Page 3 of 17 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 243

Thread: And it begins: Obama Renews Push to Reduce Gun Violence

  1. #31
    Dead Sammich's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    630
    Undisclosed
    If you don't like what I post, then don't read it. It is just that simple. Calling out to the "authorities" to put down those who voice opinions different to your own is an action always resorted to by those who can't defend their position. Just like a certain person who claims he was a stuntman in Day of the Dead.

    This is the GENERAL DISCUSSION FORUM: "For general off topic issues. Dead related topics should be posted in the 'Dead Discussion' forum". Is there a missing part of the description that is supposed to read, "except when rcg2005 doesn't like what he sees"?

    Could you please show what I posted was "out of context quotes from wikipedia"? I would be interested to see your "proof".

  2. #32
    Dead
    Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Illinois Valley
    Posts
    690
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by shootemindehead View Post
    The quote from Jefferson is his own take. Nowhere in the actual amendment does it suggest that a "tyrannical government" was the reason for an armed populace.

    It states, however, very clearly that in terms of a militia, the population's right to bear shall not be infringed. The reasons for which, was because of the military situation prevailing at the time. IE, there wasn't one. The US didn't have a regular standing army and was likely not to have one capable of fending off outside influence for some time.
    You are really reaching here shootem. You're reinterpreting the words of the founders to support your argument. The fact of the matter is that a centralized federal government is exactly what the founders sought to prevent by giving the people inalienable rights. Jeffersons words were not just an opinion, these are the ideals that the bill of rights was written in the spirit of. They are the very ideas that inspired the bill of rights to begin with. The biggest threat to the American way of life, in the minds of the founders, was not outside influence. Outside influence was just an inevitable annoyance on the road of nation building. And it still is today, as can be seen time and again. The biggest threat to liberty was held to be influence from within, in the form of a tyrannical federal government that seeks to limit the rights of the people for it's own purposes. This is exactly why the bill of rights was instituted, giving inalienable rights to THE PEOPLE, and restricting the rights of the state to those specifically granted. The people reserve all rights not specifically granted, the state is limited to ONLY the rights that are specifically granted.
    This was meant to be a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people. Like Sammich says, we are not subjects that are granted privileges by the state, we are citizens that hold inalienable rights. Of which the founders used very specific and clear language to outline. This has been supported time after time by the supreme court, and they have found EVERY TIME that the 2nd ammendment is an inalienable right granted to THE PEOPLE.
    Your far reaching conclusions on this are the result of your inability to accept that you are just plain wrong about this. Your argument has been proposed by others, and every time it's shot down because it's wrong. Plain and simple.

    Quote Originally Posted by shootemindehead View Post
    In addition the idea that an armed population could fend off America's trained military for even a short space of time is ridiculous. Any kind of resistance would be quashed in the blink of an eye.
    And this!? This is not only the result of a defeatist attitude, but has also been proven wrong time after time throughout history.
    The Vietnam war, The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, most recently, The US War In Iraq.
    Which isn't even the most important aspect of why this statement is itself ridiculous. The fact is that this is merely the opinion of 1 man, you. And you reiterate this as if it's some sort of indisputable fact that has or should have some sort of legal bearing on the peoples right to bear arms. As if to say, even if all your other arguments against the right to bear hold no water whatsoever, and if it's proven that this is in fact what the founders intended with the 2nd amm, that citizens prepared to fight to protect their rights could never oppose the US Military, therefore the intended purpose of the 2nd amm is a moot point and should be disregarded as such. That is the most ludicrous argument against the peoples right to bear that has ever been spouted! It's as volatile as a fart in a hurricane.
    So I ask, what are your motivations for being so against the peoples right to bear that you're willing to use such obviously empty and erroneous arguments?
    Are you so impressed with your own ideas and opinions that you just don't see how vacuous they are?
    You've said in other discussions that you have no ignorance where the US is concerned. Well, based on this thread alone you are ignorant to the concepts this country was built on, you're ignorant to the ways of the state, you're ignorant to what's in the minds of the people, and ignorant to the nature and capabilities of the US military.
    And this is not the ignorance of a stupid man unable to understand these things. This is a willful ignorance.

  3. #33
    Just been bitten
    Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Age
    58
    Posts
    104
    Undisclosed
    Babomb made my point for me.
    You are troll-baiting with circular logic on a site for genre fans.
    Perhaps you should take a class or two in debate and philosophy. Understanding how to diagram and defend an argument might help you understand the errors in your thesis.
    http://youtu.be/KU49MR19CcA
    Quote Originally Posted by Sammich View Post
    If you don't like what I post, then don't read it. It is just that simple. Calling out to the "authorities" to put down those who voice opinions different to your own is an action always resorted to by those who can't defend their position. Just like a certain person who claims he was a stuntman in Day of the Dead.

    This is the GENERAL DISCUSSION FORUM: "For general off topic issues. Dead related topics should be posted in the 'Dead Discussion' forum". Is there a missing part of the description that is supposed to read, "except when rcg2005 doesn't like what he sees"?

    Could you please show what I posted was "out of context quotes from wikipedia"? I would be interested to see your "proof".
    Last edited by rgc2005; 07-Aug-2012 at 11:50 AM. Reason: sp

  4. #34
    Feeding shootemindehead's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    4,086
    Ireland
    Quote Originally Posted by babomb View Post
    So I ask, what are your motivations for being so against the peoples right to bear that you're willing to use such obviously empty and erroneous arguments?
    What's the point? We're clearly not going to agree on the matter, so it's just going to end up as an is "to/is not" and I'm not interested. Not to mention the fact that I've never once said that I was "...against the peoples right to bear". You seeing arguments that aren't even there.

    I will also never subscribe to this weekend Rambo fantasy that an armed civilian population could hold off the US Army for any real length of time. The very idea is ridiculous, despite the fact that the US military have had setbacks in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. Those involvements took part in an all out war situation. Perhaps, if the entire citizenry of the US rose up, it could succeed, but the fact is that America is NOWHERE near such a scenario and won't be, at least not in our lifetime, or even our grandchildren. So, it remains academic, at best. It remains a fantasy in minds of some people, that's all.

    If any kind of uprising takes place, more than likely it would be an unorganised, local situation and anything like that would be crushed swiftly, under the bogeyman of "terrorism" etc.

    The fact is that the majority of America has it too good and the idea of a nationwide revolution remains absurd.
    I'm runnin' this monkey farm now Frankenstein.....

  5. #35
    Dead
    Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Illinois Valley
    Posts
    690
    United States
    Quote Originally Posted by shootemindehead View Post
    What's the point? We're clearly not going to agree on the matter, so it's just going to end up as an is "to/is not" and I'm not interested. Not to mention the fact that I've never once said that I was "...against the peoples right to bear". You seeing arguments that aren't even there.

    I will also never subscribe to this weekend Rambo fantasy that an armed civilian population could hold off the US Army for any real length of time. The very idea is ridiculous, despite the fact that the US military have had setbacks in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq. Those involvements took part in an all out war situation. Perhaps, if the entire citizenry of the US rose up, it could succeed, but the fact is that America is NOWHERE near such a scenario and won't be, at least not in our lifetime, or even our grandchildren. So, it remains academic, at best. It remains a fantasy in minds of some people, that's all.

    If any kind of uprising takes place, more than likely it would be an unorganised, local situation and anything like that would be crushed swiftly, under the bogeyman of "terrorism" etc.

    The fact is that the majority of America has it too good and the idea of a nationwide revolution remains absurd.
    Yeah, the whole thing is kinda stupid. No point in dragging it out further.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutaree
    Last edited by babomb; 07-Aug-2012 at 05:28 PM. Reason: hutaree

  6. #36
    Feeding shootemindehead's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    4,086
    Ireland
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike70 View Post
    pretty funny the complete and utter silence that has ensued since it was pointed out to certain people that they have no idea what the fuck they are talking about. people that live in a place where everything is centralized cannot uderstand the way things are done in the US.

    also stray anyone who cannot understand the words "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is complete and total moron without any understanding of the English language.

    f
    Why so hostile Mike? Is there really a need for that?

    By the way, I believe that the 2nd Amendment is open to interpretation. I don't think it's as cut and dried as you state, especially when the piece in take within the context of the preceding line:

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    A strict reading of that suggests that the right to bear arms is hand in hand within a militia. There is no mention of an individual right.

