Page 29 of 37 FirstFirst ... 192728293031 ... LastLast
Results 281 to 290 of 365

Thread: Oklahoma Tea Party Plans To Form Armed Militia

  1. #281
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Oklahoma Tea Party Plans To Form Armed Militia

    Quote Originally Posted by TurtleDude View Post
    18-19 year olds are serving in the infantry in Iraq. Many drug gangs recruit "children" because they don't get the same sort of time for being caught with a nickel bag of crack. 214 accidental deaths are all bad but that is an extremely low number given 200-300 million firearms in the USA and is lower than it was about 40 million guns ago.
    Is that any reason not to address it? Assuming you're factually correct, and I don't dispute you, such is no less a concern than home invasion. Neither happens in large numbers. SO, between the two, I choose to worry more about children and less about home invasion. Can you make a case I shouldn't?

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  2. #282
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Oklahoma Tea Party Plans To Form Armed Militia

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I don't believe the waiting period is 90 days. In fact, I think with better computers it is almost not at all presently. So, I'm not sure of your complaint.
    Oh I see -- suddenly not in favor of waiting periods, eh?
    Whatever argument you might want to make in support of waiting periods applies equally as well to rights that you'd never accept having to wait for.
    All I've said is that I see no urgency to get a weapon, and I still don't. A few days denies no one anything.
    Like I said -- if 'a right delayed is a right denied' is valid, then it is valid for all rights. By your argument, a waiting period for abortion denies nothing to anyone, so long as they could eventually get one. Nor does a waiting period before you can invoke your 5th amendment rights.... Or your protection from searches w/o a warrant.... Or...
    No, you're taking an apple and trying to apply it to a tree a frog.
    On the contrary -- MLK2 said "-A- right delayed..." he did not specify which rights he was referring to, and so the statement is plenary.
    If King was told he had to wait 5 days for the paper work, he would have been find.
    This is unsupportable, especially if you were non-specific about the right in question.
    Saying you have to wait until the time is right, which amounts to never, is very different. You're misreading the situations and the sentiment and how it applies.
    On the contrary -- your "oh, he wasnt talking about -that- right" response is iunsupportable.
    Nor was in not about anything. The second amendment was about a need to a citizen army...
    Well then - there's no doubt that it protects the right to own and use an automatic weapon.
    The reason the 2nd amendment was written is no longer valid today.
    This is nothing but unsupportable, subjective, selectively ignorant opinion.
    The need to apply deadly force in the exercise of the right to self-defense, exercised individually or collectively, is every bit as valid today as it was back then.
    But my point had nothing to do with that. By point was that a weapon is a tool, nothing more and nothing less, so what will you use this tool for?
    Whichever of the numerous legal uses for a firearm that I might choose.
    There are, after all, a great many of said legal purposes.
    I didn't side strep it; it simply has nothing to with my point.
    Interesting response, given that the statemenst were in respose to your statement:

    As for automatic weapons, I don't see anyone with a nuke or a tank either, and I see no problem denying them to people.
    So, try not to side-step this again:

    That's because nukes and tanks are not 'arms' as the term is used in the 2nd. Automatic weapons -- indeed, any class of firearm - are.

    That YOU see no need for them does not create a sound argument for infringing on my right to have and use one.
    Last edited by Goobieman; 04-28-10 at 03:33 PM.

  3. #283
    Guru
    Crunch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    12-21-10 @ 05:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,063

    Re: Oklahoma Tea Party Plans To Form Armed Militia

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Falling down claims more lives per year than accidental shootings.
    Gravity is definitely not a right granted by the Constitution......... so it should be repealed. Save a lot of lives that way.
    There is no such thing as a “Natural Born Dual-Citizen“.

    Originally Posted by PogueMoran
    I didnt have to read the article to tell you that you cant read.

  4. #284
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Oklahoma Tea Party Plans To Form Armed Militia

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Is that any reason not to address it? Assuming you're factually correct, and I don't dispute you, such is no less a concern than home invasion. Neither happens in large numbers. SO, between the two, I choose to worry more about children and less about home invasion. Can you make a case I shouldn't?
    You can -worry- about it all you want.
    What you cannot do is soundly argue that the issue rises to a level that justifies the infringement of the right to arms.

  5. #285
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Oklahoma Tea Party Plans To Form Armed Militia

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    You can -worry- about it all you want.
    What you cannot do is soundly argue that the issue rises to a level that justifies the infringement of the right to arms.
    I'm not sure that's true. One source I linked earlier says it happens once every three days. That's a fair number. I would be surprised if home invasions reach that level. A few years ago accidental deaths with children was said to happen four to five times a day. I wonder why it has decreased? I certainly don't suggest I can prove why, but one of the question to ask might be the effect of legislation passed on the decrease.

    And again, you're not being denied any "right." Having trigger locks doesn't deny you the right to have the weapon. You're arguing something that simply isn't true. Your right is not lost.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  6. #286
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Oklahoma Tea Party Plans To Form Armed Militia

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I'm not sure that's true. One source I linked earlier says it happens once every three days. That's a fair number.
    Show how ~120 accidental deaths/year creates a sound argument for infringing upon the rghts of ~100,000,000 people.

    I would be surprised if home invasions reach that level.
    Irrelevant to the issue.

    A few years ago accidental deaths with children was said to happen four to five times a day.
    With firearms? 1400-1800 per year?
    This is either a statement made from ignorance or an outright lie

    I wonder why it has decreased?
    It hasn't - it was never that high.

    And again, you're not being denied any "right." Having trigger locks doesn't deny you the right to have the weapon.
    False premise, that the only way to infringe on a right is to flatly deny it.

  7. #287
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Oklahoma Tea Party Plans To Form Armed Militia

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Oh I see -- suddenly not in favor of waiting periods, eh?
    Whatever argument you might want to make in support of waiting periods applies equally as well to rights that you'd never accept having to wait for.
    I didn't say I wasn't in favor of waiting periods. I said specifically I have no problem with them. And you have not shown me any reason to have a problem.

    Like I said -- if 'a right delayed is a right denied' is valid, then it is valid for all rights. By your argument, a waiting period for abortion denies nothing to anyone, so long as they could eventually get one. Nor does a waiting period before you can invoke your 5th amendment rights.... Or your protection from searches w/o a warrant.... Or...

    On the contrary -- MLK2 said "-A- right delayed..." he did not specify which rights he was referring to, and so the statement is plenary.

    This is unsupportable, especially if you were non-specific about the right in question.
    Your right isn't delayed. From that day you still have the right. Before you go in you still have the right. All you're waiting for is the actual weapon. Again, you are really perverting the quote.



    Well then - there's no doubt that it protects the right to own and use an automatic weapon.
    I'm not sure that's true. Again, the courts have repeatedly ruled restrictions can be applied.

    This is nothing but unsupportable, subjective, selectively ignorant opinion.
    The need to apply deadly force in the exercise of the right to self-defense, exercised individually or collectively, is every bit as valid today as it was back then.
    What are you going on about? This has nothing to do with the reasoning behind the 2nd amendment. The reasoning back then was to have a citizen army on call, so they needed to be able to have and maintain weapons. It wasn't about self defense.

    Whichever of the numerous legal uses for a firearm that I might choose.
    There are, after all, a great many of said legal purposes.
    Name one. What will you use the tool on?



    So, try not to side-step this again:

    That's because nukes and tanks are not 'arms' as the term is used in the 2nd. Automatic weapons -- indeed, any class of firearm - are.

    That YOU see no need for them does not create a sound argument for infringing on my right to have and use one.
    I'm not sure what you're looking for, but again, the courts have ruled that arms don't mean any arms you want. They can be restricted. Tanks are weapons. So are nukes. I'm not sure there's any point in defining arms as the founding fathers have no sense of what would be coming in the future. We cannot know what they would have thought about everyone having automatic weapons.

    Again, just wanting one is not enough. And if states and the government can restrict, as the courts have allowed from the beginning, what they are used for and what is ruled appropriate matters.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  8. #288
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Oklahoma Tea Party Plans To Form Armed Militia

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Show how ~120 accidental deaths/year creates a sound argument for infringing upon the rghts of ~100,000,000 people.
    Again, no right is infringed upon. No one is banning weapons.

    Irrelevant to the issue.
    It is to the conversation you came in on. A home invasion was given as reason not to have trigger locks.

    With firearms? 1400-1800 per year?
    This is either a statement made from ignorance or an outright lie
    We'd have to look back then. I'll do that for you later.





    False premise, that the only way to infringe on a right is to flatly deny it.
    The "right" is the right to have weapons. No one has ban them. And from the beginning, there have been restrictions. Nothing new in this. So, no, you have it wrong. You do not have a completely unrestricted right.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  9. #289
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Oklahoma Tea Party Plans To Form Armed Militia

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Again, no right is infringed upon. No one is banning weapons.
    False premise, that the only way to infringe on a right is to flatly deny it.

    It is to the conversation you came in on. A home invasion was given as reason not to have trigger locks.
    it is still irrelevant to the notion that the number of accidental deaths of children related to firearms is suffucient to warrant the infringement of the right.

    We'd have to look back then. I'll do that for you later.
    Nice dodge.
    Go here. See how wrong you were.
    WONDER Message
    1999-2006 there were a TOTAL of 1377 accidental deaths with firearms of 'children' aged 19 and younger, with the understanding that ages 18 and 19 are adutls.
    Thats 2 in evey million kids. Kids are 35% more likely to be killed while walking dows the street than in a gun-related accident.

    The "right" is the right to have weapons.
    The right is protected from infringement
    Infringement covers more than just banning.
    So, no, YOU have it wrong.

  10. #290
    warrior of the wetlands
    TurtleDude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    180,715

    Re: Oklahoma Tea Party Plans To Form Armed Militia

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Is that any reason not to address it? Assuming you're factually correct, and I don't dispute you, such is no less a concern than home invasion. Neither happens in large numbers. SO, between the two, I choose to worry more about children and less about home invasion. Can you make a case I shouldn't?
    well there isn't much you can do in terms of laws to remedy your concern.



Page 29 of 37 FirstFirst ... 192728293031 ... 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
  •