{Video} Ron Paul Get A Very Important Message About Guns In 1989

reply to post by ThichHeaded


That's exactly what I am talking about!

At least our ancestors could survive without a grocery store!

Not so much now a days. But yep! We are just a fine example of stupidity!

reply to post by seeker1963


Women's rights, how's that for a start?

Originally posted by DaTroof
Women's rights, how's that for a start?

Depends on how you look at it

I've never seen women look at as nothing but a sex symbol more than these days compared to the past.
What's an empowered woman? Kim Kardashian?

What women do you hear about the most of these days?
Kim Kardashian that's who!
She made a sextape, became a yucky attention Seeker, and so on and so forth.

What else?

Originally posted by DaTroof

"If we sacrifice our liberty for safety we will lose both our liberties and our safety"

If we arm everyone, we lose both.
If we take guns away, we are both more free and more safe.

(your opinion) Only a paranoid demented old man would think otherwise.

Only a paranoid demented poster would disagree with his statement. (my opinion)

reply to post by MystikMushroom


CDC Facts.
www.cdc.gov...

You'll excuse me if I go with CDC peer reviewed data.

Health Effects: Children

In children, secondhand smoke causes the following:3

Ear infections
More frequent and severe asthma attacks
Respiratory symptoms (e.g., coughing, sneezing, shortness of breath)
Respiratory infections (i.e., bronchitis, pneumonia)
A greater risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS)


In children aged 18 months or younger, secondhand smoke exposure is responsible for—

an estimated 150,000–300,000 new cases of bronchitis and pneumonia annually, and
approximately 7,500–15,000 hospitalizations annually in the United States.4

Health Effects: Adults

In adults who have never smoked, secondhand smoke can cause heart disease and/or lung cancer.3
Heart Disease

For nonsmokers, breathing secondhand smoke has immediate harmful effects on the cardiovascular system that can increase the risk for heart attack. People who already have heart disease are at especially high risk.3,5
Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their heart disease risk by 25–30%.3
Secondhand smoke exposure causes an estimated 46,000 heart disease deaths annually among adult nonsmokers in the United States.6


Lung Cancer

Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their lung cancer risk by 20–30%.3
Secondhand smoke exposure causes an estimated 3,400 lung cancer deaths annually among adult nonsmokers in the United States.6

reply to post by DaTroof

Sigh.

Guns dont harm anyone else more than any other product: knives, bats, clubs etc.

As Dr. Paul said, the courts handle misconduct whether its with a gun, club, bat, vehicular homicide, medical mistake etc.

As long as people look to blame "something" other than personal responsibility, we will never come close to solving our societal problems.

Stripping the rights of the many over the actions of the few is nothing more than senseless bigotry.

Originally posted by grey580
CDC Facts.
www.cdc.gov...

You'll excuse me if I go with CDC peer reviewed data.

In children, secondhand smoke causes the following:3

I can attest to that! In my young and dumb days I smoked around my children. From the ages of birth to 3 years old my son was ALWAYS sick. He had a cold for a month and ended in the hospital under a tent because the oxygen in his blood was too low. I stupidly never attributed it to MY smoking because I smoked outside. But the reality is that it was on my clothes, I walked in the door exhaling, ran in with one real quick to grab something, etc, etc, etc. Though I didn't blow it in his face or lock him in the closet with me with no ventilation while I puffed like a freight train, he was ALWAYS sick...

How do I know it was the cigarettes???? When I quit smoking he hasn't gotten sick once. In 5 YEARS!! He hasn't had so much as a sniffle.

My loving, wouldn't hurt a fly (or let anyone else for that matter), amazing, smart as heck, compassionate, wonderful, baby was DYING because of my idiotic second hand smoke!!!! Hindsight 20/20. IDC what anyone says. Second hand smoke is just as bad as first in my opinion.

I smoke again now but you can bet your a$$ that I walk out to the edge of the fence, wash my hands and face and wear a jacket for EVERY puff so that I don't bring that to my babies again. Not their fault for my choice of my one vice.

As for guns... those posters that want to take the guns away... you want to CHOOSE for others if they should be allowed guns and how to live their lives?!

Pay their bills and support their families. Until then, let them make their OWN choices!

If someone comes out and commits a crime with a gun (as rare as that is with law-abiding citizens) then get on the jury and punish them! Not everyone, for a few idiots that can't follow the rules.

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by ThichHeaded

 

If 2nd grade is all you understand, then no wonder you fit in with the gun crowd. Intelligent people don't need killing devices in their society.

Here's someone from the unintelligent gun crowd.

reply to post by pslr2301


Kids get sick all the time when they're young. It could have been anything.

Look, all of the studies on second hand smoke are based on the premise that a non-smoker is right next to a smoker 24/7 for decades or more. Sure, the "results" aren't going to be good -- but you've set up your data collection specifically to get those kinds of results.

The fact of the matter is that these tests and studies done are done so with the expressed purpose of showing second hand smoke is harmfull. Don't just google or do a medline search for peer-reviewed abstracts -- read HOW the study was done. What were the parameters in the study? Were they even close to a realistic/real-world situation?

Second hand smoke is very much like the global warming scam. It's just bad science.

reply to post by MystikMushroom


I do understand that kids get sick all the time and I honestly haven't done much research on the smoking topic. I have so many topics that I do research... honestly, the smoking one just isn't at the top of my list. I just know from personal experience that he may not have had so many problems or been sick quite as often if I hadn't been ignorant of the effects it was having on him. This is coming from a smoker of a pack (ok, ok... a pack and a half) a day.

Because of the experience with my son I firmly believe that if I choose to do something harmful that MAY harm someone else that I need to at least try to take the opportunity to give them the choice to not have to partake in it. I.E. don't light up in someone's home or right on their porch, don't drink AND drive, etc..

Either way, if we are going to take away guns then it makes more sense to take away cigarettes, alcohol, hammers, etc. If we have to be padded from other people's (and our own) bad choices on a daily basis then let's go all out.

Guns don't generally pull their own triggers. Takes two to argue and all that jazz. I have a few (unloaded and locked) guns, they don't threaten me or anyone else sitting where I will likely never use them except for target practice and who has time?! Even if the kids did touch the guns they couldn't do anything with them. They know the guns kill and will this year be taken hunting where they have to (if they want to continue to target practice) kill, skin and ready a wild hog. This is both messy and a little morbid, but they will learn in an instant what a gun can do first hand.

All it takes is a little knowledge and common sense with the people involved. Guns are dangerous and anyone who owns one knows this. That is WHY they generally have to have a license to own one.

License holders are generally of a certain age, are law-abiding citizens (as verified by law enforcement with application), have submitted fingerprints and undergone background checks, have passed some sort of firearms training and know proper weapons handling, know the laws of the state they are in, and have paid fees for said training and for license. "No guns" disarms law-abiding customers while advertising a "safe working environment" for criminals.

If gun owners spoke reasonably like he did in that video, I think more people would side with them.

When gun owners shout madly about how the government is tyrannical, wants to take guns from cold dead hands, to install socialism.....well you get the point.

The fact is in a free society where people are allowed to express their opinions, there will always be those who want to get rid of guns. We are allowed differences in opinion. Insulting and attacking those who think we shouldn't have guns is only detrimental to your cause.
Heck, most times on this site when I point out how crazy gun owners are acting. I get attacked even though I'm pro-gun.


Speak calmly like he does in the video.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by DaTroof
Women's rights, how's that for a start?

Depends on how you look at it

I've never seen women look at as nothing but a sex symbol more than these days compared to the past.
What's an empowered woman? Kim Kardashian?

There's now more women going to college than men.

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by ThichHeaded

 

If 2nd grade is all you understand, then no wonder you fit in with the gun crowd. Intelligent people don't need killing devices in their society.

Here's someone from the unintelligent gun crowd.

I love it when gun grabbers have their own talking points get confronted by some of the most well known and peaceful revolutionaries.

Notice how datroof never came back.

Originally posted by eLPresidente

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by ThichHeaded

 

If 2nd grade is all you understand, then no wonder you fit in with the gun crowd. Intelligent people don't need killing devices in their society.

Here's someone from the unintelligent gun crowd.

I love it when gun grabbers have their own talking points get confronted by some of the most well known and peaceful revolutionaries.

Notice how datroof never came back.

Yep, I actually I looked for the perfect quote for a while, I may have found it.

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by ThichHeaded

 

If 2nd grade is all you understand, then no wonder you fit in with the gun crowd. Intelligent people don't need killing devices in their society.

Here's someone from the unintelligent gun crowd.

I'm sorry, but that quote is taken out of context. First the full quote is:

Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.

Ok...now you're thinking "Well, that still sounds like he is advocating gun ownership" and it sort of does, but why and where did he even say this. Well the answer is; he said it in a recruitment pamphlet for WW1 to enlist more Indians to fight FOR the British Empire and not AGAINST it. What he is saying is that the Brits should have let the Indians fight with them instead of not letting them carry arms. This guy expains it better....

These words come from a World War I recruitment pamphlet that Gandhi published in 1918, urging Indians to fight with their British colonial oppressors in the war, not against them. According to K.P. Nayar, chief diplomatic editor for The Telegraph in Calcutta, Gandhi saw “an opportunity for a political struggle against the colonial rulers and for the repeal of the unjust Arms Act,” not “for more Indians to have access to guns.” Peter Brock, a noted historian of nonviolence, wrote in his article “Gandhi’s Nonviolence and His War Service” that Gandhi “believed at that time (although he became more skeptical of this later on) that India could win equal partnership for itself within the British Empire if as large a number as possible of its able-bodied men volunteered to help the Empire, in one way or another, in times of need.” The British, that is, would regret passing the Arms Act because they’d discover Indians to be such valuable fellow soldiers.

At this time, Gandhi was still a British loyalist. He hoped to encourage the British to repeal the Arms Act and grant India Home Rule within the British Empire. In his autobiography, Gandhi quotes a letter he wrote to the viceroy of India during the war, in which he declared, “I would make India offer all her able-bodied sons as a sacrifice to the Empire at its critical moment, and I know that India, by this very act, would become the most favoured partner in the Empire … I write this because I love the English nation, and I wish to evoke in every Indian the loyalty of Englishmen.”

Gandhi wanted Indians to fight in World War I to prove themselves trustworthy with arms and fit for citizenship. He was advocating for appeasement of India’s colonial rulers, not independence from them. Later, Gandhi’s thinking on this subject would change dramatically, but when he did initiate a campaign for full independence from the British Empire, he advocated only nonviolent means of resistance.

Now with the full quote and context, you can see he isn't directly advocating private gun ownership, but rather saying the English will regret not utilizing the great resource of the Indian population in the war effort since they weren't considered "citizens" and therefore not able to use arms. The quote is actually about citizenship not private gun ownership.

Just wanted to clear that up.....OK...back to the debate.....

Originally posted by Connector

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty

Originally posted by DaTroof
reply to post by ThichHeaded

 

If 2nd grade is all you understand, then no wonder you fit in with the gun crowd. Intelligent people don't need killing devices in their society.

Here's someone from the unintelligent gun crowd.

I'm sorry, but that quote is taken out of context. First the full quote is:

Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest. If we want the Arms Act to be repealed, if we want to learn the use of arms, here is a golden opportunity. If the middle classes render voluntary help to Government in the hour of its trial, distrust will disappear, and the ban on possessing arms will be withdrawn.

Ok...now you're thinking "Well, that still sounds like he is advocating gun ownership" and it sort of does, but why and where did he even say this. Well the answer is; he said it in a recruitment pamphlet for WW1 to enlist more Indians to fight FOR the British Empire and not AGAINST it. What he is saying is that the Brits should have let the Indians fight with them instead of not letting them carry arms. This guy expains it better....

These words come from a World War I recruitment pamphlet that Gandhi published in 1918, urging Indians to fight with their British colonial oppressors in the war, not against them. According to K.P. Nayar, chief diplomatic editor for The Telegraph in Calcutta, Gandhi saw “an opportunity for a political struggle against the colonial rulers and for the repeal of the unjust Arms Act,” not “for more Indians to have access to guns.” Peter Brock, a noted historian of nonviolence, wrote in his article “Gandhi’s Nonviolence and His War Service” that Gandhi “believed at that time (although he became more skeptical of this later on) that India could win equal partnership for itself within the British Empire if as large a number as possible of its able-bodied men volunteered to help the Empire, in one way or another, in times of need.” The British, that is, would regret passing the Arms Act because they’d discover Indians to be such valuable fellow soldiers.

At this time, Gandhi was still a British loyalist. He hoped to encourage the British to repeal the Arms Act and grant India Home Rule within the British Empire. In his autobiography, Gandhi quotes a letter he wrote to the viceroy of India during the war, in which he declared, “I would make India offer all her able-bodied sons as a sacrifice to the Empire at its critical moment, and I know that India, by this very act, would become the most favoured partner in the Empire … I write this because I love the English nation, and I wish to evoke in every Indian the loyalty of Englishmen.”

Gandhi wanted Indians to fight in World War I to prove themselves trustworthy with arms and fit for citizenship. He was advocating for appeasement of India’s colonial rulers, not independence from them. Later, Gandhi’s thinking on this subject would change dramatically, but when he did initiate a campaign for full independence from the British Empire, he advocated only nonviolent means of resistance.

Now with the full quote and context, you can see he isn't directly advocating private gun ownership, but rather saying the English will regret not utilizing the great resource of the Indian population in the war effort since they weren't considered "citizens" and therefore not able to use arms. The quote is actually about citizenship not private gun ownership.

Just wanted to clear that up.....OK...back to the debate.....

edit on 10-3-2013 by Connector because: (no reason given)

Well I read the book then searched for the quote. The second piece of quoted text you send, was someone's opinion, from what you sent I have no idea whether he even in fact read the auto biography, the source you gave was " This Guy".

Also at no point in my first reply did I include any reference to private gun ownership, That was your take on my reply, which show's your thoughts were slanted in the begining, therefore your sources are probably slanted.

I in fact knew the quote was about war, but saw the irony of someone that is known for peace also provided a quote that was pro gun or violence.

reply to post by ModernAcademia


You obviously didn't understand what I wrote....
That was my point, gun laws don't negatively effect criminals....because criminals don't follow gun laws and the gun laws only effect the people obeying them. What part of that wasn't clear?