Amazon 7 #176 November 8, 2011 Quote Quote WhateverYou heard me loud and clear and we disagree TK - there is a difference between a "right" and a "privilege." The Bill of Rights is NOT the "Bill of Things if the World Was Perfect But It's Not So These Things AreIgnorable." Guns are specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Cars are not. p.s. - to pre-empt kallend, yes, "arms" are specifically mentioned, not "guns." But they mean the same thing... Hmm I wonder what right it is to be able to shoot unarmed people by law officers for not complying with what a bully deems a lawful order... in contravention of that whole free speech thing in one of those other rights. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DesertAttorney 0 #177 November 8, 2011 Quote Quote Quote WhateverYou heard me loud and clear and we disagree TK - there is a difference between a "right" and a "privilege." The Bill of Rights is NOT the "Bill of Things if the World Was Perfect But It's Not So These Things AreIgnorable." Guns are specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Cars are not. p.s. - to pre-empt kallend, yes, "arms" are specifically mentioned, not "guns." But they mean the same thing... Hmm I wonder what right it is to be able to shoot unarmed people by law officers for not complying with what a bully deems a lawful order... in contravention of that whole free speech thing in one of those other rights. Because all Police Officers are bullies... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #178 November 8, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote WhateverYou heard me loud and clear and we disagree TK - there is a difference between a "right" and a "privilege." The Bill of Rights is NOT the "Bill of Things if the World Was Perfect But It's Not So These Things AreIgnorable." Guns are specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Cars are not. p.s. - to pre-empt kallend, yes, "arms" are specifically mentioned, not "guns." But they mean the same thing... Hmm I wonder what right it is to be able to shoot unarmed people by law officers for not complying with what a bully deems a lawful order... in contravention of that whole free speech thing in one of those other rights. Because all Police Officers are bullies... Not all but it takes a REAL MAN to shoot unarmed people now don't it... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DesertAttorney 0 #179 November 8, 2011 Quote Quote Because all Police Officers are bullies... Not all but it takes a REAL MAN to shoot unarmed people now don't it... You have no idea what they faced, nor their training. Nor do I. The difference is I don't claim the ability/knowledge base to judge them. You do. Unless you have a Law Enforcement, Legal, or Criminal Justice background, you have no basis/ability to wield an informed decision. Next time you want to open your mouth about Police and how they persecute you, first go on a ride-along, and see what they face on a daily basis--quite often human sewage that you'd sooner put on a pedestal. Seriously, the 60s and 70s are OVER. Get over yourself. People suck, and it's the Police's job to keep the wolves at bay. Instead of shitting on them, try thanking them for ensuring you can walk the street at night safely, and your house is not broken in on a weekly basis. You are of course going to put on a Faux East German accent and act like an ingrate hipster, but I really expected that more than anything else. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #180 November 8, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Because all Police Officers are bullies... Not all but it takes a REAL MAN to shoot unarmed people now don't it... You have no idea what they faced, nor their training. Nor do I. The difference is I don't claim the ability/knowledge base to judge them. You do. Unless you have a Law Enforcement, Legal, or Criminal Justice background, you have no basis/ability to wield an informed decision. Next time you want to open your mouth about Police and how they persecute you, first go on a ride-along, and see what they face on a daily basis--quite often human sewage that you'd sooner put on a pedestal. Seriously, the 60s and 70s are OVER. Get over yourself. People suck, and it's the Police's job to keep the wolves at bay. Instead of shitting on them, try thanking them for ensuring you can walk the street at night safely, and your house is not broken in on a weekly basis. You are of course going to put on a Faux East German accent and act like an ingrate hipster, but I really expected that more than anything else. Blah Blah Blah You blither on and on how dangerous it is... I know the numbers of officers killed in the line of duty... How many civilians have died in our country in the last.. oh ten years or so at the hand of police???? My next door neighbors are both former officers who quit because their department has gone so far down hill. Not because of the danger... but because of the WRONG people who are on the force now. And I have done ride alongs with him on the night shift where he was a sergeant and seen the people he was talking about first hand. Your ASSumptions are REALLLLLLY starting to pile up counselor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 123 #181 November 8, 2011 I not talking about rights and privileges and I am not talking about the Constitution. The USA has a GUN PROBLEM. Constitutionally allowed or not. it has a GUN PROBLEM. It also has a DRUG PROBLEM for example and I gave an example of a car problem. It also has an ALCOHOL PROBLEM. these are also 'people' problems as you say, but they are not treated as such. the USA has a gun problem. you heard me loud and clear. I gave up on the logic of the american people many many years ago on this issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #182 November 8, 2011 QuoteI not talking about rights and privileges and I am not talking about the Constitution. The USA has a GUN PROBLEM. Constitutionally allowed or not. it has a GUN PROBLEM. Nope. Lemme know when it jumps off the table and starts shooting up the neighborhood. Quotethe USA has a gun problem. you heard me loud and clear. I gave up on the logic of the american people many many years ago on this issue. Given the 'logic' you use, that's not surprising.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #183 November 8, 2011 QuoteThe USA has a GUN PROBLEM. Constitutionally allowed or not. it has a GUN PROBLEM. Yep. It's that "Constitutionally allowed" thing. Think of the people who also say we have a crime problem and the ban on warrantless searches is killing people. Yep. I'd rather take my chances in public than take my chances with a police state. QuoteIt also has an ALCOHOL PROBLEM. these are also 'people' problems as you say, but they are not treated as such. Funny you should mention alcohol. Why, the Constitution specifically mentioned banning it once. We saw how well that worked.... QuoteI gave up on the logic of the american people many many years ago on this issue. So did I. Only I think we gave up on the logic of different portions of the American people. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,379 #184 November 8, 2011 >I recommend the Hornady Critical Defense FTX bullet. It produces maximum >internal damage with a very low potential for external damage. What round would Jesus use? Would he go for maximum internal damage, best accuracy or stopping power? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Coreece 189 #185 November 8, 2011 QuoteWhat round would Jesus use? Would he go for maximum internal damage, best accuracy or stopping power? Jesus always seemed more of a pyro-enthusiast to me...Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lost_n_confuzd 0 #186 November 9, 2011 Quote What round would Jesus use? Would he go for maximum internal damage, best accuracy or stopping power? My Jesus would go for stopping power Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #187 November 9, 2011 Quote Quote What round would Jesus use? Would he go for maximum internal damage, best accuracy or stopping power? My Jesus would go for stopping power Well, if Jesus would quit turning water into wine, then perhaps the violence would stop. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #188 November 9, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Because all Police Officers are bullies... Not all but it takes a REAL MAN to shoot unarmed people now don't it... You have no idea what they faced, nor their training. Nor do I. The difference is I don't claim the ability/knowledge base to judge them. You do. Unless you have a Law Enforcement, Legal, or Criminal Justice background, you have no basis/ability to wield an informed decision. Next time you want to open your mouth about Police and how they persecute you, first go on a ride-along, and see what they face on a daily basis--quite often human sewage that you'd sooner put on a pedestal. Seriously, the 60s and 70s are OVER. Get over yourself. People suck, and it's the Police's job to keep the wolves at bay. Instead of shitting on them, try thanking them for ensuring you can walk the street at night safely, and your house is not broken in on a weekly basis. You are of course going to put on a Faux East German accent and act like an ingrate hipster, but I really expected that more than anything else. This has GOT to be the most delusional post I have read in ages. What planet do you really live on? Or, as I suspect, are you just tweaking noses with no intent to post something meaningful?My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #189 November 9, 2011 Quote Quote Quote Quote Because all Police Officers are bullies... Not all but it takes a REAL MAN to shoot unarmed people now don't it... You have no idea what they faced, nor their training. Nor do I. The difference is I don't claim the ability/knowledge base to judge them. You do. Unless you have a Law Enforcement, Legal, or Criminal Justice background, you have no basis/ability to wield an informed decision. Next time you want to open your mouth about Police and how they persecute you, first go on a ride-along, and see what they face on a daily basis--quite often human sewage that you'd sooner put on a pedestal. Seriously, the 60s and 70s are OVER. Get over yourself. People suck, and it's the Police's job to keep the wolves at bay. Instead of shitting on them, try thanking them for ensuring you can walk the street at night safely, and your house is not broken in on a weekly basis. You are of course going to put on a Faux East German accent and act like an ingrate hipster, but I really expected that more than anything else. This has GOT to be the most delusional post I have read in ages. What planet do you really live on? Or, as I suspect, are you just tweaking noses with no intent to post something meaningful? That's pretty funny coming from you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DFWAJG 4 #190 November 9, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote For reply, please see what you've just quoted. and there begins Paul's retreat until the next time. It's like Shah and Rhys. Over/under on using the same "you people want the mentally ill to have guns" even *after* talking about cutting the bullshit? I know at least one other person I can think of that has said, "Mentally ill people are ALREADY barred from purchase." Weird huh? I mean, he actually said the "mentally ill" were barred from purchasing. He used the term, "mentally ill," Ya know, Lawrocket, DFWAJG and yourself really ought to go after that guy and set him straight because clearly he doesn't have a clue. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3278156;search_string=mentally%20ill;#3278156 The Preamble according to the Constitution : We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. The Preamble according to Paul's implication: We the People except those with schizphrenia of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 58 #191 November 9, 2011 Quote>I recommend the Hornady Critical Defense FTX bullet. It produces maximum >internal damage with a very low potential for external damage. What round would Jesus use? Would he go for maximum internal damage, best accuracy or stopping power? That is a silly question.Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #192 November 9, 2011 QuoteLemme know when it jumps off the table and starts shooting up the neighborhood. I'm going to play a little Devil's advocate here, so before anyone gets too upset, I'm replying to this because I think the ensuing conversation might be enlightening. Here's my admitedly loaded question: if the stance is that guns don't kill people, and are only a tool, why were people so upset about the Fast and Furious scandal? It seems the most damning aspect of that debacle was that some of the guns may have been used in the murder of a US LEO. But to be consistent, the fact that guns were used, even those specific guns, shouldn't matter. After all, the Mexican drug runners could have done the same thing with bats, or knives, or cars. How can a person say that guns are only a tool in one breath, and get upset that Mexican drug runners used US guns to kill a LEO in the next? And please remember, I don't necessarily believe the two views are not consistent, I just want to see what our more strident posters have to say. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #193 November 9, 2011 QuoteThe USA has a GUN PROBLEM. Constitutionally allowed or not. it has a GUN PROBLEM. No, it has a violence problem. I guess you do think pencils misspell words! Quote the USA has a gun problem. you heard me loud and clear. I gave up on the logic of the american people many many years ago on this issue. Well that is mainly because you opinion is based on the incorrect concept that the gun is responsible for its actions. QuoteConstitutionally allowed or not. Using your "logic" since the ability to stop crimes is hindered by not letting police just search anything anytime they want.... We should just drop the 4th and let them do anything they want.... Ya know, for the greater good. And before you try to claim that there are procedures to allow a search... there are ALSO procedures to prevent a person from owning a gun. Once you admit that the gun is nothing but a tool... just like a hammer, just like a stick, just like a pencil.... Then you are lost in the hype and unable to have an intelligent discussion on the topic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DaVinci 0 #194 November 9, 2011 QuoteHere's my admitedly loaded question: if the stance is that guns don't kill people, and are only a tool, why were people so upset about the Fast and Furious scandal? Oooh neat question. 1. Because the govt whose job it is to prevent this type of action intervened when the process was working and allowed the transactions to happen. 2. Because the govt allowed these into known criminals hands and lost track of them. And these same weapons have been used to kill. 3. Because the administration tried to use these weapons as an excuse to impose stricter gun control measures... NEVER MIND THAT THE GOVT INTERFERED WITH THE PROCESS AND ALLOWED IT TO HAPPEN. So basically the govt prevented the process in place to stop this from working, ran the program in a way that they lost control of the weapons, and then tried to use this as an example to introduce new gun control laws. So, loaded question to you.... If the Govt circumvented the procedures to prevent illegal voters from voting and allowed them to vote. And they didn't prevent those illegal votes from counting. And they then proposed legislation making it more difficult for LEGAL voters to vote using this incident as an example.... How would you feel about it? I'd feel exactly the same way on both. You? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #195 November 9, 2011 QuoteIf the Govt circumvented the procedures to prevent illegal voters from voting and allowed them to vote. And they didn't prevent those illegal votes from counting. And they then proposed legislation making it more difficult for LEGAL voters to vote using this incident as an example.... How would you feel about it? I'd feel exactly the same way on both. You? Right. It's like when a guy legally buys weapons but gets committed. Then, when the government does not perform its ministerial duties under the law in removing his weapons and the guy starts shooting, the government and members of public say "there needs to be a system to prevent this" and justify it as an excuse to trample on rights as a matter of necessity and public safety. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #196 November 9, 2011 Quote Quote If the Govt circumvented the procedures to prevent illegal voters from voting and allowed them to vote. And they didn't prevent those illegal votes from counting. And they then proposed legislation making it more difficult for LEGAL voters to vote using this incident as an example.... How would you feel about it? I'd feel exactly the same way on both. You? Right. It's like when a guy legally buys weapons but gets committed. Then, when the government does not perform its ministerial duties under the law in removing his weapons and the guy starts shooting, the government and members of public say "there needs to be a system to prevent this" and justify it as an excuse to trample on rights as a matter of necessity and public safety. I would support tax incentives for moving expenses... if people like that that you support would all move to Fresno.. so their constitutional rights could be protected by your family Jerry... One stop shopping.. more business for you and your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #197 November 9, 2011 Quotef people like that that you support would all move to Fresno And here it comes 360. Send them off and segregate the elements in one location where they can't harm the REAL Americans. I'm sure that the likes of Solzhenitsyn would have a fundamental understanding of what you're talking about. Yes, the mentally ill are the unmentionables. The undesirables. Separate them. Segregate them. And Jeanne will volunteer to use her own set of orbitoclasts... My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #198 November 10, 2011 Quote ? That's pretty funny coming from you. SHHHHH!My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #199 November 10, 2011 QuoteQuotef people like that that you support would all move to Fresno And here it comes 360. Send them off and segregate the elements in one location where they can't harm the REAL Americans. I'm sure that the likes of Solzhenitsyn would have a fundamental understanding of what you're talking about. Yes, the mentally ill are the unmentionables. The undesirables. Separate them. Segregate them. And Jeanne will volunteer to use her own set of orbitoclasts... OHHHH so you dont REALLLLY want to help them after all.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #200 November 10, 2011 QuoteQuote Send them off and segregate the elements in one location where they can't harm the REAL Americans. I'm sure that the likes of Solzhenitsyn would have a fundamental understanding of what you're talking about. Yes, the mentally ill are the unmentionables. The undesirables. Separate them. Segregate them. And Jeanne will volunteer to use her own set of orbitoclasts... OHHHH so you dont REALLLLY want to help them after all.... If your definition of "help" is shipping them off, segregating them, and letting some panel decide whether or not they have rights, then no, I really don't want to give anyone that kind of help. I prefer lawrocket's method of defending their rights, and allowing the medical field to treat them. If you like the idea of having some panel depriving people of their rights because they scare you, because they are not like you, and becasue they are an easy target, then you are a good little Citizen and approved for all Traveller meetings. Have you returned your norsefire enrollment package yet?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
