Outlawing guns in the US ...

[McRocket]

Re: It's as simple as this ...

Then stop commenting on how I abuse my wife.

Where exactly did I type that you 'abuse your wife'?

Yes you were, you have repeatedly told me of your inherited wealth and how you squandered it.

Where did I type that I inherited wealth?
I did not inherit wealth. I inherited some monies when my parents and grandparents died. I would not call it wealth.
I earned almost every penny I have ever had. Though, how I earned it is my business.
I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth. In fact, the house I grew up in was condemned and was torn down a few months after my mother died.

But your mother told you that women don't enjoy sex like men, and women can't enjoy sex like men.
And you have repeatedly stated that to myself and others, among other things.

Another lie. My mother never told me that. And I have never typed that.

Frankly, I don't give a fuck because you've been spewing untruths about how I must treat my wife and others.

Fine. Point out one untruth. Just one and I will apologize for it.

I didn't think for one minute you would honour my request, but I tried.
I have asked you to stop lieing about me. You will not. Fine.

Things were getting a little bored around here anyway...lol.

Have a nice day.

 

[McRocket]

Right here...

You typed this in reference to what I typed:

'Yep, the white man is to blame for all the problems on this planet.'

And this is what I typed:
'white men - the group more then any other that is responsible for most of the problems in the world today (and especially yesterday).'

I DID NOT type they were responsible for all the problems. Just most of the problems for today and especially for yesterday.

There is a big difference, though not obviously to you.

How about giving ol' whitey some credit for also contributing to a lot of the advancements in the world.

Why? Are you not already aware of them?
I never typed 'whitey' did not contribute allot of advancements. I assumed that was obvious.
I was commenting as to the harm white males have caused to the world in the past and in the present.
Something you seem to be rather touchy about.
I wonder why?

 

[McRocket]

Re: A Democracy with no rules ...

Judging others and racism are, IMHO, vastly different. I don't think I'm racist, because in my mind racists hate and they hate everyone of a specific race regardless.

From Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary:

racism
Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi-\
Function: noun
Date: 1933
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/racism

It's simple. If you think whites are superior to blacks (or any other race), then you ARE racist. If you don't, then I guess you are not.

But I am prejudice and I'm not afraid to admit that... which most people are afraid to admit even though most people pre-judge on a regular basis... they just won't admit it because they think pre-judging and racism are the same and most people don't want to think of themselves as racist. I think a lot of people confuse the two. And although I'm prejudice I'm still open minded enough to look past that and allow the person to prove me wrong. Sometimes they do... sometimes they don't.

Or maybe many people are not as prejudice as you.
Just a thought.

 

[McRocket]

Re: A Democracy with no rules ...

But I'm an engineer, I'm into solutions, not problems -- problems are just what other people create, I solve them.

I'm sure you do. You just tell them to 'get the fuck out'.
I admit, you are good at that.

Have a nice day.

 

[Member2019]

Re: A Democracy with no rules ...

I'm sure you do. You just tell them to 'get the fuck out'.
I admit, you are good at that.

Yes, if they are too ignorant to comprehend the basic knowledge required to understand it, yes.
Especially if they are telling me how I'm "wrong" and they are "right," like on hydrogen-powered fuel-cell vehicles being "the answer."
If they can't "take reality" then they can get the fuck out, instead of wasting everyone else's time on their politically-based, non-scientific reality.

 

[McRocket]

Re: A Democracy with no rules ...

Yes, if they are too ignorant to comprehend the basic knowledge required to understand it, yes.
Especially if they are telling me how I'm "wrong" and they are "right," like on hydrogen-powered fuel-cell vehicles being "the answer."
If they can't "take reality" then they can get the fuck out, instead of wasting everyone else's time on their politically-based, non-scientific reality.

You see, I don't consider the 'ignorant' a waste of time - so long as their hearts are in the right place.
After all, how will the ignorant ever stop becoming ignorant if no one is willing to let them stay and learn?

But like many things, you and I differ on this point as well.

 

[Member2019]

Re: A Democracy with no rules ...

You see, I don't consider the 'ignorant' a waste of time - so long as their hearts are in the right place.
After all, how will the ignorant ever stop becoming ignorant if no one is willing to let them stay and learn?

Here's the problem ...

I find ...
"so long as their hearts are in the right place"
and ...
"if no one is willing to let them stay and learn"

Are mutually exclusive in the majority of cases of the ignorant.
It's where the phrase, "bleeding heart liberal" comes from, because when you try to educate them, they fall back to their hearts.
It's also the main reason why I say "popular environmentalism" is actually a form of religion and belief, not actual education and knowledge.

Trust me, I've collected quite a number of discussions with non-engineers in my time.

 

[BlueBalls]

Unsubscribe from the thread if you don't want to take part in the discussion. nobody is forcing you to read it anymore. Go play and let the grown-ups talk.

:hatsoff:I may actually do that, thanks:thumbsup:

 

[McRocket]

Re: A Democracy with no rules ...

Here's the problem ...

I find ...
"so long as their hearts are in the right place"
and ...
"if no one is willing to let them stay and learn"

Are mutually exclusive in the majority of cases of the ignorant.
It's where the phrase, "bleeding heart liberal" comes from, because when you try to educate them, they fall back to their hearts.

And you were a teacher? A somewhat scary thought to me.

Trust me, I've collected quite a number of discussions with non-engineers in my time.

I mean no offense with this statement, I am merely typing what I think; but I trust almost no one - and certainly not you.

Have a nice day.

 

[Facetious]

I heard the biggest buncha cooked up bullshit this AM, via hourly radio news -

(Paraphrasing + / - a word or two):


"Deer Season opened yesterday only to endanger two motorists. A stray bullet apparently was fired from an unknown source penetrating a vehicles' window nearly missing a teenager . . . sigh

This is Barbara Booshit CBA News" ~

When have you EVER heard: "single mom apparently saved the life of herself and her young daughter from a fugitive with a violent personal criminal hustory . . . ."
N / A



I live my life healthily - I don't run 'round with questionable girls. I continue to take every reasonable precaution to the extent, such that, I will not acquire some regrettable communicable disease(s). We get one chance to live this life. For those young, potentially risque and defiant, Go Ahead With Your Lives - Do such with the best of judgment in mind. When a bit older / wiser, You WILL contemplate your past - What could /should have I done better: Two paths, You accept personal accountability or you will blame some other institution, person, device, drug etc.

Do not impede on one's personal lawful ability to shield / defend their lives and I won't preach that you not eat other mens cum out of the tag team twatty ! Do not directly enhance potential dangers into my life, I promise to reciprocate.

 

[Roughneck]

When have you EVER heard: "single mom apparently saved the life of herself and her young daughter from a fugitive with a violent personal criminal hustory . . . ."
N / A

I used to read about it.

If there was a local incident, I got to read about it. I read about it if folks used guns to commit crime... or if folks used guns in self-defense or to defend others against crime. I also read stories about alert citizens using their guns to protect others from rampaging animals - be it a rabid dog or an ostrich (yes, ostrich).


But that was when I was an older kid enthused about reading the newspaper to hear about the "news" - not "opinion" (we're talking the 40s-50s here people. Yes, I'm an old fart.)

cheers,

PS: Facetious - Have you taken a look at: Civilian Self Defense Blog? If you have not, I suggest you do so post haste.

If you have already, then I merely suggest that you start calling these "radio shows" and express your opinion and point out the relevant facts through media sources as highlighted so diligently by the folks on that there blog... Let your outrage be heard. Encourage others to do the same. Opinion on MSM is currently biased - each and every one of us needs to work towards restoring that balance.

 

[Friday on my mind]

I used to read about it.

If there was a local incident, I got to read about it. I read about it if folks used guns to commit crime... or if folks used guns in self-defense or to defend others against crime. I also read stories about alert citizens using their guns to protect others from rampaging animals - be it a rabid dog or an ostrich (yes, ostrich).


But that was when I was an older kid enthused about reading the newspaper to hear about the "news" - not "opinion" (we're talking the 40s-50s here people. Yes, I'm an old fart.)

cheers,

PS: Facetious - Have you taken a look at: Civilian Self Defense Blog? If you have not, I suggest you do so post haste.

If you have already, then I merely suggest that you start calling these "radio shows" and express your opinion and point out the relevant facts through media sources as highlighted so diligently by the folks on that there blog...

I have read those kinds of stories also.But while I have been a supporter of the 2nd amendment in these threads I think it does not help the cause to deny the truth of gun usage in the US.Guns are much more likely to used in the heat of the moment of a personal dispute such as family members shooting each other than all those other uses combined.It's a trade off of some carnage in return for liberty of gun ownership which the reasons for as put by the founders is something I support.And also this idea that guns are no more usefull in killing than a knife is also not true.As someone once said "god didn't make men equal,Colonel Colt did".Point is with a knife you need to be close to your victim which opens yourself to all kinds of things.Knife weilders have been over-powered and stabbed with their own knives,this is much less likely with guns.I can stand accross the room and put rounds into you,most can't throw knives that well lol

 

[Roughneck]

I think it does not help the cause to deny the truth of gun usage in the US.Guns are much more likely to used in the heat of the moment of a personal dispute such as family members shooting each other than all those other uses combined

Proof?

I've listed PLENTY of news information where ordinary citizens "use guns" in protection.

This does not include cases where a gun was merely "present" which served to deter crime.

It's a trade off of some carnage in return for liberty of gun ownership which the reasons for as put by the founders is something I support.

You have the "reasons" all wrong.

The founding father's wanted the people to be armed not so that "they could hunt" ... but because they could be "suitably armed to protect their rights and liberties from government".

As for the "trade of off carnage versus gun ownership liberty" - it's a patently false and illogical argument to make. Let us just take the words of James Madison (as understood from "Federalist Paper 46):

(James Madison) argued that a standing federal army could not be capable of conducting a coup to take over the nation. He estimated that based on the country's population at the time, a federal standing army could not field more than 25,000 - 30,000 men. He wrote:

"To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence."

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

(emphases mine)

And as an added argument, may I also present Thomas Jefferson:

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves in all cases to which they think themselves competent..., or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

And also this idea that guns are no more usefull in killing than a knife is also not true.As someone once said "god didn't make men equal,Colonel Colt did".Point is with a knife you need to be close to your victim which opens yourself to all kinds of things.Knife weilders have been over-powered and stabbed with their own knives,this is much less likely with guns.I can stand accross the room and put rounds into you,most can't throw knives that well lol

(emphasis mine) Good joke. You've obviously never been part of a military unit in the past 40 years....



cheers,

 

[Member2019]

I fear irresponsible, drunk people ...

Let's ban the booze! Statistics don't lie!
Especially those with guns (among cars, etc...) who are drunk.

Or maybe, just maybe, let's make it about "personal responsibility."
I have it, even at my worst, boy do I have it!

 

[Friday on my mind]

Proof?

I've listed PLENTY of news information where ordinary citizens "use guns" in protection.

This does not include cases where a gun was merely "present" which served to deter crime.

I did not dispute the stories you refered to.Is it really neccesary for me to prove and show stories of domestic disputes involving guns?

You have the "reasons" all wrong.

The founding father's wanted the people to be armed not so that "they could hunt" ... but because they could be "suitably armed to protect their rights and liberties from government".

No I believe the reasons are for the ones you mention here not about some hunting deal.Did I ever mention hunting,no I didn't.I think the founders gave the right as way for the populace to defend from tyranny as you show in their quotes.

As for the "trade of off carnage versus gun ownership liberty" - it's a patently false and illogical argument to make. Let us just take the words of James Madison (as understood from "Federalist Paper 46):

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Madison
"To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence."

(emphases mine)

And as an added argument, may I also present Thomas Jefferson:
Quote:
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves in all cases to which they think themselves competent..., or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824

Neitheir of thses quotes has anything to do with gun crime or usage beyong the principles of keeping tyranny in check.So neithier is a counter to my arguement that there is no doubt that gun rights are not all positive in the real world but that as I said before even so I support them.

(emphasis mine) Good joke. You've obviously never been part of a military unit in the past 40 years....

"I can stand accross the room and put rounds into you,most can't throw knives that well lol"

cheers,

Ok so what part of that is wrong?I can't shoot you from accross the room or most can't do the same with knives?

 

[Facetious]

Expressley For Those On the Fence :

The pretense has an obvious flaw: Any firearm, regardless of type, size, caliber, cost or appearance, can be, and is most often by far, used for legitimate purposes. Despite the powerful images cast by nightly news broadcasts and violence-oriented TV programs, guns of all sorts are put to good use far more often by the tens of millions of upstanding gun owners than they are misused by evil or irresponsible people. And despite protestations to the contrary by anti-gun groups, there is no gun or type of gun that criminals generally prefer.

Please Read More

^ Counter the material if you desire. (Govt. stats / links preferable)

We'll do RN ! :hatsoff:

 

[Friday on my mind]

Re: Expressley For Those On the Fence :

Please Read More

^ Counter the material if you desire. (Govt. stats / links preferable)

We'll do RN ! :hatsoff:

I will start with the link you provided above.A pistol club,not exactly an impartial source.From the link I have copied the following for some further analysis.

"Numbers
by Richard Ripley
While there were 28,163 gun deaths in 2000, only 776 were accidental. 16,586 were suicides, and 10,801 were murders. Deplorable as those numbers are, the one thing that you can say about suicides and homicides is that they are deliberate, not accidental. You can also guess that most of the homicides were related to criminal activity (drug dealing, etc), and not ordinary, everyday people 'losing their temper'. Suicides are usually caused by a profound despair that life isn't worth living. People get to that point and then decide how to do it, rather than seeing a gun and saying "Oh, a gun! I think I'll kill myself..."

In 2000, death by firearms weren't even in the Top 10 causes of death (in order: heart disease, cancer, stroke, respiratory disease, accident, diabetes, flu and pneumonia, Alzheimer's, Nephritis, and Septicemia). (source, CDC, http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html)

So where do the big numbers come from? Simple, add in suicides and homicides -- including the justifiable homicides (violent aggressors killed by police and private citizens defending innocent life). And to show how deadly guns are to children, count everyone under 19 years of age (sometimes even 24!) as a "child". The majority of the deaths in the "child" category then become 14-18 year olds in the drug business killing each other over money, merchandise, power, and turf.
*Some or all of this item was obtained from the NRA ILA web site."



Even your own site shows suicides as very prevelant is gun usage.In links I will provide later from Wik,it states 53% of all suicides are with a gun.And I love this line from the papargraph from your link "You can also guess that most of the homicides were related to criminal activity (drug dealing, etc), and not ordinary, everyday people 'losing their temper'".I can guess that they say or I can guess not also lol.Not a shred of facts to back up that claim just I can guess, from clearly biased source.Let me add of course most guns are not fired in any sort of violent incident,people hunting or shooting at the range is by far the most prevelant use of guns obviously.What I think we need to focus on is when guns are used in shooting's of other people or themselves as in suicides.


Here are the wik links which contain a lot of good material,including a study(which some do dispute not surprisingly) on how homes with guns were not safer than ones without.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Kellermann
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_us
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States

So again I think it is clear guns are much more likely to be used to shoot people you know or yourself than criminals or to be used by criminals.And again as a supporter of the right I think it is very unhelpfull to try to spin or slant the arguements in a way which deny the truth.You just provide ammo to gun ban advocates who can point out the distortion that there is no negatives to gun ownership.

 

[lazyfatboy]

i think guns should be banned, i live in the uk and like plenty of other people over here i dont understand why anyone would want a gun, ok banning wont stop all the crimainals or all the shootings but it will stop alot, we would have more shootings and more people dieing from guns if they were not banned in the uk, are these innocent people that get shot and killed not worth more than your right to own a gun? as for people saying guns dont kill peopel, well if most nutters didnt have guns then they wouldnt have the balls or the ability to kill people

 

[pathfinder]

ok banning wont stop all the crimainals or all the shootings but it will stop alot,

And you base that on what data?

 

[lazyfatboy]

And you base that on what data?

if they were banned then there would not be as many guns for people to own, then it would mostly be the serious criminals that would have a gun instead of anyone that wants to use their daddys gun to shoot someone that picked on them at school, just like here in the uk, dont get me wrong it does happen but not as often as it would if everyone could walk into a shop and buy a gun, but its pointless trying to put a point across because most americans dont care about anyone but themselfs, reading some of the comments on hear it quite clear that certain people just think fuck everyone else i want to own a gun, it makes me feel hard. Iv seen the pictures on the net with these dildos standing holding their guns thinking they look cool and hard, i can understand that people want to shoot targets and so on, or even people want them to protect their familys but as i said if guns were banned then there wouldnt be as many nutters running about with a gun rubbing against their cocks to worry about