USA has the most armed citizenry; with Yemen a distant 2nd.

page: 3
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 30 2012 @ 11:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mr Tranny

Originally posted by newcovenant
This isn't true. None of it.



Nice concise retort. You just disproved it all with that well written statement.


I said>

How can you balance the death of children with the fear of government takeover?

You said>


There is no way to balance two mutually exclusive things.

Huh? wt..?
What is mutually exclusive?
What cancels the other out?
and it just gets worse from there. Besides...



It's all your opinion. You are entitled to it. I am not going to change your mind and facts don't seem to matter. You could have looked up this yourself instead of whining...."why don't you tell him...?" Why don't you try a simple search? Because it is easier to call someone a liar first... right? What great character you show. Cartoon.

www.bradycenter.org...


About 40% of gun sales are made without a background check to see if the purchaser is a criminal or otherwise prohibited from buying guns.



www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org...


In 1993, Congress passed the Brady Bill, named for President Reagan’s press secretary James Brady, who had been critically wounded in the assassination attempt on President Reagan.

The Brady Bill created a system of background checks that helped to make real the purpose of the 1968 law.

Unfortunately, incomplete records and loopholes in the law have stopped background checks from doing their job:

• The Columbine killers got around the system by using guns bought at a gun show from an unlicensed seller: no paperwork, no questions asked.

• At Virginia Tech, a killer got a gun he should have been prohibited from buying because his records were never reported to the FBI’s gun background check system.

• The shooter in Tucson also got a gun he should have been prohibited from buying because his records weren’t in the database – and then got a second gun because lax federal regulations frustrated the intent of the law.

Most murders that take place with illegal guns do not make the headlines.
Every day, 34 Americans are murdered with guns, and most of them are possessed illegally.



edit on 30-12-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 12:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant

Originally posted by Mr Tranny

Originally posted by newcovenant
This isn't true. None of it.



Nice concise retort. You just disproved it all with that well written statement.


I said>

How can you balance the death of children with the fear of government takeover?

You said>


There is no way to balance two mutually exclusive things.

Huh? wt..?
What is mutually exclusive?
What cancels the other out?
and it just gets worse from there. Besides...



It's all your opinion. You are entitled to it. I am not going to change your mind and facts don't seem to matter. You could have looked up this yourself instead of whining...."why don't you tell him...?" Why don't you try a simple search? Because it is easier to call someone a liar first... right? What great character you show. Cartoon.


It is impossible to put laws in place that will, in any reliable way, prevent such tragedy as this one where innocent children were killed, that will not make it possible for a government take control of the lives of it’s citizens. The point of regulation that would be required to achieve a reliable STOP of someone wanting to do that, would be far beyond the point where people would have no privacy or any other rights left. The rest of my post is the logic behind that statement.

Sometimes, things are so logically simple to the reader that references to prove that self evident relation is not needed. That is what level of logic I was trying to break it down to, so it would be self evident to everyone reading.

Lets take a look at one portion of my post you say “is not true”.

“The trampling of the 4th that you so decry is one of the very thing that helps the government to stop things like this from happening.”

The forth is the amendment against unreasonable search and seizure.

Is it safe to say ….
A government that does not respect the law against unreasonable search and seizure will find it a lot easier to find “items designed to hurt people” that people are hiding in their homes.

For, if they can search the place on a whim that he may be hiding something, then they will be more likely to search a place, and thusly, be a lot more likely to find something that someone may be building to kill people with.

Thusly, if the government tramples the fourth amendment, it will be easier for them to catch people that want to hurt people with things they are hiding.

If those statements are false, please tell me where that logic breaks down.

All my other statement in the post you called “false” are logically thought out just like that. If you see any failures in my logic, just point them out.

Just because you don’t like something, doesn’t mean it’s not true.



www.bradycenter.org...


About 40% of gun sales are made without a background check to see if the purchaser is a criminal or otherwise prohibited from buying guns.





How does that equate to….” 40 percent of gun sales are illegal”?
That statement is designed to draw alarm where none is warranted. They are saying that 40 percent of sales are person to person where no background checks are not required. Again, that does not mean that 40 percent are illegal.

Again, basic logical conflict. Something that is not regulated by law, can not be illegal.
Just because a group says that something is illegal, does not mean it is.
If they want to imply that it is, that is their problem. Their argument has just lost touch with logic and reality.

The problem I keep seeing in the gun control debate is people that are totally detached from logic. They are not thinking with their mind, they are thinking with their hearts. That is why I keep trying to interject hard logic into the debate, in an attempt to point out why their ideas can not work.

The problem is people are so used to being led around by the media, with their hearts, that they are unable to turn on their mind.



posted on Dec, 31 2012 @ 01:45 PM
link   


And if you...
reply to post by newcovenant
 
Yeah, I can say that until hell freezes over, and even then, it will probably never happen...
edit on 31-12-2012 by Propulsion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Propulsion


And if you...
reply to post by newcovenant
 
Yeah, I can say that until hell freezes over, and even then, it will probably never happen...
edit on 31-12-2012 by Propulsion because: (no reason given)


Not with that attitude, it won't.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   


Lets take a look at one portion of my post you say “is not true”. “The trampling of the 4th that you so decry is one of the very thing that helps the government to stop things like this from happening.” The forth is the amendment against unreasonable search and seizure. Is it safe to say …. A government that does not respect the law against unreasonable search and seizure will find it a lot easier to find “items designed to hurt people” that people are hiding in their homes. For, if they can search the place on a whim that he may be hiding something, then they will be more likely to search a place, and thusly, be a lot more likely to find something that someone may be building to kill people with. Thusly, if the government tramples the fourth amendment, it will be easier for them to catch people that want to hurt people with things they are hiding. If those statements are false, please tell me where that logic breaks down.
reply to post by Mr Tranny
 


Are you for or against government being able to come in and search peoples homes? I mean...I can't tell. This is a portion of the communication problem here. Maybe its me?
Searching homes (on a whim) I am against it. Unless you have pretty credible evidence and a court order. Where we have already lost 4th amend protections is in airports and being subjected to illegal searches and seizures of our possessions as if we are all guilty criminals. Although we ALLOW it because 2000 people were killed when planes crashed into buildings (how many INNOCENT people do guns kill?) we will not so quickly make the mistake of allowing our homes to be searched. Liberals are fighting against any thing that invades our privacy constantly. No but they WILL ask that guns be registered. It is a great crime deterrent. If you have a fear the gun can be traced back to you - you will take better care of the weapon. I think that is the logic and THAT is a no brainer.



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 05:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant
Are you for or against government being able to come in and search peoples homes? I mean...I can't tell. This is a portion of the communication problem here. Maybe its me?


I am doing neither. I not arguing for, or against. Just pointing out a basic causal (cause effect) relationship.

I am doing it to point out the blatant contradictions in your logic.

You said that people were overreacting about their second amendment rights getting trampled on. And you pointed out, and complained about where peoples forth amendment rights were already trampled on, and asking people why they were not getting upset about that.

You were saying that the constitution is already been undercut because of the violations of the forth amendment.

You was saying that restricting the second amendment would help stop things like these mass shootings from happening.

I pointed out where undercutting the forth amendment helps prevent mass murder too.

If you were logically coherent, you would support the same undercutting of both amendments to reduce the chance of mass murder happening. Or neither. Not just one.

You expect people to sit back and lump it, when the amendment they support is trampled on, but you get bent out of shape when the amendment you support is in the cross hairs.

I also pointed out where the second is actually more important than the fourth, because the second allows us to put force behind our rejection of an overbearing government. So, by supporting the undercutting of the second, you are actually undercutting all the amendments, because if all the other ones are trampled on, then the population will no longer have any way of fighting back.

You act like any infringement of the fourth is illegal, but you act like you can’t understand how the rest of us think the very same thing about the second. The very arguments you are using against the second amendment, can be used against the forth amendment, the amendment that you support. It is almost like you are arguing against yourself.

At best, you are being logically incoherent. At worst, you are being disingenuous.

You are saying that the government should control peoples firearms. The only way the government can control them is search for, and seize, ones that are illegal. While, at the same time, you are complaining about the government performing illegal search and seizure. That is what I mean by “double think”. Holding two totally contradictory ideas at the exact same time.
edit on 1-1-2013 by Mr Tranny because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 1 2013 @ 08:49 PM
link   
I have one more encapsulated thought to throw in here.

You complain about how they treat everyone like potential criminals by searching everyone. Yet, you say that everyone should be limited on what type of “dangerous devices” they may have, because of the positional for them to become a criminal.

Think real hard about that for a second.



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 06:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Mr Tranny
 


You were good up until this sentence but this is a lie. I never proposed restricting the 2nd amendment. It allows for regulation. That alone will not stop shootings from happening but enforcing the requirements already on the books will be one in a number of steps to help. I just don't understand people who are against that.


You was saying that restricting the second amendment would help stop things like these mass shootings from happening.
edit on 2-1-2013 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2013 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by Mr Tranny
 


You were good up until this sentence but this is a lie. I never proposed restricting the 2nd amendment. It allows for regulation. That alone will not stop shootings from happening but enforcing the requirements already on the books will be one in a number of steps to help. I just don't understand people who are against that.


You was saying that restricting the second amendment would help stop things like these mass shootings from happening.
edit on 2-1-2013 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)


Contradicting yourself in one sentence. A regulation that places limits on an activity, is by definition, a restriction.

You are implying that we need more regulations to limit what people can do with weapons, and what weapons they can own. That is by definition, stating that we need more restrictions on the second amendment.

Yes, we know that there are already restrictions on the second amendment, but that doesn’t mean that you can keep adding to those restrictions without limit. There is a certain point you reach where you start undercutting the most vital implications in the second amendment. Once you pass that point, then the amendment is basically a right in name only.

Beyond that.

Here is a quote from the first post you used to start this thread.


Originally posted by newcovenant
8 kids a day killed in a gun related death. I wonder what other freedoms cost that much to maintain? I am not saying it isn't worth it...or on second thought...maybe I am.


If a freedom isn’t worth it, then that would mean that you are bluntly implying that the freedom should be restricted.

And isn’t that the primary basis of this whole thread? The idea that America has TOO MANY GUNS!

If that isn’t what you started this thread to try to say, then what exactly are you trying to say with thread that says that the US has more guns than the terrorist capital of the world? While implying with a loaded question that the cost is too much.

Here is another quote from your first post.

Originally posted by newcovenant
Before you all jump on me I DON'T THINK THE PEOPLE OF THE US who own guns should be disarmed.
I think people NEED GUNS TO PROTECT THEMSELVES in many situations, and whether or not they do should be up to them but I think you can own a gun and still recognize a problem, and come together and help with solutions.


You said you didn’t want people disarmed, but you state there has to be a solution. What other type of solution to “too many arms” is their besides “having less arms” or “restricting arms” in some way? What is the only way you can have less arms, or restrict arms? That is by restricting the second amendment.

So you have stated that you do not want to disarm people, but you make it clear that you want to heavily restrict what type of weapon, and how may weapons they can have. If that is not wanting to restrict the second amendment, then I don’t know exactly what is.

If the government said we could only have one bolt action rifle, and one 25cal pistol per family. Would you honesty try to say that the government was not restricting our second amendment rights? Because with your logic, we would still be allowed to bear arms. Just not the arms we want to bear. So our second amendment rights are not actually “restricted” by your logic.

That means the only time you would admit that the second amendment was restricted, was if we were not allowed to bear arms at all. I am sorry but that is not the working definition of “restricted”. Not being allowed to bear arms would not mean that the second amendment was “restricted”, it would mean that it was eliminated.





new topics
top topics
 
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join