33
   

The Gun Fight in Washington. Your opinons?

 
 
RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Mon 10 Jun, 2013 01:59 pm
@cicerone imposter,
You would better off not to converse with these two gun nuts. They will just twist what ever you say to suit their fucked up ideas. Ive decided to quit both of them because neither has the brains god gave a bird. Post all the facts you want too they will just deny them. After all they are both the most intelligent people on this site. But I am not going to answer either one of them. Its an exercise in futility. You however have a good day. And good luck in getting any of the gun nuts to admit than gun ownership can be legislated against. Say, isent their another clause in the constitution that said that the constitution can be changed? If the gun nuts keep killing. Innocent citizens just might get a belly full of them shooting chip carrying soda drinking kids in the back and change the second amendment. Here is hoping.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  0  
Reply Mon 10 Jun, 2013 02:10 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
Not only is your logic flawed, but so is your thinking on most issues.

You're a waste of time.


That right run away but even in your perfect world of no weapons of any kind that would just mean that half of the population would be totally at the mercy of the male predators unless they never go out without the protections of some male.

Talk about needing to adopt the middle east culture where women would need to be under the protection of a male relation at all times in public.

No more could my wife travel alone across the country by car or by flying herself if she could not have means of protecting herself if need be along with her.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 10 Jun, 2013 02:34 pm
@BillRM,
A fire extinguisher? Guns are used in crimes. Fire extinguishers are not used to start fires.

A better analogy would be more like matches to start a back fire in case a fire starts. Then you could argue that if only more people had matches there would be fewer fires.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jun, 2013 04:09 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Guns are used in crimes


There are 300 millions plus guns in the US and it is a tiny tiny tiny fraction of them that are ever used in crimes.

Next guns are also used as a tool in self defense a legal and it can be a life saving action.

So like fire extinguishers guns can save lives by having them available in times of need.

Footnote people have been killed/murder by being hit by fire extinguishers.

Quote:

http://www.pressandguide.com/articles/2013/06/05/news/doc51ad04f06f7d9972316073.txt?viewmode=2

The detectives recorded the interview, which was played during a hearing before Somers. In it, Brady told the detectives he was drunk and walking to a store when he took a shortcut and saw that the lights were on in the ACCESS building. He said he was surprised by Flores and hit her on the head a few times with a fire extinguisher he grabbed off a wall mount. He said he sexually assaulted her with a desk nameplate, set a series of small fires and used a pool cue to break the glass in a vending machine to steal money and candy before he fled.
neologist
 
  2  
Reply Mon 10 Jun, 2013 04:36 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I've always thought the highest and best use for such a tool would be for releasing captive beer from a locked refrigerator. Next would be for sedan/convertible conversion. Most use them either as cool looking throwers or home invasion deterrants. Mr. Green
spendius
 
  2  
Reply Mon 10 Jun, 2013 05:07 pm
@neologist,
Or from a can when the pull top breaks off.
neologist
 
  2  
Reply Mon 10 Jun, 2013 05:12 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:
Or from a can when the pull top breaks off.
Yeah. That too. I forgot.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jun, 2013 05:35 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
There are 300 millions plus guns in the US and it is a tiny tiny tiny fraction of them that are ever used in crimes.

And more are used in crimes than in places that don't have as many guns. Simple fact, the availability of guns leads to more being used in crimes. Arguing that a certain percentage is used in crimes only attempts to deflect from the fact that more guns means more are used in crimes.

Quote:

Next guns are also used as a tool in self defense a legal and it can be a life saving action.
Guns are also made out of steel and have holes drilled in the steel. More deflection on your part.

Quote:
So like fire extinguishers guns can save lives by having them available in times of need.
Unlike guns, fire extinguishers don't start fires. Your analogy is still a bad one. Firefighters also save lives so we only need more firefighters, not more guns, if we follow your logic.

Quote:
Footnote people have been killed/murder by being hit by fire extinguishers.
Yawn.... So are you willing to argue that fire extinguishers have the same purpose as guns when used as they are intended?

I notice the perp didn't start the fires with the fire extinguishe since the purpose of a fire extinguisher is to put out fires and it can't be use to start them. If it had been a gun he would have used it to commit a crime which seems to be the exact opposite of what you claim a gun does. So the anecdote only further shows your attempt at analogy was faulty.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jun, 2013 05:53 pm
@parados,
Bill thinks he's doc Holiday when he wrote,
Quote:
Next guns are also used as a tool in self defense a legal and it can be a life saving action.


When anybody gets shot, it's without being told he's being shot at.

Some people have no common sense. How many with guns have really saved themselves from getting shot? ZERO? I'd like to see any reliable number/statistics on this.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jun, 2013 07:52 pm
@parados,
Quote:
And more are used in crimes than in places that don't have as many guns.


You are going to wave a magic wand and removed 300 millions plus firearms so it will be hard to get one in the future by a criminal?

With untold billions being spend every year of the so call war on drug most of us who are not drug users still know where to picked up street drugs in many cases in a faster manner then going to a Walmart to picked up a bottle of aspirin.

In the US there is no way to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals no matter what laws you passed all you can do is to stop citizens from having the means to defense themselves with firearms.

You wish to give a gift to the predators of disarmed citizens/victims..
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jun, 2013 07:58 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:



You are going to wave a magic wand and removed 300 millions plus firearms so it will be hard to get one in the future by a criminal?
So in other words criminals get their guns from "law abiding" citizens? Maybe we should take them away from those that supply them to criminals.

BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jun, 2013 08:34 pm
@parados,
Quote:
So in other words criminals get their guns from "law abiding" citizens? Maybe we should take them away from those that supply them to criminals.


LOL.................
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Mon 10 Jun, 2013 10:27 pm
@parados,
BillRM wrote:

You are going to wave a magic wand and removed 300 millions plus firearms
so it will be hard to get one in the future by a criminal?
parados wrote:
So in other words criminals get their guns from "law abiding" citizens?
Maybe we should take them away
from those that supply them to criminals.
The CRIMINALS r the politicians
who have raped the Bill of Rights.





David
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Mon 10 Jun, 2013 10:31 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
You don't understand the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Congress and the Supreme Court (the Federal government) can establish limits.

By David Coleman.
Quote:
Dear Sir,
"Shouting fire in a crowded theater" is a misquote that refers to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.'s opinion in the United States Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States in 1919 and that is used to express the limits upon which free speech may be expressed under the terms of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Holmes, writing for a unanimous majority, ruled that it was illegal to distribute fliers opposing the draft during World War I. Holmes argued this abridgment of free speech was permissible because it presented a "clear and present danger" to the government's recruitment efforts for the war. Holmes wrote:
The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
Holmes wrote of falsely shouting fire, because, of course, if there were a fire in a crowded theater, one may rightly indeed shout "Fire!". Falsely shouting "Fire!" in a crowded theater, i.e. shouting "Fire!" when one believes there to be no fire in order to cause panic, was interpreted not to be protected by the First Amendment.
Schenck was later overturned by Brandenburg v. Ohio, which ruled that speech could only be banned when it was directed to and likely to incite imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot), the test which remains until this day. Some now see the Schenck argument to be mistaken, contending that the pamphleteer's actions were more like yelling fire outside a building to prevent people from entering, rather than trying to encourage people to stampede out.
Despite Schenck being overturned, the phrase "shouting fire in a crowded theater" has since come to be known as synonymous with an action that the speaker believes goes beyond the rights guaranteed by free speech, reckless or malicious speech, or an action whose outcomes are blatantly obvious.
I hope this is helpful.

Regards,

XXXXX XXXXX
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Reply Tue 11 Jun, 2013 07:07 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

]The CRIMINALS r the politicians
who have raped the Bill of Rights.





David

Why didn't you stop the rape with your gun David? Are you admitting guns don't stop crimes?
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2013 03:52 pm
@parados,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
The CRIMINALS r the politicians
who have raped the Bill of Rights.





David
parados wrote:
Why didn't you stop the rape with your gun David?
Are you admitting guns don't stop crimes?
Some crimes can be stopped with the use of guns.
Not all crimes can be stopped by use of guns.
U knew that.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2013 04:48 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
What crimes have been stopped with guns in relationship to how many gun owners have lost loved ones?
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2013 05:05 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
What crimes have been stopped with guns in relationship to how many gun owners have lost loved ones?
Many violent felonies (murder, robbery, burglary, kidnapping, rape, etc., etc.)
have been stopped by people armed with guns.





David
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2013 06:29 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Provide a reliable source for your claim. Otherwise, you're talking out of your arse!

Don't forget, I said in relationship to those killed in the family by gun owners.
You know, I'm asking for numbers; X vs Y.

Is a two-pronged question too difficult for you? LOL
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jun, 2013 06:30 pm
@cicerone imposter,
He's baaaack!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/11/2020 at 07:22:40