login
At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas (Page 4)
-
No new posts
| Other Resources | My Cup of Joe » At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas | Rss Feed  |
|
 2012-07-24 9:23 AM in reply to: #4327061 |
Champion  11989      Philly 'burbs |  Subject: RE: At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texaspowerman - 2012-07-23 11:23 PM mrbbrad - 2012-07-23 2:48 PM powerman - 2012-07-23 4:29 PM Wow, somehow a motor vehicle accident turned into to yet another... sorry, the same... old tired debate about gun control. I would be all for any and all gun control laws that actually accomplished what they were written for. You guys just don't get it... IT IS A RIGHT! Get over it. An inalienable right is one I do not need a permit for, one I do not need permission to act on, a fee I have to pay for.... I just have it. I will gladly allow restriction on my right to bear arms as soon as you guys accept restriction on the right to free speech. You will need to pay a fee, there will be a test that you are competent with speech, then you will have to wait for your permit, then when talking you will need to carry the permit on you at all times. If not you will be punished and your right to free speech will be revoked. The State will decide whether you may or may not be able to use your right of free speech. How's that sound? Really? How are words and guns in any way comparable? Besides, "free" speech is already restricted. You are kidding me right... Have you heard of the Bill Of Rights? Free speech is not restricted. Yelling fire in a theater, or using it to endanger others ahas been restricted.... but that is when it infringes on others rights.
Free speech is not regulated, which is why I used quotes on the word free, but speech is regulated. We do not have the rights to say anything we want anywhere we want. As for the Bill of Rights, yeah I've heard of it. And I've read it. I've particularly read the first four words of the second amendment.
|
| 2012-07-24 9:36 AM in reply to: #4324929 |
Veteran 494 Berkley | Subject: RE: At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas Clarification, you do not need a CCW to open carry a gun, correct? You just have to register the gun, just like registering to vote. |
| 2012-07-24 9:37 AM in reply to: #4327427 |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas mr2tony - 2012-07-24 8:38 AM mdg2003 - 2012-07-23 6:37 PM Really, if we had better coyotes, we wouldn't have all this senseless suffering.I'm curious to see whcih politician will pick this up and tie it to amnesty for illegals immigration reform. " If we had a better immigration policy we could eliminate the coyotes and all this senseless suffering." or something to that effect. Maybe if they had a union.... |
| 2012-07-24 9:40 AM in reply to: #4327583 |
Champion 17756 SoCal | Subject: RE: At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas mdg2003 - 2012-07-24 7:37 AM mr2tony - 2012-07-24 8:38 AM mdg2003 - 2012-07-23 6:37 PM Really, if we had better coyotes, we wouldn't have all this senseless suffering.I'm curious to see whcih politician will pick this up and tie it to amnesty for illegals immigration reform. " If we had a better immigration policy we could eliminate the coyotes and all this senseless suffering." or something to that effect. Maybe if they had a union.... No that's an idea. |
| 2012-07-24 9:49 AM in reply to: #4327543 |
| Master 2083 Houston, TX | Subject: RE: At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas mrbbrad - 2012-07-24 9:23 AM powerman - 2012-07-23 11:23 PM mrbbrad - 2012-07-23 2:48 PM powerman - 2012-07-23 4:29 PM Wow, somehow a motor vehicle accident turned into to yet another... sorry, the same... old tired debate about gun control. I would be all for any and all gun control laws that actually accomplished what they were written for. You guys just don't get it... IT IS A RIGHT! Get over it. An inalienable right is one I do not need a permit for, one I do not need permission to act on, a fee I have to pay for.... I just have it. I will gladly allow restriction on my right to bear arms as soon as you guys accept restriction on the right to free speech. You will need to pay a fee, there will be a test that you are competent with speech, then you will have to wait for your permit, then when talking you will need to carry the permit on you at all times. If not you will be punished and your right to free speech will be revoked. The State will decide whether you may or may not be able to use your right of free speech. How's that sound? Really? How are words and guns in any way comparable? Besides, "free" speech is already restricted. You are kidding me right... Have you heard of the Bill Of Rights? Free speech is not restricted. Yelling fire in a theater, or using it to endanger others ahas been restricted.... but that is when it infringes on others rights.
