Page 36 of 49 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 490

Thread: Senate gun hearing opens with Giffords' call for action

  1. #351
    Guru
    Mustachio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    2,578

    Re: Senate gun hearing opens with Giffords' call for action

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    well to a gun hater like you banning guns means nothing. You have no ability to claim that it harms no one.

    Banning Homosexual sodomy wouldn't harm me or most people. So your argument is just as specious. And it will harm you to if they are banned because if the government takes them away people will die and people who have advocated seizing those guns are going to be primary targets to some gun owners.

    You don't need most of what you have. YOu don't need a computer, free speech or much of anything beyond water, food, air and shelter.

    and My freedoms are not going to be taken away just so you can feel better.
    I was actually hoping to prevent the loss of innocent lives. Are those also arbitrary to you? The second amendment says Americans need to have the right to bear arms, and so I support that right with well regulated laws. So judicially, there are hundreds of years of precedent after precedent disagreeing with your difference of semantics. What a person needs extends far beyond food and water. That kills your entire argument. Start over.
    A working class hero is something to be

  2. #352
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: Senate gun hearing opens with Giffords' call for action

    Quote Originally Posted by Mustachio View Post
    Since forever in the way I used the term. Do you know the part about not being able to yell "fire" in a crowded theater? That's because it causes harm and nobody needs to do it. The second amendment uses the word "necessary" in its premise - that's a synonym for need(ed) in case you were not aware.
    You are wrong. Rights, at the time they were established, were thought to be granted by God. This was to prevent tyranny. God-given rights, not man-given rights. In this way, MEN (such as those who run our government) were not supposed to be able to infringe upon those God-given rights. That is the concept.



    You don't need is a saying widely used by individuals talking about what is and isn't necessary. Have you ever heard somebody at the gas station say "you don't need to sign the receipt?" Did you respond with "who are you to determine what I do with my receipt?"
    You and others MEN (or women) do NOT have the right to infringe upon my rights to have a weapon, regardless of how scared you are. How YOU personally feel about any particular right is irrelevant to the right itself.

    I really prefer an RPG to protect my family. And land mines. It's up to me and I determined that land mines in the public park are what will best protect me, because all the guys who look scary hang out at the park. Needless to say, part of the role of the government is to regulate what is and isn't necessary in the scope of personal defense.
    Now you are just being ignorant. We ALREADY have laws in place that prevent such things. Get a grip on your fear. You fear the WRONG people, and you are wanting to take out your frustration with criminals on law-abiding citizens.

    You can make a million laws, and it won't make a BIT of difference to a criminal. We call them "criminals" because they DON'T OBEY LAWS. Why is that such a difficult concept for some people? It's really odd how people are SOOO frightened of guns, when it is criminals wielding them who are the problem.

  3. #353
    Sage
    blackjack50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:13 PM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    25,267

    Senate gun hearing opens with Giffords' call for action

    Quote Originally Posted by Mustachio View Post
    Since forever in the way I used the term. Do you know the part about not being able to yell "fire" in a crowded theater? That's because it causes harm and nobody needs to do it. The second amendment uses the word "necessary" in its premise - that's a synonym for need(ed) in case you were not aware.



    You don't need is a saying widely used by individuals talking about what is and isn't necessary. Have you ever heard somebody at the gas station say "you don't need to sign the receipt?" Did you respond with "who are you to determine what I do with my receipt?"

    I really prefer an RPG to protect my family. And land mines. It's up to me and I determined that land mines in the public park are what will best protect me, because all the guys who look scary hang out at the park. Needless to say, part of the role of the government is to regulate what is and isn't necessary in the scope of personal defense.
    You can tell fire. There better be a fire.

    And it does say necessary. It says that the right is necessary and it also says, "shall not be I infringed."

    Why are you using irrelevant "signing" of receipts as an example. What relevance does that have?

    Nobody is arguing about explosives. That is just ludicrous to even try to connect semi automatic firearms to RPGs and landlines (one of which cannot even target someone). Are you kidding? Tell me. What is the difference between an AR and an RPG?
    The Crowd is not the sum of its parts.

  4. #354
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,611

    Senate gun hearing opens with Giffords' call for action

    Quote Originally Posted by Mustachio View Post
    Cho killed more people because he was shooting into a room a hundreds and Lanza was shooting into a room of dozens. Come on, you know that. This is why I asked you the question: Two people, two otherwise identical scenarios, on has a bush master, the other a pistol. And you evade the answer with garbage. This assault rifle debate sucks up all the national conversation and until people stop doing the song and dance we'll keep having the circular arguments. You can pretend you don't get it as long as you want but I know that you're not stupid enough to be unable to comprehend that a gun that shoots faster can kill more people.
    Cho did not shoot into rooms of hundred. He wasnt shooting into lecture halls. He walked from class to class, same as Lanza. The fact is Lanza had 10 minutes unhindered by anyone. It did not matter if he was using a handgun or rifle. He shot at will. He reloaded at will.

    This is pretty much typical. You have been press Ted with facts and you continue respond with "Nuh uh!" You are a true believer...committed to the ideology. It hAD to be because o the rifle. It just HAD to be. Never mind the facts.

  5. #355
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,582

    Re: Senate gun hearing opens with Giffords' call for action

    Quote Originally Posted by Mustachio View Post
    I was actually hoping to prevent the loss of innocent lives. Are those also arbitrary to you? The second amendment says Americans need to have the right to bear arms, and so I support that right with well regulated laws. So judicially, there are hundreds of years of precedent after precedent disagreeing with your difference of semantics. What a person needs extends far beyond food and water. That kills your entire argument. Start over.
    massive and stupid failure. No empirical data supports your claim that laws that apply only to what honest people possess saves lives.

    Well regulated laws? where does that idiocy appear in the USSC



  6. #356
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Senate gun hearing opens with Giffords' call for action

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Manta View Post
    Because it does not agree with your conclusions?
    No, because you said, "It was a guess, speculation."



    Where are the statistics BEFORE the Brady Bill was passed? Background checks from licensed dealers was law before the Brady bill was passed. Without any numbers to compare it to, it literally means nothing. I mean people were denied before the Brady bill was passed as well.
    There was no federal requirement for background checks before the Brady law. I have compared the numbers from during the ban and now, and there are more mass murders now then there were during the ban.
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  7. #357
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:12 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,551

    Re: Senate gun hearing opens with Giffords' call for action

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    No, because you said, "It was a guess, speculation."





    There was no federal requirement for background checks before the Brady law. I have compared the numbers from during the ban and now, and there are more mass murders now then there were during the ban.
    That is nonsense. Define "during the ban" and "now". Basically there are two "mass shootings" per year on average. Show us your statistics, and how you feel that they relate to the AWB/MCL laws. Remember that the AWB/MCL laws took absolutely no guns or magazines "off the streets" they simply did not add any more for those 9 years.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  8. #358
    Disappointed Evolutionist
    Catawba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-28-13 @ 08:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    27,254

    Re: Senate gun hearing opens with Giffords' call for action

    Quote Originally Posted by Mustachio View Post
    Since forever in the way I used the term. Do you know the part about not being able to yell "fire" in a crowded theater? That's because it causes harm and nobody needs to do it. The second amendment uses the word "necessary" in its premise - that's a synonym for need(ed) in case you were not aware.



    You don't need is a saying widely used by individuals talking about what is and isn't necessary. Have you ever heard somebody at the gas station say "you don't need to sign the receipt?" Did you respond with "who are you to determine what I do with my receipt?"

    I really prefer an RPG to protect my family. And land mines. It's up to me and I determined that land mines in the public park are what will best protect me, because all the guys who look scary hang out at the park. Needless to say, part of the role of the government is to regulate what is and isn't necessary in the scope of personal defense.
    Indeed! "The ABA continues to believe that our nation’s laws can be significantly strengthened by taking reasonable, commonsense steps that do not violate the constitutional right to bear arms as articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller," Bellows writes.

    The Second Amendment doesn’t protect military-style assault weapons, Bellows says, and she quotes Justice Antonin Scalia to back the assertion. Scalia wrote Heller, which found that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep handguns for protection within the home.

    Some maintain that the Second Amendment should prevent regulation of assault weapons and high-capacity clips, Bellows notes in her remarks. The ABA, on the other hand, believes that “the individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment must be understood to have some limits.” Second Amendment rights, she said, must be balanced against the need to protect citizens from especially dangerous weapons. Bellows says this recognition has supported regulation of fully automatic “machine guns” since the 1930s.

    She quotes a portion from Scalia’s Heller opinion in which he interprets a 1939 U.S. Supreme Court decision as giving Second Amendment protection to weapons “in common use at the time” of its adoption. According to Scalia, “We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

    Quoting Scalia, ABA president says Second Amendment rights have limits - News - ABA Journal
    Treat the earth well: it was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children. ~ Ancient American Indian Proverb

  9. #359
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,582

    Re: Senate gun hearing opens with Giffords' call for action

    Quote Originally Posted by Black Manta View Post
    Ummmm I know, that's what I said "Background checks from licensed dealers was law before the Brady bill was passed.

    Turtle you are slipping man, hehehe.
    not federally. all the dealers had to do was require someone to fill out the 4473. OF COURSE if the buyer admitted he was a felon etc the dealer would deny the sale

    but there was nothing federally that allowed the dealer to actually ascertain if the answers were true



  10. #360
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,582

    Re: Senate gun hearing opens with Giffords' call for action

    Quote Originally Posted by Catawba View Post
    Indeed! "The ABA continues to believe that our nation’s laws can be significantly strengthened by taking reasonable, commonsense steps that do not violate the constitutional right to bear arms as articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller," Bellows writes.

    The Second Amendment doesn’t protect military-style assault weapons, Bellows says, and she quotes Justice Antonin Scalia to back the assertion. Scalia wrote Heller, which found that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep handguns for protection within the home.

    Some maintain that the Second Amendment should prevent regulation of assault weapons and high-capacity clips, Bellows notes in her remarks. The ABA, on the other hand, believes that “the individual right to bear arms under the Second Amendment must be understood to have some limits.” Second Amendment rights, she said, must be balanced against the need to protect citizens from especially dangerous weapons. Bellows says this recognition has supported regulation of fully automatic “machine guns” since the 1930s.

    She quotes a portion from Scalia’s Heller opinion in which he interprets a 1939 U.S. Supreme Court decision as giving Second Amendment protection to weapons “in common use at the time” of its adoption. According to Scalia, “We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’ ”

    Quoting Scalia, ABA president says Second Amendment rights have limits - News - ABA Journal
    One of the reasons why I don't belong to the ABA is its idiot former president who claimed that the Second Amendment only protected state militias-a claim that got flushed with the Lautenberg amendment. But the ABA is about one kind of power and it despises alternative forms of power.

    how can weapons that are owned by millions of americans-were distributed to hundreds of thousands of americans by a government agency and only required that you have a clean record and a history of "Marksmanship practice" and are weapons that every civilian police department uses be considered "dangerous and unusual"?



Page 36 of 49 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •