57
   

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

 
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Nov, 2009 07:51 pm
@Ceili,
Probably too soon to really talk about this.

We don't know enough about what happened. How long things went on for. If there were guns around to stop him (soldiers do not carry hand guns). Who was in fact shot. What those people were doing. How many people were shooting.

How about we don't make this political yet.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Nov, 2009 08:54 pm
@maporsche,
What type of weapon was used?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Thu 5 Nov, 2009 09:24 pm
@Ceili,
Ceili wrote:
Quote:
11 dead, 31 injured before the trained gun carrying army and police,
military officers were able to kill the assailant in Fort Hood, Texas.
From this, we learn that the trained gun carrying army and police shoud surrender their guns ??
Thay way, the next time this happens NO ONE will be able to stand against the murderer.



Ceili wrote:
Quote:
Very, very sad.
Could somebody tell me how come he wasn't killed sooner?
Yes: it was because the victims were unarmed.



Ceili wrote:
Quote:
With all that training and all those guns on an army base,
people still couldn't react fast enough.
Yes; the victims shoud have been armed.




Ceili wrote:
Quote:
Another gun nut, a psychiatrist no less,
U KNOW that he was a "gun nut" ?
U have more information than I do.




Ceili wrote:
Quote:
wasn't locked up before hand and had several US issued weapons.
Maybe he did not go nuts before.



Ceili wrote:
Quote:
Makes you wonder who a body can trust...
No, No: I know the answer to THAT one:
u CAN trust anyone, but u shoud TRUST NO ONE.





David
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Nov, 2009 12:41 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Dave, you are very cute. But I just can't recall when anyone has ever called for disarming the police.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Nov, 2009 02:34 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

Dave, you are very cute.
But I just can't recall when anyone has ever called for disarming the police.
I like u too, but let 's keep it platonic.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2009 08:54 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Advocate wrote:

Dave, you are very cute.
But I just can't recall when anyone has ever called for disarming the police.
I like u too, but let 's keep it platonic.


I was referring to your writings.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2009 08:59 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Considering the shootings at TX and FL, is it your belief that the deranged have a right to bear arms? I gather that it is your view that there should be zero restrictions on the right to bear.
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Nov, 2009 01:32 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

Considering the shootings at TX and FL, is it your belief that the deranged have a right to bear arms? I gather that it is your view that there should be zero restrictions on the right to bear.


Be very clear about this. I have questioned this deranged ******* lunatic on this issue before, and his position is. ZERO RESTRICTIONS ON FIREARMS OWNERSHIP. I asked him clearly if he believed that 5-year-old's should be able to carry guns to school, and he unequivocally answered a resounding YES. If fuckwits like David ever get their way, your country, will be nothing but a war zone. It's always the case that the most vocal proponents of gun ownership are inevitably those who shouldn't be permitted in the same state as a gun. You're talking here about a very sick individual.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2009 03:33 am
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:
Quote:
Considering the shootings at TX and FL,
is it your belief that the deranged have a right to bear arms?
My vu is that the Constitutional right to bear arms applies to humans.
In my opinion,
a precondition for being deemed human is having the ability to reason.
Regardless of the fact that lunatics have human DNA,
thay cannot reason; on that basis, in my opinion,
the 2A does not apply to the deranged.

(I already know that many on this board will say that leaves me out.)


Advocate wrote:
Quote:
I gather that it is your view that there should be zero
restrictions on the right to bear.
See above. Regardless of the state of the law, or the law of the state, the deranged
and anyone else who desires sufficiently to possess anything
that he chooses to possess, probably WILL possess it
if he spends enuf time, effort and cash on his acquisitive desires.

That is how the world works.
I suggest ISOLATION of the deranged
and the criminally malicious, who have been convicted of crime.

U cannot prevent them from arming themselves; that is impossible,
but u can prevent them from having access to the decent people.
That is what I recommend.





David
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2009 11:58 am
@OmSigDAVID,
How do you know that the deranged do not have the ability to reason? How does one identity those in the deranged group? Where is it written that a precondition to being human is having the ability to reason?

You seem to be putting yourself into the deranged category, according to your own definitions.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2009 12:31 pm
Mark this day during which Dave admits that gun control is legal. He gives us some weasel wording about the deranged being not human, but the bottom line is that he backs gun control.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2009 12:33 pm
@Intrepid,
Intrepid wrote:

Quote:
How do you know that the deranged do not have the ability to reason?
How does one identity those in the deranged group?
From openly expressed delusions.





Quote:
Where is it written that a precondition to being human
is having the ability to reason?
On A2K: this thread.






Quote:
You seem to be putting yourself into the deranged category, according to your own definitions.
I already predicted that people like u woud say that.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2009 12:38 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

Mark this day during which Dave admits that gun control is legal.
He gives us some weasel wording about the deranged being not human,
but the bottom line is that he backs gun control.
OK; gun control is legal for non-humans.
I might even be convinced to extend it to politically correct people.





David
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2009 01:41 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Intrepid wrote:

Quote:
How do you know that the deranged do not have the ability to reason?
How does one identity those in the deranged group?
From openly expressed delusions.





Quote:
Where is it written that a precondition to being human
is having the ability to reason?
On A2K: this thread.






Quote:
You seem to be putting yourself into the deranged category, according to your own definitions.
I already predicted that people like u woud say that.





David


What is an openly expressed delusion? Are you expressing such now? Have you continuously expressed such in your weird gun obsession?

On this thread? Only expressed you! Are you the ultimate authority now?

Your prediction and the behaviour exhibited by you are two separate things. I based my remark on your displayed behaviour....not just out of hand.
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2009 01:45 pm
@maporsche,
I wonder whether the shooters were members of the NRA.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2009 08:51 pm
@Intrepid,

I can 't take u seriously, Richard; I try, but I just can 't.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2009 08:54 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

I wonder whether the shooters were members of the NRA.
If thay were blacks, woud u wonder whether thay were members of the NAACP ?

IF thay were Jews, woud u wonder whether thay were members of the Anti-Defamation League ?

If thay were farmers, woud u wonder whether thay were members of the Grange ?
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2009 09:36 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:


I can 't take u seriously, Richard; I try, but I just can 't.


Pity

I suppose your post above is to be taken seriously?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2009 09:53 pm
@Intrepid,
Intrepid wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:


I can 't take u seriously, Richard; I try, but I just can 't.


Pity

I suppose your post above is to be taken seriously?
Those are QUESTIONS, Richard; questions do not convay information.
He is free to answer them as he deems appropriate.

That 's a pretty red flower that u put next to your name.
What species is it ?





David
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2009 09:59 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
For the uniformed, such as yourself..... It is a poppy.

The poppy is a symbol of Remembrance Day which is November 11th. The remembrance of soldiers of past wars who died by the gun and other means.

In Flanders Fields
By: Lieutenant Colonel John McCrae, MD (1872-1918)
Canadian Army


In Flanders Fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 1.02 seconds on 02/24/2025 at 04:33:29