kelpdiver 2 #126 February 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteI personally find your sarcasm insulting. Why, at least one pro-gun poster has stated I am right. But who knows what he actually agreed with, and if you actually meant the statement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #127 February 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteI personally find your sarcasm insulting. Why, at least one pro-gun poster has stated I am right. But who knows what he actually agreed with, and if you actually meant the statement. That would be me - I agreed with his initial statement that the 2nd shouldn't be infringed on - it went downhill from there.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kbordson 8 #128 February 25, 2009 QuoteGreat thanks, now how about answering the second question? This is my "new belief." [sarcasm]I believe there shouldn't be any restrictions on gun purchases in the USA. The constitution is quite clear. Personally, I believe that the arguments brought forward by the pro-gun crowd are bordering on utter stupidity, but the constitution is clear.[/sarcasm] There is no restriciton on firearms in the constitution, so why are you okay with constricitons and restrictions of any kind? Who said I was? Here.... this is my belief - I even reference YOU in that statement. I haven't flipped. Some controls are good. But "which" controls? And why SHOULD I trust the govenrment? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #129 February 25, 2009 Since we can't decide on which controls, we should revert back to the constitution, which doesn't have any controls in place. Hence, there shouldn't be any controls. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,058 #130 February 25, 2009 >Satire or not, he's right. Perfect. I imagine you think Stephen Colbert is right too? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #131 February 25, 2009 I really love how we can't actually debate this issue like adults. Let's just avoid all this bullshit and call eachother "stupid face" because its obvious to me the same people who want to disarm me can not hold up their end of the argument so have to resort to immature debate tactics. And we wonder why our government is failing us. Our government IS us. www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Halfpastniner 0 #132 February 25, 2009 Quote I really love how we can't actually debate this issue like adults. Let's just avoid all this bullshit and call eachother "stupid face" because its obvious to me the same people who want to disarm me can not hold up their end of the argument so have to resort to immature debate tactics. And we wonder why our government is failing us. Our government IS us. The only one being a big stupid face is the Canadian!BASE 1384 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,058 #133 February 25, 2009 > the same people who want to disarm me can not hold up their end of the > argument so have to resort to immature debate tactics. A bit of an oxymoron, that statement. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #134 February 25, 2009 If you would like to join the discussion and maybe answer the questions I asked that Quade conveniently avoided answering then by all means. Otherwise you are only proving my point bill.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piper17 1 #135 February 25, 2009 Well, people in the USA are entitled to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" but a lot of citizens here lose their "liberty" and as put in jail for committing crimes. Others lose their lives for taking the life of another. Felons lose their right to vote for comitting certain crimes so why shouldn't they lose their right to bear arms if their crimes fit this punishment."A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,058 #136 February 25, 2009 >Otherwise you are only proving my point bill. As I don't want to disarm you, and I don't support this bill, I do not see your point at all. (Other than an "all these other assholes call people names, I never do!" sort of thing.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,465 #137 February 25, 2009 QuoteFelons lose their right to vote for comitting certain crimes so why shouldn't they lose their right to bear arms if their crimes fit this punishment. Cause if that is what the founding fathers wanted with the right to bear arms, they would have included that. But they didn't, so restriction shouldn't be there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #138 February 25, 2009 QuoteIf you would like to join the discussion and maybe answer the questions I asked that Quade conveniently avoided answering then by all means. Otherwise you are only proving my point bill. I answered your question multiple times. I can't help it if my answer doesn't meet with your approval.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piper17 1 #139 February 25, 2009 Perhaps you'd like to edit your response to make it coherent."A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition"...Rudyard Kipling Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #141 February 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteIf you would like to join the discussion and maybe answer the questions I asked that Quade conveniently avoided answering then by all means. Otherwise you are only proving my point bill. I answered your question multiple times. I can't help it if my answer doesn't meet with your approval. So to confirm.... my question was So you are opposed to laws which can potentially restrict our ability to defend ourselves with a firearm? And your answer was no. Is this correct?www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #142 February 25, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteIf you would like to join the discussion and maybe answer the questions I asked that Quade conveniently avoided answering then by all means. Otherwise you are only proving my point bill. I answered your question multiple times. I can't help it if my answer doesn't meet with your approval. So to confirm.... my question was So you are opposed to laws which can potentially restrict our ability to defend ourselves with a firearm? And your answer was no. Is this correct? You are not correct. Your question is worded far too broadly for me to give a single word answer and further did not address the bill specifically referenced in the original post of this thread. My answer, however, did address it. Questions with phrases such as "which can potentially" are questions I'm not inclined to make a definitive comment on "which can potentially" be used to the advantage of some ass hat just for the sake of argument. Ask me if I think the specific bill in question is something I would support and you may get your definitive answer.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #143 February 25, 2009 Well let me put it this way. I oppose a licensing program BECAUSE it can potentially be used by ass hats to take away our ability to defend ourselves with a firearm.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
carmenc 0 #144 February 25, 2009 QuoteWell, people in the USA are entitled to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" but a lot of citizens here lose their "liberty" and as put in jail for committing crimes. Others lose their lives for taking the life of another. Felons lose their right to vote for comitting certain crimes so why shouldn't they lose their right to bear arms if their crimes fit this punishment. Amendment XIV: "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; " Not clear to me that RIGHTS can be denied. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #145 February 25, 2009 QuoteQuote You bring up, perhaps inadvertantly ... perhaps not, a related issue: relative incarceration rates. Why is it that the US has less than 5 percent of the world's population. But it has almost a quarter of the world's prisoners? [url http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/law/research/icps/worldbrief/wpb_stats.php?area=all&category=wb_poptotal]Absolute number of prisoners by nation-state: USA 2.3M China 1.6M Russia 0.9M If the comparison is with China, an obvious difference is that China is much much quicker to execute, with Amnesty Intl estimating just under 10,000 executions per year. Meanwhile, California hasn't executed a single person in 3 years because anti death penalty judges have ruled even lethal injection to be a cruel form of punishment. It’s a list of #1, #2, and #3 by absolute number of prisoners (to 2 sig figs for USA and PRC). My first guess was that 10k executions, which I find to be a credible estimation, would be lost in sig figs (3) compared to populations. It’s not quite by my calculation but nearly. Of course, every one is significant for those executed and their families. When the number of prisoners is normalized by incarceration rates (to take into account 1.31B versus 296M populations of China & USA, respectively), China would have had to execute 8.27M prisoners a year (rather than 10k) to match the US incarceration rate. China has 1.55M prisoners at an incarceration rate of 118 prisoners per 100k people. Adjusting China's prison population to match the US incarceration rate (738 prisoners per 100k people, per US Bureau of Justice statistics, part of DOJ) corresponds to 9.82M Chinese prisoners. 9.82M prisoners – 10k prisoners executed – 1.55M current prisoners =’s 8.26M prisoners less by rate including the executed ones (per AI's estimate). Now those are just the numbers ... and I encourage someone to double-check my math; I just back-of-the-enveloped it. And to be explicit, which I'm confident you and a good number of folks realize … but am concerned some might not …, that does not mean anything w/r/t causality. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Capt.Slog 0 #146 February 25, 2009 Those pesky facts AGAIN! PS, where do you jump? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 426 #147 February 26, 2009 Quote Quote Man I love Texas. That explains a lot! Indeed it does.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
