• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Oklahoma Tea Party Plans To Form Armed Militia

TurtleDude said:
controls are not reasonable unless they not only do not infringe on the honest but they also have proven effectiveness in impacting the lawless.

most of the stuff that is proposed meets neither test, almost none meets both
Click to expand...

As I have said, I don't worry AS much about criminals as I do the stupid, careless or mentally impaired.

As for the rest, I was speaking more general than you are.
 
Boo Radley said:
As I have said, I don't worry AS much about criminals as I do the stupid, careless or mentally impaired.

As for the rest, I was speaking more general than you are.
Click to expand...

what law stops the careless? or who is stupid? to a dem anyone who didn't vote for Obama? Mentally impaired-it is illegal for someone adjudicated mentally incompetent to possess a firearm
 
TurtleDude said:
what law stops the careless? or who is stupid? to a dem anyone who didn't vote for Obama? Mentally impaired-it is illegal for someone adjudicated mentally incompetent to possess a firearm
Click to expand...

Safety locks. Holding parents responsible for leaving guns at the bed side for kids to find. Laws against the mentally impaired having weapons (fought against at one time).

Let me tell you who is stupid. I used to work on a ambulance. Never once did I ever pick up a shooting victim shot in a robbery or rape or any such crime. Always accidental, or in a fight. One I remember real well was a man who bought a new pistol and took it to a party. He was trying to spin the gun around like some fancy cowboy. The gun went off and killed a young girl across the room. I don't know if we could tell he was stupid before hand, I like to think we could, but we do know he's stupid now.

Again, experience tells me stupid people, careless people and mentally disturbed people are more dangerous.
 
Boo Radley said:
Safety locks. Holding parents responsible for leaving guns at the bed side for kids to find. Laws against the mentally impaired having weapons (fought against at one time).

Let me tell you who is stupid. I used to work on a ambulance. Never once did I ever pick up a shooting victim shot in a robbery or rape or any such crime. Always accidental, or in a fight. One I remember real well was a man who bought a new pistol and took it to a party. He was trying to spin the gun around like some fancy cowboy. The gun went off and killed a young girl across the room. I don't know if we could tell he was stupid before hand, I like to think we could, but we do know he's stupid now.

Again, experience tells me stupid people, careless people and mentally disturbed people are more dangerous.
Click to expand...

well having investigated dozens of shootings I can tell you that laws don't stop accidents. Someone who doesn't think about the consequences of letting junior play with a Mac-11 isn't thinking about getting a fine for leaving the gun where a kid can play with it.

Every gun law scheme I have seen are nothing more than that-schemes designed to move us closer to a gun ban.

accidental shootings have decreased over the last-16 years despite massive amounts of gun buying spurred on by Clinton and Obama
 
TurtleDude said:
well having investigated dozens of shootings I can tell you that laws don't stop accidents. Someone who doesn't think about the consequences of letting junior play with a Mac-11 isn't thinking about getting a fine for leaving the gun where a kid can play with it.

Every gun law scheme I have seen are nothing more than that-schemes designed to move us closer to a gun ban.

accidental shootings have decreased over the last-16 years despite massive amounts of gun buying spurred on by Clinton and Obama
Click to expand...

Or could it be you merely see every law as schemes to move us closer to a gun ban. To be honest, I think too many people see what they want to see, to fit their world view. It's rare to fine people who can put their own biases aside. And that is true for all sides. The only I think I have different is that I have no dog in this argument. None. I don't think laws can prevent stupid people. But we can mandate a few things, like guns out of reach and with trigger locks. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me for a house hold with kids. And if you don't, face the music for your irresponsibility and stupidity. Not a problem for me.

But I see no reason to remove guns from responsible people who know how to use and house them. Nothing against hunters. Like to hunt myself from time to time (no where near as much as I used to).

So, in short, reasonable is reasonable. Unreasonable not reasonable. ;)
 
Boo Radley said:
Or could it be you merely see every law as schemes to move us closer to a gun ban. To be honest, I think too many people see what they want to see, to fit their world view. It's rare to fine people who can put their own biases aside. And that is true for all sides. The only I think I have different is that I have no dog in this argument. None. I don't think laws can prevent stupid people. But we can mandate a few things, like guns out of reach and with trigger locks. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me for a house hold with kids. And if you don't, face the music for your irresponsibility and stupidity. Not a problem for me.

But I see no reason to remove guns from responsible people who know how to use and house them. Nothing against hunters. Like to hunt myself from time to time (no where near as much as I used to).

So, in short, reasonable is reasonable. Unreasonable not reasonable. ;)
Click to expand...

reasonable-punishing illegal or irresponsible uses of guns

reasonable-bans on possession of guns by children (unless involved in an adult supervised activity) violent criminals, illegal aliens, addicts, drunks and those adjudicted mentally incompetent

some time/place restrictions like federal courthouses, airplanes, submarines, etc

Unreasonable

waiting periods

one gun a month etc buying limits

restrictions on any weapon that civilian law enforcement can use

people ought to be able to own assault rifles submachine guns, silencers

no limits on how many guns you own
 
TurtleDude said:
reasonable-punishing illegal or irresponsible uses of guns

reasonable-bans on possession of guns by children (unless involved in an adult supervised activity) violent criminals, illegal aliens, addicts, drunks and those adjudicted mentally incompetent

some time/place restrictions like federal courthouses, airplanes, submarines, etc

Unreasonable

waiting periods

one gun a month etc buying limits

restrictions on any weapon that civilian law enforcement can use

people ought to be able to own assault rifles submachine guns, silencers

no limits on how many guns you own
Click to expand...

What's unreasonable about a waiting period? I don't see that one. I slows down any spur of the moment mental stress type problem. That happens btw.

What's reasonable about an automatic weapon? I don't see it.

I think it is reasonable for law enforcement to be better armed than criminals. Even those who just decided on a certain day to rob a bank.

The rest don't seem to much a problem to me.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
it footnoted each and every time the phrase was used, and its oxford english dictionary of that time period.

The evidence and the proof meets all standards of requirments to be observed as an indisputale fact.


You are free to show me an opposing definition of that time if you so have it. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Mind reposting it, since it's in discussion again? Just because the phrase was used in that context a few times, that doesn't mean that was the only use, or the one the founders intended
 
TurtleDude said:
reasonable-punishing illegal or irresponsible uses of guns

reasonable-bans on possession of guns by children (unless involved in an adult supervised activity) violent criminals, illegal aliens, addicts, drunks and those adjudicted mentally incompetent

some time/place restrictions like federal courthouses, airplanes, submarines, etc

Unreasonable

waiting periods

one gun a month etc buying limits

restrictions on any weapon that civilian law enforcement can use

people ought to be able to own assault rifles submachine guns, silencers

no limits on how many guns you own
Click to expand...

Do you think registration is reasonable?
 
Boo Radley said:
Safety locks. Holding parents responsible for leaving guns at the bed side for kids to find. Laws against the mentally impaired having weapons (fought against at one time).

Let me tell you who is stupid. I used to work on a ambulance. Never once did I ever pick up a shooting victim shot in a robbery or rape or any such crime. Always accidental, or in a fight. One I remember real well was a man who bought a new pistol and took it to a party. He was trying to spin the gun around like some fancy cowboy. The gun went off and killed a young girl across the room. I don't know if we could tell he was stupid before hand, I like to think we could, but we do know he's stupid now.

Again, experience tells me stupid people, careless people and mentally disturbed people are more dangerous.
Click to expand...





Sounds like you're from moron ville...(note I am refering to not you but where you live)


I do work with CQB training outfits, Carbine, pistol, I also do work for CCW permit training and validation on the weekends for the state of Utah..... My wife was an emergency room nurse before becoming a nurse practioner....


your hyperbolic hoplophibic stories are a joke boo. :roll:
 
Boo Radley said:
Or could it be you merely see every law as schemes to move us closer to a gun ban. To be honest, I think too many people see what they want to see, to fit their world view. It's rare to fine people who can put their own biases aside. And that is true for all sides. The only I think I have different is that I have no dog in this argument. None. I don't think laws can prevent stupid people. But we can mandate a few things, like guns out of reach and with trigger locks. Doesn't seem unreasonable to me for a house hold with kids. And if you don't, face the music for your irresponsibility and stupidity. Not a problem for me.

But I see no reason to remove guns from responsible people who know how to use and house them. Nothing against hunters. Like to hunt myself from time to time (no where near as much as I used to).

So, in short, reasonable is reasonable. Unreasonable not reasonable. ;)
Click to expand...




Trigger locks would have done what exactly for this man?


Fort Worth, TX home invaders shot in self defense
 
the makeout hobo said:
Mind reposting it, since it's in discussion again? Just because the phrase was used in that context a few times, that doesn't mean that was the only use, or the one the founders intended
Click to expand...


I guess your Google is broken....




Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"



The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
Click to expand...
 
Boo Radley said:
Trigger locks are for kids. Did this fellow have young kids in the house? If not, no need. Secondly, a couple of large dogs would have deterred enough to have not needed a gun, but shooting home invaders is fine by me. Shooting your son because you mistook him for a home invader not so much. ;)
Click to expand...



I note you completley avoided my question. If this person had "kids" he should have done what exactly?



How often do you think that happens?


Hint. 0-14 less than 20, 0-14 less than a hundred out of 73 million children in this country..... And that's for ALL accidental shootings. Mistaken Identity is probably a FRACTION of this. In fact so small, they can't measure it.


Hoplophobic reasoning is soooo sophomoric. :lamo



Buckets of water are more of a threat. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I note you completley avoided my question. If this person had "kids" he should have done what exactly?



How often do you think that happens?


Hint. 0-14 less than 20, 0-14 less than a hundred out of 73 million children in this country..... And that's for ALL accidental shootings. Mistaken Identity is probably a FRACTION of this. In fact so small, they can't measure it.


Hoplophobic reasoning is soooo sophomoric. :lamo



Buckets of water are more of a threat. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Home invasions are pretty small too rev. You're arguing that your rarely happen is somehow better than another.

Sometimes it isnt good to be the world leader. American children aged 14 and younger are 16 times more likely to be killed by firearms than are children in 25 other industrialized nations averaged together, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Even when the focus shifts from gun-related deaths to all homicides, the U.S. still makes a poor showing. The murder rate for American kids under age 14 is five times the average rate for the other countries.

The numbers stay bleak throughout the teen years and young adulthood. The risk that an American aged 15 to 19 will die from a firearm injury more than doubled between 1985 and 1994. Firearm injuries were the second-leading cause of death for people aged 10 to 24 in 1994. In 1995, 8 percent of American students reported carrying a firearm for fighting or self-defense at least once in the previous 30 days. Thats up from 4 percent in 1990.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058711815

So, what about home invasions?


As to your question. You plan for what is likely. Send the kids to Grandmas, then wait for the gang to invade. You're article shows a progression. It wasn't random.

Better yet, get a couple of BIG DOGS, and let them come in.
 
Boo Radley said:
Home invasions are pretty small too rev. You're arguing that your rarely happen is somehow better than another.
Click to expand...

That does not follow and is illogical, you made the scared girly screed about the poor children being accidentally shot when I have shown you its rare.


Sometimes it isnt good to be the world leader. American children aged 14 and younger are 16 times more likely to be killed by firearms than are children in 25 other industrialized nations averaged together, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Even when the focus shifts from gun-related deaths to all homicides, the U.S. still makes a poor showing. The murder rate for American kids under age 14 is five times the average rate for the other countries.
Click to expand...


FAIL!

As I demonstrated there were less than 20 on average per year. So are you saying there are 6 in other developing countries?


Oh wait, your moving goal posts now from accidental shootings to gangs and violence...... Most of those shootings are in the most restrictive areas when it comes to gun control. Perhaps we should let the good guys arm themselves against these savages.... Without trigger locks. :shrug:


The numbers stay bleak throughout the teen years and young adulthood. The risk that an American aged 15 to 19 will die from a firearm injury more than doubled between 1985 and 1994. Firearm injuries were the second-leading cause of death for people aged 10 to 24 in 1994. In 1995, 8 percent of American students reported carrying a firearm for fighting or self-defense at least once in the previous 30 days. Thats up from 4 percent in 1990.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1058711815
Click to expand...


yeah, I call bull**** on this. So I discount everything else in this paragraph unless you have any coorboratng evidence.



So, what about home invasions?


As to your question. You plan for what is likely. Send the kids to Grandmas, then wait for the gang to invade. You're article shows a progression. It wasn't random.

Better yet, get a couple of BIG DOGS, and let them come in.
Click to expand...




Hoplophobic response. 2 big dogs will cost a person several thousands of dollars a year first off, 2nd does he have room and time to take care of these pets? Training. You are going to let a couple "guard dogs" have the run of the house without training?


Ignorane does not even begin to cover your thought proccess here boo. :lamo
 
the makeout hobo said:
Do you have anything with more authority than someone's home made page? And this never proves that "in good working order" was the only use of the phrase.
Click to expand...




Sure, right after you show evidence that it's wrong. :roll:



But I see what your doing. A word of advice pidgeonholing will only lead to FAIL :pimpdaddy:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Sure, right after you show evidence that it's wrong. :roll:
Click to expand...
What exactly is the question: whether "well regulated" only meant "in good working order", or what?

But I see what your doing. A word of advice pidgeonholing will only lead to FAIL :pimpdaddy:
Click to expand...

Can you tell me why your source should be given any credibility?
 
the makeout hobo said:
What exactly is the question: whether "well regulated" only meant "in good working order", or what?



Can you tell me why your source should be given any credibility?
Click to expand...




Meaning of the words in the Second Amendment


Are you going to poo-poo this as well?


Fact is, you may be able to find other definitions, but in context of the time period, "Well regulated" meant "in good working order".


Now if you have evidence to the contrary, you are free to post it. However if you choose not to, then I think we are done here, as facts trump your speculation. :pimpdaddy:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Meaning of the words in the Second Amendment


Are you going to poo-poo this as well?


Fact is, you may be able to find other definitions, but in context of the time period, "Well regulated" meant "in good working order".


Now if you have evidence to the contrary, you are free to post it. However if you choose not to, then I think we are done here, as facts trump your speculation. :pimpdaddy:
Click to expand...

I'll poke around on google, but why is it so hard for you to find a site that isn't essentially someone's fan site? A site from any official organization would be trusted more than something someone's personal site.
 
the makeout hobo said:
I'll poke around on google, but why is it so hard for you to find a site that isn't essentially someone's fan site? A site from any official organization would be trusted more than something someone's personal site.
Click to expand...




What's wrong with guncite?


here is google, a timeline actually from google. Are you going to dismiss this one as well?

http://www.google.com/search?q=well...ine_result&ct=title&resnum=11&ved=0CDkQ5wIwCg

I think we are done here until you put forth any evidence putting my contention and links into dispute.
 
Last edited:
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
What's wrong with guncite?


here is google, a timeline actually from google. Are you going to dismiss this one as well?

well regulated - Google Search

I think we are done here until you put forth any evidence putting my contention and links into dispute.
Click to expand...

According to your own site,

"The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.

2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order. "

The first two definitions are closer to what I'd say the second amendment means than the fourth one. So as you see, it wasn't the only definition out there.

And in general, a site from an institution or college is much more trustworthy than a personal site.
 
the makeout hobo said:
According to your own site,

"The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.

2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order. "

The first two definitions are closer to what I'd say the second amendment means than the fourth one. So as you see, it wasn't the only definition out there.

And in general, a site from an institution or college is much more trustworthy than a personal site.
Click to expand...





To come to this conclusion you would have to ignore the rest of the contents of the link. You are applyig the modern use of the vernacular to the past. Which is either ignorant or dishonest. Did you actually read the link or just cherry pick what you wanted?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
To come to this conclusion you would have to ignore the rest of the contents of the link. You are applyig the modern use of the vernacular to the past. Which is either ignorant or dishonest. Did you actually read the link or just cherry pick what you wanted?
Click to expand...

The site you posted said all definitions were in use in colonial times. Do you agree or disagree with that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom