joefromchicago
 
  4  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2012 11:36 am
@gungasnake,
Reported incidents of in-person vote fraud: 0
Level of conservative indignation: SEVERE!
"We must protect the integrity of our elections -- even one case of voter fraud is too many!"

Reported incidents of gun violence against children: Many
Level of conservative indignation: non-existent
"Cars kill more kids than guns. It's just something we have to learn to deal with."

Conservatives: protecting America's children from drive-by voters since 2001.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2012 01:30 pm
@parados,
It is as hard for me to believe that someone can be so stupid about guns as it is for me to believe that someone could shoot 6 and 7 year olds.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2012 01:44 pm
@RABEL222,
I suppose we could all just wear our own personal Patriot Bullet Defense Systems. Whenever anyone fires a gun, our personal system fires a bullet to meet an incoming bullet in midair protecting us at all times. Problem solved. Let anyone and everyone carry guns and shoot them as often as they want.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2012 01:52 pm
@H2O MAN,
Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5197991)
Frank, did you recently suffer a concussion?


Nope.

Quote:
Your comments on this subject make no sense, you seem to be quite emotional and irrational.


I don't think so...not at all. I think your response to what I wrote may fit that description, though.


Quote:
You want to invite evil whack-jobs to schools and other 'gun free zones' allowing
them to do what they're going to do without meeting much if any resistance.


Where does that come from?

What I said was: “Amazing. Another one claiming if only there were more guns...there'd be less shooting.

What are you people smoking?”
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2012 02:33 pm
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

Foofie, at least you are trying to offer a layer of protection, but an active shooter shooting blindly at sheeple that are also blind is probably not a a good thing.

Training and arming several responsible adults for each and every school will deter evil and if need be, these armed adults can put evil down right there, right now.


I forgot to add, the device I envision would also have an alarm, perhaps silent, and first responders would be able to "see" the perpetrator with protective eyewear. My point is that with a magazine clip, a perpetrator can kill many people, before any armed adult arrives, so there is a need to negate the fact that a clip can allow a person to shoot many people in ten seconds, or so. Plus, a perpetrator would likely shoot the person with the most likelihood of being armed, first. So, have armed grannies. They would never be suspected of being armed?

parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Dec, 2012 03:08 pm
@Foofie,
Quote:
I forgot to add, the device I envision would also have an alarm, perhaps silent, and first responders would be able to "see" the perpetrator with protective eyewear.

What you envision about vision is not something that anyone can see happening in the near future. Light doesn't act in such a way that you can reasonably stop it.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 06:38 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
Absolutely stupid analogy.


Not really. It does a great job of illustrating that the freedom haters don't care about saving lives.

The only reason they attack our Constitution is because they hate our freedom. (The 9/11 attackers hated our freedom too).



MontereyJack wrote:
Water never intentionally tries to drown anyone.


And guns never intentionally try to shoot anyone.

However, murderers can always use water to drown their victims.



MontereyJack wrote:
On the other hand, people have worked incessantly to make driving safer, the cars more protective and better regulated, and the drivers better regulated as welland more competent, for the last century. None of those things have happened with guns.


Yes they have.



MontereyJack wrote:
The gun extremists kick and scream at any such attempt.


That's because your attempts are almost never about making things better. All you're really trying to do is violate civil rights.

Of course we're going to oppose your attempts to violate our civil rights.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 06:41 am
@raprap,
raprap wrote:
This is possibly the dumbest 'strawman' I've ever heard. It is so dumb that I would recommend that anyone proposing such a 'strawman' should have themselves immediately tested for heavy metal poisoning because their mental capacity is severely lacking.

That would include you Ganja.

Rap


In other words, he effectively undercut the fallacies you based your position on, and you have nothing to counter with, so you are reacting with childish name-calling.
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 08:00 am
@oralloy,
Wrongo Oralloy----The car and water, like most tools, although dangerous if misused have beneficial applications if used correctly.

A firearm, handguns and large capacity wanna-be assault rifles, are not used used as tools. They have only one use--to be dangerous.

It is a stupid strawman. One that is so obvious, you'd have to be a dumb as a box of GunjaSnaKKKes not to see it immediately.

BTW buckaroo, I own several firearms (shotguns, rifles & handguns --both smokeless and black powder) but I store them and their ammunition in separate secure locations, just like my father (retired career military) and my grandfathers (both avid hunters) taught me to minimize their hazard.

As for home protection strawman --I have a far more effective method, an early puppy alarm and response.

Rap
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 08:39 am
@raprap,
raprap wrote:
Wrongo Oralloy----The car and water, like most tools, although dangerous if misused have beneficial applications if used correctly.


Guns are also tools that have beneficial applications when used correctly.



raprap wrote:
A firearm, handguns and large capacity wanna-be assault rifles, are not used used as tools.


Yes they are. Stop making things up.



raprap wrote:
They have only one use--to be dangerous.


That does not change the reality that they are tools with beneficial applications when used correctly.



raprap wrote:
It is a stupid strawman.


No, it is a useful illustration that saving lives is not your real agenda. You just hate the Constitution.



raprap wrote:
One that is so obvious, you'd have to be a dumb as a box of GunjaSnaKKKes not to see it immediately.


I recognize that you are trying to defend a factually baseless position (certainly not an easy task), but engaging in childish name-calling does not actually help you.



raprap wrote:
As for home protection strawman --I have a far more effective method, an early puppy alarm and response.


Home protection is not a strawman. It is a legitimate activity that is guaranteed by that Constitution that you hate so much.
raprap
 
  2  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 09:03 am
@oralloy,
OK binky. Hammer a nail with your handgun.

Name me one object that was constructed with a firearm and I'll cede my argument that a forearm is NOT a tool--else you are just defending a stupid strawman.

BTW your strawman that I hate the constitution is equally fallacious.

Rap
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 09:52 am
@oralloy,
Quote:

Home protection is not a strawman. It is a legitimate activity that is guaranteed by that Constitution that you hate so much.

Now that's funny oralloy. On another thread you were claiming that the Constitution never granted rights to own slaves even though those were specifically taken away and now you claim there is somehow a right of home protection in the Constitution? Can you tell us where that is? Right next to the right to privacy perhaps?
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 10:19 am
@raprap,
raprap wrote:
Name me one object that was constructed with a firearm and I'll cede my argument that a forearm is NOT a tool


As if something were required to be able to construct things before it counted as a tool?



raprap wrote:
BTW your strawman that I hate the constitution is equally fallacious.


If you didn't hate the Constitution, you would not be erupting in a shower of name-calling whenever anyone suggests that it is wrong to violate people's civil rights.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 10:20 am
@parados,
parados wrote:
Now that's funny oralloy. On another thread you were claiming that the Constitution never granted rights to own slaves even though those were specifically taken away and now you claim there is somehow a right of home protection in the Constitution? Can you tell us where that is? Right next to the right to privacy perhaps?


The Ninth Amendment protects our right to keep a gun in the home to defend ourselves, and also to carry a gun when we go about in public.
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 10:45 am
@oralloy,
Where exactly in the US Constitution does it prevent me from calling you, GanjaSnaKKKe, or anyone else that makes a moronic claim a moron?

As for a tool being a tool, Here's a question for you (one I asked a local Judge BTW). I have a carry permit, I also have a 44 Remington Black Powder replica that I usually carry in a left hand western holster on a pistol belt. On the right side of this pistol belt I carry a 14 inch scheathed Bowie knife.

If I were to wear this belt in public on a crowded street and were stopped by a cop, which of these items is legal? Which of these items is more likely to be used as a constructive tool?

Rap
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 11:03 am
@oralloy,
So then you agree that the ninth also grants the right to own slaves (which was later taken away by an amendment) and for white men to vote.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 12:33 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
So then you agree that the ninth also grants the right to own slaves (which was later taken away by an amendment) and for white men to vote.


Er, no.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 03:23 pm
@oralloy,
Why is that? Are you saying women have a constitutional right to vote but white men don't?
raprap
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 07:06 pm
@oralloy,
Er, Oraboy, are you saying the ninth, gives the Feds the right to prohibit alcohol to the states and shortly change their mind?

As for the second, a reading of the second yields the potential to allow US citizens the opportunity to possess individual small thermonuclear devices (as long as these devices were registered).

Rap
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Dec, 2012 07:45 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Why is that?


Because it doesn't.



parados wrote:
Are you saying women have a constitutional right to vote but white men don't?


No.
 

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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/15/2021 at 05:35:47