If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Opposing Views)   Down on your luck and unhappy with your place on the economic ladder? Here's a gun   (opposingviews.com) divider line 202
    More: Interesting, Americans, high crimes, Greenpoint  
•       •       •

9112 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Apr 2013 at 11:57 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



202 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-01 12:47:30 PM

Godscrack: Mayhem of the Black Underclass: [a57.foxnews.com image 660x371]

One person in this class failed to understand about trigger discipline.

As well as 'Put down the fork' discipline.


Now that you mention it, there is a general sense of large-ish-ness about that photo.
 
2013-04-01 12:47:42 PM
NO I DON'T WANT TO SUBSCRIBE TO YOUR STUPID WEBSITE! can I just read an article without being assaulted with popups for a friggen mobile site? Cripes.
 
2013-04-01 12:51:30 PM

Dimensio: iheartscotch: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: iheartscotch: If they give guns to people with clean records; I don't have a problem with it.

First background checks, then registration, then confiscation.

I'm ok with background checks. Registration, however, is just too easy to abuse. I don't need some asshat from the times publishing my name and address every 6 months.

I know, I know; nobody is trying to take your guns. Well, nobody is trying pretty damn hard for not existing aren't they?

Often, when individuals who claim that fears of registration leading to confiscation are paranoia are presented with documentation of registration actually leading to confiscation, they admit that they in fact approve of such confiscation.


Registration is already abused. Many dems in the house have said that they want to start taking guns. That's not paranoia; it's called listening.

The ol' scary minorities chicken? You should quit farking that poor chicken.

/ 1/10
 
2013-04-01 12:52:22 PM
I have to agree with subby, all poor people are criminals. And in the same way that the right to bail only applies if you can afford it or freedom of the press only applies if you can afford a press then the right to bear arms should only apply if you can afford a gun. If you can't then you can just go ahead and get raped.
 
2013-04-01 12:53:47 PM
Old news is old.
 
2013-04-01 12:54:05 PM
Are the firearms to be given away AK-47s or Glocks?
 
2013-04-01 12:56:55 PM

earthworm2.0: NO I DON'T WANT TO SUBSCRIBE TO YOUR STUPID WEBSITE! can I just read an article without being assaulted with popups for a friggen mobile site? Cripes.


I am so glad I decided to put up a flag in the office firewall today.

Now available: iPhone App - Get it now!
[x]
You fail to understand the benefit of downloading the iPhone app.
[x]
I'm afraid I can't let you do that Dave
[x]
You're going to get this app and you're going to like it.  Now give me your iTunes information and place the phone in your rectum while I figure out how to thrust via HTML
 
2013-04-01 12:57:04 PM

The One True TheDavid: As someone who's been poor all his life and probably always will be, I think the problem with poor people is there are too damn many of us. Oversupply of labor makes us cheap, replaceable, interchangeable and damn near worthless as individuals to our society and so to ourselves. And it's troublingly ironic that better-off people persuade themselves that they're carrying us, as if their TVs come on and their goods are delivered by lucky accidents.

One answer is mass death among the bottom 47% or so. Withdrawal from the world of work provides value for those who process us -- bureaucrats of the welfare system, writers and politicians and those in "criminal justice," for example -- but a broad wave of us ceasing to exist as living breathing objects to be exploited and scorned would only provide value for grave-diggers and corpse-burners and then only for a short while.

Only when the spoiled brats of the bourgeoisie are reduced to digging their own coal, hauling their own trash, fighting their own wars and finding their own food will they realize that we were good for something after all. Ideally there will be enough of us left to command better pay and treatment (if we bother lifting a finger), but if they learn so late that their civilization collapses that's their own damn problem.

Perhaps a proletarian Masada would be a wonderful idea: perhaps the poor in America should set an example for the rest of the world of refusing to continue being trodden down. And as there's no surer way to off yourself than to stick a firearm in your mouth we should embrace this effort to arm us with both hands. Eliminating poverty would hurt the rich more than us.

/ I might be being "ironic" but I'm still too undercaffeinated to know for sure.


"To Hell wit yall, we're movin to Mexico." On the face of it, it really sounds as workable as most solutions and more rational than most of the Libertarian derp.  Stick it in the blender and see what it looks like once the edges have been worn off.
 
2013-04-01 12:57:32 PM

Dimensio: iheartscotch: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: iheartscotch: If they give guns to people with clean records; I don't have a problem with it.

First background checks, then registration, then confiscation.

I'm ok with background checks. Registration, however, is just too easy to abuse. I don't need some asshat from the times publishing my name and address every 6 months.

I know, I know; nobody is trying to take your guns. Well, nobody is trying pretty damn hard for not existing aren't they?

Often, when individuals who claim that fears of registration leading to confiscation are paranoia are presented with documentation of registration actually leading to confiscation, they admit that they in fact approve of such confiscation.


[citation_sorely_needed.jpg]
Are you going to bring up the State of California taking firearms from criminals, domestic abusers, and the mentally ill?

Because I have absolutely no problem with that.

/And neither should you.
 
2013-04-01 01:00:48 PM
demaL-demaL-yeH:
Are you going to bring up the State of California taking firearms from criminals, domestic abusers, and the mentally ill?

Because I have absolutely no problem with that.

/And neither should you.


Look, lib, the mentally ill need firearms to protect themselves from the black helicopters, the spiders from Mars, and the reanimated corpse of Gary Coleman.
 
2013-04-01 01:01:38 PM
iheartscotch: "they're not just going to a street corner and just giving out guns"


blessthe40oz.com
 
2013-04-01 01:03:36 PM

Rapmaster2000: the reanimated corpse of Gary Coleman


This is something that should concern us all.
 
2013-04-01 01:03:40 PM
Are the firearms to be given away AK-47s or Glocks?

demaL-demaL-yeH: Dimensio: iheartscotch: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: iheartscotch: If they give guns to people with clean records; I don't have a problem with it.

First background checks, then registration, then confiscation.

I'm ok with background checks. Registration, however, is just too easy to abuse. I don't need some asshat from the times publishing my name and address every 6 months.

I know, I know; nobody is trying to take your guns. Well, nobody is trying pretty damn hard for not existing aren't they?

Often, when individuals who claim that fears of registration leading to confiscation are paranoia are presented with documentation of registration actually leading to confiscation, they admit that they in fact approve of such confiscation.

[citation_sorely_needed.jpg]
Are you going to bring up the State of California taking firearms from criminals, domestic abusers, and the mentally ill?

Because I have absolutely no problem with that.

/And neither should you.


No. I would instead reference confiscation efforts in Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, Chicago and New York.

I would also reference explicit advocacy of confiscation by elected officials in the United States of America.
 
2013-04-01 01:04:01 PM
Let's get some federal dollars behind this and we can dub them Obamaguns and then the right wingers would hate it.
 
2013-04-01 01:07:00 PM

Rapmaster2000: Look, lib, the mentally ill need firearms to protect themselves from the black helicopters, the spiders from Mars, and the reanimated corpse of Gary Coleman.


OK That is scary. The National Guard plans to issue firearms and ammunition to the mentally ill when the zombie apocalypse kicks off, so you can afford to wait.

/Enough name-calling: Did I call you a 'toon?
 
2013-04-01 01:08:39 PM
When you live in a shiatty neighborhood where the police like to take their sweet time responding even if they know somebody is being murdered a block or 2 away, you quickly get a grasp on just how much bad can happen in 60 seconds. When I lived in L.A. I was targeted for murder by local gang members and lived through the home invasion because I owned a target pistol (a relic of a time when I wasn't poor) that I had the presence of mind to bring to bear against the 4 men forcing their way into my home.

It's astounding to see people who have never experienced this type of poverty or violence loudly opining on why it's a bad idea to enable people who are stuck in bad neighborhoods but legally allowed to own firearms the means to defend themselves. The bulk of you have exactly ZERO life experience that would make you qualified to have a valid opinion on this topic, let alone tell people how they should live their lives or protect themselves from the criminals element that they don't have the means to escape.
 
2013-04-01 01:14:26 PM
Hahahahahahahah
This has got to be one of the stupidest damn things I have ever heard of.

Ironically, nothing willl really come of it.  No spike in crime, no sudden cessation of all criminal activity.
If these people really are poor, they'll probably just go pawn the gun for cash.
 
2013-04-01 01:14:43 PM
I don't begrudge the ownership of a defensive weapon to anyone unlucky enough to live in high-crime areas of our cities.  The group is training them on firearms safety including legal discussions (I'd assume regarding castle doctrine, collective defense, et cetera) and looking to generate some hard data about arming the good guys in a bad-guy place.

There's a lot of patronizing attitude in this thread about the residents of Greenpoint, TX, their mental state, and ability to listen to instruction.  I don't view the poor as supermen, but they are adults with rights.  As long as they get the whole "keep in a secure place safe from children and thieves" lesson down, I say give the experiment a try.
 
2013-04-01 01:16:43 PM
Oh, no, not the creation of deputies and neighborhood watches for the purpose of lending civilian aid to law enforcement!  This is a totally new thing and not at all a US tradition that's been working perfectly well since the early 1800s.

//In many rural areas, deputies comprise like 90% of the law-enforcement manpower in a given county.
 
2013-04-01 01:18:06 PM

Dimensio: Are the firearms to be given away AK-47s or Glocks?demaL-demaL-yeH: Dimensio: iheartscotch: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: iheartscotch: If they give guns to people with clean records; I don't have a problem with it.

First background checks, then registration, then confiscation.

I'm ok with background checks. Registration, however, is just too easy to abuse. I don't need some asshat from the times publishing my name and address every 6 months.

I know, I know; nobody is trying to take your guns. Well, nobody is trying pretty damn hard for not existing aren't they?

Often, when individuals who claim that fears of registration leading to confiscation are paranoia are presented with documentation of registration actually leading to confiscation, they admit that they in fact approve of such confiscation.

[citation_sorely_needed.jpg]
Are you going to bring up the State of California taking firearms from criminals, domestic abusers, and the mentally ill?

Because I have absolutely no problem with that.

/And neither should you.

No. I would instead reference confiscation efforts in Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, Chicago and New York.

I would also reference explicit advocacy of confiscation by elected officials in the United States of America.


I would like to point out the following:
Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom:
1) Do not have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
2) Do not have anywhere near our epidemic rate of people suffering from Firearm-Unlucky Sudden Onset Bullethole Syndrome (F-U SOBs).

The firearms being confiscated in New York and Chicago are NOT PROPERLY REGISTERED.

Confiscation from lunatics and criminals? No problemo with that.
Confiscation of specific weapons? 1) That will never pass. 2) If they're military weapons, the owners should be active parts of real militias like the Founders intended and instituted.
 
2013-04-01 01:18:39 PM
This thread is highlighting the superiority complex leftist have over the poor. Damn, you guys are an ugly lot. My mind is blown.
 
2013-04-01 01:18:50 PM
Poor people commit crimes with guns.
Rich people commit crimes with computers.
 
2013-04-01 01:20:37 PM

Godscrack: What a genius plan by NRA and right wing authorities. Give poor people and minorities free guns to kill each other off.

Everyone profits:
The prison industry will boom
Hospitals and big pharma will triple their business
Mortuary businesses
And police will have plenty of things to do. And more opportunities to try out their toys.



So only affluent white people should own legal guns is what you're saying?
 
2013-04-01 01:25:02 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: 2) If they're military weapons, the owners should be active parts of real militias like the Founders intended and instituted.


Know how i know you know nothing of the 2nd amendment? If what you claim the founders intended is true, why did they not go after those who had guns yet were not in a milita? After all, they wrote  the damn thing and would know if it meant people had to be in a milita to own a gun right?

here it is so you can read it and understand how wrong you are...

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.
 
2013-04-01 01:25:16 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Dimensio: Are the firearms to be given away AK-47s or Glocks?demaL-demaL-yeH: Dimensio: iheartscotch: Nina_Hartley's_Ass: iheartscotch: If they give guns to people with clean records; I don't have a problem with it.

First background checks, then registration, then confiscation.

I'm ok with background checks. Registration, however, is just too easy to abuse. I don't need some asshat from the times publishing my name and address every 6 months.

I know, I know; nobody is trying to take your guns. Well, nobody is trying pretty damn hard for not existing aren't they?

Often, when individuals who claim that fears of registration leading to confiscation are paranoia are presented with documentation of registration actually leading to confiscation, they admit that they in fact approve of such confiscation.

[citation_sorely_needed.jpg]
Are you going to bring up the State of California taking firearms from criminals, domestic abusers, and the mentally ill?

Because I have absolutely no problem with that.

/And neither should you.

No. I would instead reference confiscation efforts in Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, Chicago and New York.

I would also reference explicit advocacy of confiscation by elected officials in the United States of America.

I would like to point out the following:
Canada, Australia, and the United Kingdom:
1) Do not have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
2) Do not have anywhere near our epidemic rate of people suffering from Firearm-Unlucky Sudden Onset Bullethole Syndrome (F-U SOBs).

The firearms being confiscated in New York and Chicago are NOT PROPERLY REGISTERED.

Confiscation from lunatics and criminals? No problemo with that.
Confiscation of specific weapons? 1) That will never pass. 2) If they're military weapons, the owners should be active parts of real militias like the Founders intended and instituted.


The guns in NYC were properly registered in the 60s. The NYPD used that list in the 90s to go to door to door to make sure that the weapons on NYC's AWB were rendered inoperable or taken out of the city. They were taken from the owner if they had not been.
 
2013-04-01 01:27:31 PM
I lived in a really, really lousy part of the city for quite a while. All the worst cops are assigned to these places and rarely if ever show up even to 911 calls. I called 911 on a steroid freak of a guy beating the crap out of a girl and they never came. I went out with a baseball bat to get him to stop. If he'd been one of the 'got nuthin to loose' punks with a gun who see prison as a vacation from desperate poverty, I'd be dead.

In truth, society has given up on these places (maybe rightly so, I don't know) so giving the few people there who still care a gun and training won't do any more damage. They are pretty much war zones already.
 
2013-04-01 01:29:35 PM

monster_teef: When you live in a shiatty neighborhood where the police like to take their sweet time responding even if they know somebody is being murdered a block or 2 away, you quickly get a grasp on just how much bad can happen in 60 seconds. When I lived in L.A. I was targeted for murder by local gang members and lived through the home invasion because I owned a target pistol (a relic of a time when I wasn't poor) that I had the presence of mind to bring to bear against the 4 men forcing their way into my home.

It's astounding to see people who have never experienced this type of poverty or violence loudly opining on why it's a bad idea to enable people who are stuck in bad neighborhoods but legally allowed to own firearms the means to defend themselves. The bulk of you have exactly ZERO life experience that would make you qualified to have a valid opinion on this topic, let alone tell people how they should live their lives or protect themselves from the criminals element that they don't have the means to escape.


Well why can't poor people move or hire an armed body guard (like Jim Carey)
 
2013-04-01 01:35:11 PM

hitlersbrain: I lived in a really, really lousy part of the city for quite a while. All the worst cops are assigned to these places and rarely if ever show up even to 911 calls. I called 911 on a steroid freak of a guy beating the crap out of a girl and they never came. I went out with a baseball bat to get him to stop. If he'd been one of the 'got nuthin to loose' punks with a gun who see prison as a vacation from desperate poverty, I'd be dead.

In truth, society has given up on these places (maybe rightly so, I don't know) so giving the few people there who still care a gun and training won't do any more damage. They are pretty much war zones already.


Dude, are you still asleep? This post is too rational for you, you're slipping. Now, follow this up with something insane so i dont lose faith in you as a class A troll
 
2013-04-01 01:39:44 PM
Joe Blowme:

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.


Follow the linky and read. It's OK to move your lips. It's OK to ask for help with the big words.
Notice:
1) Written by Founders immediately after the Bill of Rights was ratified.
2) Mandatory membership, participation, and training.
3) All citizens under arms/militia members subject to military regulations.
4) Mandatory registration and annual inspections of all arms. Reported to Governor, Department of War, and President of the United States. (Section X)

/Have a nice day.
 
2013-04-01 01:43:40 PM

Egoy3k: The_Original_Roxtar: "Handing out guns in a high-crime neighborhood is like distributing cigarettes in a community with a high incidence of respiratory disease," said Ladd Everitt, the Director of Communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

um... no. no it isn't. you're operating under the incorrect assumption that guns cause crime.

No he isn't he's operating under the assumption that giving guns to people who are statistically more likely to be criminals is a bad idea, and it is. If anything he's guilty of making a shiatty simile.


So you oppose black owning guns.

Why are you such a racist?
 
2013-04-01 01:46:19 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Joe Blowme:

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.

Follow the linky and read. It's OK to move your lips. It's OK to ask for help with the big words.
Notice:
1) Written by Founders immediately after the Bill of Rights was ratified.
2) Mandatory membership, participation, and training.
3) All citizens under arms/militia members subject to military regulations.
4) Mandatory registration and annual inspections of all arms. Reported to Governor, Department of War, and President of the United States. (Section X)

/Have a nice day.


Can we just head this off?

Joe Blowme is saying the first part of the amendment is largely irrelevant, and he's backed by current legal precedent from court cases in the past 13 years saying it's an individual right irrespective of militia membership.

Dema wants to emphasize the first part because he feels that proper training, registration, and and inspection are vital to keeping the militia up to snuff and the individuals don't have that right outside of militia membership.

You'll never agree with each other, so no need to spam the entire thread with circular arguments which may or may not be supported by SCOTUS case law.
 
2013-04-01 01:46:26 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Joe Blowme:

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.

Follow the linky and read. It's OK to move your lips. It's OK to ask for help with the big words.
Notice:
1) Written by Founders immediately after the Bill of Rights was ratified.
2) Mandatory membership, participation, and training.
3) All citizens under arms/militia members subject to military regulations.
4) Mandatory registration and annual inspections of all arms. Reported to Governor, Department of War, and President of the United States. (Section X)

/Have a nice day.


the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Do you need glasses? I have bolded it twice and you still cant see it? Willfully obtuse is what you are. You dont think the people should own guns, then dont own one but dont take my rights away because you choose not to recognize it and are afraid of an inanimate object.

So where does it say they rounded up all the guns in the hands on non militia members? Yea, i thought so.

/Thanks for playing
 
2013-04-01 01:49:18 PM

iheartscotch: / they aren't giving guns to suicidal people; ya damned trolls


How do you know?
 
2013-04-01 01:50:34 PM

redmid17: demaL-demaL-yeH: Joe Blowme:

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.

Follow the linky and read. It's OK to move your lips. It's OK to ask for help with the big words.
Notice:
1) Written by Founders immediately after the Bill of Rights was ratified.
2) Mandatory membership, participation, and training.
3) All citizens under arms/militia members subject to military regulations.
4) Mandatory registration and annual inspections of all arms. Reported to Governor, Department of War, and President of the United States. (Section X)

/Have a nice day.

Can we just head this off?

Joe Blowme is saying the first part of the amendment is largely irrelevant, and he's backed by current legal precedent from court cases in the past 13 years saying it's an individual right irrespective of militia membership.

Dema wants to emphasize the first part because he feels that proper training, registration, and and inspection are vital to keeping the militia up to snuff and the individuals don't have that right outside of militia membership.

You'll never agree with each other, so no need to spam the entire thread with circular arguments which may or may not be supported by SCOTUS case law.


No, i recognize the authority of the US government over the milita and keeping it well regulated. (see milita acts he posted)  We are not talking about taking the militas guns but that of the individual which would violate the constitution.
 
2013-04-01 01:52:05 PM

Joe Blowme: redmid17: demaL-demaL-yeH: Joe Blowme:

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.

Follow the linky and read. It's OK to move your lips. It's OK to ask for help with the big words.
Notice:
1) Written by Founders immediately after the Bill of Rights was ratified.
2) Mandatory membership, participation, and training.
3) All citizens under arms/militia members subject to military regulations.
4) Mandatory registration and annual inspections of all arms. Reported to Governor, Department of War, and President of the United States. (Section X)

/Have a nice day.

Can we just head this off?

Joe Blowme is saying the first part of the amendment is largely irrelevant, and he's backed by current legal precedent from court cases in the past 13 years saying it's an individual right irrespective of militia membership.

Dema wants to emphasize the first part because he feels that proper training, registration, and and inspection are vital to keeping the militia up to snuff and the individuals don't have that right outside of militia membership.

You'll never agree with each other, so no need to spam the entire thread with circular arguments which may or may not be supported by SCOTUS case law.

No, i recognize the authority of the US government over the milita and keeping it well regulated. (see milita acts he posted)  We are not talking about taking the militas guns but that of the individual which would violate the constitution.


I didn't say you didn't recognize the gov's ability to regulate the militia. I was saying you're emphasizing the individual right to own the gun.

/didn't think it was unclear
 
2013-04-01 01:53:42 PM

Dimensio: Be aware that the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence believes any use of a firearm against a human, even in legally justified self-defense, to be "wrong".


You're a big opponent of Friends of Hamas and Google's Easter tribute to Hugo Chavez, aren't you.
 
2013-04-01 01:55:57 PM

Dimensio: No. I would instead reference confiscation efforts in Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, Chicago and New York.


So tell us about all those confiscations in the US.
 
2013-04-01 01:59:06 PM

redmid17: the first part of the amendment is largely irrelevant


Is that the strict constructionist interpretation conservatives are always telling us about?
 
2013-04-01 01:59:25 PM
redmid17:
Joe Blowme is saying the first part of the amendment is largely irrelevant,

/didn't think it was unclear


 Kinda was
 
2013-04-01 02:01:39 PM

jaytkay: redmid17: the first part of the amendment is largely irrelevant

Is that the strict constructionist interpretation conservatives are always telling us about?




Does it matter? You'll have to get SCOTUS to overturn those decisions either way.
 
2013-04-01 02:01:51 PM

jaytkay: Dimensio: Be aware that the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence believes any use of a firearm against a human, even in legally justified self-defense, to be "wrong".

You're a big opponent of Friends of Hamas and Google's Easter tribute to Hugo Chavez, aren't you.


So you like HAMAS and dont have a clue who the Chavez on google was, got it.
 
2013-04-01 02:04:50 PM
hitlersbrain:

I lived in a really, really lousy part of the city for quite a while...

In truth, society has given up on these places (maybe rightly so, I don't know)...


Ever heard about the relation of Iran-Contra to the '80s crack epidemic?

Money spent on drugs is still money spent. And drug money buys goods and services, whether necessities or luxuries. And the negative social and personal effects drive increased cop budgets, more better prisons, rehab facilities, gun sales, political contributions and campaigns, movies & videos, medical facilities & their employees, etc. Flooding a neighborhood with illegal drugs is a great way to milk it for all it's worth.

It's all about circulating money. There's a lot of money in poor neighborhoods, and a lot of money to be made "helping" the poor and keeping you "safe" from them. But by no means will we eliminate poverty by distributing wealth more equally: our entire way of life would collapse.
 
2013-04-01 02:08:39 PM

iheartscotch: If they give guns to people with clean records; I don't have a problem with it. In some communities; police response times are 30-45 minutes. That's an aweful long time.

/ they aren't giving guns to suicidal people; ya damned trolls


A clean record, after growing up in the ghetto?

Anyways, I don't see this being a problem.
 
2013-04-01 02:09:52 PM
A gun and map to the 1% neighborhood.
 
2013-04-01 02:10:16 PM

pdee: Egoy3k: The_Original_Roxtar: "Handing out guns in a high-crime neighborhood is like distributing cigarettes in a community with a high incidence of respiratory disease," said Ladd Everitt, the Director of Communications for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence.

um... no. no it isn't. you're operating under the incorrect assumption that guns cause crime.

No he isn't he's operating under the assumption that giving guns to people who are statistically more likely to be criminals is a bad idea, and it is. If anything he's guilty of making a shiatty simile.

So you oppose black owning guns.

Why are you such a racist?


I don't oppose anyone owning a gun. I oppose giving gun to people who are desperate and if not criminals themselves know lots of criminals who would buy guns for a decent price. Of course I DNRTFA and didn't know it included training. I'll edit my post.

No he isn't he's operating under the assumption that giving guns to people who are statistically more likely to be criminals is a bad idea. If anything he's guilty of making a shiatty simile.
 
2013-04-01 02:13:10 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: Joe Blowme:

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.

Follow the linky and read. It's OK to move your lips. It's OK to ask for help with the big words.
Notice:
1) Written by Founders immediately after the Bill of Rights was ratified.
2) Mandatory membership, participation, and training.
3) All citizens under arms/militia members subject to military regulations.
4) Mandatory registration and annual inspections of all arms. Reported to Governor, Department of War, and President of the United States. (Section X)

/Have a nice day.


I always thought it meant to say 2 things:

1. The people have a right to bear arms.
2. The people have a right to form well organized militias.

Number 2 without number 1 simply makes no sense. A militia of unarmed people is not good for much.
 
2013-04-01 02:16:44 PM

demaL-demaL-yeH: The firearms being confiscated in New York and Chicago are NOT PROPERLY REGISTERED.


Firearms were confiscated in New York and in Chicago following enactment of arbitrary bans because they were registered. The firearms were registered prior to enactment of the ban, when possession of them was legal, and owners were forced to give them up after enactment of the ban, when possession became illegal solely because the firearm itself became prohibited and not because of any criminal action of the owner.

Confiscation of specific weapons? 1) That will never pass. 2) If they're military weapons, the owners should be active parts of real militias like the Founders intended and instituted.

As I have predicted: you have first denied that confiscation will occur, then you have stated that confiscation is acceptable.
 
2013-04-01 02:22:53 PM

jaytkay: Dimensio: Be aware that the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence believes any use of a firearm against a human, even in legally justified self-defense, to be "wrong".

You're a big opponent of Friends of Hamas and Google's Easter tribute to Hugo Chavez, aren't you.


To my knowledge, both of those are fictional constructs.
 
2013-04-01 02:24:36 PM
FTA: At a time when the goal seems to be getting guns off the streets...

If the website's goal was taking lawfully-owned guns away from citizens, I can see why they have an issue with giving more lawfully-owned guns to citizens.

That was, however, neither my goal nor desire.
 
2013-04-01 02:24:54 PM

Bennie Crabtree: April Fool's?


Nope, just regular fools...
 
Displayed 50 of 202 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report