters) is any real challenge to those positions. I’m pretty much comfortable w/ my assumption that each one of them & their opinions are all individuals….from different areas…not even knowing one another (how many of the conservatives here are ppl YOU have “invited”, jake-o?). I have never had an alt. I don’t see the point….other than to decieve,,,which is highly odious to me.

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator

Originally posted by JaumeBG:

Well, if you cannot make a rational argument against my point, then you are admitting to defeat.

Having a separation of church and state leads to having same-sex marriage. Legalising same-sex marriage does what? It tells the people that the state is not following the morality or immorality of any particular religion. Right now the Congress is conveying that it is a Christian nation as it does not want same-sex marriage at the federal level. Congress is adhering to Christian morality, and therefore not following the First Amendment. Conservatives dislike government, yet they like government to interfere with people’s relationships here.

You do know that even though there is to be no federal religion established, this country was founded on Christian values…right?

Karma, has it occurred to you that there are a lot of conservatives on this forum who actually think for themselves instead of listening to talking points, like someone I won’t mention? It is just these conservatives that scare the B’jebbies out of you and this is why you need to rant. You rant at me because you fear me and the power conservatives might yield against your buddy in the white house. You can’t rant at every conservative and since you fear conservatism you have picked me as the representative. Well, I am not the representative. I am just one of many. One of the many who are going to make a change in Washington. I’m sorry if this is scary to you, but Obama getting elected scared me. It’s not easy to watch your country fall before your eyes and then hear those who are happy to see it fall. You are one of those people who are willing to sacrifice America to another form of government to satisfy your lust to control the people and their lives through your social ideals.

“Fairy tales do not tell children that dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children that dragons can be killed.”

This post has been removed by an administrator or moderator

Originally posted by jhco50:

It’s not easy to watch your country fall before your eyes and then hear those who are happy to see it fall.

So true, Your own Country falling abart and all you hear is “YAY”. Makes me sick.

You do know that even though there is to be no federal religion established, this country was founded on Christian values…right?

Nope, it wasn’t. It was founded by those fleeing religious oppression in Europe, in England in particular. The First Amendment does exactly the opposite of that. The Treaty of Tripoli in 1797 further outlines it is not founded on Christian values:

“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” (source)

Here are some secular quotes from founding fathers (and even more):
“If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both there (England) and in New England.” — Benjamin Franklin

“The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes.” — John Adams

“In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot … they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose.” — Thomas Jefferson

“Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man.” — Thomas Jefferson

“Of all the tyrannies that affect mankind, tyranny in religion is the worst.” — Thomas Paine

As outlined in the Treaty of Tripoli and the way of governing by the founding fathers, we can thus conclude that you are incorrect in stating that the United States was founded on Christian values. The United States was in no way founded upon any religion, for which very reason the First Amendment and the Treaty of Tripoli were signed.

Moreover, even if you were correct, under the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment and the Treaty of Tripoli American legislators have no right to block or oppose same-sex marriage (or miscegenation, women being allowed to speak up, etc.) on the basis of its religious “immorality”, since the United States is not to adhere to any religious morality whatsoever.