Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Shooting in Conn. School


  • Please log in to reply
1178 replies to this topic

#691 cancerman1120

cancerman1120

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 January 2013 - 01:02 AM

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"


Any reason the NRA is not out in full force trying to overturn warrant-less wire taps, unmanned drones, and indefinite detention? I mean if the whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to protect us against the government taking over it is sure doing a lousy job. Maybe because the NRA only cares about selling more guns and not actual "freedom".
Posted Image

#692 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 23 January 2013 - 01:47 AM

The National Rilfe Association only works towards firearms? Weird.

Great post though. Wonderful follow up to the post two slots above saying that a tyrannical government doesn't exist.
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#693 cancerman1120

cancerman1120

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 January 2013 - 02:06 AM

The National Rilfe Association only works towards firearms? Weird.

Great post though. Wonderful follow up to the post two slots above saying that a tyrannical government doesn't exist.


So then you agree it is only about selling guns and nothing about government and freedom.

#694 h3llbring3r

h3llbring3r

    Mecha Cocksmas 2 all

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 January 2013 - 02:20 AM

Dont understand why you need a gun? You mean to fight the tyrannical dystopian government that doesnt exist? Because that tends to be the excuse that goes hand in hand with the second amendment argument...


"tyrannical dystopian government" :lol:

Because it is General Zod, Xenu and Zardoz that they are worried about?

Despots and tyrants can come from any ideological bent, and have. Everyone hates a despot, until it's their despot- many have been elected and were not just popular, but celebrated. Need they be from some fictional distopian despotic regime, bow before a tetragrammaton or have dragons?

I am every-bit as afraid of some dim-witted, Jebus loving, salt-of-the-earth, reactionary having the unilateral authority to indefinitely detain, imprison and dispatch with extreme prejudice without due process and/or oversight (as long as it complies with some amorphous/ambiguous definition of terrorism) as I am afraid of progressive cult of personality incarnate having it.

. . but hey as long as it is done in the name of a polite and civilized society and whatever it takes to be safe.

My Trade list:

http://www.cheapassg...ad.php?t=173460
Going dark on the internet for two weeks during move.


#695 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 January 2013 - 01:01 PM

Nah, you just have every moron on fox news comparing Obama to Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Chavez etc.

Which you know, is totally realistic. Tyrants often times submit themselves to elections and debates. Look at that gigantic margin Obama won the election by, total dictator, right?

I swear that the national intelligence in this country has lowered in the last decade. To think that a channel like fox news even exists in this country is a sad statement about us all.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#696 Finger_Shocker

Finger_Shocker

    CAG Veteran

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 January 2013 - 01:55 PM

Americans ain't known for their brilliance....

#697 mrsilkunderwear

mrsilkunderwear

    Just Do It.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 January 2013 - 03:59 PM

Nah, you just have every moron on fox news comparing Obama to Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Chavez etc.

Which you know, is totally realistic. Tyrants often times submit themselves to elections and debates. Look at that gigantic margin Obama won the election by, total dictator, right?

I swear that the national intelligence in this country has lowered in the last decade. To think that a channel like fox news even exists in this country is a sad statement about us all.


There is something wrong with this country when a President can kill any US citizen simply by pointing a finger. There is something wrong when our own government killed almost 200 children on a foreign soil without any consequences. Obama is no Hitler but everything he does will play in favor for future presidents who hunger for power.

#698 ID2006

ID2006

    "Klaymen, up here!"

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 January 2013 - 04:55 PM

There is something wrong with this country when a President can kill any US citizen simply by pointing a finger. There is something wrong when our own government killed almost 200 children on a foreign soil without any consequences. Obama is no Hitler but everything he does will play in favor for future presidents who hunger for power.


I'm not a big fan of Obama, but I hardly think the President can kill any US citizen. Just those of a select group. It's like those coupons that exclude half the menu.

#699 Finger_Shocker

Finger_Shocker

    CAG Veteran

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 January 2013 - 05:18 PM

First of all Obama has already order and executed a American and his son without any conviction of due process. Sure its not like Obama is gunning down any american, but his policy sets a bad very bad precedent for future POTUS

#700 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 January 2013 - 05:21 PM

We were killing children on foreign soil long before Obama was elected. Hell, before many of us were even alive. If you want to bitch about it, better make a list.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#701 UncleBob

UncleBob

Posted 23 January 2013 - 05:28 PM

We were killing children on foreign soil long before Obama was elected. Hell, before many of us were even alive. If you want to bitch about it, better make a list.


"both sides do it."
"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy, instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it."

#702 Finger_Shocker

Finger_Shocker

    CAG Veteran

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 January 2013 - 05:47 PM

so I guess both sides is no better, and it is endless wars...

#703 Knoell

Knoell

    Achievement Unlocked

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 January 2013 - 06:40 PM

Dont understand why you need a gun? You mean to fight the tyrannical dystopian government that doesnt exist? Because that tends to be the excuse that goes hand in hand with the second amendment argument...


It doesn't matter why you think people need a gun or not. It isn't yours, or the governments business unless the government has just cause. Determining that .0001% of the guns in America were the cause of death of 30,000 Americans last year, is not just cause to think you need to take away the other 299,970,000 guns. Actually I think that is a pretty damn good rate.

Does it matter why video games need to exist? They are simply for entertainment and have no value.

What about excessively fast cars? Why would someone need these?

What about alcohal? How many lives would be saved if we banned that? Why do we need it?

What about swimming pools and public water sources? Thousands drown each year, and 5000+ children 14 and under are hospitalized each year. Stop them from swimming!!!

I could go on and on but the point is, the government cannot protect everyone from everything. The more it tries, the more it will erode our individual rights (as it is currently doing) in a vain attempt to "protect the greater good".

#704 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 January 2013 - 07:29 PM

"tyrannical dystopian government" :lol:

Because it is General Zod, Xenu and Zardoz that they are worried about?

Despots and tyrants can come from any ideological bent, and have. Everyone hates a despot, until it's their despot- many have been elected and were not just popular, but celebrated. Need they be from some fictional distopian despotic regime, bow before a tetragrammaton or have dragons?

I am every-bit as afraid of some dim-witted, Jebus loving, salt-of-the-earth, reactionary having the unilateral authority to indefinitely detain, imprison and dispatch with extreme prejudice without due process and/or oversight (as long as it complies with some amorphous/ambiguous definition of terrorism) as I am afraid of progressive cult of personality incarnate having it.

. . but hey as long as it is done in the name of a polite and civilized society and whatever it takes to be safe.


The problem that emerges from this mindset is the inflexibility of people to discuss issues or make compromises. It involves a thorough lack of curiosity and a belief in the inherent wrongness of the other side (in order to otherwise justify the unwillingness to compromise).

Thus, any discussion of gun control is overreacted to as "OBANNA GRANNIN MAH GUNS, HE SOCIALISM HITLERS!" That's not sensible. It's reactionary, and it's predicated on the idea that there's no way you would ever concede that the other side has any good points. Moreover, it has to resort to false accusations ("gun grab!") to have any foundation to stand on.

This is the same reason I read a bunch of right-wingers freaking out yesterday because city council in a town I grew up in proposed a toll for a bridge that (1) has been in need of substantial repair for over a decade now and (2) there's no funding for said repair. The people don't want to pay to fix it, they don't want to pay to build a new bridge, they don't want to go into debt for either. The irony is that a toll system is, in its own way, a consumption tax - or, in other words, Neal Boortz's bullshit "FairTax" in practice. Yet they don't want it. They hear "new tax" and stop all reasoning at that point, hands over their ears chanting la-la-la-i-can't-hear you.

If you truly believe that any gun control is fascist totalitarianism and aren't just being silly for its own sake, your viewpoint is why politics in the modern US is so disgusting.

This is politics in the 21st century.
Posted Image

#705 cancerman1120

cancerman1120

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 January 2013 - 07:36 PM

It doesn't matter why you think people need a gun or not. It isn't yours, or the governments business unless the government has just cause. Determining that .0001% of the guns in America were the cause of death of 30,000 Americans last year, is not just cause to think you need to take away the other 299,970,000 guns. Actually I think that is a pretty damn good rate.

Does it matter why video games need to exist? They are simply for entertainment and have no value.

What about excessively fast cars? Why would someone need these?

What about alcohal? How many lives would be saved if we banned that? Why do we need it?

