The Constitution, The Second Amendment and BHO

Replies

• SO

  

  Soupie

  Feb 23, 2013

  Reading comprehension Gassy.  I was clearly talking about "in Canada".

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Feb 23, 2013

  Try and wrap your head around something Gassy.  We have universal healthcare here.  So insurance rates do not come into the equation.  But in the states, without health insurance, the companies can hold you hostage.  But this is simply a tangent.  Annie get your gun.

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Feb 23, 2013

  I believe it was you and FF who brought up the subject of insurance.  I'm not sure why you did.

  ReactReply
• FF

  

  FF32404

  Feb 23, 2013

  [quote]I believe it was you and FF who brought up the subject of insurance.  I'm not sure why you did.[/quote]Yes it was me who brought it up because of multiple states proposing laws requiring gun owners to purchase liability insurance as a condition to own a gun!  As mentioned, putting a condition on a right is not legal, nor constitutional!
  It's relevant to the entire debate on gun control, but you are the one that went off into the health insurance, car insurance tangent which to some extent is debatable in this thread.

  ReactReply
• RE

  

  renebbare

  Feb 24, 2013

  FF.
  
  It is very sad that Mass shooting's happen at all and as these seem to be revenge or 5mins of fame based I doubt arming teachers and the youth would have much effect, the perp would just chose another as you say 'soft' target.
  
  Probably why many of us look at the gun problem is that any changes to your 'rights' will reduce the no of guns held in irresponsible hands - while more guns will undoubtably increase the amount of gun use in your country.

  ReactReply
• FF

  

  FF32404

  Feb 24, 2013

  [quote]FF.
  
  It is very sad that Mass shooting's happen at all and as these seem to be revenge or 5mins of fame based I doubt arming teachers and the youth would have much effect, the perp would just chose another as you say 'soft' target.
  
  Probably why many of us look at the gun problem is that any changes to your 'rights' will reduce the no of guns held in irresponsible hands - while more guns will undoubtably increase the amount of gun use in your country. [/quote]Rene, it is absolutely sad that mass shootings happen at all, but there is really no country that is exempt from them. A mass murderer or would be mass murderer is only interested in killing as many people as he or she can until he or she is stopped.  I totally understand why people would think that if we take away the guns or the weapons that mass murderers tend to use most , they will be reduced or stopped, but that is just not the case.  First, the largest mass murder ever committed in the US was committed with planes as weapons, the second largest was committed with Diesel Fuel and Fertilizer (both legal substances).  With over 350 million estimated firearms in the hands of citizens (legal) in the US, it would be virtually impossible to take them all away and even if they could, the illegal guns would never be taken away from them until potentially after they commit the crimes with them.  All that will result is even more "Soft Targets" as you put it.  No matter what legislation is passed, it will never take the mind of a mass murderer and turn them suddenly into a good person.  IF they don't have the weapon of choice available, they will choose an alternative.  It's the way it is.  As mentioned there are already over 350 million firearms in the hands of over 80 million gun owners and even though gun ownership has increased significantly over the years, gun accidents have decreased and in some areas violent crime has decreased.  Btw, this is mostly because of education and programs by the NRA which is the main purpose of that organization despite what others think of them.

  ReactReply
• FF

  

  FF32404

  Feb 24, 2013

  [quote]FF you will never be able to convince these progressives that the NRA is about education, unlike the progressives who are about RE-education and to quote mootchell changing our history.[/quote]Gas, I'm not responding to please the ignorant people, I do believe that there are people that have a view point and they are really curious as to what the opposition things.  And believe it or not, people have come to see the light.  While I might not agree with some on here, people like Rene, have never moved to start attacking people for having a different viewpoint and even though the trolls tend to get the most exposure here, the majority in the forum are not like that.

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Feb 24, 2013

  Your "see the light" suggests an evangelical furor that does not bode well for a "debate".  You will concede nothing.  Not even the pure logic that a home with a gun in it is more likely to have a gun death in it.  And if your definition of troll means name calling and insults, then that would surely include Gassy, but I can only assume that, because he agrees with you, that is not the case.  I haven't defined "ignorant", but clearly it means "someone who does not share your viewpoint".

  ReactReply
• FF

  

  FF32404

  Feb 24, 2013

  [quote]Your "see the light" suggests an evangelical furor that does not bode well for a "debate".  You will concede nothing.  Not even the pure logic that a home with a gun in it is more likely to have a gun death in it.  And if your definition of troll means name calling and insults, then that would surely include Gassy, but I can only assume that, because he agrees with you, that is not the case.  I haven't defined "ignorant", but clearly it means "someone who does not share your viewpoint".[/quote]Mr. Soupie, I don't nessesarily agree with name calling unless it is warranted.  My definition of a troll is the same as most forums define it.  Trolls are people who constantly go off subject to defame or denegrate others just to piss them off forcing people to defend themselves.  This is your M.O. and countless times, your very first response to a post by Gasman, NIM, a few others and even myself have been exactly like that.  I will not concede your point because it contains Zero logic, and false information that has been debunked time and time again, but instead of learning it for yourself, you continue to spread the lie even further.  There are over 350 milliion firearms in the homes of over 80 million Americans, if your statistic even had an oz. of truth the gun death rate in this country would be in the millions each year, but it's less than deaths by motor vehicle.  I do not concede when I know I'm right!  No one likes to be wrong, it's human nature, but when I'm wrong, I admit it.  I'm not wrong here!
  
  

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Feb 24, 2013

  And I believe that you are a troll.  Who cannot recognize a fact.  So I guess that makes us even.

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Feb 24, 2013

  I don't believe that you have ever admitted to being wrong in your lifetime.  As for the rest of your diatribe, I understand.  It is okay for the right wing to defile, defame, and insult, but never anyone who may be on the other side.  It's very typical of Rush, Glenn, and your ilk.  Luckily, the force of that group is circling the drain.

  ReactReply
• OV

  

  overexposed

  Feb 24, 2013

  Im laughing my naked ass off reading all this ... weapons are awesome and some like to use their mouths for blowing a man away...lol. pun intended.. soupy, you should stay away from posts like this, as the barrel of the gun will always be pointed at you.. ha ha...
  
  

  ReactReply
• FF

  

  FF32404

  Feb 25, 2013

  I really curious to see the answers to this question from the people who have been arguing with me and others about the 2nd Amendment!
  If you were at an establishment in the US where gun ownership was legal and carrying a gun for protection was legal and a criminal gunman stormed the place, and while you were crawling under the table hoping to live (probably finding God in some way) a law abiding gun owner stood up and stopped the attack Would you:
  1) Thank him or her for saving your life?
  2)  Thank Him or her for saving your life but then complain to management that they allow people to carry firearms?
  3)  Lecture the good guy with a gun that the perp was only there to take money and tell him or her that they risked the lives of everyone in the room by standing up and engaging the bad guy?
  4)  Tell everyone that if there were no guns, this wouldn't have happened in the first place?
  5) Other (With explanation)

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Feb 25, 2013

  Jesus Christ, it's "howl".  That's pretty simple isn't it?  Of course this thread will go nowhere, because it was clearly created to be a "yay guns, everyone should have a gun!" thread.  You will brook no dissent.  All in favour of the 2nd amendment, but not crazy about the first.  Now that is trampling.

  ReactReply
• ST

  

  Steve

  Feb 25, 2013

  FF - you've conjured an anecdote about crawling under a table, a rare but possible occurrence. (Realistically, these things don't end with a citizen shooter, but with police action, or when the shooter runs out of ammunition or has to stop shooting to fuss with the gun somehow.) Let me cite a perfectly real anecdote, and one that ismuchmore representative of what guns really do, most of the time.
  
  Do you think Oscar Pistorius is telling the truth? Then maybe he shot his girlfriend mistaking her for an intruder. Or maybe he was addled by drugs. Do you think he's lying? Then he shot her in a domestic dispute.
  
  Do you thinkhe'sglad there was a gun in the house?
  

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Feb 25, 2013

  Because you quickly brand and label anyone who disagrees with your opinion.  That's how I took that out of your post.  But I'm with the program now with the U.S.A.  Yay guns!  Keep shooting!  Each other!

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Feb 25, 2013

  well, I would answer that if there were no guns, this wouldn't happen in the first place.  But you would argue the logic of that as well.  Because you would argue with God.

  ReactReply
• FF

  

  FF32404

  Feb 25, 2013

  [quote]well, I would answer that if there were no guns, this wouldn't happen in the first place.  But you would argue the logic of that as well.  Because you would argue with God.[/quote]Actually, there is logic in a statement that if there were no guns at all, there would be no shootings!  But the problem with a response like that in the scenario given is would be silly at best, moronic and ungrateful at worst but not something I'd be surprised with!

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Feb 25, 2013

  ungrateful?  What in the name of anything that you call holy is there to be grateful about regarding gun crime?  Now that was moronic on your part.

  ReactReply
• FF

  

  FF32404

  Feb 25, 2013

  [quote]ungrateful?  What in the name of anything that you call holy is there to be grateful about regarding gun crime?  Now that was moronic on your part.[/quote]Did you even read my scenario and question or are you too busy making up ways to go off subject like a typical troll?  If you took the time to read the scenario I gave and understood what it meant, then I'm referring to being grateful that someone just saved your life!

  ReactReply
• ST

  

  Steve

  Feb 25, 2013

  FF - Let's see - a criminal shooter, killed by a generally law-abiding civilian with a legal gun, thus saving the life of an innocent civilian hiding under a table. I don't recall the incident - can you remind me of it - where and when it happened -  or at least of the most recent such incident?
  
  

  ReactReply
• FF

  

  FF32404

  Feb 25, 2013

  [quote]FF - Let's see - a criminal shooter, killed by a generally law-abiding civilian with a legal gun, thus saving the life of an innocent civilian hiding under a table. I don't recall the incident - can you remind me of it - where and when it happened -  or at least of the most recent such incident?
  
  [/quote]Great another Snarky Comment!  Steve, first off, the Portland Oregon Mall shooter shot himself just AFTER another mall goer pointed a Glock .40 at his head!  The Mall goer did NOT fire the gun, but nonetheless helped prompt the shooter to kill himself rather than the rest of the mall shoppers!  The main stream media did NOT report this fact except for one local station.  You people on the left keep focusing on the all defensive scenarios must result in the good guy discharging their weapons, however the majority of self defense cases result in the firearm NOT being fired.  Furthermore, my scenario mentioned was not an actual incident, it was a theoretical scenario to find out what the reaction of people like you would do if someone saved your life in that same way!

  ReactReply
• SO

  

  Soupie

  Feb 25, 2013

  Well, clearly, that is where we differ again.  I would rather save my own life in a manner of avoiding a bullet than expect or demand someone else to kill for me.  And you are being quite snarky yourself.  I'm assuming that your gun is in reach as you type.

  ReactReply
• FF

  

  FF32404

  Feb 26, 2013

  [quote]Well, clearly, that is where we differ again.  I would rather save my own life in a manner of avoiding a bullet than expect or demand someone else to kill for me.  And you are being quite snarky yourself.  I'm assuming that your gun is in reach as you type.[/quote]Assuming that everyone arguing in favor of the 2nd Amendment owns a gun I guess would be the same thing as assuming someone like Diane Feinstein introducing gun bans doesn't own any even though she carries one.

  ReactReply