7
   

THE LIE THAT IS LIBERAL

 
 
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2016 01:11 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Do you really think it's possible to reason with him? He's got way too much invested in fantasy. He needs to believe that more guns equals safety. he has to believe that societies with fewer guns are more violent. The alternative is to face reality and accept that people like him are partly responsible for atrocities like Sandy Hook and all the other gun related homicides in America, I don't think he's emotionally equipped to deal with that.

He literally can't handle the truth.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2016 06:46 am
@oralloy,
Did you read your citation? It bans guns for a large part of the population.

Quote:
"Henry VII and Henry VIII defended the longbow with statutes banning the possession of crossbows and handguns by the lower orders


Since the statutes BANNED handguns for the lower orders, it would not allow guns to be owned by those people under the law.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2016 07:09 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
Militia duty and town watch patrols are not considered as being in the employ of the government???
No, at least not in the UK and other European countries of that period.
They were either unpaid townpeople or paid by wealthy citizens. (Or by the town, as in the free towns of and some other towns in the Roman Emire of German Nation)
giujohn
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2016 08:01 am
@giujohn,
giujohn wrote:

IN REGARDS TO THE POLICE SHOOTING IN CHARLOTTE

If the investigation proves that the assailant who was shot by police was in fact armed, then the relatives of this individual and any Witnesses who lied and said he was unarmed should be charged with incitement to Riot.

There needs to be a precedent set whereby these individuals who the press allows to foster lies that inflame the public falsely where riots ensue are not only charged with incitement to Riot but federally charged under the hate crime statutes.

Only then this human garbage and the media that aids and abets them will give pause before spewing their vicious lies.



It is now more than clear from the press conference that was just given that this subject was armed with a handgun and not a book as his family and some witnesses have said.

Most Witnesses have said that they heard the officers shouting loudly for the offender to drop the gun and when he did not he was shot because he posed a threat to the officers. A gun was recovered from the scene in close proximity to the offender, there was no book recovered anywhere near the scene.

Instead of Obama's DOJ and Loretta Lynch monitoring the situation in anticipation of a civil rights violation by the police they should be considering federal charges under hate statutes to charge the people who incited the riots that ensued and that injured 16 police officers.
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2016 08:59 am
Just witnessed a news conference regarding the Charlotte shooting. The speaker, a "black activist" from the Nation of Islam, a racist piece of ****, who admits out of one side of his mouth that he doesn't know if the offender had a gun or a book but out of the other side of his mouth he's screaming that there's no justification in this shooting and that he's not going to tell the rioters to stop what they did.

In effect what he wants is never to have a black man shot by a police officer regardless of what that black man is doing whether the black man is right or wrong. Apparently his justification for this is past oppression of the black man.

This is the kind of unreasonable and ridiculous rhetoric that does nothing to further the the conversation on race relations but purposely tables it to keep division strong in order to make these activists relevant.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  3  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2016 09:07 am
@oralloy,
Quote:
There is not a good reason for banning pistol grips on guns. Therefore Hillary and Obama are advocating direct violation of the Second Amendment when they advocate bans on assault weapons.

Just a quick question to you and glujohn:
Why do you allow this false redefinition of 'assault weapon' to be part of YOUR rhetoric? What the public can buy are not assault weapons by the proper definition because they cannot have an 'automatic' mode of operation.

What is worse than that distortion, is you are playing into your opponents hands by adopting the highly charged term 'assault weapon'. They are merely semi automatic rifles with a pistol grip (or other cosmetic feature).

Unfortunately, things (laws) are driven by public perception. Most of The public can understand the absurdity of banning a pistol grip but 'assault weapon' is a completely different matter to them, even though the law in question addresses the same thing.
giujohn
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2016 10:00 am
@Leadfoot,
I don't refer to them as assault weapons only the ill-informed and purposeful Liars refer to them as such.

And you are correct they are not automatic they just look like automatics. It would be akin to putting wings on a car and calling in an airplane it may look like an airplane but it can't fly... Just like the rifle may look like a machine gun but it can't fire automatic.

But you see the left knows that they are pandering to the ignorant low-information voter who get their information in 10 seconds sound bites from the liberal-left biased news media who we all know has a specific agenda and an axe to grind. And no matter what I refer to it as either correctly or incorrectly these slack-jawed idiots are going to suck up with a straw whatever the liberally biased media tells them.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2016 01:56 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
And you definitely were comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges? (Like: in the UK, even shoving someone is recorded as a violent crime.)

What I did was get the "overall violent crime rate" and the "overall crime rate" directly from each government.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2016 01:57 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Since the statutes BANNED handguns for the lower orders, it would not allow guns to be owned by those people under the law.

At the time, guns were not advanced enough to surpass the longbow. These laws were banning novelty weapons in order to force the masses to use regular military weapons.

Things changed once guns became the normal military weapon.
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2016 01:59 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
No, at least not in the UK and other European countries of that period.
They were either unpaid townpeople or paid by wealthy citizens. (Or by the town, as in the free towns of and some other towns in the Roman Emire of German Nation)

So, when people showed up for militia duty or town watch patrols, were they required to be completely unarmed?

Did militia do all their fighting with their bare hands? Did town watch patrols apprehend criminals with their bare hands?
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2016 02:00 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:
Just a quick question to you and glujohn:
Why do you allow this false redefinition of 'assault weapon' to be part of YOUR rhetoric? What the public can buy are not assault weapons by the proper definition because they cannot have an 'automatic' mode of operation.

What is worse than that distortion, is you are playing into your opponents hands by adopting the highly charged term 'assault weapon'. They are merely semi automatic rifles with a pistol grip (or other cosmetic feature).

Unfortunately, things (laws) are driven by public perception. Most of The public can understand the absurdity of banning a pistol grip but 'assault weapon' is a completely different matter to them, even though the law in question addresses the same thing.

Arguing over "what the definition of an assault weapon is" never seems to lead to a productive end.

I find it gets to the point quicker to just refer to the law as "a ban on pistol grips".


Plus it is a convenient trap for the gun banners to fall into. It is trivially easy for the NRA to defeat these bans (on the federal level at least). Every time the gun banners focus all of their energy on a federal ban on pistol grips, the odds are near 100% that they will completely fail.

If the gun banners took all the energy that they waste on federal pistol grip bans and applied that energy to trying to pass something else, they might end up doing a lot more harm to gun rights.

And once the Supreme Court starts enforcing the Second Amendment, all existing bans on pistol grips will be struck down. There is no way such a ban can survive Strict Scrutiny.

I'm content to let the gun banners expend all their energy on pointless exercises that are doomed to failure.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2016 02:17 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
What I did was get the "overall violent crime rate" and the "overall crime rate" directly from each government.
Fine. So you certainly noticed noticed the differences between those three different terms as well as to those in USA. However, you put them together as if grapes were just another kind of blackberries.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2016 02:26 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
So, when people showed up for militia duty or town watch patrols, were they required to be completely unarmed?

Did militia do all their fighting with their bare hands? Did town watch patrols apprehend criminals with their bare hands?
I responded above just and only to
what you wrote:
Militia duty and town watch patrols are not considered as being in the employ of the government???


I can only answer your new questions exactly for my native town - the militia/town watch there got their statues in 1412 (a religious fraternity, btw). They were armed when being called on duty by the town's council.
Criminals were caught by others, namely 'servants' of the various courts.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  5  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2016 04:54 pm
@oralloy,


The statute clearly banned guns for the lower classes. Many statutes did that. The article in the English Bill of Rights only granted arms to Protestants suitable to their conditions and as allowed under law.


But let me remind you that even with evidence you are wrong you still claim you are right. Even if I had no evidence you were wrong it would not prove you were right. (Or do your platitudes about evidence and being right only apply to others?)

Clearly the right to keep and bear arms was not granted to all in the English Bill of Rights. You have simply ignored the exact words in it and made up your own version.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2016 06:58 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
But let me remind you that even with evidence you are wrong you still claim you are right.

No such evidence exists.


parados wrote:
Even if I had no evidence you were wrong it would not prove you were right.

That's true enough.

Luckily though there is plenty of other evidence that I am right. Note the court rulings quoted in Post: # 6,270,884 for example.

http://able2know.org/topic/344120-2#post-6270884


parados wrote:
Or do your platitudes about evidence and being right only apply to others?

Appeals to logic are platitudes?


parados wrote:
Clearly the right to keep and bear arms was not granted to all in the English Bill of Rights.

I am not convinced that this is true.

More importantly, even in the unlikely event that this is true, I do not see how it could possibly relevant.


parados wrote:
You have simply ignored the exact words in it

How are they relevant to this discussion?


parados wrote:
and made up your own version.

The interpretation of the right that is used by every single court of law in every single country that was ever a part of the British Empire, is hardly my own creation.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2016 07:00 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Fine. So you certainly noticed noticed the differences between those three different terms as well as to those in USA. However, you put them together as if grapes were just another kind of blackberries.

I did not take notice of any differences. I merely acquired the numbers from the websites and posted them.


Walter Hinteler wrote:
They were armed when being called on duty by the town's council.

I figured as much. The mental image that I had of militia and/or town watches carrying out their duties with their bare hands was a bit silly.
Kolyo
 
  5  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2016 10:00 pm
"THE Lie that is Liberal"

Does that mean all other lies are conservative?
hingehead
 
  4  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2016 10:20 pm
@Kolyo,
snort.
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2016 10:24 pm
@Kolyo,
Wow... let me explain it so even you can understand ... Liberal equals lie.
Walter Hinteler
 
  3  
Reply Wed 21 Sep, 2016 10:35 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
I figured as much. The mental image that I had of militia and/or town watches carrying out their duties with their bare hands was a bit silly.
Medieval townhalls had a "R├╝stkammer" (armoury), where the weapons were stored.
 

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
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/15/2020 at 12:59:09