What about swimming pools and public water sources? Thousands drown each year, and 5000+ children 14 and under are hospitalized each year. Stop them from swimming!!!

I could go on and on but the point is, the government cannot protect everyone from everything. The more it tries, the more it will erode our individual rights (as it is currently doing) in a vain attempt to "protect the greater good".



I agree with what you are saying here for the most part. The only real issue I have is we cannot even have a conversation about any limitation on guns currently being sold. Why is it we accept certain guns as "o.k." for society to have while others are not deemed acceptable? I am not against gun ownership but I have no problem talking about limits on how many and what kind you are allowed to have. THAT conversation is just shouted down time and again by assuming limits means taking all the guns away.

#706 Knoell

Knoell

    Achievement Unlocked

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 January 2013 - 07:37 PM

The problem that emerges from this mindset is the inflexibility of people to discuss issues or make compromises. It involves a thorough lack of curiosity and a belief in the inherent wrongness of the other side (in order to otherwise justify the unwillingness to compromise).

Thus, any discussion of gun control is overreacted to as "OBANNA GRANNIN MAH GUNS, HE SOCIALISM HITLERS!" That's not sensible. It's reactionary, and it's predicated on the idea that there's no way you would ever concede that the other side has any good points. Moreover, it has to resort to false accusations ("gun grab!") to have any foundation to stand on.

This is the same reason I read a bunch of right-wingers freaking out yesterday because city council in a town I grew up in proposed a toll for a bridge that (1) has been in need of substantial repair for over a decade now and (2) there's no funding for said repair. The people don't want to pay to fix it, they don't want to pay to build a new bridge, they don't want to go into debt for either. The irony is that a toll system is, in its own way, a consumption tax - or, in other words, Neal Boortz's bullshit "FairTax" in practice. Yet they don't want it. They hear "new tax" and stop all reasoning at that point, hands over their ears chanting la-la-la-i-can't-hear you.

If you truly believe that any gun control is fascist totalitarianism and aren't just being silly for its own sake, your viewpoint is why politics in the modern US is so disgusting.

This is politics in the 21st century.


The problem with your theory that they won't ban guns is that you aren't looking at the statistics.

The statistics show that pistols are the weapon that are used in the vast majority of shootings.

You want to ban assault weapons to solve the gun violence issue.

Gun violence issue still exists because you did not ban the weapon that is actually used.

You make the same case for pistols, that tens of thousands are dying each year (god forbid another school shooting) and we need to do something.

You ban pistols.

Thats an extremely to the point timeline, and certain things would probably happen in between (banning extended magazines), and it may take years, but look at England they said the same thing.

It is the inevitable result in gun control. You cannot have gun control without controlling the guns. People against gun control see this and are nipping it in the bud.

#707 ID2006

ID2006

    "Klaymen, up here!"

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 January 2013 - 07:45 PM

Why do some people only count deaths from firearms? Great news, survivors! You don't get counted in the debate. Now it looks like there are fewer incidents. Free crab rangoon for everyone!*

*With purchase of regular priced entree.

Spoiler


#708 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 January 2013 - 07:49 PM

The problem that emerges from this mindset is the inflexibility of people to discuss issues or make compromises. It involves a thorough lack of curiosity and a belief in the inherent wrongness of the other side (in order to otherwise justify the unwillingness to compromise).

Thus, any discussion of gun control is overreacted to as "OBANNA GRANNIN MAH GUNS, HE SOCIALISM HITLERS!" That's not sensible. It's reactionary, and it's predicated on the idea that there's no way you would ever concede that the other side has any good points. Moreover, it has to resort to false accusations ("gun grab!") to have any foundation to stand on.

This is the same reason I read a bunch of right-wingers freaking out yesterday because city council in a town I grew up in proposed a toll for a bridge that (1) has been in need of substantial repair for over a decade now and (2) there's no funding for said repair. The people don't want to pay to fix it, they don't want to pay to build a new bridge, they don't want to go into debt for either. The irony is that a toll system is, in its own way, a consumption tax - or, in other words, Neal Boortz's bullshit "FairTax" in practice. Yet they don't want it. They hear "new tax" and stop all reasoning at that point, hands over their ears chanting la-la-la-i-can't-hear you.

If you truly believe that any gun control is fascist totalitarianism and aren't just being silly for its own sake, your viewpoint is why politics in the modern US is so disgusting.

This is politics in the 21st century.

It's like I've said before, poeple will complain about the state of roads in their area, and immediately switch to complaining aobut how high taxes are. Then when you mention that the roads are paid for using money from taxes, it's like you just dropped a logic bomb and they can't compute.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#709 Temporaryscars

Temporaryscars

    Talks like a Dalek

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 January 2013 - 07:53 PM

The problem that emerges from this mindset is the inflexibility of people to discuss issues or make compromises. It involves a thorough lack of curiosity and a belief in the inherent wrongness of the other side (in order to otherwise justify the unwillingness to compromise).

Thus, any discussion of gun control is overreacted to as "OBANNA GRANNIN MAH GUNS, HE SOCIALISM HITLERS!" That's not sensible. It's reactionary, and it's predicated on the idea that there's no way you would ever concede that the other side has any good points. Moreover, it has to resort to false accusations ("gun grab!") to have any foundation to stand on.

This is the same reason I read a bunch of right-wingers freaking out yesterday because city council in a town I grew up in proposed a toll for a bridge that (1) has been in need of substantial repair for over a decade now and (2) there's no funding for said repair. The people don't want to pay to fix it, they don't want to pay to build a new bridge, they don't want to go into debt for either. The irony is that a toll system is, in its own way, a consumption tax - or, in other words, Neal Boortz's bullshit "FairTax" in practice. Yet they don't want it. They hear "new tax" and stop all reasoning at that point, hands over their ears chanting la-la-la-i-can't-hear you.

If you truly believe that any gun control is fascist totalitarianism and aren't just being silly for its own sake, your viewpoint is why politics in the modern US is so disgusting.

This is politics in the 21st century.


I wonder which of your rights you'd be willing to give up in the name of security theater.

If only you were as interested in drone control as you were in gun control. Won't somebody think of the children?

http://droneswatch.o...stan-and-yemen/



#710 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 January 2013 - 07:56 PM

One of these days I'll get around to asking it of someone face to face, but I'd love to ask a gun rights supporter why, if the 2nd amendment is all about private gun ownership, was the little preamble about militias thrown in? If it was meant to be interpreted to mean private citizens can all own guns, why doesn't it just say that? Why the part about militias at all? Are we to assume the authors were just being long winded? Seems to me that they're ignoring an important part of the amendment, like someone reading A Christmas Carol and glossing over the part about Scrooge being a cheap old bastard.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#711 cancerman1120

cancerman1120

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 January 2013 - 07:57 PM

Why do some people only count deaths from firearms? Great news, survivors! You don't get counted in the debate. Now it looks like there are fewer incidents. Free crab rangoon for everyone!*

*With purchase of regular priced entree.

Spoiler


It appears that number is somewhere around 200,000 people each year in the US.

#712 elessar123

elessar123

    96.5% more WUB WUB

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 January 2013 - 08:04 PM

Why do some people only count deaths from firearms? Great news, survivors! You don't get counted in the debate. Now it looks like there are fewer incidents. Free crab rangoon for everyone!*

*With purchase of regular priced entree.

Spoiler


And amount of time handling guns. Sure, cars cause lots of deaths, but 250 million people drive like 15,000 miles a year. At 32k fatal crashes, it's like 117 million miles driven per fatality.

In comparison, 10,800,000 guns sold, and 30,000+ deaths, it's like 1 death per 360 guns sold*.

*I know the comparison isn't quite fair, unless you know the amount of time people handle guns a year.

#713 Temporaryscars

Temporaryscars

    Talks like a Dalek

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 January 2013 - 08:05 PM

One of these days I'll get around to asking it of someone face to face, but I'd love to ask a gun rights supporter why, if the 2nd amendment is all about private gun ownership, was the little preamble about militias thrown in? If it was meant to be interpreted to mean private citizens can all own guns, why doesn't it just say that? Why the part about militias at all? Are we to assume the authors were just being long winded? Seems to me that they're ignoring an important part of the amendment, like someone reading A Christmas Carol and glossing over the part about Scrooge being a cheap old bastard.



Read up.

http://www.lewrockwe...kreca9.1.1.html



#714 Knoell

Knoell

    Achievement Unlocked

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 January 2013 - 08:06 PM

One of these days I'll get around to asking it of someone face to face, but I'd love to ask a gun rights supporter why, if the 2nd amendment is all about private gun ownership, was the little preamble about militias thrown in? If it was meant to be interpreted to mean private citizens can all own guns, why doesn't it just say that? Why the part about militias at all? Are we to assume the authors were just being long winded? Seems to me that they're ignoring an important part of the amendment, like someone reading A Christmas Carol and glossing over the part about Scrooge being a cheap old bastard.


So you will be ok with Militias running around with a bunch of guns, but not private gun owners? Gotcha.

#715 mykevermin

mykevermin

    Queen of Scotland

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 January 2013 - 08:12 PM

I wonder which of your rights you'd be willing to give up in the name of security theater.


We should eliminate the police entirely. Only sure-fire way to halt a police state, yes? Would you agree that we should not have the police? Let's have that discussion.

Not kidding.

If only you were as interested in drone control as you were in gun control.


drones are used in citizen->citizen killings in the US? or did you have a point here?
Posted Image

#716 Knoell

Knoell

    Achievement Unlocked

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 January 2013 - 08:19 PM

And amount of time handling guns. Sure, cars cause lots of deaths, but 250 million people drive like 15,000 miles a year. At 32k fatal crashes, it's like 117 million miles driven per fatality.

In comparison, 10,800,000 guns sold, and 30,000+ deaths, it's like 1 death per 360 guns sold*.

*I know the comparison isn't quite fair, unless you know the amount of time people handle guns a year.


Why only guns sold? Are only new guns handled?

Around an estimated 300,000,000 guns in the US. 30,000 deaths (that is accidents + suicide + homicide). Add in the 70,000+ injuries.

.03% of guns have blood on them each year.

Noone tells you that gun related fatalities are a nearly 40 year low either.

#717 elessar123

elessar123

    96.5% more WUB WUB

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 January 2013 - 08:25 PM

Why only guns sold? Are only new guns handled?

Around an estimated 300,000,000 guns in the US. 30,000 deaths (that is accidents + suicide + homicide). Add in the 70,000+ injuries.

.03% of guns have blood on them each year.

Noone tells you that gun related fatalities are a nearly 40 year low either.


Because number of guns isn't the number of guns handled.

And you can't count total guns per death this year. It's 300,000,000 guns at 100,000 injuries+deaths, plus (total guns the year before / injuries the year before), and the year before that, etc. Thus, I used a figure quantifiable to one year.

#718 Temporaryscars

Temporaryscars

    Talks like a Dalek

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 January 2013 - 08:25 PM

We should eliminate the police entirely. Only sure-fire way to halt a police state, yes? Would you agree that we should not have the police? Let's have that discussion.


The police as they are now? Yes.




drones are used in citizen->citizen killings in the US? or did you have a point here?


So you're cool with people being murdered, as long as it's the state doing the killing?

Seems like you're willing to argue anything as long as the end game = more power to the state. Anything other than that, you couldn't care less, no matter how many people are killed. Of course, this is all a different story when your guy isn't in office...



#719 Knoell

Knoell

    Achievement Unlocked

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 January 2013 - 08:26 PM

I agree with what you are saying here for the most part. The only real issue I have is we cannot even have a conversation about any limitation on guns currently being sold. Why is it we accept certain guns as "o.k." for society to have while others are not deemed acceptable? I am not against gun ownership but I have no problem talking about limits on how many and what kind you are allowed to have. THAT conversation is just shouted down time and again by assuming limits means taking all the guns away.


Honestly what would you like to limit? Extended magazines? These account for a very very very small percentage of the shootings. Yes I guess stopping any shooting is great, but would that limit be effective?

#720 Knoell

Knoell

    Achievement Unlocked

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 23 January 2013 - 08:37 PM

Because number of guns isn't the number of guns handled.

And you can't count total guns per death this year. It's 300,000,000 guns at 100,000 injuries+deaths, plus (total guns the year before / injuries the year before), and the year before that, etc. Thus, I used a figure quantifiable to one year.


Show me a statistic on guns handled instead of just picking a number of "guns purchased". I know someone that bought a gun last year and hasn't used it yet, and I have also shot a few of my brothers guns at a range last year, that he hadn't purchased last year. You are just making numbers up now.