The Constitution, The Second Amendment and BHO

Replies

• SO

  

  Soupie

  Feb 19, 2013

  Actually, very logical.  Since I believe that you are some tea party hillbilly with few natural teeth and a great desire to kill with guns, and you think that I'm some crazy liberal with an agenda.  So get back to shunning please!

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Feb 20, 2013

  Rene, why not suggest that to the gun advocates on here who call me every foul name under the sun?

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Feb 20, 2013

  Can you even acknowledge the fact that the odds of a death (homicide/suicide/accident) are increased incredibly by having a gun in the home?  And women who own a gun are twice as likely to be shot by their domestic partner with it.  You want a senseless sound bite?  Let's hear from your fiercest advocate, Ted Nugent:
  "Obama, he's a piece of shit.  I told him to suck on my machine gun.""I use the word nigger a lot""Hey Hillary you might want to ride one of these guns into the sunset you worthless bitch"
  With representatives like that, what are people supposed to think?

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Feb 20, 2013

  And Gassy, I can repost all the foul insults that you have heaped on me (borrowed from NiMA) of course, but I will correct your spelling.
  

  ReactReply
• FF

  

  FF32404

  Feb 20, 2013

  [quote]Can you even acknowledge the fact that the odds of a death (homicide/suicide/accident) are increased incredibly by having a gun in the home?  And women who own a gun are twice as likely to be shot by their domestic partner with it.  You want a senseless sound bite?  Let's hear from your fiercest advocate, Ted Nugent:
  "Obama, he's a piece of shit.  I told him to suck on my machine gun.""I use the word nigger a lot""Hey Hillary you might want to ride one of these guns into the sunset you worthless bitch"
  With representatives like that, what are people supposed to think?[/quote]First statement and 2nd is false once again!  You have cited a statistic used by the left and the anti gun groups that have been debunked every time they use them.  That false and misleading statistic was obtained by a study (Not using the FBI Uniform Crime Reports) done in one specific county in the Seattle area one year, (everyone is aware that suicide is at a higher rate in that area) and lumped all deaths with firearms together.  So wrong again!  As for the Nugent comments, all I can find online is someone posting these remarks that they claim they heard at a concert.  Regardless, even if true, it does not outweigh the strength of my argument!

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Feb 20, 2013

  You don't believe my sources, and I don't believe yours.  And never the twain shall meet.  So why is Nugent put out there as a mouthpiece for the side of the gun advocates?  And why has Wayne LaPierre changed his mind about background checks?  And what average citizen needs an AR15?  Even Biden said today that there is no problem with a shotgun for home protection or a handgun.  Why do you need an extended magazine?  The fact that you can't even recognize the simple fact that homes with guns have a higher gun death rate than those without is so ridiculous.  The point is that the democrats are willing to compromise, but the right won't budge an inch.  Typical of the problem with congress.  You keep asserting that amendments and rights are inalienable.  Did you have a problem with the 13th amendment?  Because before then, slavery was legal.

  ReactReply
• FF

  

  FF32404

  Feb 21, 2013

  [quote]You don't believe my sources, and I don't believe yours.  And never the twain shall meet.  So why is Nugent put out there as a mouthpiece for the side of the gun advocates?  And why has Wayne LaPierre changed his mind about background checks?  And what average citizen needs an AR15?  Even Biden said today that there is no problem with a shotgun for home protection or a handgun.  Why do you need an extended magazine?  The fact that you can't even recognize the simple fact that homes with guns have a higher gun death rate than those without is so ridiculous.  The point is that the democrats are willing to compromise, but the right won't budge an inch.  Typical of the problem with congress.  You keep asserting that amendments and rights are inalienable.  Did you have a problem with the 13th amendment?  Because before then, slavery was legal.[/quote]Any source that doesn't include the FBI Uniform Crime Reports which is the only source that compiles such statistics is inaccurate at best!
  You can't prove that those were Nugent's so I won't comment further on this until I hear video of him saying those words.
  Wayne Lapierre has NOT changed his mind about background checks, our point is that they will have no effect on criminals and people committing such crimes!  There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books nationwide on the local, state and federal levels most of which are not being enforced or prosecuted on!  After the Brady Law which required background checks and a 5 day waiting period for handguns, Clinton at the time was bragging that the law stopped over 70,000 people from obtaining a handgun through the check, yet what he didn't say is that less than 10 were prosecuted for trying to purchase a firearm illegally!  He also didn't tell people that of the 70,000 many of them were blocked because they had a similar name to people who were felons.  So this information proves three things: One, Clinton lied (how odd) about it when most of them were eventually approved because they weren't the person who was thought to be the felon with the same name, two, if the ones prosecuted were the only true felons then the law is doing nothing to stop felons from getting firearms through illegal means, it's only keeps the honest people more honest and/or three, the whole statistic is a total lie.
  Why do people need an AR15? Standard Capacity Magazines? You need to go back to my post with the analogy on why Fire protection equipment is required by law! I'm not typing it out again.  It should be on page one or two.
  Once again, you mention the false fact of having a gun in the home BS, it's FALSE!!  YOu can't prove it so stop mentioning it!  It's FALSE!  There are over 380 million firearms in the homes of over 80 million gun owners in this country!  IF that were true, the gun death rate would be significantly higher than it is!   A little Hint!  Using Suicides in this BS statistic makes the entire statement bogus!  This is a little trick that the left likes to use to make their point reasonable, but it's extremely misleading and you have obviously fallen for it!
  
  Ah Compromise!!  Only the left would read a statement in the Constitution that says "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" and find compromise in there!  The people pushing these proposals aren't interested in compromise, when all is said and done, mental illness, expensive school safety measures and everything but gun control will be gone from the table!  It's because there is an agenda, and they will stop at nothing until their agenda of making all gun owners responsible for the actions of a few!  Don't think so?  Then why are a number of states and the Federal government proposing laws to require ALL gun owners to purchase liability insurance????  Convicted Sex Offenders and Felons let out on parole, are NOT required to purchase anything of the sort yet gun owners are?  And you think we should compromise with BS like that?
  Typical left wing response on the 13th Amendment!  In case you didn't get it, the entire Bill of Rights were AMENDMENTS to the Constitution!  They wrote them in because there were still people that didn't get it that some rights were inalienable!  IT took some times for the people of this country to realize that slavery was wrong too and the Amendment process was put in place for that too.  BTW, almost all of the people that were trying to block all civil rights legislation right through the Civil Rights act of 1961 were Democrats!  I'll let this one slide because you haven't directly called us racists but we all know that is what you are insinuating!
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Feb 21, 2013

  I am quite aware of what you are insinuating as well.
  And the idea of arming teachers is ludicrous.  Let's say that puts 30 more guns in the school, increasing the odds that a student will disarm him/her and shoot him/her because he doesn't want to do his homework.

  ReactReply
• RA

  

  ravensflyinnow

  Feb 21, 2013

  [quote] Switzerland where gun ownership is not only required but guns and ammo are provided by the government.
  [/quote]Males 20-30 in the Militia...(Switzerland doesn't have a standing Army) after training in said weapons. You made it sound as if the whole country is required to have a weapon and ammo provided by the gov...I think that was your intentiobn
  

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Feb 21, 2013

  You have lied again Gassy, and defamed.  Can you provide any evidence of your claims?

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Feb 21, 2013

  Incapable of proving your point Gassy?  Many times?  Many people?

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Feb 21, 2013

  I thought not.  So I guess that you just lied again.

  ReactReply
• FF

  

  FF32404

  Feb 21, 2013

  [quote]I am quite aware of what you are insinuating as well.
  And the idea of arming teachers is ludicrous.  Let's say that puts 30 more guns in the school, increasing the odds that a student will disarm him/her and shoot him/her because he doesn't want to do his homework.[/quote]What am I insinuating?  And I said nothing about arming teachers, however I did say that the most common demominator in all of these incidents of mass shootings are the fact that most are "Gun Free Zones" which the Mass Murder know!  And as expected, you didn't read my analogy or you choose not to make any sense of it!  What people are not noting is that it doesn't take a shot being fired to deter crime!  Criminals are evil, bad, nasty, psycho, and whatever, but they are NOT stupid!  If they think there is a chance that they might not be able to be successful in their plan, they will not do it or move to a place that is an easier target!  Did you ever wonder why when the people with the guns show up, they usually end up committing suicide?
  
  BTW Gassy is NOT lying about the proposals being introduced on many state, local and Federal levels!  They do want to take them and have proposed such.  In my state of CT and many others, they have actually proposed requiring ALL gun owners to purchase liability insurance!  Not Convicted Sex Offenders, not paroled Criminals, but Law Abiding Gun owners whom they perceive to all be potential mass murderers!

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Feb 21, 2013

  You have to buy insurance for your car, why not your gun?  A gun owner is likelier to kill an innocent person than someone who doesn't own a gun.  That's only logical.  As is the increased chance of death with a gun in the home.  But as I said, you will not recognize logic. But your paranoia is evident.  Who exactly is out to get you and diminish your rights?  Why?  Because they think you are a danger to others?

  ReactReply
• M_

  

  M_JimmieM_M

  Feb 21, 2013

  Here Soupie, since Canada has no second amendment and is gun free I thought you might like to know about this.
  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2013/02/21/toronto-whitby-shooting-durham-regional-police.html
  
  

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Feb 21, 2013

  Canada is not gun free.  I'm quite aware of that.  And most of the illegal weapons come from the U.S. .   Trust me, I'm aware of the gun deaths here.  The GTA has about 4 million people and averages about 50-60 gun deaths a year.  Compare that to any metropolitan area in the U.S. of any similar population.  And try not to patronize while you clean your gun and prepare to shoot a minority.

  ReactReply
• RA

  

  ravensflyinnow

  Feb 21, 2013

  [quote]You have to buy insurance for your car, why not your gun?  A gun owner is likelier to kill an innocent person than someone who doesn't own a gun.  That's only logical.  As is the increased chance of death with a gun in the home.  But as I said, you will not recognize logic. But your paranoia is evident.  Who exactly is out to get you and diminish your rights?  Why?  Because they think you are a danger to others?[/quote]

  ReactReply
• MA

  

  ManOfWicklow

  Feb 22, 2013

  [quote][/quote]
  
  
  
  $6 billionEstimated revenue generated by the gun and ammunition industry in the U.S., according to an analysis by business research firm Hoovers.
  

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Feb 22, 2013

  The fact that you flaunt and are proud of that figure, clearly makes you a threat to the lives of others.

  ReactReply
• RA

  

  ravensflyinnow

  Feb 22, 2013

  [quote][quote][/quote]
  
  
  
  $6 billionEstimated revenue generated by the gun and ammunition industry in the U.S., according to an analysis by business research firm Hoovers.
  [/quote]All of which goes into the coffers of corporations which donate heavily to the NRA, which is non profit, to advocate more guns so the corporations can make more money. and so it goes.........i guess 1.1 billion to the taxpayers is just collateral damage to the corporate machine.
  
  

  ReactReply
• FF

  

  FF32404

  Feb 22, 2013

  The following excerpt might be the best explanation of why people own and carry firearms that I have seen!  Of course it will be met with the usually troll like responses but some will understand the thinking behind it!
  
  
  "The Gun Is Civilization" by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
  
  Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.
  If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force.
  Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
  In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
  When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
  The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
  There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a armed mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
  People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
  Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
  People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
  The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
  When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.
  It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
  By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
  So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.

  ReactReply
• FF

  

  FF32404

  Feb 22, 2013

  [quote]You have to buy insurance for your car, why not your gun?  A gun owner is likelier to kill an innocent person than someone who doesn't own a gun.  That's only logical.  As is the increased chance of death with a gun in the home.  But as I said, you will not recognize logic. But your paranoia is evident.  Who exactly is out to get you and diminish your rights?  Why?  Because they think you are a danger to others?[/quote]Ah yeah, I knew this one was coming!  First, driving a car is not a right, it is a privilege of the State in the US and mostly likely the same in Canada!  Therefore, the state has a right to require insurance, however if a state of Federal government is allowed to require those exercising a right to purchase liability insurance just to exercise the right, are they not infringing on that right?  I know what your answer will be but if that is allowed, what is to stop them from going further and requiring people to buy insurance to exercise other rights?  I think it's funny that some of the same people that complain about corporations such as insurance companies as being one of the big problems with the world, suddenly want these same companies to profit from government requiring people to purchase more insurance from them.  This is much like the health care law in the US.
  "A gun owner is likelier to kill an innocent person than someone who doesn't own a gun"?  Oh you mean like LAPD who shot at 7 unarmed civilians mistaking them for Dorner, or and NYPD officer who recently shot 6 innocent unarmed civilians while returning fire at a criminal who fired at them?  (They missed the gunman btw)  This comment is misleading at best!
  I've explained multiple times the gun control proposals by politicians in multiple states and the Federal government but instead you refuse to read them and realize their intentions.

  ReactReply
• RE

  

  renebbare

  Feb 23, 2013

  With respect to Maj Caudill "I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid." clearly states in real terms that he feels at a disadvantage without his weapon. A fear of being unequal?

  ReactReply
• FF

  

  FF32404

  Feb 23, 2013

  [quote]With respect to Maj Caudill "I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid." clearly states in real terms that he feels at a disadvantage without his weapon. A fear of being unequal?[/quote]Rene, because gun ownership is a right (not granted by a governments but is often suppressed by governments) a citizen can choose to exercise it or not!  I think he made his point very clearly.  Hasn't the Mass Shootings in "Gun Free Zones" proven in this case that all of the victims were unequal like or not?  In each of these cases, governments have suppressed and restricted a right of citizens to protect themselves.  It, however, does not mean there would have been people with firearms to defend themselves, but it does mean that the criminals/mass murders/evil people would have known that the possibility of them being stopped was higher and it would act as a deterrent.  In most of the Mass shootings they have already committed the act, and most have ended when the people with the guns (Police) finally do show up.  They either commit suicide or police take them out.  In many cases where the playing field is Equal through the right to carry, crime naturally goes down because the criminals don't know who is armed or not.  Case in point, there were multiple theaters in the Aurora, CO area that the shooter could have chosen, but he chose the one which does not allow guns inside.
  

  ReactReply