    In addition, it's also important to mention that specific reference to an individual right to bear arms was struck out when it was offered up by certain states for inclusion in the Bill of Rights, as far as I know. So, one is therefore forced to ask, if the 2nd Amendment was to guarantee individual rights to arms, why wasn't express mention made within the finished article?

    Either way, I have no interest in pursuing this further because, frankly, it's turning nasty and this place is supposed to be a forum for genre flicks and I'm sure that Neil doesn't want to see it descend into petty squabbles and name calling.
    I'm runnin' this monkey farm now Frankenstein.....

  7. #37
    Just been bitten
    Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Age
    58
    Posts
    104
    Undisclosed
    At the risk of opening a whole can of worms............
    The sole reason that Imperial Armies lose insurgencies is the concept of "Limited War" and a term used by the US staff planners called "Battlefield Calculus".
    Had the British fought a committed "Total War" against us in the late 1700s Americans would still be drinking tea instead of coffee. The first, last and only nationally committed war the US has ever fought in was WW2. At its core, taking away human pain and suffering, warfare is based on pure math. Despite local battlefield victories and appalling losses no nation of 20-30 million can hold off a nation of 200-300 million committed to victory. Had the former Soviet Union chose to focus a fully committed Red Army, instead of a few Airborne Divisions, against Afghanistan no amount of American Stinger missiles could have held them off. For example, in WWI the Germans were never militarily defeated and in WW2 their early gains, better tactics and advanced technology only delayed the same results. They lost against the total economic/production, GDP, weight of the nations allied against them committed to the total destruction of Nazi Germany.
    The same "Battlefield Calculus" worked against Napolean, General Lee, Hannibal, the Huns, the Mongols, the Crusades, all the way back to the "Neanderthals vs Homo-sapiens".
    Math always wins in the long term no matter how just the cause.

  8. #38
    Dead
    Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Illinois Valley
    Posts
    690
    United States
    Shootem, damn, you just can't let sleeping dogs lie can you!? You're tenacious, I gotta give you that.
    But NO! It isn't open to interpretation! It is exactly as it sounds. In the same English language we all understand.
    Your insistence and tenacity is something to behold. But at some point you have to know when it's over and bow out with your dignity intact...

  9. #39
    Being Attacked botc's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    United States
    Age
    39
    Posts
    41
    Aaland
    F*ck all this debating shit.... The words are there for a reason and not open to interpretation.... You boys across the pond have your own worries wo quit sticking your nose up America's ass. I like aks I think everyone should own one that's able. I think the ar15/ m16 should be banned cuz the operating system is junk. Now there is a new can of works for ya. Oh and anti gunners please make your own thread and advise pro gunners not to comment or not to leave argumentive statements. Otherwise shut up or move yo china.

  10. #40
    Fresh Meat
    Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Age
    42
    Posts
    1
    Aaland
    This Research Report is part of NIJ's Reducing Gun Violence publication series. Each report in the series describes the implementation and effects of an individual, NIJ-funded, local-level program designed to reduce firearm-related violence in a particular U.S. city. It describes in detail the problem targeted; the program designed to address it; the problems confronted in designing, implementing, and evaluating the effort; and the strategies adopted in responding to any obstacles encountered. Both successes and failures are discussed, and recommendations are made for future programs.
    Last edited by swiftsantorum; 24-Aug-2012 at 12:38 PM. Reason: imge

  11. #41
    Feeding Tricky's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Age
    42
    Posts
    3,642
    England

  12. #42
    Dead Sammich's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    630
    Undisclosed
    Here are 2 shootings that the corporate media DID NOT report nationwide, like they will with the NY shooting.



  13. #43
    Dead Mr. Clean's Avatar
    Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    765
    United States
    I love how most of these places have the strickest gun laws....yet anti-gun activists still call for tougher laws......


  14. #44
    Dead
    Member

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Illinois Valley
    Posts
    690
    United States
    http://gothamist.com/2012/08/25/ray_...building_c.php

    All the bystanders in NYC were actually shot by police. That's not a conspiracy either. When the cops shot the gunman they accidentally shot 9 bystanders in the process. Damn...

  15. #45

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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