“no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.”

page: 10
40
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Funny as there is more gun related deaths in other countries every day

en.wikipedia.org...

Maybe in some other third world countries....lol
Canada has WAY less gun related deaths. Do your homework. But that's not the point. Tell me, other than arming every woman man and child, is there any other (less stupid) thing that you as a country could do?
edit on 7-1-2013 by canucks555 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by canucks555
What does that have to do with anything???

It has everything to do with it. A nut job walking into a public place with a bolt action 270 is gonna do a hell of a lot less damage than a wack job with a Bushmaster and a massive clip. That, sir, is a fact.
edit on 7-1-2013 by canucks555 because: (no reason given)


I can get more shots off, accurately with a remmy 700 then most can with an AR15.
That sir is a fact.

I get it though.
Since YOU have deemed it not worth personally owning, and/or are afraid of it, then of course no one else should own it.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by canucks555
en.wikipedia.org...

Maybe in some other third world countries....lol

Oh, since it doesn't fit your narrative, then it isn't applicable.
www.justfacts.com... instead of relying on the famously always correct Wiki for your info.

Deaths are deaths.




Originally posted by canucks555
Canada has WAY less gun related deaths. Do your homework. But that's not the point.

That is nice, and what is your population in relation to the US?
What is your violent crime stats as compared to the US?
You and Canada still have your own problems. Maybe take care of your your own yard, before you knock on your neighbors door.



Originally posted by canucks555
Tell me, other than arming every woman man and child, is there any other (less stupid) thing that you as a country could do?

Because that is what has been put forward as the solution.
, Sure sure.
I do love the "off the deep end" response.

You seem to be very happy with being a Subject and all the extra hurdles and fees you have to go through to own a firearm.
You can keep it.
See, how easy it is?? I have the respect towards Canadians to allow you up there to have what ever Govt and Rules you want. I could care less.
Only an elitist snob would think they get to dictate to others what they should be doing.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman

Originally posted by canucks555
en.wikipedia.org...

Maybe in some other third world countries....lol

Oh, since it doesn't fit your narrative, then it isn't applicable.
www.justfacts.com... instead of relying on the famously always correct Wiki for your info.

Deaths are deaths.




Originally posted by canucks555
Canada has WAY less gun related deaths. Do your homework. But that's not the point.

That is nice, and what is your population in relation to the US?
What is your violent crime stats as compared to the US?
You and Canada still have your own problems. Maybe take care of your your own yard, before you knock on your neighbors door.



Originally posted by canucks555
Tell me, other than arming every woman man and child, is there any other (less stupid) thing that you as a country could do?

Because that is what has been put forward as the solution.
, Sure sure.
I do love the "off the deep end" response.

You seem to be very happy with being a Subject and all the extra hurdles and fees you have to go through to own a firearm.
You can keep it.
See, how easy it is?? I have the respect towards Canadians to allow you up there to have what ever Govt and Rules you want. I could care less.
Only an elitist snob would think they get to dictate to others what they should be doing.


Do you feel that there is no problem with gun violence in the US? Please don't deflect, we are talking about the US in this thread. I would really like to know if you feel there is a problem and if you do how do you propose to try and fix it.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Gargamel
 


reply to post by macman
 



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Was the 2nd Amendment kept purposely brief in order to continue generating the exact sort of disagreement we are witnessing all over the internets? Divide And Conquer has been the mainstay of winning wars throughout recorded history. Who exactly were the group of genius-type minds who came up with that vague excuse for legislation?

ps. I'm just imagining, way back when, and the USA's brightest and best decide they need to add legislation regarding people's rights to protect themselves from impending threats, be they rogue govt, military or other. The guy or guys assigned the task are sent away to carefully consider the way it needed to be presented, and eventually they come back with 27 words. Shouldn't they have been ridiculed out of their jobs, rather than be told "We just need to switch a comma or two."?
edit on 7-1-2013 by IvanAstikov because: because I can
edit on 7-1-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


It was kept simple, so as to not have it be muddied with incorrect translations of it.

A 10 year old can read it and say "It states all US citizens have the right to own a firearm".
It is simple and the way laws should be written.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   
So, why isn't the rest of the legal system simplified similarly? And, seriously, you'd be proud of a set of laws governing every aspect of US life that could be understood by a 10 yr old? Way to set your standards high.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
So, why isn't the rest of the legal system simplified similarly?

Because of do good Progressives.
It should be extremely simple, as the Founding Fathers set it up as such.


Originally posted by IvanAstikov
And, seriously, you'd be proud of a set of laws governing every aspect of US life that could be understood by a 10 yr old? Way to set your standards high.

Yes, because if a 10 year old can process it and understand it, everyone that can read can understand it.
I did not see where the correlation of complex laws is to just and right laws.

So simple a Caveman should be able to understand it.
edit on 7-1-2013 by macman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Double post
edit on 7-1-2013 by macman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 



So, it was dumbed down enough that a 10 yr old could understand the concept, from this :-



In the United States, the Bill of Rights is the term for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. These amendments explicitly limit the Federal government's powers, protecting the rights of the people by preventing Congress from abridging freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of religious worship, and the right to bear arms, preventing unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, and self-incrimination, and guaranteeing due process of law and a speedy public trial with an impartial jury. In addition, the Bill of Rights states that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," and reserves all powers not specifically granted to the Federal government to the citizenry or States. These amendments came into effect on December 15, 1791, when ratified by three-fourths of the States.


and you're actually proud of this amazing capability of your Founding Fathers? Where are the minutes from the meetings where these amendments were cobbled together? Did anyone among them have even the slightest misgiving about the "simplicity" of the law they were working on? Not a one raised an objection about say, "what if a rancher, farmer, etc, came upon an unrecovered cannon from the civil war, shall we let him keep it as long as he can find projectiles?" or any other thoughts on why having no conditions on such an important issue was considered the way forward?



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


I was with you until you started attacking Democrats.

You see, this is NOT a partisan problem.

Are we really moving toward a society that is so paranoid, that our answer is to simply arm everyone?

How stupid is that?

There's no reason why people should be so afraid of each other that they must carry assault weapons at all times.

And how many more children must die in school shootings before the gun rights people get the message? Don't say prayers, don't blame Democrats. Listen to the truth before your eyes.



posted on Jan, 7 2013 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by INDOMITABLE
 

really ? care to be specific or is generalization the best you can offer ?

no, you didn't ... but a piece of your wiki cut & paste did.
however, i missed it on the first read because the last sentence had me laughing tooooo hard


Members were encouraged to carry guns and to defend themselves against violence
but you're right, they were 'disarmed'


and, black crime was rampant in the 50s & 60s from coast to coast and long before the haze of the 70s.

"equal protection" ?? when did you mention that ?
ohhhh, i see it ... nvm ... nope, didn't stir me one bit, i agree.
although, the segway to specific religious groups didn't make any sense.

so, are we having a discussion or are you gonna continue attempting to pseudo-analyze me from your keyboard ? (rather poorly i might add)

if you read any of my posts, you would know i cannot view video and you offered no narrative.
sorry, but i can't discuss what i can't view or read.
when you made the comment to me (not the video poster) about the majority of AA being ANTI supporters is when you made it a race issue and i still find it an offensive statement, let alone false.
i got news for you ... there is no such thing as a Northern majority of black folk
... where in the world did you get that idea anyway ?
i haven't reviewed the most recent census details but i'm pretty sure the South still has a larger black population than the North (always has)
could your paintbrush get any bigger

fyi, my state is about to contain the 3rd highest population in the country ... the few hundred thousand you see, can't compare to the millions here

*6 million of whom are gun owners btw.

hmmmm, most densely populated you say ... would that be CA or TX ?
www.flgov.com...

a recent U.S. Census Survey reported that Florida experienced an influx of people moving into the state, highlighted by the New York-to-Florida migration, which led the nation
- snip -
we are at a 41-year low in our crime rate

i think your perceptions are slightly askew to say the least.

ahhh, after reading your last paragraph, i see says the blind woman ... you're a New Yorker ... why o'why is that not surprising
(well, you can thank your Communist/Socialist/Marxist leaders ... cause they're the ones who established your 'environment' and apparently those who are there are ok with it or they would change it)

since we've pegged NY as the "inspiration" for your commentary, how 'bout you step back and learn a few things, first ?


You did say you were old, so I am not going to take offense to the fact that you neither read, understood, nor addressed anything I wrote.

I didn't mention a North or South majority. hee hee. I said most lived around cities, in reference to you being in the "deep south", which usually means country, if I'm not mistaken. Are there no cities in the South? Miami and Atlanta would be considered a city and would be on my list along with Charlotte, Memphis, Houston, etc, etc. of course. lol This isn't the yanks vs. the confederacy so relax.

Also, to be clear, you responded to my post about race. I at no point, initiated this endless debate. You replied with a comment that I didn't know that history, etc, etc.

As far as crime in the 50's and 60's being rampant, what? Most black people were still segregated then, they were still working class and did not live in ghettos as they exist today. At that time blacks DID NOT make up the majority of prison inmates, the tide changed I believe in the 70's. Did black commit crimes back then, yes. Did they commit the majority of the crimes then, No. Most black people went to churches or mosques and were law abiding. That was when the country was still religious and before manufacturing left the cities. Afterwards came poverty, crime, drugs, etc. etc.

I'm not going to get too sarcastic since I do respect my elders. I said densely populated area, everyone knows the NE is the most densely populated area in the country. I can't see TX or CA fitting the bill since the states are so large. Nor did I mention that I was a NYer, even though I have a good view '
'

Unlike you, I actually READ what you write. I do not respond with dry humor and weak jabs at your intelligence, all the while not understanding a thing you said. Try to do the same. I'll make a few more points, just in case you've gotten this far, although doubtful.

I have spent 7 years below the Mason Dixon line, so my perceptions are hardly askew, but based purely on my experiences (esp. since Sandy Hook). Although my experience would hardly qualify as a great sample of the black population, I think the latest election shows that we still largely vote democratic.

Because of that I can pretty accurately extrapolate certain other things, especially since these views on guns are commonly held by my small sample of people who live both North and South (mainly city folks, I should add). I honestly don't have too much experience with country folk, white nor black.

If you consider that painting with a broad brush, then I'm guilty as charged, but I don't need statistics to tell me what black people think. All I would have to do is look at my Facebook feed. lol We're just gonna have to agree to disagree.

Also, I think you probably think all gun owners are for gun rights, while quite a few could be in favor of some gun control. I have no way of knowing whether black gun owners are mainly for or against gun control, but it would be false to assume that because they own a gun they are automatically for gun rights.
edit on 1/7/2013 by INDOMITABLE because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
So, it was dumbed down enough that a 10 yr old could understand the concept, from this :-


In the United States, the Bill of Rights is the term for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. These amendments explicitly limit the Federal government's powers, protecting the rights of the people by preventing Congress from abridging freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of religious worship, and the right to bear arms, preventing unreasonable search and seizure, cruel and unusual punishment, and self-incrimination, and guaranteeing due process of law and a speedy public trial with an impartial jury. In addition, the Bill of Rights states that "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," and reserves all powers not specifically granted to the Federal government to the citizenry or States. These amendments came into effect on December 15, 1791, when ratified by three-fourths of the States.


The Constitution was written so any US Citizen could read it and understand it plainly.
How and where it was bastardized into lawyer speak and double talk, is when the Progressives injected their BS into the realm.


Originally posted by IvanAstikov
and you're actually proud of this amazing capability of your Founding Fathers?

Yes, and if you don't see it, then you really don't understand OUR founding documents and people.


Originally posted by IvanAstikov
Where are the minutes from the meetings where these amendments were cobbled together? Did anyone among them have even the slightest misgiving about the "simplicity" of the law they were working on? Not a one raised an objection about say, "what if a rancher, farmer, etc, came upon an unrecovered cannon from the civil war, shall we let him keep it as long as he can find projectiles?" or any other thoughts on why having no conditions on such an important issue was considered the way forward?

What is needed for this?
If a farmer finds it, then they as per the 2nd Amendment, are allowed to own it (Past the whole finders keepers thing) and bear it.
Please, go and read the Federalist Papers, then come back.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
So, why isn't the rest of the legal system simplified similarly?
because too many BAR (British) lawyers are involved in writing the dang things.


And, seriously, you'd be proud of a set of laws governing every aspect of US life that could be understood by a 10 yr old? Way to set your standards high.
equality IS equality, isn't it ?
if a 5yr old can comprehend it, why should it be written so he/she couldn't ?

Jane met Sally ... is the same no matter how it took place.
Joe defended himself ... is also the same regardless how he did it.
see, so simple a 2yr old can understand
and why shouldn't it be ?



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 

instead of asking such silly questions, why don't you read them yourself ?
they're called the "Federalist Papers" and are available on numerous sources.

if you can comprehend language beyond "poor me", you'll find many of your answers within them.



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by INDOMITABLE
 

you're still mistaken, then and now.
your restricted, myopic view of this nation is what's wrong.

it's always been the yanks vs the confederates, why wouldn't it be?
this country WAS a Confederacy FIRST and FOREMOST.

perhaps if you understood the Articles of Confederation and their application, then maybe you'd understand why it still is yanks vs Confederates.

clearly, you don't or you wouldn't be spouting the nonsense you did.


As far as crime in the 50's and 60's being rampant, what? Most black people were still segregated then, they were still working class and did not live in ghettos as they exist today. At that time blacks DID NOT make up the majority of prison inmates, the tide changed I believe in the 70's. Did black commit crimes back then, yes. Did they commit the majority of the crimes then, No. Most black people went to churches or mosques and were law abiding. That was when the country was still religious and before manufacturing left the cities. Afterwards came poverty, crime, drugs, etc. etc

still don't know much about that history, do ya ?

yeah ok, if you believe it, then that's your problem, i'd suggest you make an effort to resolve it.

TX and CA are the most densely populated states of our Country (most ppl) ... the top 2 as a matter of fact. the NE doesn't even come close when you slap 10 states together. (excluding NY)
{now, if you're referring to 'densely' as in 'living on top of one another, yes there are a few states that have 'density' issues within them ... even here in FL}

you can be as disrespectful as you desire, it has no impact on me.
your youth is exemplary of your lack of understanding, that is no surprise.
however, your insistance that your lack of understanding creates some viable basis for argument is laughable.

and, if you have a 'good view' of NY, then you aren't even close to a densely populated area but you keep thinkin it ... that'll get ya far in life.


I do not respond with dry humor and weak jabs at your intelligence, all the while not understanding a thing you said. Try to do the same. I'll make a few more points, just in case you've gotten this far, although doubtful
so, now you claim someone else wrote your words ???
hmmmmm, interesting.

ooooooh, 7 whole years where, Virginia, NC or Maryland ?
if you think this last voting session was a "large turnout", you really have some weak impressions of the community as a whole.

not sure why you assume i'm 'country folk' unless you deem Tampa some kind of backwoods country
i was raised in the back-country of PA, but i'm certainly not foolish enough to live there today.

gun owners, (of all colors) have steadily been on the rise all the days of my life ... see any stats post 1950. only since 2001 have i witnessed such a rapid increase all due to the ramblings of one man, Obama ... the best salesman the civilian weapons industry has ever had.

your FB feed may or may not be legitimate.
the ppl feeding your feed may or may not be black ... how many of them do you know personally ?

i can tell you, in my neighborhood (in which i am the 'token' minority) you'd be laughed off the block.

quite a few gun owners, USED TO BE in favor of gun control ... even they are becoming a rare breed. about the only ones currently in favor of gun control have been victims of gun violence ... so, what does that tell ya ?
(it tells me, safety is a greater concern, not 'control')


but it would be false to assume that because they own a gun they are automatically for gun rights
it is frequently a fallacy of the oppressor to think others are less 'qualified'.
so, are you a gun owner or a gun oppressor ??

gun owners are always for gun rights.
gun oppressors buy them for themselves then dis'qualify' everyone else ... see Hitler's example.
which are you ?



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by IkNOwSTuff
 


And yeah Id rather be attacked by a bat or knife than a gun
in a free society, that's your prerogative.
i'd prefer the gunshot because i'm more likely to survive.
and all kinds of stats back up that opinion.

heck, when you compare the 'percentage of deployments', tazers kill a larger percent of ppl than guns.
edit on 8-1-2013 by Honor93 because: fix txt
edit on 8-1-2013 by Honor93 because: typo



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by macman
The Constitution was written so any US Citizen could read it and understand it plainly.
How and where it was bastardized into lawyer speak and double talk, is when the Progressives injected their BS into the realm.

Do you not think they could have understood adding a provision, such as "subject to periodic review"?



Yes, and if you don't see it, then you really don't understand OUR founding documents and people.

I'm trying too, but admit it's challenging.



Please, go and read the Federalist Papers, then come back.


Just read the first one. Do you think that's typical 10 yr old reading material? Or understandable by the average USian, even? How many US'ians would you estimate have read these papers?
edit on 8-1-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2013 @ 11:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


Yes but you also have a better chance of not being wounded at all/
Its easier to defend yourself or run away from a knife or bat than it is a gun



top topics
 
40
<< 7  8  9    11 >>

log in

join