33
   

The Gun Fight in Washington. Your opinons?

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2013 01:55 pm
@H2O MAN,
Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5235226)
Sure you are, you knowingly champion all that's wrong.


Like I said...if you've got the stomach for it...let's get it on.

Empty comments like "you knowingly champion all that's wrong" is something a sissy would say. Man up...and let's actually discuss whatever is bothering you.
Thomas
 
  3  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2013 01:58 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
By your reasoning, there is no Constitutional right to freedom of speech on TV, radio, nor does freedom of the press apply to the product of electric printing presses.

Only if you fail to pay attention to my reasoning. By my actual reasoning, bearing arms and speaking freely are both fundamental rights under the US Constitution. Because they are fundamental rights, they are limited, not by technology, but by compelling public interests, which any limits on fundamental rights must be narrowly tailored to achieve. (In other words, limits on fundamental rights must pass strict scrutiny.)

In the case of free speech, this means there are some things you can't say. You cannot falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theater. You cannot libel people. You cannot agitate to overthrow the government if that creates a clear and present danger of mayhem.. . . You're a lawyer, you know the caselaw.

Likewise, in the case of gun rights, there are some guns you can't shoot. The role of technology in determining which guns these are is merely indirect: At some point of technology, the danger to public safety outruns their benefit in self-defense. It is the government's compelling interest in public safety, not gun technology per se, that justifies limits on gun rights.
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2013 02:08 pm
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:



In the case of free speech, this means there are some things you can't say. You cannot falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theater. You cannot libel people. You cannot agitate to overthrow the government if that creates a clear and present danger of mayhem.. . .


How does your reasoning work when applied to free speech being used to falsely accuse and libel the T.E.A. Party?
And how does your reasoning work when Obama and his liberal media agitate Americans to attack non-liberals?
0 Replies
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  2  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2013 02:14 pm
@Frank Apisa,
You're just feeding the troll again, Frank, and rising to his bait.
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2013 02:17 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Frank is the troll, and you know it.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2013 02:18 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5235231)
You're just feeding the troll again, Frank, and rising to his bait.


I guess! But hope springs eternal--and I keep thinking he may actually be able to engage in a reasonable way.

Fact is, we'd better all be hoping in this direction, because the schism is getting way, way out of hand.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2013 02:19 pm
@H2O MAN,
Quote:
Re: Lustig Andrei (Post 5235245)
Frank is the troll, and you know it.


I am not a troll...any more than I am not ignorant, H2O.

Why not stop this nonsense and actually have a conversation?

Afraid (to use your word)?
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2013 02:20 pm
@Frank Apisa,


Sure you are... why don't you take a seat. Go ahead, just sit down.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2013 02:22 pm
@H2O MAN,
Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5235257)


Sure you are... why don't you take a seat. Go ahead, just sit down.


I'm sitting. What next? Are you ever going to grow the cajones to actually debate me on anything?
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2013 02:26 pm
@Frank Apisa,


Why don't you take a seat right over there?
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2013 02:33 pm
@H2O MAN,
It's no sweat H2O.

Quote:
When he realizes he cannot logically refute a post...he bails on it by calling the other person "stupid" or an "idiot."


Frank wrote in answer to one of my posts--

Quote:
A bit pretentious, wouldn't you say if you were being truthful, Spendius?


So all you need do is say is "a bit pretentious" instead of "stupid" or "idiot". I suppose "a lot pretentious" will be just as acceptable.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2013 02:35 pm
@H2O MAN,
Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5235266)


Why don't you take a seat right over there?


Okay...I'm sitting "right over there."

Now...how about the discussion? Still not enough spine for it?

Fine...I'll start with one of your favorites:

Your notion that more guns would result in fewer shootings and less violence is belied by the fact that America already has more guns as a percentage of population BY FAR than any country in the world—yet we have more gun violence and overall violence than any first-world, industrialized country.

If more guns equals fewer shootings and violence…how do you account for that?
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2013 02:42 pm
@Frank Apisa,


If what you say is true then why don't you and your Obama liberals come up with a plan to take guns out of the hands of criminals?

Do you not have the spine to face armed criminals?
Do you not have the stomach to go after the heart of the problem?

It's not the gun, it's not the number of bullets and it's not how fast you can shoot those bullets, no it's not any of these.

It's the criminal element that doesn't abide by the laws, any laws.
Do you have the balls to face the real problem or are you going to take the
sissy way out and focus your attention on disarming law abiding Americans?

You will take the sissy way out in 5, 4, 3, 2, ...

Frank Apisa
 
  3  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2013 03:08 pm
@H2O MAN,
Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5235287)

If what you say is true then why don't you and your Obama liberals come up with a plan to take guns out of the hands of criminals?

I am not a liberal. You want to talk to liberals about that…talk to them.


Quote:
Do you not have the spine to face armed criminals?


These days, armed decent, law-abiding citizens present the greater problem as far as I am concerned. They are the ones who are committing these mass shootings.


Quote:
Do you not have the stomach to go after the heart of the problem?


The “problem”, H2O is that we are much too violent a people. Taking all guns away from people like you is an unrealistic dream—disarming criminals is just as much an unrealistic dream. And most of the violence that troubles me is not caused by “criminals” (they will always disrupt society), but by people who up until the time of their attacks, were decent, law-abiding citizens.

So that is what I am addressing.

If you have been reading what I have actually been writing, you must realize by now that I do not think disarming the American public is feasible…and in no way am I advocating it. I am for strengthening laws that limit gun ownership (as far as is humanly possible) to people who are responsible individuals. We will never get it perfect; never even close to perfect...but if we are intelligent, we should try.

And you really shouldn't question whether I have “spine” and ‘stomach” while using an alias and hiding where you are from, H2O.

Quote:
It's not the gun, it's not the number of bullets and it's not how fast you can shoot those bullets, no it's not any of these.


You are absolutely correct...and I have NEVER said that it is. Some of those things are elements of the overall problem...but they are not the essentials, in my opinion.

Quote:
It's the criminal element that doesn't abide by the laws, any laws.


That is irrelevant to the issue being discussed, because the people who commit these mass killings are, up until they commit them, “decent, law-abiding citizens.”

If you think I am wrong on that…tell me how I am wrong.

Quote:
Do you have the balls to face the real problem or are you going to take the
sissy way out and focus your attention on disarming law abiding Americans?


I am not interested in disarming law abiding Americans. Wake the hell up. I have never been an advocate for that “solution.” And you really shouldn’t question whether I have “balls” or whether I am a “sissy” while hiding behind an alias as you do.

Quote:
You will take the sissy way out in 5, 4, 3, 2, ...


I don’t take the sissy way out. Take a look in the mirror to see that kind of person. Or, put your real name out here...and the name of the city in which you live. C'mon. Show us how ballsy you are.
blueveinedthrobber
  Selected Answer
 
  3  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2013 03:12 pm
I sincerely think the chances of MEANINGFUL action on this problem are about the same as the chances of me in a threesome with squinney and Maria Carey with Halle Berry in the bullpen.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2013 03:24 pm
@blueveinedthrobber,
Whoa, Bear...did you just say that you and Squinney did the deed in a threesome with Halle Berry.

Goddamit, I shoulda learned to play an instrument besides the skin flute.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2013 04:15 pm
@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

Lever actions are at a slight disadvantage, because you have to take your finger off the trigger when you work the lever, but they shoot fast enough to be good in a fight.


I wonder if Browning still puts out the BLR centerfire rifle. You very well did not have to take your finger off the trigger, and the bolt locked up at the front - unlike most other lever actions. Also, it wasn't limited to round nose bullets because it didn't use a tubular magazine. Essentially, it was a bolt action rifle operated by a lever.
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2013 05:46 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:



These days, armed decent, law-abiding citizens present the greater problem as far as I am concerned. They are the ones who are committing these mass shootings.


How's that?

You back peddled on criminals and went after law abiding citizens, you are focused on the wrong group.

Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2013 07:08 pm
@H2O MAN,
Quote:
Quote:
Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5235326)
Frank Apisa wrote:



These days, armed decent, law-abiding citizens present the greater problem as far as I am concerned. They are the ones who are committing these mass shootings.


How's that?

You back peddled on criminals and went after law abiding citizens, you are focused on the wrong group.


The day you show me a "criminal" who goes into a school or a movie theater and shoots up a bunch of kids, we can talk about that. None of the people who committed mass killings were "criminals" before they decided to shoot a bunch of people. They were, until they made that decision, the "law-abiding, decent Americans" you talk about.

There is no getting away from that, H2O...so why not just acknowledge it?

And as for back peddling...what ever happened to the discussion about whether or not more guns means fewer shootings?

Can't deal with that one, right?
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Jan, 2013 07:15 pm
@Frank Apisa,
The evil kid that shot up the school in Newtown was a criminal.

There is no way you can deny that fact - Deal with it.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/11/2020 at 07:44:51