64
   

Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

 
 
McTag
 
  2  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 10:40 am
@JPB,

Silence from the NRA, save for the fruitcake lobby, and sounds of stable doors slamming.
parados
 
  3  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 10:40 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:
Quote:
You do so every time you support a ban on assault weapons.


When did I do that? Oh.. wait.. that's your strawman showing up again. You seem to leave straw everywhere you go oralloy.


You cannot show a single instance of me ever using straw man tactics.

So, do you deny that you are calling for a ban on assault weapons?

Since you can't find an instance of me doing so, you are using a straw man. But keep trying to argue that you aren't. It only shows how out of touch with reality you are.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 10:47 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Let's take this one item at a time:

oralloy wrote:
It was just a straightforward statement of facts. The Constitution never conferred any "right" to own slaves. And it never conferred on men any "right" to be the gender that chose the government.


Why then do you suppose the constitution had to be amended in order for women to participate in the vote


It didn't. It could have been done by having the states change their laws.

The amendment was required to overrule the states who were refusing to change their laws.


But as you acknowledge, without the amendment, the individual states could deny the right of women to vote. (Only a few states granted women that right.) So...an amendment to the Constitution was necessary to insure they had the right to vote. By omission, the Constitution denied women the right to vote. Without that amendment…and absent the willingness of men in individual states to vote to give them the right…women WERE denied the right to vote. People considered this wrong...and actively worked and agitated to demand change in the document to insure the right of women to vote.

With that in mind, let’s go back to my original question:

At one point in our history, people “plotted” to give women the right to vote. (You certainly are free to consider that “to insure women had the right to vote.”)

Are you saying it is reasonable to characterize those people as “hating our freedom and plotting to assault the Constitution?”


No. There was no opposition to freedom. Nor was there any attempt to violate the Constitution.



Frank Apisa wrote:
The motivation for my question was your assertion that people championing change in the original document in the interests of gun legislation are people who hate our freedom and are “plotting to assault the Constitution.


Those people are planning to take our freedom away, and they are planing to do it by grievously violating our Constitutional rights.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 10:48 am
@elmister,

Welcome to A2K. Good to have another on the side of freedom.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 10:49 am
@RexRed,
Quote:
Consider gun duels were once a common way of settling disputes and now outlawed.


The gentleman we honor by placing his picture on the 20 dollars bill have a numbers of duels/killings under his belt and at the time when they was no longer legal..............

In fact the Hamilton/Burr duel was not legal and for a time we have a Vice President overseeing the Senate with both NY and NJ having outstanding murder warrants again him.
0 Replies
 
RexRed
 
  2  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 10:49 am
@oralloy,
RexRed wrote:
The same legislation that banned duels should give the courts precedence to also ban assault weapons


oralloy wrote:
It doesn't.


Not unless you are Dick Cheney...

RexRed wrote:
where citizens are once again taking the law into their own hands...


oralloy wrote:
Where are citizens taking the law into their own hands?


Umm Connecticut, Colorado, Arizona...
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 10:54 am
@JPB,
JPB wrote:
@all


http://able2know.org/topic/203766-29#post-5198646

http://able2know.org/topic/203766-29#post-5198648
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 10:54 am
@JPB,
Quote:
Dick's Sporting Goods says they have "suspended the sale of modern sporting rifles in all of our stores chainwide."

Welcome to the parent lobby.


Seem like a good time for those who disagree to email them with the information that their stores will not longer have their business.

Let see if the so call parent anti gun lobby can keep a sporting chain in business without the hunters.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 10:55 am
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:
that's an interesting approach when you consider that a lot of the "re-thinking" is coming from the Republican/conservative side


The alleged "rethinking" is wishfull thinking. Americans are not about to give up and let the Democrats destroy our Constitution.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 10:56 am
@oralloy,
Two more instances of hyperbole on your part, oralloy. Hard addiction to break.

Quote:
I'm not familiar with whatever argument he made, but we are not about to give up our freedom just because the Democrats hate the Constitution.


Quote:
Those people are planning to take our freedom away, and they are planing to do it by grievously violating our Constitutional rights.


Calm down. Give up on the hyperbole. There are reasonable arguments to be made that we will never legislate this problem away without all that nonsense. I've made them myself.

In response to my question, "Are you saying it is reasonable to characterize those people as “hating our freedom and plotting to assault the Constitution?”

...you said: "No. There was no opposition to freedom. Nor was there any attempt to violate the Constitution."

Well, the people you are calling haters of the Constitution are not attempting to "violate" it. They may be attempting to modify or change it in part...but that is exactly what those instances are.

You have got to get it...so why pretend that you do not?

Quote:
Those people are planning to take our freedom away, and they are planing to do it by grievously violating our Constitutional rights.


This is the second of the new bits of hyperbole. They are not doing that at all...they are attempting to modify the original document in light of how the world exists at this moment in time.

Really!
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 10:59 am
@Frank Apisa,
You're wasting your time, this topic always brings out the hysteria in Oralloy.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 11:07 am
@McTag,
McTag wrote:
save for the fruitcake lobby,


You may not like freedom and civil rights, but that does not justify childish name-calling against those who do value such things.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 11:09 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
oralloy wrote:
parados wrote:
oralloy wrote:
You do so every time you support a ban on assault weapons.


When did I do that? Oh.. wait.. that's your strawman showing up again. You seem to leave straw everywhere you go oralloy.


You cannot show a single instance of me ever using straw man tactics.

So, do you deny that you are calling for a ban on assault weapons?


Since you can't find an instance of me doing so,


Who says I can't? I just thought it was easier to straight out ask you for a statement of your views.

Your dodging the question speaks volumes.



parados wrote:
you are using a straw man.


Nope. I am just defending the truth like I always do.



parados wrote:
But keep trying to argue that you aren't.


Thank you. I will indeed continue to defend the truth.



parados wrote:
It only shows how out of touch with reality you are.


Defending the truth is hardly a sign of being out of touch with reality.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 11:10 am
@RexRed,
RexRed wrote:
oralloy wrote:
RexRed wrote:
The same legislation that banned duels should give the courts precedence to also ban assault weapons


It doesn't.


Not unless you are Dick Cheney...


Dick Cheney has nothing to do with it. Banning harmless cosmetic features like pistol grips would violate Rational Basis Review (to say nothing of stricter standards of scrutiny).



RexRed wrote:
oralloy wrote:
RexRed wrote:
where citizens are once again taking the law into their own hands...


Where are citizens taking the law into their own hands?


Umm Connecticut, Colorado, Arizona...


Nonsense.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  3  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 11:10 am
@Frank Apisa,
NRA news states clearly that 72% to 82 % of NRA memebrs are doubsting that NRA is "for them" and is , as weve suspected, a shill for gun manufacturers. These majorities of members are now asking for reasonable gun laws that can work.

As a former NRA member, I was sickened by the stance that Moses took re: gun ownership at any cost. I think that the days of reasonable controls may be dawning.

BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 11:13 am
@revelette,
Quote:
Had the attacker been wielding a gun capable of killing people very quickly, the number of fatal casualties would have been much higher, which is the main point of the gun control advocates. Just simple common sense gun control and gun law enforcement.


Or a few gasoline containers along with a few road flares and so on...............

Killing small children trapped in small rooms does not take firepower of any kind.

Going to try to outlaw all means of killings under that kind of situation?
RexRed
 
  2  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 11:15 am
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/563597_570637459630137_853923846_n.jpg
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 11:18 am
@McTag,
Quote:
last night show that Britain has 1/300 th of the gun crime of America. A figure I thought would be lower. But we're working on it.


An anyone who wish to kill in the UK will not be able to do so without a firearm is that your silly idea?

Or that you are safer as a society for your national pistol team needing to go to other nations to practice?

Fear that some member of the team will go insane and used his pistol to kill if allow to practice in the UK?

Footnote ................................

I should not have stated that the UK is control by old women as my wife and I both are of an age that she could be consider an old woman and yet she is as must a supporter of gun rights as I happen to be.

Whatever weak knees fools are in charge surely do not share any blood line with Churchill or Kipling.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  5  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 11:20 am
@oralloy,
Quote:

My strength of character is what drives me to continue to tell the truth...

Then start telling the truth about what has become the weapon of choice for mass murderers, and why that has become the weapon of choice.

Then start telling the truth about the intention of the U.S. Constitution--which was not written for the sole purpose of insuring your unfettered "freedom".

Quote:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


For the government to turn a blind eye to the fact that "domestic tranquility" has been shattered by recurring mass murders, all done with particular types of firearms, which have taken place in our schools, places of worship, shopping malls, supermarkets, universities, workplaces, movie theaters, commuter trains, and now a public elementary school--all the venues of our daily lives--without attempting some better control and regulation of these means of mass destruction, would be an abandonment of one of it's primary obligations--to promote the general welfare.

And, just as the government limited what could be taken aboard planes in order to prevent hijackings and terrorist bombings, the government should limit, and better regulate, and better control, the specific types of weapons being used to effect these mass murders of innocent citizens in our daily venues, because these murders are also acts of terrorism which are enabled by these particular types of weapons.

The domestic tranquility of life was shattered in a Sandy Hook school last week--and the domestic tranquility of life was shattered for every other parent, and grandparent, and aunt and uncle in this nation, who now fear that the children they love might also meet the same fate of having their bodies rapidly riddled with bullets from this same type of easily attainable weapon.

Our children have the right to attend school, and houses of worship, and to visit movie theaters, and shopping malls and supermarkets, without fear of having their bodies pumped full of bullets from these weapons of choice of mass murderers.

Unfortunately, these two children, who will be buried today, were denied that right.

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/908828/thumbs/s-MATTIOLI-AND-REKOS-large.jpg?6
Quote:
Newtown will say goodbye to two more children today, as James Mattioli and Jessica Rekos are laid to rest.

The funerals for the 6-year-old boy and girl will be the third and fourth of 20 children's ceremonies scheduled after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Friday.

The Mattioli family will hold a mass at St. Rose of Lima Church at 10 a.m., and James will be buried at St. John's Roman Catholic Cemetery in Darien, Conn.

Funeral services for Jessica will be held at St. Rose of Lima at noon, and she will be buried at the church cemetery.

Mattioli is described by his parents Cindy and Mark as "an energetic, loving friend to all" who "loved baseball, basketball, swimming, arm wrestling and playing games on the iPad."

Rekos loved horses and was "a creative, beautiful little girl who loved playing with her little brothers, Travis and Shane," her parents, Rich and Krista, said in a statement. After seeing the movie Free Willy, Rekos became fond of doing "research" on orca whales and hoped to one day see a real one. In October, she realized that dream when she took a trip to SeaWorld.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/18/james-mattioli-jessica-rekos-funerals_n_2322016.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Chp-desktop%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2%26pLid%3D247137










BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 11:20 am
@RexRed,
Bloomberg.......No assault rifles and no large containers of soda either......

A leader to look up to..........
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 02:32:38