Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Anti-gun propagandists


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#16    MstrMsn

MstrMsn

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,023 posts
  • Joined:09 Oct 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston

  • "If you don't like the answer, you shouldn't have asked the question!"

Posted 05 January 2013 - 08:58 AM

View PostThe Silver Thong, on 05 January 2013 - 08:44 AM, said:

Are you really going to compare a President to a guy in a 7-11 making a grab for beer to deffend your point.

The point I was making is this.... (and I'm using caps to clarify and strengthen, not yell....)

HAVING ARMED SECURITY OR BEING ARMED YOURSELF DOES NOT GUARANTEE YOUR SAFETY. NOT UNLESS YOU ALSO HAVE THE ABILITY TO SEE INTO THE FUTURE OR CAN OTHERWISE FORETELL WHEN SOME DING BAT IS GOING TO PULL A GUN ON YOU.

Besides, it doesn't matter if the person is the President or some poor shmuck working in a store. Either both have the right to have the ability to defend themselves (however futile it may be), or neither has the right. Being President does not make you any more important than a regular citizen, it just means that you have 300+ million more bosses.

Edited by MstrMsn, 05 January 2013 - 09:00 AM.

We are born with 2 fears: Falling, and loud noises, all others are LEARNED.
You say fear is all in the mind. I say you are right; for it is our imagination that makes things seem scary.
If you want to learn how to not be afraid, ask.

#17    The Silver Thong

The Silver Thong

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,322 posts
  • Joined:02 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary Alberta Canada

Posted 05 January 2013 - 09:10 AM

View PostMstrMsn, on 05 January 2013 - 08:58 AM, said:

The point I was making is this.... (and I'm using caps to clarify and strengthen, not yell....)

HAVING ARMED SECURITY OR BEING ARMED YOURSELF DOES NOT GUARANTEE YOUR SAFETY. NOT UNLESS YOU ALSO HAVE THE ABILITY TO SEE INTO THE FUTURE OR CAN OTHERWISE FORETELL WHEN SOME DING BAT IS GOING TO PULL A GUN ON YOU.

Besides, it doesn't matter if the person is the President or some poor shmuck working in a store. Either both have the right to have the ability to defend themselves (however futile it may be), or neither has the right. Being President does not make you any more important than a regular citizen, it just means that you have 300+ million more bosses.


Thank you for making the point that more guns means more security as it does not. If a president can be almost killed in front of a nation and killed surrounded by guns means little. To say more guns is the answer no absalutly not. It means tighter restrictions not bans but better control of who is getting these guns. Sandy was a good aka bad example of a so called good gun owener that did nothing to secure her guns from her whacho son. If she was alive she would be charged big time. Thats what I'm talking about.

Sittin back drinkin beer watchin the world take it's course.


The only thing god can't do is prove he exists ?

#18    The Silver Thong

The Silver Thong

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,322 posts
  • Joined:02 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary Alberta Canada

Posted 05 January 2013 - 09:14 AM

The right to bare arms to many is like giving a 3 yr old fire crackers.

Sittin back drinkin beer watchin the world take it's course.


The only thing god can't do is prove he exists ?

#19    MstrMsn

MstrMsn

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,023 posts
  • Joined:09 Oct 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston

  • "If you don't like the answer, you shouldn't have asked the question!"

Posted 05 January 2013 - 09:18 AM

View PostThe Silver Thong, on 05 January 2013 - 09:10 AM, said:

Thank you for making the point that more guns means more security as it does not. If a president can be almost killed in front of a nation and killed surrounded by guns means little. To say more guns is the answer no absalutly not. It means tighter restrictions not bans but better control of who is getting these guns. Sandy was a good aka bad example of a so called good gun owener that did nothing to secure her guns from her whacho son. If she was alive she would be charged big time. Thats what I'm talking about.

The state of Connecticut has gun laws very similar to your country's. Her guns were infact LOCKED up. That is why he killed her first, so he could access them. If he didn't need her to get to them, do you think he would have killed her? Maybe, maybe not... we don't know.

We don't need more laws, nor do we need better "control". We need better enforcement of the laws we already have. MOST gun related incidents are from criminals - people that don't care if a certain gun is banned, or they aren't allowed to have a 30 round mag. What needs to happen is quite simple, unfortunately, too many people (yourself included) are looking in the wrong area.

We are born with 2 fears: Falling, and loud noises, all others are LEARNED.
You say fear is all in the mind. I say you are right; for it is our imagination that makes things seem scary.
If you want to learn how to not be afraid, ask.

#20    The Silver Thong

The Silver Thong

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,322 posts
  • Joined:02 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary Alberta Canada

Posted 05 January 2013 - 09:28 AM

Yes we do not know how she stored the guns as she took him shooting.  If her guns were in FACK locked why is that not the case as she took a bullet to the head. Should have been locked up at the range.

Reduce gun crime by increacing gun penalty, very simple. Don't ban them however there is never a need for an assault riffle. Guns are ok but f with them in a manor your right is revoked just as drinking and driving. Whats so hard about that. If you are convicted and in your country that puts you on a no fly list that should include a no gun list and each time caught the prison time goes up.

Sittin back drinkin beer watchin the world take it's course.


The only thing god can't do is prove he exists ?

#21    MstrMsn

MstrMsn

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,023 posts
  • Joined:09 Oct 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston

  • "If you don't like the answer, you shouldn't have asked the question!"

Posted 05 January 2013 - 09:36 AM

She was shot well after he beat her near to death, or are you purposely avoiding that part?

The fact that he was living there, and was mentally and emotionally unstable, she should have either kept them elsewhere.

"Reduce gun crime by increacing gun penalty, very simple" Exactly, but it doesn't happen. Do you know why?

We are born with 2 fears: Falling, and loud noises, all others are LEARNED.
You say fear is all in the mind. I say you are right; for it is our imagination that makes things seem scary.
If you want to learn how to not be afraid, ask.

#22    The Silver Thong

The Silver Thong

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,322 posts
  • Joined:02 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary Alberta Canada

Posted 05 January 2013 - 09:43 AM

View PostMstrMsn, on 05 January 2013 - 09:36 AM, said:

She was shot well after he beat her near to death, or are you purposely avoiding that part?

The fact that he was living there, and was mentally and emotionally unstable, she should have either kept them elsewhere.

"Reduce gun crime by increacing gun penalty, very simple" Exactly, but it doesn't happen. Do you know why?


She knew her son was umm not right so umm no matter her death he got her guns, As I said if she was alive she would be up on charges to or do you not think so.

How does harsh punishment for illigal guns not work when used in a crime.

could it be an American or should I say US thing

Edited by The Silver Thong, 05 January 2013 - 09:45 AM.

Sittin back drinkin beer watchin the world take it's course.


The only thing god can't do is prove he exists ?

#23    The Silver Thong

The Silver Thong

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,322 posts
  • Joined:02 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary Alberta Canada

Posted 05 January 2013 - 09:47 AM

He shot her with her own gun ffs no matter he beat her

her training failed

she should have shot him right

Edited by The Silver Thong, 05 January 2013 - 09:50 AM.

Sittin back drinkin beer watchin the world take it's course.


The only thing god can't do is prove he exists ?

#24    The Silver Thong

The Silver Thong

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 30,322 posts
  • Joined:02 Dec 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Calgary Alberta Canada

Posted 05 January 2013 - 09:54 AM

Guns don't save  lives they take them.....  not unless one is under false pretence

Edited by The Silver Thong, 05 January 2013 - 09:55 AM.

Sittin back drinkin beer watchin the world take it's course.


The only thing god can't do is prove he exists ?

#25    MstrMsn

MstrMsn

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,023 posts
  • Joined:09 Oct 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston

  • "If you don't like the answer, you shouldn't have asked the question!"

Posted 05 January 2013 - 10:24 AM

View PostThe Silver Thong, on 05 January 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

She knew her son was umm not right so umm no matter her death he got her guns, As I said if she was alive she would be up on charges to or do you not think so.

How does harsh punishment for illigal guns not work when used in a crime.

could it be an American or should I say US thing

See, first, you have low lever street pushers (just one example) arrested. They have a gun on them, along with drugs. The police book them on drug and weapon charges. But, the District Attorney's office (or the Attorney General's office if the FBI, ATF or DEA make the arrest and it's going before a federal court) will often either drop the weapons charges or lessen the time served if they give up their supplier. While this is within the DA's/AG's discretion, it shouldn't be done. However, no state's governor (nor the president) is going to tell them "NO!!! You can not do that!!"

So, yes, it is basically a US thing, and it is utterly retarded, but there is nothing we can do about it. Threatening them with voting them out won't do any good. Public awareness? No media group will touch this (maybe a small cable show would, but not many people watch those).

On a side note, what's your (and your country's) take on the No Hockey BS???

We are born with 2 fears: Falling, and loud noises, all others are LEARNED.
You say fear is all in the mind. I say you are right; for it is our imagination that makes things seem scary.
If you want to learn how to not be afraid, ask.

#26    MstrMsn

MstrMsn

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,023 posts
  • Joined:09 Oct 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Boston

  • "If you don't like the answer, you shouldn't have asked the question!"

Posted 05 January 2013 - 10:31 AM

View PostThe Silver Thong, on 05 January 2013 - 09:47 AM, said:

He shot her with her own gun ffs no matter he beat her

her training failed

she should have shot him right

If she were carrying one, she may have been able to (I said MAY)... but she wasn't.

Also, under CT firearms laws, you need a Carry Permit in order to carry - didn't say if she had one of those. You don't, however, need a Carry Permit to own, though to do need what's called a Local Permit - with this, you can own, just not carry (does not restrict you from transporting to and from the gun store/range/home)

We are born with 2 fears: Falling, and loud noises, all others are LEARNED.
You say fear is all in the mind. I say you are right; for it is our imagination that makes things seem scary.
If you want to learn how to not be afraid, ask.

#27    Jinxdom

Jinxdom

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 720 posts
  • Joined:06 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:East Coast

  • Education...has produced a vast population able to read but unable to distinguish what is worth reading.
    -- G.M. Trevelyan

Posted 05 January 2013 - 10:59 AM

View PostThe Silver Thong, on 05 January 2013 - 09:54 AM, said:

Guns don't save  lives they take them.....  not unless one is under false pretence

It's all on how you look at it. I.E. IF she shot the kid many lives would of been saved. Need to see the whole picture.

The 2nd amendment is more along the lines of using anything to protect yourself. Rather then weapons or just guns. We gotta use what is at hand to do what's best. That just means better control on what we already have. We already proved that laws alone do not work. It's better laws and better enforcement that would fix this system. Let's face it though we are all a little bit lazier about it then we should. If we were all vigilant about the task of protecting ourselves and the ones we care about things like wouldn't happen. Regardless of whatever weapon was used.


#28    Drayno

Drayno

    Bounty Hunter

  • Member
  • 3,890 posts
  • Joined:18 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Neo-Mars

Posted 06 January 2013 - 02:23 AM

View Postninjadude, on 05 January 2013 - 03:14 AM, said:

Oversword, where is the issue? Anti-gun does not mean prohibition. It means more control. That's the strawman that the author is attempting. That Schumer carries or Michael Moore use armed guards is not shocking, hypocritical, or even of any issue. Even repealing the 2nd amendment is not prohibition. A law could be made to do that. But that is far from reality. Our creator did not endow us with the right to bear arms.

Are you serious?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

So you're telling me that our unalienable rights don't exist? And you're telling me that we, the people, don't have the right to abolish a destructive government?

On top of this, the numerous unalienable rights expressly written in the Bill of Rights - including the right to bear arms - which you can exercise purely by picking up any gun; a natural right that we have preexisting by existing in the human condition, don't exist? I'm sorry, but we all have unalienable rights granted by our creator - creator possibly implicating a genesis from parents, thus genetic sources - not even expressly identifying with a God; a creator to some degree, nonetheless. We have unalienable rights not because God gave them to us - we have them because we're human, existing in the human condition, passing on genetic material through offspring, ensuring the continuation of our lines - acting as creators ourselves as our creators did for us, deriving the power we give to our children from the power that we hold - including the power for our children to protect themselves similarly to how our parents protected us - a power derived from humanity, not from government.

Your logic fails you here, ninjadude, because if we don't have unalienable rights, or the right to bear arms, how do we abolish a government that has destructive ends? How do we protect our pursuit of happiness? If we have rights since we're people, how is having the ability to bear a gun as a person not permissible? How do we secure our own safety without weapons? How do we kick those who usurp power and intrench themselves out of said footholds without arms?

Saying we don't have the ability to own guns when at least five founding fathers advocated armed citizenry - that advocated a free state - that advocated the ability to fight back against tyranny - contradicts The Federalist Papers, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, and The Declaration of Independence.

You don't make any bloody sense.

The ideology of our forefathers is not outdated or irrelevant - not matter what argument you make.

If you even try to ignore The Declaration of Independence you don't really care about your own freedom.

Or your family and their freedom and your ability and freedom to ensure their safety.

That is, if you're even an American. If you aren't I can understand your disagreement with American ideology due to pure cultural differences. That would be understandable. But if you are American, I wouldn't call you a very good one.

Edited by Eonwe, 06 January 2013 - 02:35 AM.

"Let us sit upon the ground and tell sad stories of the death of kings."
- William Shakespeare, Richard II, Act III, Scene II
Posted Image

#29    ninjadude

ninjadude

    Seeker of truths

  • Member
  • 11,080 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Illinois

  • "dirt collects at the interfaces"

Posted 07 January 2013 - 01:17 AM

View PostEonwe, on 06 January 2013 - 02:23 AM, said:

Are you serious?

very serious

Quote

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

So you're telling me that our unalienable rights don't exist? And you're telling me that we, the people, don't have the right to abolish a destructive government?

no. That's NOT what I said. I said the 2nd amendment of the CONSTITUTION, which does NOT exist in the declaration, is not a god given right. God did not come down from on high and give man the right to "bear arms" against his fellow man. That is just silly.

Quote

On top of this, the numerous unalienable rights expressly written in the Bill of Rights - including the right to bear arms -


the bill of rights are not inalienable. They can be taken away. In fact, as others point out a number of them could be said to be removed already. And they are not "absolute". The supreme court has ruled that the bill of rights is not unlimited in it's scope.

Quote

Your logic fails you here, ninjadude, because if we don't have unalienable rights, or the right to bear arms, how do we abolish a government that has destructive ends?

I did NOT say we don't have inalienable rights. I said the 2nd amendment is not one of them. And it has no relevance in the 21st century in abolishing the US government. To believe so is ludicrous. To remove a government is done via the VOTE and participation in government. Not whining about it.

Quote

How do we protect our pursuit of happiness? If we have rights since we're people, how is having the ability to bear a gun as a person not permissible?

not having the 2nd amendment does NOT mean guns are prohibited. We protect our pursuit of happiness by the VOTE and participation in government. Not running around shooting.

Quote

How do we secwure our own safety without weapons? How do we kick those who usurp power and intrench themselves out of said footholds without arms?

AGAIN, not having a 2nd amendment does NOT mean guns are prohibited. To remove those who usurp power is done via VOTING and government participation. Arms are not required.

Quote

Saying we don't have the ability to own guns when at least five founding fathers advocated armed citizenry - that advocated a free state - that advocated the ability to fight back against tyranny - contradicts The Federalist Papers, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, and The Declaration of Independence.

Again who said anything about stopping the ability to own guns? The founding fathers arguments in this case are quaint and useful for the 18th century. The constitution does not talk about government overthrow. The Bill of rights does not talk about government overthrow.

Quote

The ideology of our forefathers is not outdated or irrelevant - not matter what argument you make.

It is not written in stone. It can and does become outdated and thus in need of change. Which is why the constitution is changable.

Quote

If you even try to ignore The Declaration of Independence you don't really care about your own freedom.
Or your family and their freedom and your ability and freedom to ensure their safety.

Really? you clearly don't understand. I care very much about gun nuts who want to take away my freedom of life. I have no desire to take up "arms". That's why we have a military. If I don't like the government, I vote. I don't wrap myself around outdated notions that an armed populace can overthrow the 21st century US government.

Quote

That is, if you're even an American. If you aren't I can understand your disagreement with American ideology due to pure cultural differences. That would be understandable. But if you are American, I wouldn't call you a very good one.

I am an American. I am not brainwashed to believe that the constitution and what the FF said is written in stone and unchangeable. I'm intelligent enough to understand that the constitution (you know, the LAW of the land) was created by men and did not reference coming from god. Your slander is not appreciated.

"Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now!""
- Friedrich Nietzsche

#30    Drayno

Drayno

    Bounty Hunter

  • Member
  • 3,890 posts
  • Joined:18 Jan 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Neo-Mars

Posted 07 January 2013 - 02:03 AM

View Postninjadude, on 07 January 2013 - 01:17 AM, said:

very serious



no. That's NOT what I said. I said the 2nd amendment of the CONSTITUTION, which does NOT exist in the declaration, is not a god given right. God did not come down from on high and give man the right to "bear arms" against his fellow man. That is just silly.

[/size][/font][/color]

the bill of rights are not inalienable. They can be taken away. In fact, as others point out a number of them could be said to be removed already. And they are not "absolute". The supreme court has ruled that the bill of rights is not unlimited in it's scope.



I did NOT say we don't have inalienable rights. I said the 2nd amendment is not one of them. And it has no relevance in the 21st century in abolishing the US government. To believe so is ludicrous. To remove a government is done via the VOTE and participation in government. Not whining about it.



not having the 2nd amendment does NOT mean guns are prohibited. We protect our pursuit of happiness by the VOTE and participation in government. Not running around shooting.



AGAIN, not having a 2nd amendment does NOT mean guns are prohibited. To remove those who usurp power is done via VOTING and government participation. Arms are not required.



Again who said anything about stopping the ability to own guns? The founding fathers arguments in this case are quaint and useful for the 18th century. The constitution does not talk about government overthrow. The Bill of rights does not talk about government overthrow.



It is not written in stone. It can and does become outdated and thus in need of change. Which is why the constitution is changable.



Really? you clearly don't understand. I care very much about gun nuts who want to take away my freedom of life. I have no desire to take up "arms". That's why we have a military. If I don't like the government, I vote. I don't wrap myself around outdated notions that an armed populace can overthrow the 21st century US government.



I am an American. I am not brainwashed to believe that the constitution and what the FF said is written in stone and unchangeable. I'm intelligent enough to understand that the constitution (you know, the LAW of the land) was created by men and did not reference coming from god. Your slander is not appreciated.

I'm pretty sure I clarified that we have the right to bear arms as given to us by our creator.

Creator being a flexible definition, given America is a platform for religious freedom...

That does not automatically specify God if there is a scientifically backed form of genesis such as procreation; parents being creators.

Thus, so long as we are human we have unalienable rights as endowed by our creator, guaranteed by our humanity.

The Bill of Rights was created so that government protects said unalienable rights that preexist government. How is that hard to understand?

Yes, the model for implementing change if the voting system - but what is the voting system fails? What then?

Not having the second amendment removes the expressed intent for civilians to have the ability to bear arms - which the second amendment says not to infringe.

It leaves the ability of citizens to be armed at the whim of the government and whatever definition or regulation it wishes to apply to its citizenry. Aka, the model formula for transforming citizens into subjects at the whim of a governing entity changing definitions.

The Constitution itself does not directly say we should overthrow our government if it is destructive to its own ends, instead The Declaration of Independence says so pretty clearly: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it "

The Bill of Rights doesn't say we should overthrow our government, but it gives us a means to defend ourselves from our government - the second amendment. And while these documents do not expressly say we should overthrow our government if it becomes destructive - their creators directly say we should maintain our ability to defend ourselves from our government and abolish if should it target our freedoms. What I meant by referencing the The Federalist Papers, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights, and The Declaration of Independence was that you aren't contradicting the direct texts of the documents, but instead their intended messages and ideology.

Yes, the Constitution is changeable - but we should be prudent enough to value whether said changes are beneficial or intended to be self-destructive of the document itself purposely, throwing away its meaning and altering its significance through bad amendments.

The century is irrelevant. The decade is irrelevant. The spirit of rebellion existed before people had swords. I'm sure people who only had swords thought it folly to rebel against those who had arrows, siege mechanisms, resources, strategic positioning, horses - but the point of resistance isn't to question what technology oppressors have - it is to have similar technology to stand a chance and to be a thorn in their side until the machine is worn down. That's what you don't get.

I'm not one to slander - I'm more adapt to be cheerfully condescending. You implying I'm brainwashed because I follow the advice of the people who founded this country - who studied centuries of history and governments - that our country was created so as to not make the same mistakes others made, is pretty freaking humorous at best, I must admit.

Edited by Eonwe, 07 January 2013 - 02:06 AM.

"Let us sit upon the ground and tell sad stories of the death of kings."
- William Shakespeare, Richard II, Act III, Scene II
Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users