Free speech is not regulated, which is why I used quotes on the word free, but speech is regulated. We do not have the rights to say anything we want anywhere we want. As for the Bill of Rights, yeah I've heard of it. And I've read it. I've particularly read the first four words of the second amendment.
Free speech does not mean that you have the right to say whatever you want without any consequence. There are still consequences to what you say. Just because there are consequences to what you say doesn't mean that you don't have the right to say it. |
| 2012-07-24 1:09 PM in reply to: #4327543 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas mrbbrad - 2012-07-24 8:23 AM powerman - 2012-07-23 11:23 PM mrbbrad - 2012-07-23 2:48 PM powerman - 2012-07-23 4:29 PM Wow, somehow a motor vehicle accident turned into to yet another... sorry, the same... old tired debate about gun control. I would be all for any and all gun control laws that actually accomplished what they were written for. You guys just don't get it... IT IS A RIGHT! Get over it. An inalienable right is one I do not need a permit for, one I do not need permission to act on, a fee I have to pay for.... I just have it. I will gladly allow restriction on my right to bear arms as soon as you guys accept restriction on the right to free speech. You will need to pay a fee, there will be a test that you are competent with speech, then you will have to wait for your permit, then when talking you will need to carry the permit on you at all times. If not you will be punished and your right to free speech will be revoked. The State will decide whether you may or may not be able to use your right of free speech. How's that sound? Really? How are words and guns in any way comparable? Besides, "free" speech is already restricted. You are kidding me right... Have you heard of the Bill Of Rights? Free speech is not restricted. Yelling fire in a theater, or using it to endanger others ahas been restricted.... but that is when it infringes on others rights.
Free speech is not regulated, which is why I used quotes on the word free, but speech is regulated. We do not have the rights to say anything we want anywhere we want. As for the Bill of Rights, yeah I've heard of it. And I've read it. I've particularly read the first four words of the second amendment.
Again... there may be some time you or something that is not right... but show me what fee, what test, what permission you have to seek to exercise your freedom of speech right. It's pretty simple. They imposed restrictions, tests, and fees on voting and everyone had a cow. You can't do that on people's rights. Yet to exercise the 2A right, I have to seek permission, pay fees, give information, and depending on how I want to exercise them, have a government body test me to see if I am deemed worthy of actually using my right. And you do realize there are more words after the first 4 and the Supreme Court has consistently ruled what those words mean? I am actually not arguing that there needs to be zero regulation. I am just trying to point out the idiocy of what one must do to exercise their 2A right, and if everyone else had to do the same to exercise all of their other rights, we would have serious problems. |
| 2012-07-24 2:18 PM in reply to: #4328111 |
Champion 11989 Philly 'burbs | Subject: RE: At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas powerman - 2012-07-24 2:09 PM mrbbrad - 2012-07-24 8:23 AM powerman - 2012-07-23 11:23 PM mrbbrad - 2012-07-23 2:48 PM powerman - 2012-07-23 4:29 PM Wow, somehow a motor vehicle accident turned into to yet another... sorry, the same... old tired debate about gun control. I would be all for any and all gun control laws that actually accomplished what they were written for. You guys just don't get it... IT IS A RIGHT! Get over it. An inalienable right is one I do not need a permit for, one I do not need permission to act on, a fee I have to pay for.... I just have it. I will gladly allow restriction on my right to bear arms as soon as you guys accept restriction on the right to free speech. You will need to pay a fee, there will be a test that you are competent with speech, then you will have to wait for your permit, then when talking you will need to carry the permit on you at all times. If not you will be punished and your right to free speech will be revoked. The State will decide whether you may or may not be able to use your right of free speech. How's that sound? Really? How are words and guns in any way comparable? Besides, "free" speech is already restricted. You are kidding me right... Have you heard of the Bill Of Rights? Free speech is not restricted. Yelling fire in a theater, or using it to endanger others ahas been restricted.... but that is when it infringes on others rights.
Free speech is not regulated, which is why I used quotes on the word free, but speech is regulated. We do not have the rights to say anything we want anywhere we want. As for the Bill of Rights, yeah I've heard of it. And I've read it. I've particularly read the first four words of the second amendment.
Again... there may be some time you or something that is not right... but show me what fee, what test, what permission you have to seek to exercise your freedom of speech right. It's pretty simple. They imposed restrictions, tests, and fees on voting and everyone had a cow. You can't do that on people's rights. Yet to exercise the 2A right, I have to seek permission, pay fees, give information, and depending on how I want to exercise them, have a government body test me to see if I am deemed worthy of actually using my right. And you do realize there are more words after the first 4 and the Supreme Court has consistently ruled what those words mean? I am actually not arguing that there needs to be zero regulation. I am just trying to point out the idiocy of what one must do to exercise their 2A right, and if everyone else had to do the same to exercise all of their other rights, we would have serious problems. I don't think those who wrote that amendment used the phrase "well regulated" just to be poetic. I have no problems if people want to own guns. A (reasonably) sane, law abiding citizen should be allowed to own as many commonly used hunting and sport shooting guns as he or she wants. I also have no problem with them being required to prove to some degree that they are (reasonably) sane and law abiding, and that the guns they own are indeed commonly used hunting and sport shooting type guns. No regular person needs an assault rifle, and no criminal or mentally ill person should have easy access to any guns. The beauty of our country is that I my opinion on this is just as valid as yours. |
| 2012-07-24 2:37 PM in reply to: #4328265 |
Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas mrbbrad - 2012-07-24 2:18 PM I don't think those who wrote that amendment used the phrase "well regulated" just to be poetic. I have no problems if people want to own guns. A (reasonably) sane, law abiding citizen should be allowed to own as many commonly used hunting and sport shooting guns as he or she wants. I also have no problem with them being required to prove to some degree that they are (reasonably) sane and law abiding, and that the guns they own are indeed commonly used hunting and sport shooting type guns. No regular person needs an assault rifle, and no criminal or mentally ill person should have easy access to any guns. The beauty of our country is that I my opinion on this is just as valid as yours. "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." Seems pretty clear to me that the point of giving people the right to bear arms is to ensure a hostile government-- their own or that of another country-- isn't able to enslave them. So the point of gun ownership rights then is the threat posed by humans, not for the sake of hunting or sport shooting. That "shall not be infringed" phrasing also seems to be particularly strongly worded. I don't think whoever wrote that was just trying to be poetic, either. |
| 2012-07-24 2:38 PM in reply to: #4328111 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas powerman - 2012-07-24 1:09 PM Again... there may be some time you or something that is not right... but show me what fee, what test, what permission you have to seek to exercise your freedom of speech right. It's pretty simple. They imposed restrictions, tests, and fees on voting and everyone had a cow. You can't do that on people's rights. Yet to exercise the 2A right, I have to seek permission, pay fees, give information, and depending on how I want to exercise them, have a government body test me to see if I am deemed worthy of actually using my right. And you do realize there are more words after the first 4 and the Supreme Court has consistently ruled what those words mean? I am actually not arguing that there needs to be zero regulation. I am just trying to point out the idiocy of what one must do to exercise their 2A right, and if everyone else had to do the same to exercise all of their other rights, we would have serious problems. So it's ``idiocy'' to do a background check when giving someone a gun? See this is what I don't get. I have stated numerous times that I'm for legal gun ownership despite the fact that I personally wouldn't have one in my house. What I don't understand is why people are so adamantly against regulation of guns when they have to know that unscrupulous people will use them unscrupulously to murder, rob and steal. You guys constantly say that law-abiding citizens should have the right to own a weapon, but without any regulation whatsoever you're putting semi-automatic rifles in the hands of people who may not be law-abiding. How can you reconcile that??? |
| 2012-07-24 2:40 PM in reply to: #4328265 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas mrbbrad - 2012-07-24 1:18 PM powerman - 2012-07-24 2:09 PM mrbbrad - 2012-07-24 8:23 AM powerman - 2012-07-23 11:23 PM mrbbrad - 2012-07-23 2:48 PM powerman - 2012-07-23 4:29 PM Wow, somehow a motor vehicle accident turned into to yet another... sorry, the same... old tired debate about gun control. I would be all for any and all gun control laws that actually accomplished what they were written for. You guys just don't get it... IT IS A RIGHT! Get over it. An inalienable right is one I do not need a permit for, one I do not need permission to act on, a fee I have to pay for.... I just have it. I will gladly allow restriction on my right to bear arms as soon as you guys accept restriction on the right to free speech. You will need to pay a fee, there will be a test that you are competent with speech, then you will have to wait for your permit, then when talking you will need to carry the permit on you at all times. If not you will be punished and your right to free speech will be revoked. The State will decide whether you may or may not be able to use your right of free speech. How's that sound? Really? How are words and guns in any way comparable? Besides, "free" speech is already restricted. You are kidding me right... Have you heard of the Bill Of Rights? Free speech is not restricted. Yelling fire in a theater, or using it to endanger others ahas been restricted.... but that is when it infringes on others rights.
Free speech is not regulated, which is why I used quotes on the word free, but speech is regulated. We do not have the rights to say anything we want anywhere we want. As for the Bill of Rights, yeah I've heard of it. And I've read it. I've particularly read the first four words of the second amendment.
Again... there may be some time you or something that is not right... but show me what fee, what test, what permission you have to seek to exercise your freedom of speech right. It's pretty simple. They imposed restrictions, tests, and fees on voting and everyone had a cow. You can't do that on people's rights. Yet to exercise the 2A right, I have to seek permission, pay fees, give information, and depending on how I want to exercise them, have a government body test me to see if I am deemed worthy of actually using my right. And you do realize there are more words after the first 4 and the Supreme Court has consistently ruled what those words mean? I am actually not arguing that there needs to be zero regulation. I am just trying to point out the idiocy of what one must do to exercise their 2A right, and if everyone else had to do the same to exercise all of their other rights, we would have serious problems. I don't think those who wrote that amendment used the phrase "well regulated" just to be poetic. I have no problems if people want to own guns. A (reasonably) sane, law abiding citizen should be allowed to own as many commonly used hunting and sport shooting guns as he or she wants. I also have no problem with them being required to prove to some degree that they are (reasonably) sane and law abiding, and that the guns they own are indeed commonly used hunting and sport shooting type guns. No regular person needs an assault rifle, and no criminal or mentally ill person should have easy access to any guns. The beauty of our country is that I my opinion on this is just as valid as yours. You are entitled to your opinion, however the SCOTUS has consistently disagreed with you since the country was founded. I am only bound by theirs. |
| 2012-07-24 3:00 PM in reply to: #4328265 |
Champion 17756 SoCal | Subject: RE: At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas mrbbrad - 2012-07-24 12:18 PM No regular person needs an assault rifle. What is your definition of an assault rifle? |
| 2012-07-24 3:04 PM in reply to: #4324929 |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas Back to topic.. News here is saying a defective tire led to the crash. Watch for the lawsuit against the tire company to follow. |
| 2012-07-24 3:04 PM in reply to: #4328312 |
Champion 11989 Philly 'burbs | Subject: RE: At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas powerman - 2012-07-24 3:40 PM mrbbrad - 2012-07-24 1:18 PM powerman - 2012-07-24 2:09 PM mrbbrad - 2012-07-24 8:23 AM powerman - 2012-07-23 11:23 PM mrbbrad - 2012-07-23 2:48 PM powerman - 2012-07-23 4:29 PM Wow, somehow a motor vehicle accident turned into to yet another... sorry, the same... old tired debate about gun control. I would be all for any and all gun control laws that actually accomplished what they were written for. You guys just don't get it... IT IS A RIGHT! Get over it. An inalienable right is one I do not need a permit for, one I do not need permission to act on, a fee I have to pay for.... I just have it. I will gladly allow restriction on my right to bear arms as soon as you guys accept restriction on the right to free speech. You will need to pay a fee, there will be a test that you are competent with speech, then you will have to wait for your permit, then when talking you will need to carry the permit on you at all times. If not you will be punished and your right to free speech will be revoked. The State will decide whether you may or may not be able to use your right of free speech. How's that sound? Really? How are words and guns in any way comparable? Besides, "free" speech is already restricted. You are kidding me right... Have you heard of the Bill Of Rights? Free speech is not restricted. Yelling fire in a theater, or using it to endanger others ahas been restricted.... but that is when it infringes on others rights.
Free speech is not regulated, which is why I used quotes on the word free, but speech is regulated. We do not have the rights to say anything we want anywhere we want. As for the Bill of Rights, yeah I've heard of it. And I've read it. I've particularly read the first four words of the second amendment.
Again... there may be some time you or something that is not right... but show me what fee, what test, what permission you have to seek to exercise your freedom of speech right. It's pretty simple. They imposed restrictions, tests, and fees on voting and everyone had a cow. You can't do that on people's rights. Yet to exercise the 2A right, I have to seek permission, pay fees, give information, and depending on how I want to exercise them, have a government body test me to see if I am deemed worthy of actually using my right. And you do realize there are more words after the first 4 and the Supreme Court has consistently ruled what those words mean? I am actually not arguing that there needs to be zero regulation. I am just trying to point out the idiocy of what one must do to exercise their 2A right, and if everyone else had to do the same to exercise all of their other rights, we would have serious problems. I don't think those who wrote that amendment used the phrase "well regulated" just to be poetic. I have no problems if people want to own guns. A (reasonably) sane, law abiding citizen should be allowed to own as many commonly used hunting and sport shooting guns as he or she wants. I also have no problem with them being required to prove to some degree that they are (reasonably) sane and law abiding, and that the guns they own are indeed commonly used hunting and sport shooting type guns. No regular person needs an assault rifle, and no criminal or mentally ill person should have easy access to any guns. The beauty of our country is that I my opinion on this is just as valid as yours. You are entitled to your opinion, however the SCOTUS has consistently disagreed with you since the country was founded. I am only bound by theirs. I'm lost. When did the SCOTUS rule gun control unconstitutional? |
| 2012-07-24 3:13 PM in reply to: #4328369 |
Pro 4313 McKinney, TX | Subject: RE: At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas mdg2003 - 2012-07-24 3:04 PM Back to topic.. News here is saying a defective tire led to the crash. Watch for the lawsuit against the tire company to follow. The wheels fell off this post on page one.....it's just crashed and burned from there. |
| 2012-07-24 3:17 PM in reply to: #4328371 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas mrbbrad - 2012-07-24 2:04 PM You are entitled to your opinion, however the SCOTUS has consistently disagreed with you since the country was founded. I am only bound by theirs. I'm lost. When did the SCOTUS rule gun control unconstitutional? It didn't. I ruled the 2A is an individual right and so far has not said I can only have guns for sport or hunting purposes. |
| 2012-07-24 3:22 PM in reply to: #4328398 |
Champion 11989 Philly 'burbs | Subject: RE: At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas powerman - 2012-07-24 4:17 PM mrbbrad - 2012-07-24 2:04 PM You are entitled to your opinion, however the SCOTUS has consistently disagreed with you since the country was founded. I am only bound by theirs. I'm lost. When did the SCOTUS rule gun control unconstitutional? It didn't. I ruled the 2A is an individual right and so far has not said I can only have guns for sport or hunting purposes. Gotcha. Yeah, I kinda mixed two thoughts there. Sorry. Edited by mrbbrad 2012-07-24 3:24 PM |
| 2012-07-24 3:27 PM in reply to: #4328411 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas mrbbrad - 2012-07-24 2:22 PM powerman - 2012-07-24 4:17 PM mrbbrad - 2012-07-24 2:04 PM You are entitled to your opinion, however the SCOTUS has consistently disagreed with you since the country was founded. I am only bound by theirs. I'm lost. When did the SCOTUS rule gun control unconstitutional? It didn't. I ruled the 2A is an individual right and so far has not said I can only have guns for sport or hunting purposes. Gotcha. Yeah, I kinda mixed two thoughts there. Sorry. It's OK, I sort of knew it was confusing when I wrote it. |
| 2012-07-24 3:58 PM in reply to: #4327582 |
Expert 3126 Boise, ID | Subject: RE: At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas deboerkj - 2012-07-24 8:36 AM Clarification, you do not need a CCW to open carry a gun, correct? You just have to register the gun, just like registering to vote. Depends. The reason NYC was singled out earlier was there you have to register and you have to have a permit to have it no matter what. Here in Idaho, I don't have to register my gun unless I buy it from a licensed firearms dealer. Even then they are only required to keep a record of the sale, the gun shop doesn't report it to anyone else unless they go out of business. I can buy a gun from a private party and no one has to be notified. Also in Idaho I can open carry a gun if I choose. Just the other day I saw a guy in the grocery store with a big Kimber .45 hanging off his hip. The restriction here is that if you want to carry the gun concealed then you have to have a permit. |
| Other Resources | My Cup of Joe » At least 13 killed as truck loaded with 23 passengers slams into trees in Texas | Rss Feed |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK