Page 33 of 33 FirstFirst ... 23313233
Results 321 to 330 of 330

Thread: Mother of Sandy Hook Victim Delivers White House Weekly Address.....[W322]

  1. #321
    Struggler
    JayDubya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    11-09-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    17,181

    re: Mother of Sandy Hook Victim Delivers White House Weekly Address.....[W322]

    I'm sorry for your loss, Francine Wheeler.

    Why you chose to try to channel your grief into hurting this nation and encouraging elected politicians to violate my constitutional rights is incomprehensible. It is wrong. This evil is potentially forgivable, but reprehensible just the same, and you do not get a pass for it because of your loss.

    So **** you, Francine Wheeler.

  2. #322
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,201

    re: Mother of Sandy Hook Victim Delivers White House Weekly Address.....[W322]

    Moderator's Warning:
    Mother of Sandy Hook Victim Delivers White House Weekly Address.....[W322] The level of snarkiness and thinly veiled personal attacks needs to decline about 99%, or infractions will be forthcoming. Discuss the topic, rather than slinging mud at the opposition.



    Edited to add: seriously, I just had to read several pages of this thread, and now I have a headache. Several of you are pushing the envelope hard. BEHAVE... this thread is on ZERO tolerance from this point on for ANY remarks disparaging another poster, however cleverly veiled or parsed.
    Last edited by Goshin; 04-20-13 at 11:18 PM.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  3. #323
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,986

    Re: Mother of Sandy Hook Victim Delivers White House Weekly Address.....[W322]

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    I see you did not answer what "that" referred to.
    "that" referred to the words you attributed to me which I did not say. Since I posted that statement right after the quote of yours which falsely attributed to me something I did not say, I thought it would be clear. But now it should be clear.

    Your refusal to answer and dodge is noted---it is in fact, Manchin-Toomey, making my point a valid one.
    I'm not refusing or dodging anything. I made a statement, you accused me of rhetoric, I proved my statement, you then twisted my statement to something I did not say, and I then corrected you on what I actually said, at which time I asked for your apology on accusing me of rhetoric when the facts supported my statement. And I'm still waiting on the apology.

    Except I didnt use those words, so you are still prevaricating.
    And I didn't post "case closed" in response to you. So I don't understand your point.

    If you are charged, if you want to fight it, you will be paying a lot of attorneys fees and quite possibly court fees. Stop being obtuse.
    Again, I'm asking for a source. I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just asking to prove it, like I did my statement earlier about the legislation providing gun protections.

    Really because you seem bigoted not only towards gun owners but anyone that defends them.
    Not at all.

  4. #324
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,343

    Re: Mother of Sandy Hook Victim Delivers White House Weekly Address.....[W322]

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    A snipe hunt is when you take someone to go looking for something which doesn't exist. You said I offered you a chance to go looking for something which doesn't exist, which clearly means I didn't post anything which could not be supported with facts.

    It's not a mistaken victory, it's simply a case of me taking your words at their meaning.
    I simply mean that....Think of it as if we were having a conversation sitting by the pool, sipping a beer or two. In that vein of friendly conversation you would not say to me that I need to come armed with a file cabinet of documentation backing up everything offered in opinion, would you? Because that would not be a very friendly, nor productive conversation....

    No, because I've already said multiple times in this thread I'd be happy to have tax dollars pay for a background check.
    So, You're not a liberal, or conservative, but you ascribe others paying for something that you require....That is a progressive idea at best. Why should I pay for your BC?

    And just like a pro gun supporter to live in their own reality, where truth never gets in the way of a good story.

    Now that we've proven we can both make ridiculous and baseless claims, do you think we can just discuss the issue?
    So, you like to use "snark" toward others, but no one can use it back otherwise you get offended....Hmmmm...Ok...

    You do realize I don't consider myself left or right, a liberal or conservative, don't you? It amazes me how much hatred people like you have for anyone who simply disagrees with you.
    Telling you that you are wrong is not 'hatred'....

    But it does mean it's legal. And once we establish regulating automatic rifles, C4 and grenade launchers is legal, then it's easy to make the next step.
    So your argument is really an incremental approach to eliminating my rights....Thanks for proving that for me.

    You don't have the right to simply say "I want it, therefor I should have it". It does not work that way.
    Why not? Show me in the 2nd amendment where it restricts different types of weaponry....Hint, it doesn't.

    I did read it, actually. In fact, I even quoted sections of it to Opportunity Cost. Once more, your reality and what is proven true do not seem to align.
    Cherry picking sections, without looking at the unintended consequences of the language is not a whole lot to hang your hat on sir. I'll give you an example....

    As NRA v. Reno and long-gun registration cases demonstrate, the problem with the registration ban in Toomey-Manchin (and the parallel language in the instant-check statute) is that it has very broad language (“any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions”) that the courts construe very narrowly, by acting as if “any system of registration” only applies to a system which registers everyone or everything.

    Now look at how Manchin-Toomey makes things worse:

    (c) Prohibition of National Gun Registry.-Section 923 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:

    (m) The Attorney General may not consolidate or centralize the records of the-

    (1) acquisition or disposition of firearms, or any portion thereof, maintained by-

    (A) a person with a valid, current license under this chapter;
    (B) an unlicensed transferor under section 922(t); or

    (2) possession or ownership of a firearm, maintained by any medical or health insurance entity.

    Now, we have a specific answer to the judicial question “What is gun registration?” The answer provided by Manchin-Toomey is that gun registration is only something which is done by “the Attorney General.” It is something that only involves the attorney general acquiring particular types of records.

    So now suppose that a few months after Manchin-Toomey becomes law, the Department of Homeland Security begins collecting all state gun-registration records, and all state records of persons with concealed-carry permits. Just this month, it was revealed that the Department of Homeland Security has been working with the Missouri Department of Revenue to obtain electronic access to its permit list. In addition, the federal Social Security Administration, in a joint project with the ATF, had requested and been sent a complete list of all of Missouri’s concealed-carry-permit holders. The data sharing violated Missouri state law, and the revelations led to the resignation of Missouri’s director of the Department of Revenue.

    When people complain that DHS (or the Social Security Administration) is violating the ban on federal gun registration, DHS and Social Security can reply, accurately, that they are doing no such thing. Manchin-Toomey specifically defines “national gun registry” as only something which is under the control of the attorney general, which Homeland Security and Social Security are not.

    Further, Manchin-Toomey says that the only kinds of records which could constitute a “national gun registry” are the records which are maintained by gun sellers or records maintained by medical or health insurance entities. DHS and Social Security, in contrast, would be collecting only records that belong to state governments.

    If Manchin-Toomey had gone through the normal committee process with earings, the problem might have been pointed out and fixed, so that the entire federal government was expressly prohibited from compiling gun registrations lists from any source, rather than just prohibiting the attorney general from compiling just two particular types of documents.

    Or, to take another approach, suppose that Eric Holder decides to repeal the Ashcroft regulation, and begins keeping instant-check records for three years. He won’t be violating Manchin-Toomey, because instant check records of gun sale approvals by the FBI aren’t records that belong to gun sellers or health-insurance entities — they already belong to the FBI.

    The Problems of Toomey-Manchin | National Review Online
    Now, care to explain why it is that we have to constantly scour language from our legislators, and this administration for what they don't include, to ensure that they don't back door take our freedom? It's BS!

    What do you mean "such as?" You haven't read the bill? Or you haven't had your rightest buddies on Fox News tell you what to think about it?


    Have I made my point yet? But to answer your question, the fact somewhere up to 40% of guns in this country are transferred in ownership without a background check would be what I consider "gaping holes".
    So you are not a liberal, but are using Obama's argument of 40%....It is false ofcourse....

    The president kept claiming this week and last week that: “as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases take place without a background check” and that "background checks have kept more than 2 million dangerous people from buying a gun.” But both statistics are false.
    There is no real scientific evidence among criminologists and economists that background checks actually reduce crime.
    Start with the 40 percent figure. That number comes from a very small study covering purchases during 1991 to 1994. Not only is that two decades-old data, but it covered sales before the federal Brady Act took effect on February 28, 1994. The act required federally licensed dealers to perform background checks.
    And what's more, Mr. Obama conveniently forgets that the researchers gave this number (well, actually 36%, not his rounding up to 40%) for all transfers, not just for guns sold. Most significantly, the vast majority of these transfers involved within-family inheritances and gifts.
    Counting only guns that were sold gives a very different perspective, with only 14 percent not actually going through federally licensed dealers. But even that is much too high as there were biases in the survey. For example, two-thirds of federally licensed dealers at the time were so-called “kitchen table” dealers who sold gun out of their homes and most buyers surveyed were likely unaware these individuals were indeed licensed.
    By the way, that survey also found that all gun-show sales went through federally licensed dealers. If President Obama really trusts the study, he should stop raging about the “gun show loophole.”
    The truth is, the databases the government uses to determine eligibility for gun purchases are rife with errors.


    Read more: Fact vs. fiction on background checks and the gun control debate | Fox News
    And only fools would would stop trying to make it perfect.
    Then it should be easy for you to explain how making it harder for legal citizens to obtain firearms, will stop illegal firearms from being sold....It's like saying I want to mulch my flowerbed, so I think I'll demo the kitchen....

    Since these tragedies are happening at an alarming frequency, this certainly is convenient for you, isn't it?
    So this is how you have a civil conversation? Thank goodness you're not in person...I don't think many people would take a statement like that too kindly...

    The fact is, this argument is beyond stupid, because tragedies are happening all the time. A tragedy is the BEST time to examine what we're doing right and what we're doing wrong, and finding ways to fix it. Only a moron would say, "well, I know I failed this time, but as long as I don't change anything, I know I won't fail next time".
    No....It isn't the frequency at all....It is more reported due to the agenda of the MSM, coupled with a 24/7 news media....Progressivism is a cancer to freedom.

    You don't strike me as a moron, you strike me as being fairly intelligent (if a little confused). So why are you repeating this nonsense?
    What a backhanded way to get away with calling names....Again, I hope you have better manners in person.

    You're just denying to yourself at this point if you believe that. The country our founders envisioned does not exist today, and quite frankly, could not exist today. And I believe our founding fathers would be appalled at the idea of a citizenry which is not willing to adapt with the times.
    I have no problem with change, but why can't you progressives effect change the way it is laid out in the constitution? My guess is that you know full well it would never pass.

    I believe it would, and there are plenty of countries to support my belief.
    We are talking about this country...I don't base what we should, or shouldn't do on what other countries do...If you think a different country has a better idea, you should go there.

    No, "we" don't. But I would love to hear whichever conspiracy theory you believe.
    No conspiracy here....You even stated it in this post....Remember?

    "...once we establish regulating automatic rifles, C4 and grenade launchers is legal, then it's easy to make the next step.

    You don't have the right to simply say "I want it, therefor I should have it". It does not work that way."

    Incremental creep of progressive ideas, circumventing the amendment process is not what this country is supposed to be.

    Again, you and reality don't seem to mesh well. What does Bloomberg have to do with being able to purchase a gun in 5 and a half minutes? I don't understand.
    Are you serious? You used his group to highlight a point of yours...I dismiss him, and Kelly as unabashed gun grabbing elites....

    THEN WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU ARGUING ABOUT!?!?!?

    Excuse the "shouting" I just wanted you to pay particular attention to what you just said. You just said going through a background check and registering your gun did not cause you a problem. So why in the world are you fighting this?
    Registries are a step in confiscation....

    But your rights were not trampled, so on what basis do you claim others' will be? Because it MIGHT happen? I'm sorry, that's a terrible argument in light of the thousands of people killed every year with a gun.
    More people are killed with hammers, and other blunt objects, than with rifles in this country...Should we register hammers?

    No, I just focused on the important part, but you just don't like the fact you were wrong. You posted a "gun grab" which really wasn't. It's not my fault you cannot twist the facts into something they are not.

    By the way, if the person doesn't have the money for court, how did they buy a gun?
    My 9mm cost me $300.00, My Shotgun cost me $125.00...To take a wrongful confiscation case to court would cost me potentially thousands....I don't have it. Why should I have to?
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  5. #325
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,343

    Re: Mother of Sandy Hook Victim Delivers White House Weekly Address.....[W322]

    Quote Originally Posted by Henry David View Post
    I'm reminded of the Lucifer Effect, as described by Philip Zimbardo after having conducted the Stanford Prison Experiment back in the 70's.

    Zealous young cops, having been convinced that they are on a mission from god, will quickly escalate the police ego. They can't help it, because it seems to have been programmed into the human condition.
    Indeed....But I think we need to be on the lookout for that...It is a short step to historical police forces in the past that have taken that to the extreme....The SS is but one example....Now I am not saying that we are anywhere near close to an "SS" type of mentality in this country, but individuals need to be constantly assessed so that we limit 'rouge cops' like this one....
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  6. #326
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,986

    Re: Mother of Sandy Hook Victim Delivers White House Weekly Address.....[W322]

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    I simply mean that....Think of it as if we were having a conversation sitting by the pool, sipping a beer or two. In that vein of friendly conversation you would not say to me that I need to come armed with a file cabinet of documentation backing up everything offered in opinion, would you? Because that would not be a very friendly, nor productive conversation....
    Agreed, but neither would telling someone their arguments are not based in reality. The moment you make such a claim, in which you try to discredit the person rather the argument, you should be required to provide proof.

    So, You're not a liberal, or conservative, but you ascribe others paying for something that you require....That is a progressive idea at best. Why should I pay for your BC?
    It's not a progressive idea, it's an idea based around the concept of community. I don't see a community pitching together to achieve a common goal to be a political position. And you wouldn't be paying for my BC, I'd be paying for yours.

    Why would I be paying for yours? Because it's a compromise which serves as a win-win solution. I want greater background checks and registration, to maximize our potential for safety. You see those as possibly prohibitive to 2nd Amendment rights due to costs involved. I get what I want, you get what you want and we're both better off for it.

    So, you like to use "snark" toward others, but no one can use it back otherwise you get offended....Hmmmm...Ok...
    I don't like to use snark.

    Telling you that you are wrong is not 'hatred'....
    It wasn't you telling me I was wrong, it was the venom you spewed at the idea of "you haven't had your leftest buddies on MSDNC tell you what to think about it?". That indicates a very strong dislike, if not hatred, for anyone who disagrees and your automatic assumption they are mindless liberal robots who need to be told what to think. You constantly use the word liberal and leftist as an insult, much in the same way a racist would use the "n" word and a homophobic person would use the "f" word.

    So your argument is really an incremental approach to eliminating my rights....Thanks for proving that for me.
    No, my argument is a "let's find what works" approach. My argument is you don't have unfettered access to any gun you want. Once you understand why you can't have nuclear weapons, you'll understand why things like background checks and registration are no problem.

    Why not? Show me in the 2nd amendment where it restricts different types of weaponry....Hint, it doesn't.
    It also doesn't say anything about a gun.

    Now, care to explain why it is that we have to constantly scour language from our legislators, and this administration for what they don't include, to ensure that they don't back door take our freedom? It's BS!
    Umm, what? From what I could tell, the argument being made was that the federal government might collect information which is already provided to the state. How is that taking your freedom? You willingly provided that information to the state and the state provided it to the federal government. Maybe I'm not understanding the argument fully, could you clarify for me?

    So you are not a liberal, but are using Obama's argument of 40%....It is false ofcourse....
    I'm using a well-used argument, not Obama's argument. And even if I was using Obama's argument, how would that make me a liberal? Does agreeing with one position define a person?

    And yes, I know you would disagree with the statistic, which is why I specifically used the language of "up to 40%".

    Then it should be easy for you to explain how making it harder for legal citizens to obtain firearms, will stop illegal firearms from being sold
    I've already explained how sensible control would make it harder for criminals to obtain guns illegally.

    So this is how you have a civil conversation? Thank goodness you're not in person...I don't think many people would take a statement like that too kindly...

    No....It isn't the frequency at all....It is more reported due to the agenda of the MSM, coupled with a 24/7 news media....Progressivism is a cancer to freedom.
    I'm not sure what you're saying here. You said we shouldn't revise the laws in the wake of a tragedy. I said that's a convenient position for you to take, because these tragedies are happening all the time. Your argument is akin to saying I won't go on a diet until I lose ten pounds. Every time another tragedy occurs, you think we need to wait. But when tragedies are happening almost every day, how would we ever fix what's wrong? And if the tragedies were extremely rare, why would we need to fix it?

    So it is a civil conversation, because your argument attempts to effectively shut down all conversation ever.

    I have no problem with change, but why can't you progressives effect change the way it is laid out in the constitution? My guess is that you know full well it would never pass.
    Background checks and gun registration do not violate the Constitution in any way.

    We are talking about this country...I don't base what we should, or shouldn't do on what other countries do...If you think a different country has a better idea, you should go there.
    But this country has a serious problem. We've seen models from other countries which appear to be affective. Why would you not want to emulate success?

    No conspiracy here....You even stated it in this post....Remember?
    Then why don't you tell us what you meant here, what the underlying agenda is:
    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Completely? hell, it won't even slow it down...Which poses the question what is the true underlying agenda here....We know full well what that is don't we.
    Are you serious? You used his group to highlight a point of yours...I dismiss him, and Kelly as unabashed gun grabbing elites....
    You attacked the source, not the argument. I want you to address the argument, and specifically, the example of purchasing a gun in less than 6 minutes and explain how that's not quick and easy.

    Registries are a step in confiscation....
    No, they are not. And before you argue this point, please remember we are talking about this country and you don't think what America should or shouldn't do should be based on other countries.

    More people are killed with hammers, and other blunt objects, than with rifles in this country...Should we register hammers?
    I'm not arguing to register rifles, I'm arguing to register guns. And guns kill far more people than hammers.

    My 9mm cost me $300.00, My Shotgun cost me $125.00...To take a wrongful confiscation case to court would cost me potentially thousands....I don't have it. Why should I have to?
    Why would it potentially cost you thousands? If we had a national gun registry, it's not hard to imagine a streamlined process for fighting false positives would exist. We could even put into place an appeals process which occurs before the gun is taken, where you go before the judge and explain your argument for why you've been falsely identified. I'm fine with all of that.
    Last edited by Slyfox696; 04-22-13 at 11:08 AM.

  7. #327
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,343

    Re: Mother of Sandy Hook Victim Delivers White House Weekly Address.....[W322]

    My goodness, you seem to break things down to the point that the debate is so sub-sected that it is difficult to focus on the original debate...I know that I do this as well at times, but to keep things more focused I am going to concentrate on what I think is the central point here....

    No, my argument is a "let's find what works" approach. My argument is you don't have unfettered access to any gun you want...

    ...these tragedies are happening all the time...

    I want you to address the argument, and specifically, the example of purchasing a gun in less than 6 minutes and explain how that's not quick and easy....

    I'm not arguing to register rifles...

    If we had a national gun registry...
    These are central themes Sly that are prevalent in the argument today....To understand why it is that not only the language used in todays push for registry is deceptive, but why historically gun advocates oppose such measures...

    I refer you back to what I already posted about the language of the T/M bill that was defeated, and why it was, and is deceptive....The Problems of Toomey-Manchin | National Review Online

    Now, bearing in mind that I am not calling anyone a "Nazi", as a historical reference we need to examine how Germany disarmed it citizenry in 1919, and then instituted eerily similar legislation to what is being proposed here, and now. Then when Hitler comes to power, he consolidates power, declares supreme power under the executive, and uses the registration lists to disarm the public...And well you know the rest...

    http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf

    Like I have said in the past, and will continue to say, registration lists, can, and will be used in any plan of confiscation. Therefore, they are opposed by free people.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  8. #328
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,986

    Re: Mother of Sandy Hook Victim Delivers White House Weekly Address.....[W322]

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    My goodness, you seem to break things down to the point that the debate is so sub-sected that it is difficult to focus on the original debate
    It is something I do, and it can make a discussion quite tedious, although I can usually remember what each subsection is about. It's just one of those things I've always done, I like to address as much of an argument as I can.

    These are central themes Sly that are prevalent in the argument today....To understand why it is that not only the language used in todays push for registry is deceptive, but why historically gun advocates oppose such measures...

    I refer you back to what I already posted about the language of the T/M bill that was defeated, and why it was, and is deceptive....The Problems of Toomey-Manchin | National Review Online
    I'm sorry, but I really don't want to read an opinion piece from a biased media source as any kind of evidence. Could you post the main parts you want me to look at and I'll address those?

    Now, bearing in mind that I am not calling anyone a "Nazi", as a historical reference we need to examine how Germany disarmed it citizenry in 1919, and then instituted eerily similar legislation to what is being proposed here, and now. Then when Hitler comes to power, he consolidates power, declares supreme power under the executive, and uses the registration lists to disarm the public...And well you know the rest...
    But...that's not what happened in Nazi Germany...

    The Nazi's didn't disarm the public, they instituted a class system in which the Jews were second class (or third class). Hitler actually deregulated gun control for those he considered to be true Germans. What happened in Nazi Germany had nothing to do with gun control, and everything to do with racism. And let's face it, whether the Jews had a gun or not would not have changed history. Hitler brought all of Europe to its knees, do you think a small number of armed Jews would have made a difference? Of course not.

    Like I have said in the past, and will continue to say, registration lists, can, and will be used in any plan of confiscation. Therefore, they are opposed by free people.
    But guns cannot be confiscated, that would be a direct and indisputable violation of the 2nd Amendment. I know a lot of people say gun control in general is, and it's a hotly disputed argument, but NO ONE can argue gun confiscation is not a violation of the 2nd Amendment. If Obama came out tomorrow and said the government will begin rounding up the guns, I'd go out and purchase a gun myself, just for the sheer principle of it. But he's not going to do that, and it could never happen as long as the 2nd Amendment is in place.

    I'm sorry, saying something which cannot happen MIGHT happen in the future is a poor excuse, in my opinion, to do nothing about the problems we have today.

  9. #329
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,343

    Re: Mother of Sandy Hook Victim Delivers White House Weekly Address.....[W322]

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    It is something I do, and it can make a discussion quite tedious, although I can usually remember what each subsection is about. It's just one of those things I've always done, I like to address as much of an argument as I can.

    I'm sorry, but I really don't want to read an opinion piece from a biased media source as any kind of evidence. Could you post the main parts you want me to look at and I'll address those?

    But...that's not what happened in Nazi Germany...

    The Nazi's didn't disarm the public, they instituted a class system in which the Jews were second class (or third class). Hitler actually deregulated gun control for those he considered to be true Germans. What happened in Nazi Germany had nothing to do with gun control, and everything to do with racism. And let's face it, whether the Jews had a gun or not would not have changed history. Hitler brought all of Europe to its knees, do you think a small number of armed Jews would have made a difference? Of course not.

    But guns cannot be confiscated, that would be a direct and indisputable violation of the 2nd Amendment. I know a lot of people say gun control in general is, and it's a hotly disputed argument, but NO ONE can argue gun confiscation is not a violation of the 2nd Amendment. If Obama came out tomorrow and said the government will begin rounding up the guns, I'd go out and purchase a gun myself, just for the sheer principle of it. But he's not going to do that, and it could never happen as long as the 2nd Amendment is in place.

    I'm sorry, saying something which cannot happen MIGHT happen in the future is a poor excuse, in my opinion, to do nothing about the problems we have today.
    Well, I am disappointed that we seem to have two totally views on this, in all aspects. At this time I don't think that repeating ourselves will bring any conclusion at all, and that seems to be where you are headed, so I'll end it here.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  10. #330
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,986

    Re: Mother of Sandy Hook Victim Delivers White House Weekly Address.....[W322]

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Well, I am disappointed that we seem to have two totally views on this, in all aspects. At this time I don't think that repeating ourselves will bring any conclusion at all, and that seems to be where you are headed, so I'll end it here.
    That seems fair and reasonable.

Page 33 of 33 FirstFirst ... 23313233

Posting Permissions

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