login
3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon (Page 6)
-
No new posts
|
 2012-12-12 12:39 PM in reply to: #4532451 |
Master 5557    , California |  Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in OregonLeft Brain - 2012-12-12 10:24 AM You are talking about amending the Bill of Rights? Sure. I said straight up that the gun lobby won't let it happen. But yeah it is allowed. Prohibition was created with an amendment and ended with another one. |
| 2012-12-12 12:40 PM in reply to: #4532477 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon spudone - 2012-12-12 12:39 PM Left Brain - 2012-12-12 10:24 AM You are talking about amending the Bill of Rights? Sure. I said straight up that the gun lobby won't let it happen. But yeah it is allowed. Prohibition was created with an amendment and ended with another one. Prohibition was not part of the original Bill of Rights. |
| 2012-12-12 12:40 PM in reply to: #4532447 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 11:20 AM powerman - 2012-12-12 10:18 AM No, on the first page of the thread, before anyone else had, GomesBolt said, "40K killed every year in car accidents. One american every 13 minutes is killed in a car accident. Sigh." And it happens all the time. As soon as people start talking about gun control, gun advocates make the argument that a gun is just an inanimate object or they point out how many more people are killed by cars than guns. That's exactly what happened in this thread. Cruse compared a gun to a stapler and GomesBolt compared guns to cars. And my point is that I think that both analogies are weak and don't serve your argument. A gun is not simply a tool. It is a device whose sole purpose is to kill, and to pretend that it's no different from a spatula is just silly; and there are far more restrictions on driving than gun advocates would ever accept on firearms. So why bother making either argument? The only thing that needs to be said, is (and I'm paraphrasing here-- by all means, put it in your own words) "Second amendment to the Constitution, suckas!" That's all the argument ends up coming back to anyway. That's the point though, I am not making the comparison (to cars), gun control folks are. I see. I can only speak for me, and I was not talking about the flow of this thread, just the subject in general. Gun control has become a "public safety" issue by gun control folks. And unlike other people... I do not think a gun is a piece of sports equipment, it is a weapon with a purpose. |
| 2012-12-12 12:47 PM in reply to: #4532440 |
Pro 6767 the Alabama part of Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon powerman - 2012-12-12 1:17 PM ... Cars were not around, but transportation most certainly was, and that was not protected. Sort of surprising to think going anywhere you want was not protected. What was discussed back them was that you were allowed commonly accepted weapons. Swords and bows were still useful, but they did not protect the right to swords while the government had guns... they protected the right of guns because they were the accepted weapon of the people. By todays standards, flintlocks were pretty crude... but they were the most technologically advanced weapon of the time. They only thing after that was a cannon... and most common people could not afford to buy a cannon. They did not protect the right to "somewhat deadly" weapons of the time, they protected the right to the best weapons of the time. That has not changed now for 200 years. Nowhere does it say that in the 2A. And if that were true, you could build a nuclear bomb and it would be allowed. But it isn't, even though you could. |
| 2012-12-12 12:52 PM in reply to: #4532500 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon gearboy - 2012-12-12 11:47 AM powerman - 2012-12-12 1:17 PM ... Cars were not around, but transportation most certainly was, and that was not protected. Sort of surprising to think going anywhere you want was not protected. What was discussed back them was that you were allowed commonly accepted weapons. Swords and bows were still useful, but they did not protect the right to swords while the government had guns... they protected the right of guns because they were the accepted weapon of the people. By todays standards, flintlocks were pretty crude... but they were the most technologically advanced weapon of the time. They only thing after that was a cannon... and most common people could not afford to buy a cannon. They did not protect the right to "somewhat deadly" weapons of the time, they protected the right to the best weapons of the time. That has not changed now for 200 years. Nowhere does it say that in the 2A. And if that were true, you could build a nuclear bomb and it would be allowed. But it isn't, even though you could. GB, I also said there were cannons but those were not protected. It was discussed at the time and recognized by Constitutional solars. There is only so much two sentences can say. It is up to the SCOTUS to determine meaning and they have consistently determined it to mean everyday weapons available to the common man. Tanks, M60s, rocket launchers, and nuclear weapons... regardless of your cute article, or fighter jets or "Man of War" ships are not commonly available to the average man. |
| 2012-12-12 1:01 PM in reply to: #4532512 |
Pro 6767 the Alabama part of Pennsylvania | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon powerman - 2012-12-12 1:52 PM gearboy - 2012-12-12 11:47 AM powerman - 2012-12-12 1:17 PM ... Cars were not around, but transportation most certainly was, and that was not protected. Sort of surprising to think going anywhere you want was not protected. What was discussed back them was that you were allowed commonly accepted weapons. Swords and bows were still useful, but they did not protect the right to swords while the government had guns... they protected the right of guns because they were the accepted weapon of the people. By todays standards, flintlocks were pretty crude... but they were the most technologically advanced weapon of the time. They only thing after that was a cannon... and most common people could not afford to buy a cannon. They did not protect the right to "somewhat deadly" weapons of the time, they protected the right to the best weapons of the time. That has not changed now for 200 years. Nowhere does it say that in the 2A. And if that were true, you could build a nuclear bomb and it would be allowed. But it isn't, even though you could. GB, I also said there were cannons but those were not protected. It was discussed at the time and recognized by Constitutional solars. There is only so much two sentences can say. It is up to the SCOTUS to determine meaning and they have consistently determined it to mean everyday weapons available to the common man. Tanks, M60s, rocket launchers, and nuclear weapons... regardless of your cute article, or fighter jets or "Man of War" ships are not commonly available to the average man. I don't know if canons were allowed or not. I am going based on your comments. And you stated that most people could not afford canons, not that canons were not allowed. And yes, individuals generally cannot afford the things you listed. But if it is not specifically forbidden to have private ownership of a tank (for example), then what is to stop a small group of people from pooling their resources and buying one? If what you are trying to say is that your initial statement about "best weapons of the time" is a mis-statement, that is different. Maybe you want to clarify what you meant. I believe in "well regulated militia", and I believe the intent was to not have a standing army, but to be able to round up forces quickly in the event of hostile forces trying to impose their will on us. Which is different than many (not you, per se) seem to think, where the belief seems to be that they need their guns so the government won't come and take over. |
| 2012-12-12 1:05 PM in reply to: #4531540 |
Veteran 284 | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon If you are interested in this topic, I encourage you to check out the testimony of one of the survivors of the Kileen, TX massacre in 1991. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis I found it very compelling. To think of what might have been. JC |
| 2012-12-12 1:11 PM in reply to: #4532447 |
| Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon |
| 2012-12-12 1:17 PM in reply to: #4532524 |
Champion 17756 SoCal | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon gearboy - 2012-12-12 11:01 AM I believe in "well regulated militia", and I believe the intent was to not have a standing army, but to be able to round up forces quickly in the event of hostile forces trying to impose their will on us. Which is different than many (not you, per se) seem to think, where the belief seems to be that they need their guns so the government won't come and take over. I think it's both. It was meant for the people to protect themselves from threats foreign or domestic with foreign being the more plausible. |
| 2012-12-12 1:18 PM in reply to: #4532500 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon gearboy - 2012-12-12 12:47 PM powerman - 2012-12-12 1:17 PM ... Cars were not around, but transportation most certainly was, and that was not protected. Sort of surprising to think going anywhere you want was not protected. What was discussed back them was that you were allowed commonly accepted weapons. Swords and bows were still useful, but they did not protect the right to swords while the government had guns... they protected the right of guns because they were the accepted weapon of the people. By todays standards, flintlocks were pretty crude... but they were the most technologically advanced weapon of the time. They only thing after that was a cannon... and most common people could not afford to buy a cannon. They did not protect the right to "somewhat deadly" weapons of the time, they protected the right to the best weapons of the time. That has not changed now for 200 years. Nowhere does it say that in the 2A. And if that were true, you could build a nuclear bomb and it would be allowed. But it isn't, even though you could. Well there goes my winter project. |
| 2012-12-12 1:19 PM in reply to: #4532524 |
Master 2725 Washington, DC Metro | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon gearboy - 2012-12-12 2:01 PM powerman - 2012-12-12 1:52 PM gearboy - 2012-12-12 11:47 AM powerman - 2012-12-12 1:17 PM ... Cars were not around, but transportation most certainly was, and that was not protected. Sort of surprising to think going anywhere you want was not protected. What was discussed back them was that you were allowed commonly accepted weapons. Swords and bows were still useful, but they did not protect the right to swords while the government had guns... they protected the right of guns because they were the accepted weapon of the people. By todays standards, flintlocks were pretty crude... but they were the most technologically advanced weapon of the time. They only thing after that was a cannon... and most common people could not afford to buy a cannon. They did not protect the right to "somewhat deadly" weapons of the time, they protected the right to the best weapons of the time. That has not changed now for 200 years. Nowhere does it say that in the 2A. And if that were true, you could build a nuclear bomb and it would be allowed. But it isn't, even though you could. GB, I also said there were cannons but those were not protected. It was discussed at the time and recognized by Constitutional solars. There is only so much two sentences can say. It is up to the SCOTUS to determine meaning and they have consistently determined it to mean everyday weapons available to the common man. Tanks, M60s, rocket launchers, and nuclear weapons... regardless of your cute article, or fighter jets or "Man of War" ships are not commonly available to the average man. I don't know if canons were allowed or not. I am going based on your comments. And you stated that most people could not afford canons, not that canons were not allowed. And yes, individuals generally cannot afford the things you listed. But if it is not specifically forbidden to have private ownership of a tank (for example), then what is to stop a small group of people from pooling their resources and buying one? If what you are trying to say is that your initial statement about "best weapons of the time" is a mis-statement, that is different. Maybe you want to clarify what you meant. I believe in "well regulated militia", and I believe the intent was to not have a standing army, but to be able to round up forces quickly in the event of hostile forces trying to impose their will on us. Which is different than many (not you, per se) seem to think, where the belief seems to be that they need their guns so the government won't come and take over. Ummm, you realize that you can buy a tank right? |
| 2012-12-12 1:20 PM in reply to: #4532554 |
Member 5452 NC | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon Sous - 2012-12-12 2:19 PM Ummm, you realize that you can buy a tank right? And C. Thomas Howell can drive a tank.
|
| 2012-12-12 1:21 PM in reply to: #4531540 |
Extreme Veteran 502 Tucson | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon What gun control freaks can't get through their head is the statistical maxim, "Correlation does not equal Causation" Wash, rinse, repeat. |
| 2012-12-12 1:22 PM in reply to: #4532539 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon crusevegas - 2012-12-12 1:11 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 10:20 AM Cruse compared a gun to a stapler What? You said scalpel-- I either misread it or someone else used the stapler analogy. Anyway, point is, a gun is a weapon, not a tool. |
| 2012-12-12 1:26 PM in reply to: #4532559 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 1:22 PM crusevegas - 2012-12-12 1:11 PM You said scalpel-- I either misread it or someone else used the stapler analogy. Anyway, point is, a gun is a weapon, not a tool. jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 10:20 AM Cruse compared a gun to a stapler What? Nobody is taking my stapler!
|
| 2012-12-12 1:27 PM in reply to: #4532557 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon joestop74 - 2012-12-12 1:21 PM What gun control freaks can't get through their head is the statistical maxim, "Correlation does not equal Causation" Wash, rinse, repeat. Not just gun control freaks. Correllation=causation is at the heart of the oft-repeated (but not always accurate) statistic that crime is lower in places where there are less stringent gun control laws, or that increasing the number of armed citizens would create a safer society. In general, if you're trying to make a sketchy argument without a lot of sound data, correllation=causation is your friend. |
| 2012-12-12 1:27 PM in reply to: #4532566 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon Left Brain - 2012-12-12 1:26 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 1:22 PM crusevegas - 2012-12-12 1:11 PM You said scalpel-- I either misread it or someone else used the stapler analogy. Anyway, point is, a gun is a weapon, not a tool. jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 10:20 AM Cruse compared a gun to a stapler What? Nobody is taking my stapler!
I ... I ... I burn down the building. |
| 2012-12-12 1:27 PM in reply to: #4532566 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon Left Brain - 2012-12-12 1:26 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 1:22 PM crusevegas - 2012-12-12 1:11 PM You said scalpel-- I either misread it or someone else used the stapler analogy. Anyway, point is, a gun is a weapon, not a tool. jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 10:20 AM Cruse compared a gun to a stapler What? Nobody is taking my stapler!
Heck no. You've got guns. |
| 2012-12-12 1:28 PM in reply to: #4532567 |
Extreme Veteran 502 Tucson | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 11:27 AM joestop74 - 2012-12-12 1:21 PM Not just gun control freaks. Correllation=causation is at the heart of the oft-repeated (but not always accurate) statistic that crime is lower in places where there are less stringent gun control laws, or that increasing the number of armed citizens would create a safer society. In general, if you're trying to make a sketchy argument without a lot of sound data, correllation=causation is your friend. What gun control freaks can't get through their head is the statistical maxim, "Correlation does not equal Causation" Wash, rinse, repeat. True, we see this used ALL the time. For instance, people drank product X had less occurrence of disease Y. Now go buy product X. It happens in many fields or can occur in trying to prove any point. |
| 2012-12-12 1:36 PM in reply to: #4532559 |
| Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 11:22 AM crusevegas - 2012-12-12 1:11 PM You said scalpel-- I either misread it or someone else used the stapler analogy. Anyway, point is, a gun is a weapon, not a tool. jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 10:20 AM Cruse compared a gun to a stapler What? I think the bigger point is your ability to see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear. A gun is a tool. It can used to take a life and it can be used to save a life. It's a tool that a 5ft woman can use to prevent a 6ft man from raping, robing or committing other violent acts upon her. It's a tool that can used for sport shooting, hunting, self defense or to commit murder. If a person is killed by a gun, throat slit by a scalpel or run over by a car, they are dead, their family will suffer the same loss either way. A government who passes laws that prevents people from protecting and defending themselves and their loved ones is not a government I want to be a part of. There are governments to our north and south that deny their citizens that freedom, I'm not sure what the immigration polices are for those who so desperately want to part of that type of society. |
| 2012-12-12 1:41 PM in reply to: #4532590 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon crusevegas - 2012-12-12 1:36 PM jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 11:22 AM crusevegas - 2012-12-12 1:11 PM You said scalpel-- I either misread it or someone else used the stapler analogy. Anyway, point is, a gun is a weapon, not a tool. jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 10:20 AM Cruse compared a gun to a stapler What? I think the bigger point is your ability to see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear. A gun is a tool. It can used to take a life and it can be used to save a life. It's a tool that a 5ft woman can use to prevent a 6ft man from raping, robing or committing other violent acts upon her. It's a tool that can used for sport shooting, hunting, self defense or to commit murder. If a person is killed by a gun, throat slit by a scalpel or run over by a car, they are dead, their family will suffer the same loss either way. A government who passes laws that prevents people from protecting and defending themselves and their loved ones is not a government I want to be a part of. There are governments to our north and south that deny their citizens that freedom, I'm not sure what the immigration polices are for those who so desperately want to part of that type of society. And this takes me back to ... what are you SO AFRAID OF that you feel you need a gun to protect yourself? Did something happen to you that makes you so paranoid that you feel you need a firearm to go outside? |
| 2012-12-12 1:44 PM in reply to: #4531540 |
Champion 17756 SoCal | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon I shot Tony before. On the back. |
| 2012-12-12 1:45 PM in reply to: #4532612 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon Big Appa - 2012-12-12 1:44 PM I shot Tony before. On the back. YOU SAID YOU WERE DRAWING A MAP OF HAWAII! |
| 2012-12-12 1:46 PM in reply to: #4532605 |
Member 5452 NC | Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon mr2tony - 2012-12-12 2:41 PM And this takes me back to ... what are you SO AFRAID OF that you feel you need a gun to protect yourself? Did something happen to you that makes you so paranoid that you feel you need a firearm to go outside? Since the OP showed that the majority of homicides involve a firearm, then maybe you shouldn't bring a set of keys to a gunfight.
Edited by Goosedog 2012-12-12 1:47 PM |
| 2012-12-12 1:48 PM in reply to: #4532605 |
| Subject: RE: 3 dead in mall shooting in Oregon mr2tony - 2012-12-12 11:41 AM crusevegas - 2012-12-12 1:36 PM And this takes me back to ... what are you SO AFRAID OF that you feel you need a gun to protect yourself? Did something happen to you that makes you so paranoid that you feel you need a firearm to go outside? jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 11:22 AM crusevegas - 2012-12-12 1:11 PM You said scalpel-- I either misread it or someone else used the stapler analogy. Anyway, point is, a gun is a weapon, not a tool. jmk-brooklyn - 2012-12-12 10:20 AM Cruse compared a gun to a stapler What? I think the bigger point is your ability to see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear. A gun is a tool. It can used to take a life and it can be used to save a life. It's a tool that a 5ft woman can use to prevent a 6ft man from raping, robing or committing other violent acts upon her. It's a tool that can used for sport shooting, hunting, self defense or to commit murder. If a person is killed by a gun, throat slit by a scalpel or run over by a car, they are dead, their family will suffer the same loss either way. A government who passes laws that prevents people from protecting and defending themselves and their loved ones is not a government I want to be a part of. There are governments to our north and south that deny their citizens that freedom, I'm not sure what the immigration polices are for those who so desperately want to part of that type of society. How did you come to the conclusion that I am "SO AFRAID"? Why do you feel the need to call me paranoid? Where did you get the idea that I need a firearm to go outside? Why are you so concerned that people own guns? |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK