PDA

View Full Version : Do guns save lives?


Pages : [1] 2

baja
03-24-2013, 02:53 PM
Does an armed society deter assault and murder?

nyuk nyuk
03-24-2013, 03:23 PM
Let's see how long it takes for our liberal contingent to slither over here and empty the contents of their bowels on this thread without remotely addressing the topic and then crying foul if you press them to. I ain't gottuh justifah muhself tew yew!!!

Dr. Broncenstein
03-24-2013, 07:06 PM
The point of an armed citizenry is to prevent tyranny.

W*GS
03-24-2013, 07:38 PM
The point of an armed citizenry is to prevent tyranny.

When?

How?

baja
03-24-2013, 07:39 PM
The point of an armed citizenry is to prevent tyranny.

Correct. One could say its not just a right but a duty to own firearms.

Dr. Broncenstein
03-24-2013, 07:40 PM
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01757/nazi-jew_1757239c.jpg

Raise your hand if you wish you had a gun right now.

baja
03-24-2013, 07:41 PM
Anyone that loves freedom and knows history will understand this

baja
03-24-2013, 07:44 PM
When?

How?

Wags I'm curious, how much do they pay you to be a disinformation dispenser on the Internet. Do you really think you are fooling all of us?

Meck77
03-24-2013, 07:53 PM
how much do they pay you to be a disinformation dispenser on the Internet.

Speaking of which. What happened to LABF? Banned or maybe funding stopped once Obama got elected.

nyuk nyuk
03-24-2013, 07:54 PM
Wags I'm curious, how much do they pay you to be a disinformation dispenser on the Internet. Do you really think you are fooling all of us?

If he can't respond, he just poops. I wonder if he's part ferret.

Dr. Broncenstein
03-24-2013, 07:59 PM
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Lifeandhealth/Pix/pictures/2009/4/17/1239986376746/Holocaust-image-001.jpg

What an unarmed citizenry might look like when dealing with a suddenly tyrannical government.

Dr. Broncenstein
03-24-2013, 08:05 PM
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~reinh20j/jaya2/Poland_Holocaust.GIF

Put your hands in the air,
Wave them like you just don't care.
Somebody say death camp!

W*GS
03-24-2013, 08:17 PM
Wags I'm curious, how much do they pay you to be a disinformation dispenser on the Internet. Do you really think you are fooling all of us?

You guys are fooling yourselves enough - you don't need my help.

W*GS
03-24-2013, 08:19 PM
What an unarmed citizenry might look like when dealing with a suddenly tyrannical government.

What are the odds that our government will "suddenly" become tyrannical?

What makes you think our system and institutions are so weak that they will literally be overwhelmed overnight and we'll wake up under a totalitarian regime?

Why do you hate America so?

W*GS
03-24-2013, 08:22 PM
Correct. One could say its not just a right but a duty to own firearms.

And those who don't are beneath contempt as betrayers and aiders of despots, eh?

Requiem
03-24-2013, 08:23 PM
http://farrit.lili.org/files/farrit/images/Heart_mtn.jpg

Dr. Broncenstein
03-24-2013, 08:26 PM
What are the odds that our government will "suddenly" become tyrannical?

What makes you think our system and institutions are so weak that they will literally be overwhelmed overnight and we'll wake up under a totalitarian regime?

Why do you hate America so?

Lol. Our government would never act in a tyrannical fashion. Ask the Cherokees about that.

nyuk nyuk
03-24-2013, 08:27 PM
What are the odds that our government will "suddenly" become tyrannical?

What makes you think our system and institutions are so weak that they will literally be overwhelmed overnight and we'll wake up under a totalitarian regime?

Why do you hate America so?

So for a guy who has a reputation as an American government-hating firebrand screaming about evil imperialism...

Is a blind trusting subject on the home front.

:clown:

W*GS
03-24-2013, 08:37 PM
So for a guy who has a reputation as an American government-hating firebrand screaming about evil imperialism...

Is a blind trusting subject on the home front.

You're lucky that strawmen aren't actual beings, because your genocide of them is pretty damned horrific.

Requiem
03-24-2013, 08:37 PM
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lyyju21lD31qm3tlmo1_400.jpg

W*GS
03-24-2013, 08:40 PM
Lol. Our government would never act in a tyrannical fashion. Ask the Cherokees about that.

Or the Navajo, or Sioux, or Cheyenne, or Huron, and so on and so on.

How would you stop such things from happening again with your peashooter?

Have we not learned and evolved as a society and a nation, so that we now have the mechanisms in place to make those sorts of things from happening again quite unlikely?

Or is government something to always be feared and hated, and one best armed oneself to the teeth to ward off its essentially evil nature?

Dr. Broncenstein
03-24-2013, 08:47 PM
Or the Navajo, or Sioux, or Cheyenne, or Huron, and so on and so on.

How would you stop such things from happening again with your peashooter?

Have we not learned and evolved as a society and a nation, so that we now have the mechanisms in place to make those sorts of things from happening again quite unlikely?

Or is government something to always be feared and hated, and one best armed oneself to the teeth to ward off its essentially evil nature?

Lol. Some of us have learned and have stockpiles of mechanisms to keep those sorts of things from happening.

Requiem
03-24-2013, 08:51 PM
You can shear a sheep many times, but skin him only once.

W*GS
03-24-2013, 08:53 PM
Lol. Some of us have learned and have stockpiles of mechanisms to keep those sorts of things from happening.

Yep, like I said. You think our democratic system is a fragile sham, prone to collapse "suddenly", and that your popguns will keep Hitler II (or Stalin Jr., or Pol Pot #2, or Obama) at bay.

Why do you hate America so much?

baja
03-24-2013, 09:02 PM
Or the Navajo, or Sioux, or Cheyenne, or Huron, and so on and so on.

How would you stop such things from happening again with your peashooter?

Have we not learned and evolved as a society and a nation, so that we now have the mechanisms in place to make those sorts of things from happening again quite unlikely?

Or is government something to always be feared and hated, and one best armed oneself to the teeth to ward off its essentially evil nature?

Only when they conspire to kill 3000 people they were elected to protect in order to establish a climate of perpetual fear and give trillions to their bankster over lords.

W*GS
03-24-2013, 09:05 PM
Only when they conspire to kill 3000 people they were elected to protect in order to establish a climate of perpetual fear and give trillions to their bankster over lords.

You misspelled "reptilian" as "b-a-n-k-s-t-e-r".

Do you think that those who aren't armed whilst going about their daily lives are shirking their civic duty?

Those folks in Aurora and the kids in Newtown got what they deserved, then, didn't they?

Dr. Broncenstein
03-24-2013, 09:06 PM
I'm not at all surprised that you think cherishing all constitutional rights (and specifically the second amendment) equates to hating America. It's exactly how I imagined you, wags.

baja
03-24-2013, 09:10 PM
You misspelled "reptilian" as "b-a-n-k-s-t-e-r".

Do you think that those who aren't armed whilst going about their daily lives are shirking their civic duty?

Those folks in Aurora and the kids in Newtown got what they deserved, then, didn't they?

The America you think you live in left the room 11/22/63

W*GS
03-24-2013, 09:14 PM
The America you think you live in left the room 11/22/63

Thanks, Mr. Stone.

Why do you think the assassination of one single person means America has become rotten to the core and is on the verge of collapse?

JFK wasn't God, and it's pathetic that you mark his death as the beginning of The End.

W*GS
03-24-2013, 09:17 PM
I'm not at all surprised that you think cherishing all constitutional rights (and specifically the second amendment) equates to hating America. It's exactly how I imagined you, wags.

Nope.

You think only the 2nd really matters - the rest are just fluff and dross, and only your popguns mean anything.

The entirety of the rest of the Constitution and the totality of all our laws is mere piffle and a fragile, weak, and sad joke.

Do you agree with baja that if a citizen isn't packing all the time everywhere, they're abetting tyranny?

baja
03-24-2013, 09:19 PM
You misspelled "reptilian" as "b-a-n-k-s-t-e-r".

Do you think that those who aren't armed whilst going about their daily lives are shirking their civic duty?

Those folks in Aurora and the kids in Newtown got what they deserved, then, didn't they?

I don't know looking at your avatar I'd have to say you are the one identifying with aliens.

W*GS
03-24-2013, 09:23 PM
I don't know looking at your avatar I'd have to say you are the one identifying with aliens.

Get over it.

Actually, I'm glad the America of 11/22/1963 is gone.

Do you want it back?

How do you plan to tell minorities, women, gays, and many others to give up the rights they've gotten recognized and protected since then?

Requiem
03-24-2013, 09:27 PM
1963 is gone and David Icke's lizard people are raping everybody.

Dr. Broncenstein
03-24-2013, 09:29 PM
Nope.

You think only the 2nd really matters - the rest are just fluff and dross, and only your popguns mean anything.

The entirety of the rest of the Constitution and the totality of all our laws is mere piffle and a fragile, weak, and sad joke.

Do you agree with baja that if a citizen isn't packing all the time everywhere, they're abetting tyranny?

I have seen in my own lifetime instances where our democratic society based upon law and order has completely broken down. For instance an unpopular jury verdict in Los Angeles, or the aftermath of a hurricane in New Orleans.

W*GS
03-24-2013, 09:34 PM
I have seen in my own lifetime instances where our democratic society based upon law and order has completely broken down. For instance an unpopular jury verdict in Los Angeles, or the aftermath of a hurricane in New Orleans.

Neither instance was the entire country (or even a more than tiny portion of the whole), nor are lifeboat scenarios the way one lives life properly.

I'll ask again - do all citizens have a duty to be armed, as baja believes?

baja
03-24-2013, 09:37 PM
Thanks, Mr. Stone.

Why do you think the assassination of one single person means America has become rotten to the core and is on the verge of collapse?

JFK wasn't God, and it's pathetic that you mark his death as the beginning of The End.

Who said anything about it being the beginning the agenda has been alive and well before the Roman Empire. The evil you work for wags has been around for eons.

baja
03-24-2013, 09:38 PM
I will give ya the global warming charade was brilliant ....

Dr. Broncenstein
03-24-2013, 10:10 PM
Neither instance was the entire country (or even a more than tiny portion of the whole), nor are lifeboat scenarios the way one lives life properly.

I'll ask again - do all citizens have a duty to be armed, as baja believes?

You have the right to keep and bear arms. Not a duty. Just like it says in the Bill of Rights. You know, the collection of costitutional amendments that makes you piss your pants upon reading the second part.

houghtam
03-25-2013, 04:39 AM
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Lifeandhealth/Pix/pictures/2009/4/17/1239986376746/Holocaust-image-001.jpg

What an unarmed citizenry might look like when dealing with a suddenly tyrannical government.

The cognitive dissonance you're using with this argument is astounding. Orrrr you just don't know your history and are the poster boy for the need for interdisciplinary studies for science majors.

The German people were actually quite well armed, and the Nazi regime actually expanded gun rights...for everyone except the Jews. I can use the same tired, devoid of intellectualism "logic" to say that all guns should be banned because the non-Jewish gun owners either were unwilling or unable to use their guns to protect their fellow citizens.

But sure, keep using an argument that would get a 10th grader a C- in debate class.

W*GS
03-25-2013, 06:43 AM
Who said anything about it being the beginning the agenda has been alive and well before the Roman Empire. The evil you work for wags has been around for eons.

The Gorn have been around long enough to develop warp drive...

http://www.geektress.com/images/trek/Gorn.jpg

W*GS
03-25-2013, 06:44 AM
I will give ya the global warming charade was brilliant ....

Yep, physics and chemistry are all a trick designed to enslave you.

W*GS
03-25-2013, 06:55 AM
You have the right to keep and bear arms. Not a duty. Just like it says in the Bill of Rights. You know, the collection of costitutional amendments that makes you piss your pants upon reading the second part.

Guns don't worry me in the slightest. Doomster gun owners do.

houghtam
03-25-2013, 07:41 AM
You know what, Dr. Broncenstein? After careful reflection, I believe that your Nazi references may have been more apropos than either of us first thought.

You see, there was an underlying hatred and fear of anyone culturally different, particularly the Jews. Much of the hatred toward the Jews was caused by the fact that many of them were not in favor of going to war 25 years before and did not support the war effort. They were seen as less than human because of perceived (and it turns out, entirely made up) biological and evolutionary differences between the races not backed up by science. They and other minorities were seen as "culturally deviant". Sound familiar?

Maybe the people who don't own guns should be the ones concerned about a government takeover by gun owners, and not the other way around. After all, with terms like "cultural deviance" and "evolutionary differences" coming from you guys on the right, there's a lot more in common there with the Nazi regime than anything the liberals could ever dream up. Hell, the term "Nazi", as you may or may not know, comes from an abbreviation of the term "National Socialist". GW Bush was more of a socialist than the guy we currently have.

BroncsRule
03-25-2013, 08:09 AM
Yep, like I said. You think our democratic system is a fragile sham, prone to collapse "suddenly", and that your popguns will keep Hitler II (or Stalin Jr., or Pol Pot #2, or Obama) at bay.

Why do you hate America so much?

There's rarely anything "sudden" about it. Despotism typically takes years to evolve. But at some point, the despotic government has to disarm the target population. Far, far easier to go ahead and get that part over with early on, before the target population even realizes there is a threat.

If you were to climb in to your way-back machine, and go to Berlin circa 1912, interview random Berliners and ask thm if they thought it was possible that within one generation, their nation would be conducting genocide against multiple ethnic groups, they would have laughed at you.

In 1912, Germany was a modern, vibrant, open, multicultural, tolerant society.

22 years later, not so much.

So what happened? How did a sane, rational people go so profoundly off the rails?

Pretty easy to explain, really. Germany lost WWI, and after the war, the Allied powers forced her to pay heavy reparations. So a war torn, shattered nation was further impoverished. Germans went hungry. I mean, really hungry. They went cold in the winter, because there was no money to buy fuel for heat. For Germany, the "great depression" lasted 15 years. By the early thirties, the German people were fed up. They had been a proud, rich nation. A world power. Now, they were destitute. And far worse, a laughingstock.

And then comes along a brave, shining figure, promising to make it all better. Coincidentally, he was able to explain who was responsible for all the misery.

In 1934, Jews represented less than 3% of the German population. A slightly smaller ethic group than, say, the Arab American population today.

I will leave you with a question: Do you really think human beings have somehow fundamentally transformed into some other species in the last four generations? Some kind of wiser, gentler form of erect ape than we were 80 years ago?

Really?

Fun fact: No armed population has ever been a victim of genocide.

W*GS
03-25-2013, 08:11 AM
Germany of 1922 isn't the US of 2013.

houghtam
03-25-2013, 08:30 AM
There's rarely anything "sudden" about it. Despotism typically takes years to evolve. But at some point, the despotic government has to disarm the target population. Far, far easier to go ahead and get that part over with early on, before the target population even realizes there is a threat.

If you were to climb in to your way-back machine, and go to Berlin circa 1912, interview random Berliners and ask thm if they thought it was possible that within one generation, their nation would be conducting genocide against multiple ethnic groups, they would have laughed at you.

In 1912, Germany was a modern, vibrant, open, multicultural, tolerant society.

22 years later, not so much.

So what happened? How did a sane, rational people go so profoundly off the rails?

Pretty easy to explain, really. Germany lost WWI, and after the war, the Allied powers forced her to pay heavy reparations. So a war torn, shattered nation was further impoverished. Germans went hungry. I mean, really hungry. They went cold in the winter, because there was no money to buy fuel for heat. For Germany, the "great depression" lasted 15 years. By the early thirties, the German people were fed up. They had been a proud, rich nation. A world power. Now, they were destitute. And far worse, a laughingstock.

And then comes along a brave, shining figure, promising to make it all better. Coincidentally, he was able to explain who was responsible for all the misery.

In 1934, Jews represented less than 3% of the German population. A slightly smaller ethic group than, say, the Arab American population today.

I will leave you with a question: Do you really think human beings have somehow fundamentally transformed into some other species in the last four generations? Some kind of wiser, gentler form of erect ape than we were 80 years ago?

Really?

Fun fact: No armed population has ever been a victim of genocide.


Dolchstoss

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth

Antisemitism was alive and well long before Hitler and long before 1912. The war was a catalyst, and deep-seeded racism was what kept it going. Racism was a much, much larger contributor than any man or even government was capable of. That is the very reason why German society, after years of division acted with regard to Vergangenheitsbewältigung, or "coming to terms with the past". This term is use to describe not only the coming to grips with the results of 33-45, but the causes, as well. It is why you can't wear a swastika in Germany or make hate speech.

We look at them and can't fathom a world without "complete freedom of speech" (except for all the exceptions, of course). They lived through it. They understand that rights have to be defined somewhere.

BroncsRule
03-25-2013, 08:43 AM
Germany of 1922 isn't the US of 2013.

No, it's not. But people are still people.

What would happen if the economy collapsed? Like the 2008 derivative debacle x 10? What if other countries survived such an episode better than us?

Do you think the other nations of the world might "pile on" just a little? Extract a little payback for our bullying ways?

What would the mood be in this country after 20 years of being kicked while we're down?

Boy, talk about a nation with pride issues. We don't just consider ourselves a "great nation", most Americans consider us to be the "Greatest Nation in the History of Evaarr!!!"

Fedaykin
03-25-2013, 09:12 AM
For those of you who answered D.) I ask you, how was the American Revolutionary War won? What was the primary contributor to our success? Who were the combatants? Where did the fighting take place? What strategies and tactics were used? Which were denied various belligerents?

houghtam
03-25-2013, 09:25 AM
For those of you who answered D.) I ask you, how was the American Revolutionary War won? What was the primary contributor to our success? Who were the combatants? Where did the fighting take place?

Can I piggyback on this question?

No one has yet been able to answer (in fact no one has even addressed) the question I've posed several times, which is, if the intent of the founding fathers (again, treating as if they're some monolithic body with one pervading view) when they passed the Second Amendment in 1791 was to have an armed populace that could raise up in rebellion to tyranny, why did those same founding fathers then proceed to put down the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794?

Was their intent just to set up some epic duel? Was it an 18th Century form of a sequester?

I still wonder why, again, given the fact that the founding fathers acted directly against what they had been fighting for only years before, given that many of them were well versed in both legal language as well as etymology language history, given that militias were how the American Revolution was fought and won, and given that, particularly in political discourse, "state" does not always mean "former colony", they chose to put the phrase "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" at the very beginning. Surely no one is going to argue that word placement doesn't matter in the English language...they haven't stopped teaching that in schools, have they?

BroncsRule
03-25-2013, 09:29 AM
Dolchstoss

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_myth

Antisemitism was alive and well long before Hitler and long before 1912.



Yes, yes it was. And still is. But there was (and still is) a veneer of tolerance and acceptance painted over it.

Again: do you think people have fundamentally changed recently? Did someone wave their magic PC wand and automagically banish antisemitism, racism and bigotry?

Or are we still nasty monkeys under the skin - still struggling to du reds primal urges to mistrust and fear "Other"?

Requiem
03-25-2013, 09:34 AM
Monkeys? Ah, no.

houghtam
03-25-2013, 09:38 AM
Yes, yes it was. And still is. But there was (and still is) a veneer of tolerance and acceptance painted over it.

Again: do you think people have fundamentally changed recently? Did someone wave their magic PC wand and automagically banish antisemitism, racism and bigotry?

Or are we still nasty monkeys under the skin - still struggling to du reds primal urges to mistrust and fear "Other"?

Absolutely. And the Germans feel the same way, which is why they have enacted laws that define certain rights.

I feel it is perfectly reasonable to revisit and/or re-assess all of our rights at any time. The founding fathers felt this way, as well, and gave us ways to change, repeal, and interpret them. Hell, as has been stated before, Beavis' hero T-Jeff proposed the Constitution be re-written every 19 years.

Additionally, if there is a violent insurrection in this country, it won't be at the hands of the liberals who "want your guns". It will come from some right winger who has, as you have clearly pointed out, convinced people like txtebow, Meck, DramaLlama, cut, errand and Dr. Broncenstein that a certain ethnicity or culture wants to take away their rights. You can see the writing on the wall in their very posts in several of the threads over the past few months. The language they use in those threads is eerily similar to the writings I had to read during my graduate coursework at MSU. Little wonder I respond to their posts with such animosity. People like them are the cause of societal collapse, not the people they victimize.

Edit: Oh, and Pony Boy. Forgot about him.

Pony Boy
03-25-2013, 09:38 AM
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Lifeandhealth/Pix/pictures/2009/4/17/1239986376746/Holocaust-image-001.jpg

What an unarmed citizenry might look like when dealing with a suddenly tyrannical government.

The same scenario could be applied to the unarmed citizens of South Africa during Apartheid.

Fedaykin
03-25-2013, 09:41 AM
Can I piggyback on this question?

No one has yet been able to answer (in fact no one has even addressed) the question I've posed several times, which is, if the intent of the founding fathers (again, treating as if they're some monolithic body with one pervading view) when they passed the Second Amendment in 1791 was to have an armed populace that could raise up in rebellion to tyranny, why did those same founding fathers then proceed to put down the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794?

Was their intent just to set up some epic duel? Was it an 18th Century form of a sequester?

I still wonder why, again, given the fact that the founding fathers acted directly against what they had been fighting for only years before, given that many of them were well versed in both legal language as well as etymology language history, given that militias were how the American Revolution was fought and won, and given that, particularly in political discourse, "state" does not always mean "former colony", they chose to put the phrase "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" at the very beginning. Surely no one is going to argue that word placement doesn't matter in the English language...they haven't stopped teaching that in schools, have they?

As long as we're piggybacking. Can any of the gun worshipers here explain, in 18th century context, what a 'well regulated militia' means? Hint: The term "regulated" has changed meaning (in common usage) a lot in the last couple centuries.

BroncsRule
03-25-2013, 09:43 AM
Houghtam, you're absolutely right. The intent of 2 was principally to establish the rights of the state to regulate militias, not the other way around. Most of the founders didn't want the ongoing expense of maintaining a standing army.

BroncsRule
03-25-2013, 09:45 AM
Monkeys? Ah, no.

Ok - apes.

But nasty monkey just has a nice ring to it.

Fedaykin
03-25-2013, 10:22 AM
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRivTMvWkCNAqjamYbGRVHDwaOVAyRwC 4wtABk_60fTKAMI3D0-og

BroncsRule
03-25-2013, 10:42 AM
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRivTMvWkCNAqjamYbGRVHDwaOVAyRwC 4wtABk_60fTKAMI3D0-og

LOL

BroncsRule
03-25-2013, 11:06 AM
Can I piggyback on this question?

(if their intent) when they passed the Second Amendment in 1791 was to have an armed populace that could raise up in rebellion to tyranny, why did those same founding fathers then proceed to put down the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794?

Obviously, they did not consider themselves tyrants. But then tyrants rarely do.

Fedaykin
03-25-2013, 11:25 AM
The government has these:

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSIUE2xRaTIE4cPaNkA_3PpFAq1-4Gz3du0NLfIrxl_Pw2BbgGw

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQtZToDy46t7HTaJF2F4RQzoXtRkrL1V 5eoLkqSkfy7Nxl9XIH_

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSuURdM0HkRqJw5csgD7kNqbEGLNxORh ROfD2EDv-EeM6CJ9ErM

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSfSLRiQc5M64q8_xW9hgT00QAYg-qxJQF3-yTonKoHzl8YytcZ


amongst many other weapons system far more expensive than normal citizens can afford -- even if it were legal to posses such items.

Do you really think they give a **** if you have one of these?:

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQZzxRisVrxo29GldffeQzQ3AP9SisMk mPaCeGreWOHxnoQ_duoIA

Do you really think you're going to win a war against the full might of the U.S. Army by relying on strength of arms? Has any "grass roots" revolution been successful when the rebellion tried to fight with strength of arms alone?

The answer is no. The only way to successfully fight an overwhelming superior force is through unconventional tactics and strategy (i.e. "terrorist" tactics), forging alliances (i.e. France in the Rev. War), or convincing defection of actual military units (e.g. the Civil War).

The government doesn't give one rats ass about how many AR-15s are out there. A bunch of rednecks armed with them are exactly zero threat against the U.S. Military.

houghtam
03-25-2013, 11:26 AM
Obviously, thy did not consider themselves tyrants. But then tyrants rarely do.

But they had to have known that there would come a time when someone would want to fight back. They talked about it a lot.

So why then give someone a right to fight back with firearms? Could it be that the intention wasn't for the citizenry to be able to defend itself from its own government, but from more immediate, more real threats such as Native Americans and foreign incursions, and to do so in an organized, efficient way, namely, keeping a militia in each state which is tasked with not only peacekeeping and the like in its home state, but can be supplied under a federal command when there is a threat to national security.

Why do you think regiments were designated by what state they were from until after the Civil War? It's because the bulk of the fighting force that made up the Union Army (actually both armies) at the beginning of the war were not US Regulars, but folks who served in local militia units, which formed companies and marched to the more populated areas to enlist with fellows from their state. Of these companies at the beginning of the war, many of them could tie their roots back to the period after the Revolutionary War, or even before, where they were formed as militias for defense against raids by "injuns" and to have an organized way to get a hold of people in the days before cell phones, not training to repulse some imminent threat from the federal government.

It was precisely this system, as I've talked about before, that was responsible for both sides to raise almost a million troops in 6 months time. IMO we'd be better off to go back to that system. Shrink the size of the federal armed forces and delegate it to the states to be called up in a time of need. Of course if Obama tried to go back to that bastion of states' rights that true conservatives used to be in support of, they would brand it as him getting the armed forces to split the forces up individually so as to weaken them and let his commie Arab brethren come in and establish an African colony in the US. Sound about right?

orinjkrush
03-25-2013, 11:54 AM
Guns don't save. Guns don't kill. Knives don't kill. Knives don't save. Cars don't kill. Cars don't save.

People do. Evil people kill. Good people save.

Rigs11
03-25-2013, 12:18 PM
The american public has every right to defend themselves against the impending zombie aplocalypseHa!

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-StsGar9lLi4/TdgtmejcUoI/AAAAAAAACDE/ZbxcbEfCna4/s1600/633748800142447960-ZombieApocalypse.jpeg

baja
03-25-2013, 01:00 PM
The government has these:

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSIUE2xRaTIE4cPaNkA_3PpFAq1-4Gz3du0NLfIrxl_Pw2BbgGw

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQtZToDy46t7HTaJF2F4RQzoXtRkrL1V 5eoLkqSkfy7Nxl9XIH_

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSuURdM0HkRqJw5csgD7kNqbEGLNxORh ROfD2EDv-EeM6CJ9ErM

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSfSLRiQc5M64q8_xW9hgT00QAYg-qxJQF3-yTonKoHzl8YytcZ


amongst many other weapons system far more expensive than normal citizens can afford -- even if it were legal to posses such items.

Do you really think they give a **** if you have one of these?:

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQZzxRisVrxo29GldffeQzQ3AP9SisMk mPaCeGreWOHxnoQ_duoIA

Do you really think you're going to win a war against the full might of the U.S. Army by relying on strength of arms? Has any "grass roots" revolution been successful when the rebellion tried to fight with strength of arms alone?

The answer is no. The only way to successfully fight an overwhelming superior force is through unconventional tactics and strategy (i.e. "terrorist" tactics), forging alliances (i.e. France in the Rev. War), or convincing defection of actual military units (e.g. the Civil War).

The government doesn't give one rats ass about how many AR-15s are out there. A bunch of rednecks armed with them are exactly zero threat against the U.S. Military.

Do you really think 100% of the military and police will turn their weapons on their mothers fathers brothers sisters etc The tyranny always consists of a very small number of people. The power always rests with the people except when the don'r know that or are paralyzed by fear then it doesn't.

houghtam
03-25-2013, 01:08 PM
Do you really think 100% of the military and police will turn their weapons on their mothers fathers brothers sisters etc The tyranny always consists of a very small number of people. The power always rests with the people except when the don'r know that or are paralyzed by fear then it doesn't.

A very small number of people in power with power over a huge military.

Are our men and women of the US military somehow of a higher moral fiber than their German counterparts 70 years ago? No.

The reality is that the vast majority of the population saw increased gun rights, and when the weakest of their society was in peril, the gun owners were not out there fighting for their fellow countrymen, were they? Kind of throws the "benevolent gun owners protecting society from government" argument right on its head doesn't it?

baja
03-25-2013, 01:19 PM
A very small number of people in power with power over a huge military.

Are our men and women of the US military somehow of a higher moral fiber than their German counterparts 70 years ago? No.

The reality is that the vast majority of the population saw increased gun rights, and when the weakest of their society was in peril, the gun owners were not out there fighting for their fellow countrymen, were they? Kind of throws the "benevolent gun owners protecting society from government" argument right on its head doesn't it?

I never said I held out a lot of hope that Americans would stand up to tyranny but one can hope. There is NO chance without an armed citizenry.

Does this bother you?

Why The Heck Is DHS Buying More Than A Billion Bullets Plus Thousands Of Guns And Mine-Resistant Armored Vehicles?
35 comments, 3 called-out Comment Now
Follow Comments

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano . (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)

Is there something really serious brewing that Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano isn’t telling us? Like for example, is she concerned that those thousands of illegal immigrant prisoners her organization is releasing will join with others crossing our border to reclaim former Mexico territory…and accomplish this before the Democrats can manage to capture Texas for themselves in 2016 using Amnesty votes? Hey, if some of us may be getting just a bit paranoid, DHS certainly isn’t making it easy to resist that temptation.

First, we hear that DHS is in the process of stockpiling more than 1.6 billion rounds of hollow-point ammunition, along with 7,000 fully-automatic 5.56x45mm NATO “personal defense weapons” plus a huge stash of 30-round high-capacity magazines. Incidentally, those are also known as “assault weapons”, but are not the limited single-fire per trigger-pull semi-automatic types that we civilians are currently allowed to own. By some estimates, that’s enough firepower to fight the equivalent of a 24-year Iraq war.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/03/10/why-the-heck-is-dhs-buying-more-than-a-billion-bullets-plus-thousands-of-guns-and-mine-resistant-armored-vehicles/

Requiem
03-25-2013, 01:23 PM
At some point in time there probably won't be a United States.

houghtam
03-25-2013, 01:30 PM
I never said I held out a lot of hope that Americans would stand up to tyranny but one can hope. There is NO chance without an armed citizenry.

Does this bother you?

Why The Heck Is DHS Buying More Than A Billion Bullets Plus Thousands Of Guns And Mine-Resistant Armored Vehicles?
35 comments, 3 called-out Comment Now
Follow Comments

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano . (Image credit: Getty Images via @daylife)

Is there something really serious brewing that Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Janet Napolitano isn’t telling us? Like for example, is she concerned that those thousands of illegal immigrant prisoners her organization is releasing will join with others crossing our border to reclaim former Mexico territory…and accomplish this before the Democrats can manage to capture Texas for themselves in 2016 using Amnesty votes? Hey, if some of us may be getting just a bit paranoid, DHS certainly isn’t making it easy to resist that temptation.

First, we hear that DHS is in the process of stockpiling more than 1.6 billion rounds of hollow-point ammunition, along with 7,000 fully-automatic 5.56x45mm NATO “personal defense weapons” plus a huge stash of 30-round high-capacity magazines. Incidentally, those are also known as “assault weapons”, but are not the limited single-fire per trigger-pull semi-automatic types that we civilians are currently allowed to own. By some estimates, that’s enough firepower to fight the equivalent of a 24-year Iraq war.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/03/10/why-the-heck-is-dhs-buying-more-than-a-billion-bullets-plus-thousands-of-guns-and-mine-resistant-armored-vehicles/

We have an armed citizenry. We don't need an armed-to-the-teeth citizenry.

And no, it doesn't concern me in the least. Why? Because I don't live my live cowering in fear from my government, which is exactly what the gun nuts do. I focus on making each day a spectacular one for my kids and for myself and the people I come into contact with.

I also recognize the fact that if the government really wanted to come for your guns, they would have done so a long time ago. There are far more efficient ways to rule over your lives, like the corporatization of the government that has occurred over the past 30 years. Your guns are useless against a tyrant that doesn't fight in conventional ways.

BroncoFanatic
03-25-2013, 01:37 PM
When?

How?

1776

baja
03-25-2013, 01:38 PM
We have an armed citizenry. We don't need an armed-to-the-teeth citizenry.

And no, it doesn't concern me in the least. Why? Because I don't live my live cowering in fear from my government, which is exactly what the gun nuts do. I focus on making each day a spectacular one for my kids and for myself and the people I come into contact with.

I also recognize the fact that if the government really wanted to come for your guns, they would have done so a long time ago. There are far more efficient ways to rule over your lives, like the corporatization of the government that has occurred over the past 30 years. Your guns are useless against a tyrant that doesn't fight in conventional ways.

Nor do I but I do prepare for what I see coming the fact you don't decries your arrogance & stupidity

houghtam
03-25-2013, 01:47 PM
Nor do I but I do prepare for what I think I see coming the fact you don't agree that what I perceive as an imminent threat makes me very angry, so I resort to lashing out.

FYP

baja
03-25-2013, 01:50 PM
FYP


Wrong again Carnac the Magnificent. You don't make me angry, I do pity you and those you are responsible for though.

houghtam
03-25-2013, 01:53 PM
Wrong again Carnac the Magnificent. You don't make me angry, I do pity you and those you are responsible for though.

You're right, when I pity someone, I tend to call them stupid and arrogant, too. Name calling isn't generally associated with anger.

houghtam
03-25-2013, 01:56 PM
1776

Another bastion of the American educational system. Take a bow.

baja
03-25-2013, 01:57 PM
You're right, when I pity someone, I tend to call them stupid and arrogant, too. Name calling isn't generally associated with anger.

Stupid & arrogant are terms I use to describe what I deduce from your posts it is not required to attach emotions to the observations

Fedaykin
03-25-2013, 01:57 PM
I never said I held out a lot of hope that Americans would stand up to tyranny but one can hope. There is NO chance without an armed citizenry.

The 2nd amendment does not protect us against tyranny, the 1st does. Want to fight a tyrannical regime backed by the might of the U.S. Army? First, you need to be able to recognize and help others recognize the tyranny. Then you need allies: both foreign (i.e. France) and domestic (i.e. convincing Military units to defect and fight).

That's what went wrong in 1930s Germany. The German population was not disarmed, it had blinders put on. It was convinced to be PART of the tyranny.

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 08:00 AM
The 2nd amendment does not protect us against tyranny, the 1st does.

They both do (http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/arms.html).

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." --James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." -- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

"The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ..." -- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

"The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally ... enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
-- Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833

baja
03-26-2013, 08:07 AM
Do guns save lives?

92% of poll responders say yes.

W*GS
03-26-2013, 08:09 AM
Do guns save lives?

92% of poll responders say yes.

Well, take that to the bank!

Those kids in Newtown got what they deserved, didn't they, because they didn't take their civic duty seriously and arm themselves. Right?

baja
03-26-2013, 08:16 AM
Well, take that to the bank!

Those kids in Newtown got what they deserved, didn't they, because they didn't take their civic duty seriously and arm themselves. Right?

Are you really this sick of an individual?

W*GS
03-26-2013, 08:18 AM
Are you really this sick of an individual?

Your supposition is that we have a duty (more than just a right) to be armed.

Are you backing off, now? Did the reptilians get to you or something?

baja
03-26-2013, 08:21 AM
I chose not to interact with sickos - IE post 79

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 08:23 AM
Well, take that to the bank!

Those kids in Newtown got what they deserved, didn't they, because they didn't take their civic duty seriously and arm themselves. Right?

What on God's green earth is wrong with you?

W*GS
03-26-2013, 08:23 AM
I chose not to interact with sickos - IE post 79

You just did.

How far do you go with your claim of a "duty" to be armed?

Who's exempt? Anyone?

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 08:24 AM
I chose not to interact with sickos - IE post 79

I swear he's getting worse.

He usually responds by insulting everyone and pooping everywhere, and now this.

I'm starting to wonder if we need to get him into a nursing home.

W*GS
03-26-2013, 08:25 AM
What on God's green earth is wrong with you?

It's baja's claim taken to its logical conclusion.

He won't admit it, but if we have a "duty" to be armed, then those who are not have failed in their "duty".

I'm merely trying to get baja to define the limits, if any, to this claim of his regarding "duty".

Fedaykin
03-26-2013, 08:25 AM
They both do (http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/arms.html).

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." --James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." -- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

"The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ..." -- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

"The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally ... enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
-- Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833

Oh look, multiple arguments from authority. How impressive of you!

W*GS
03-26-2013, 08:27 AM
I swear he's getting worse.

He usually responds by insulting everyone and pooping everywhere, and now this.

I'm starting to wonder if we need to get him into a nursing home.

You two don't get it at all.

Not surprising.

Do you agree with baja that there's a "duty" to be armed?

DenverBrit
03-26-2013, 09:03 AM
What the founders had in mind was more like the Swiss model of today.

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country

We get this instead..........

http://mondaymorningblogger.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/the-second-amendment.jpeg

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 09:15 AM
What the founders had in mind was more like the Swiss model of today.



We get this instead..........


Luckily for us, our Constitution was written by American patriots and not gungrabbing Red Coats.

If there's something about the US or US policy you don't like, feel free to catch the next British Airways flight out to Gatwick. I've always found it unbecoming for foreigners to come over here to enjoy what we have, while all they can seemingly do is bitch and moan about how we choose to run our household.

Yes, here's the Swiss model of today: Untracked automatic rifles everywhere, little regulation (http://www.npr.org/2013/03/19/174758723/facing-switzerland-gun-culture).

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 09:17 AM
You two don't get it at all.

Not surprising.

Do you agree with baja that there's a "duty" to be armed?

I get it perfectly: When confronted with something you can't or don't want to answer, you poop.

As far the rest, I'll answer your questions when you stop dodging mine. How's that?

W*GS
03-26-2013, 09:24 AM
I get it perfectly: When confronted with something you can't or don't want to answer, you poop.

You just described yourself perfectly.

You **** all over the board - neg reps, too.

Grow the **** up, little baby.

Fedaykin
03-26-2013, 09:31 AM
You still missed the point nyucky, do you know what the word 'regulated' means in the context of the 2nd amendment?

DenverBrit
03-26-2013, 09:33 AM
]Luckily for us, our Constitution was written by American patriots and not gungrabbing Red Coats.[/B]

If there's something about the US or US policy you don't like, feel free to catch the next British Airways flight out to Gatwick. I've always found it unbecoming for foreigners to come over here to enjoy what we have, while all they can seemingly do is b**** and moan about how we choose to run our household.

Yes, here's the Swiss model of today: Untracked automatic rifles everywhere, little regulation (http://www.npr.org/2013/03/19/174758723/facing-switzerland-gun-culture).

So Brits were only redcoats? Are you really so stupid??

As a citizen, I'm entitled to my opinion, unlike you, most here don't use the 2nd amendment to squash the first.

Now go get me a sandwich!

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 10:24 AM
You still missed the point nyucky, do you know what the word 'regulated' means in the context of the 2nd amendment?

No what you are trying to make it out to be. Do your research.

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 10:26 AM
So Brits were only redcoats? Are you really so stupid??

As a citizen, I'm entitled to my opinion, unlike you, most here don't use the 2nd amendment to squash the first.

Now go get me a sandwich!

Nobody is squashing the 1st, it's not "squashing" to point out you're pretty stupid to move to a country in which you dislike the laws in so badly you feel the need to mock citizens of that country for.

You're like OM's own little Piers Morgan.

DenverBrit
03-26-2013, 10:38 AM
Nobody is squashing the 1st, it's not "squashing" to point out you're pretty stupid to move to a country in which you dislike the laws in so badly you feel the need to mock citizens of that country for.

You're like OM's own little Piers Morgan.

You're quite the little drama queen and too stupid to address the issues without resorting to xenophobia.

I've more than paid my dues as a citizen, I'll be as critical as I choose.

If you don't like criticism and the Democratic process, feel free move to Cuba and go back to being a dumbass Marxist.

Requiem
03-26-2013, 10:40 AM
Aw, she called Brit a Piers Morgan. Yet got mad when I posted Asian memes. Lmfao.

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 10:49 AM
You're quite the little drama queen and too stupid to address the issues without resorting to xenophobia.

I've more than paid my dues as a citizen, I'll be as critical as I choose.

If you don't like criticism and the Democratic process, feel free move to Cuba and go back to being a dumbass Marxist.

Xenophobia. Teh lulz. What the hell is that? It seems to me that if anyone is "phobic" about anything, it's you with regard to your dislike for living in the country of your birth.

You come all this way to whine and trash people. Seriously, that is just pathetic.

A pro-gun control Brit. I think perhaps you should have stayed home, since you clearly prefer mom's cooking better.

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 10:50 AM
Aw, she called Brit a Piers Morgan. Yet got mad when I posted Asian memes. Lmfao.

The Asian stuff you posted crossed the line into racism, even though you claim to be "antiracist." I call him Piers Morgan for obvious reasons and those have nothing to do with your stereotyping Asian people.

Perhaps you could comprehend this better if we post "Black memes" about your relatives?

Fedaykin
03-26-2013, 10:54 AM
No what you are trying to make it out to be. Do your research.

Nice attempt at evading the question. I see you're taking honesty lessons from cutlet. At this point, I have not "make it out" to be anything. I'm curious if YOU know what the meaning of that word is in the context of the time and place it was used.

Fedaykin
03-26-2013, 10:55 AM
No what you are trying to make it out to be. Do your research.

Nice attempt at evading the question. I see you're taking honesty lessons from cutlet. At this point, I have not "make it out" to be anything. I'm curious if YOU know what the meaning of that word is in the context of the time and place it was used.

DenverBrit
03-26-2013, 10:55 AM
Xenophobia. Teh lulz. What the hell is that? It seems to me that if anyone is "phobic" about anything, it's you with regard to your dislike for living in the country of your birth.

You come all this way to whine and trash people. Seriously, that is just pathetic.

A pro-gun control Brit. I think perhaps you should have stayed home, since you clearly prefer mom's cooking better.

Try learning English, it's what we Americans use for a language.

Xenophobia is a dislike or fear of people from other countries

No, I came all this way to be a 'job creator.'

But carry on making an ass of yourself.

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 02:09 PM
Try learning English, it's what we Americans use for a language.


No, I came all this way to be a 'job creator.'

But carry on making an ass of yourself.

I have no dislike or fear of people from other countries, that's a strawman. You came here to do business because the business climate in the UK sucks ass due to oppressive taxation.

Nobody with half a brain in their head would move somewhere they don't like, just to whine about it. Why rent a house if you think the place is a dump and the neighbors redneck bums?

That brings us back to UK suckage.

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 02:12 PM
Nice attempt at evading the question. I see you're taking honesty lessons from cutlet. At this point, I have not "make it out" to be anything. I'm curious if YOU know what the meaning of that word is in the context of the time and place it was used.

Dude, 'regulated' doesn't mean modern concepts of gun control, and that's what the ban crowd is always trying to push.

DenverBrit
03-26-2013, 02:58 PM
I have no dislike or fear of people from other countries, that's a strawman. You came here to do business because the business climate in the UK sucks ass due to oppressive taxation.

Nobody with half a brain in their head would move somewhere they don't like, just to whine about it. Why rent a house if you think the place is a dump and the neighbors redneck bums?

That brings us back to UK suckage.

So now you know what brought me to the US? You're clueless.

You've made an ass of yourself, and now you want to dig that hole deeper.

I'll give you a hint, though so far you've demonstrated an inability to grasp anything more complex than a cellphone camera.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Hint: US corporate tax rates are a combined 39% the UK rates are a combined 28% and dropping to 21% in 2014. Idiot! :rofl:

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 03:27 PM
Hint: US corporate tax rates are a combined 39% the UK rates are a combined 28% and dropping to 21% in 2014. Idiot! :rofl:

There's good reason you only mentioned corporate tax rates:

UK tax rate 'one of the highest' (http://money.uk.msn.com/news/money-news/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=158216655)

Someone who was on the equivalent of 25,000 US dollars in the UK would get to keep only 83.2% of their income, compared with 100% if they earned it in Dubai, 95.7% in Ireland and just over 90% in Japan and the United States.

"Achieving a more sustainable fiscal position will be difficult without raising taxes, but higher taxes are likely to hinder economic growth.

"The 50% tax rate on people earning more than £150,000 a year, combined with increases in national insurance, has undoubtedly made the UK less attractive to high earners. Many of these people will be highly skilled and they are usually very mobile."

--------------------------------------------

Clearly greed and UK suckage brought you here and not an admiration for this country or its principles, and that's part of the problem.

You can either get used to it or die a miserable man. Take your pick. :thumbsup:

DenverBrit
03-26-2013, 03:53 PM
There's good reason you only mentioned corporate tax rates:

UK tax rate 'one of the highest' (http://money.uk.msn.com/news/money-news/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=158216655)

Someone who was on the equivalent of 25,000 US dollars in the UK would get to keep only 83.2% of their income, compared with 100% if they earned it in Dubai, 95.7% in Ireland and just over 90% in Japan and the United States.

"Achieving a more sustainable fiscal position will be difficult without raising taxes, but higher taxes are likely to hinder economic growth.

"The 50% tax rate on people earning more than £150,000 a year, combined with increases in national insurance, has undoubtedly made the UK less attractive to high earners. Many of these people will be highly skilled and they are usually very mobile."

--------------------------------------------

Clearly greed and UK suckage brought you here and not an admiration for this country or its principles, and that's part of the problem.

You can either get used to it or die a miserable man. Take your pick. :thumbsup:

Yes, because those are the taxes that affect me most. Keep reaching.

You obviously know nothing about being taxed on citizenship vs residency.

Another hint: Business is not what brought me to the US.
My admiration for the Founders has been posted throughout the WRP thread, your suppositions couldn't be further off the mark, but that's normal for you.

Criticism of clowns like you does not make me Anti-American, on the contrary, that's exactly what citizens should do; it's called Democracy.

You're way out of your depth, stick to hospital bill collecting.

Requiem
03-26-2013, 03:56 PM
Didn't you hear Brit? Nyuk is more American than you because her ancestors fought in the revolutionary war and colonized Ohio. Everyone else is worthless but her.

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 04:07 PM
Yes, because those are the taxes that affect me most. Keep reaching.

You obviously know nothing about being taxed on citizenship vs residency.

Another hint: Business is not what brought me to the US.
My admiration for the Founders has been posted throughout the WRP thread, your suppositions couldn't be further off the mark, but that's normal for you.

Criticism of clowns like you does not make me Anti-American, on the contrary, that's exactly what citizens should do; it's called Democracy.

You're way out of your depth, stick to hospital bill collecting.

Great then quit harping on what the Founders wrote for this country, referring to gun owners in demeaning terms. Bottom line is you moved somewhere and you don't like it. Things CAN be done about that.

And enjoy your lower taxes while you're here.

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 04:08 PM
Didn't you hear Brit? Nyuk is more American than you because her ancestors fought in the revolutionary war and colonized Ohio. Everyone else is worthless but her.

You've spent a lot of time pouring over my posts. If you have a crush on me, try starting with some flowers.

DenverBrit
03-26-2013, 04:50 PM
Great then quit harping on what the Founders wrote for this country, referring to gun owners in demeaning terms. Bottom line is you moved somewhere and you don't like it. Things CAN be done about that.

And enjoy your lower taxes while you're here.

So you've gone from American hating Marxist to Totalitarian Nazi. PMS much?

houghtam
03-26-2013, 04:51 PM
Great then quit harping on what the Founders wrote for this country, referring to gun owners in demeaning terms. Bottom line is you moved somewhere and you don't like it. Things CAN be done about that.

And enjoy your lower taxes while you're here.

Yep, it's called activism. It's one of the most sincere forms of patriotism. You just don't agree with his premise. People do have a right to be critical of the US, even those who did more to become a citizen than just be lucky enough to be born here.

houghtam
03-26-2013, 04:53 PM
So you've gone from American hating Marxist to Totalitarian Nazi. PMS much?

I think you used the wrong term. Same symptoms, wrong diagnosis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irritable_male_syndrome

DenverBrit
03-26-2013, 04:59 PM
Didn't you hear Brit? Nyuk is more American than you because her ancestors fought in the revolutionary war and colonized Ohio. Everyone else is worthless but her.


Her ancestors would be proud of her anti-American, Marxist activities.

DenverBrit
03-26-2013, 05:11 PM
Yep, it's called activism. It's one of the most sincere forms of patriotism. You just don't agree with his premise. People do have a right to be critical of the US, even those who did more to become a citizen than just be lucky enough to be born here.

What could be more American than voting with one's feet and succeeding.

Only a bitter Communist Harpy could possibly resent that.

DenverBrit
03-26-2013, 05:12 PM
I think you used the wrong term. Same symptoms, wrong diagnosis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irritable_male_syndrome

Ah, low 'T,' my bad.

nyuk nyuk
03-26-2013, 06:55 PM
So you've gone from American hating Marxist to Totalitarian Nazi. PMS much?

This from the guy that called racist instigator Gandhi a "great man" in spite of him using his newspaper column to racially instigate Indians to go after the blacks. You can't make this **** up.

Derp! :thumbs:

You're not the brightest bulb.

This thread is about whether or not guns save lives, not whether or not certain posters want to stalk others thread to thread and scream and stomp their feet like children.

Focus, folks, focus.

Requiem
03-26-2013, 07:41 PM
Gandhi was a great man.

DenverBrit
03-26-2013, 08:14 PM
This from the guy that called racist instigator Gandhi a "great man" in spite of him using his newspaper column to racially instigate Indians to go after the blacks. You can't make this **** up.

Derp! :thumbs:

You're not the brightest bulb.

This thread is about whether or not guns save lives, not whether or not certain posters want to stalk others thread to thread and scream and stomp their feet like children.

Focus, folks, focus.

A lame diversion away from your Marxist, anti-Americanism and xenophobia.

You are right to be ashamed.

TonyR
03-27-2013, 07:52 AM
I haven't read through all of this nonsense but am posting the following links in direct contradiction to Dr. Bronc's posts on the first page of this thread.

Evidence that widespread gun ownership doesn't translate into successful uprisings against oppressive government:
http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/01/09/guns_dont_kill_dictatorships_people_do

Dismantling of the myth pushed by gun activists that Hitler's rise was aided by gun control laws:
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/119543/gun-control-and-the-holocaust

Fedaykin
03-27-2013, 09:54 AM
Dude, 'regulated' doesn't mean modern concepts of gun control, and that's what the ban crowd is always trying to push.

More silly diversions. Care to actually answer the question honestly?

Do you, or do you not know what the word 'regulated' means in the context of the 2nd amendment?

nyuk nyuk
03-27-2013, 11:18 AM
Gandhi was a great man.

If you also think he was great, then you're in no position to cry racism - ever. Thus this displays, yet again, that protestations of "racism" among other things aren't in earnest and are absolutely selective and thus invalid.

The guy wrote a newspaper article in Africa agitating Indians to go after the blacks. You know that, right? Here's some context: David Duke never even did that.

nyuk nyuk
03-27-2013, 11:18 AM
More silly diversions. Care to actually answer the question honestly?

Do you, or do you not know what the word 'regulated' means in the context of the 2nd amendment?

I already answered - it doesn't mean modern liberal notions of gun control. I've actually pasted quotes from the Founders and others that put that term in context.

nyuk nyuk
03-27-2013, 11:20 AM
A lame diversion away from your Marxist, anti-Americanism and xenophobia.

You are right to be ashamed.

I'm not ashamed at all - I don't call a racist agitator like Gandhi a great man while sitting on a bull**** moral high chair lobbing righteous accusations of racism at people I don't like.

You only cry xenophobia because you don't want to live in Britain. And you know what? I don't blame you. I wouldn't live there, either.

nyuk nyuk
03-27-2013, 11:22 AM
Didn't you hear Brit? Nyuk is more American than you because her ancestors fought in the revolutionary war and colonized Ohio. Everyone else is worthless but her.

Of course I'm far more American than he is. I had an ancestor in the New Jersey Line of the Continental Army during the Revoltionary War, in specific. Others, I'm not sure where they fought.

Did I say everyone else was worthless? No - but you have a bone to pick so you'll put that in there as a way of taking a juvenile cheap shot at me.

I understand - the post-pubescent male ego is a fragile thing and it cannot handle any type of challenge.

nyuk nyuk
03-27-2013, 11:29 AM
Yep, it's called activism. It's one of the most sincere forms of patriotism. You just don't agree with his premise. People do have a right to be critical of the US, even those who did more to become a citizen than just be lucky enough to be born here.

I think its pretty pathetic when people come here and specifically want to establish here the same legal climate of the country they just abandoned.

If your previous nest was so fouled that you abandoned it, why drag the same types of policy that fouled that nest over here? The UK IS a fouled nest, no doubt about it.

Of course the same can be said for all the California hippies that moved to Colorado also, they seem intent on instilling the same political climate that has turned CA into a festering toilet. Some people just cannot make a connection and learn something from it.

nyuk nyuk
03-27-2013, 11:32 AM
What could be more American than voting with one's feet and succeeding.

Only a bitter Communist Harpy could possibly resent that.

At least you admit you voted with your feet. The UK does indeed suck dog ass.

:thumbs:

Fedaykin
03-27-2013, 11:33 AM
I already answered - it doesn't mean modern liberal notions of gun control. I've actually pasted quotes from the Founders and others that put that term in context.

I didn't ask you if you knew what it doesn't mean -- I asked you if you know what is DOES mean. Your founding fathers quotes do not expand upon what 'regulated' means.

So one last time vapid one: do you know what 'well regulated' means in the context of the 2nd amendment?

Fedaykin
03-27-2013, 11:46 AM
Of course I'm far more American than he is. I had an ancestor in the New Jersey Line of the Continental Army during the Revoltionary War, in specific. Others, I'm not sure where they fought.

Did I say everyone else was worthless? No - but you have a bone to pick so you'll put that in there as a way of taking a juvenile cheap shot at me.

I understand - the post-pubescent male ego is a fragile thing and it cannot handle any type of challenge.

So because you, quite by accident, popped out of a vagina that happened to be in America, that makes you a superior American than someone who makes a conscious decision to become one?

In other words, you believe heredity is superior to choice and self determination. In other words, you don't understand one of the core concepts of our great nation, which cast off the chains of hereditary monarchs in favor of democratically elected leadership.

houghtam
03-27-2013, 11:47 AM
I think its pretty pathetic when people come here and specifically want to establish here the same legal climate of the country they just abandoned.

If your previous nest was so fouled that you abandoned it, why drag the same types of policy that fouled that nest over here? The UK IS a fouled nest, no doubt about it.

Of course the same can be said for all the California hippies that moved to Colorado also, they seem intent on instilling the same political climate that has turned CA into a festering toilet. Some people just cannot make a connection and learn something from it.

You can think whatever you want. You've demonstrated that quite well with the Play-Doh Poop Factory of bull**** that flies out of your mouth on a daily basis.

This does not change the fact that he's a US citizen and is afforded the same rights as you are, again despite you never having done anything to earn it other than be lucky enough to be born here. There is nothing in the Constitution that lessens a citizen's rights because of where they came from or why. For someone who claims to respect the Constitution as much as you do, you're sure critical of other people's usage of that same Constitution.

But you don't respect the Constitution. You're an opportunist. You only respect the opportunity it provides you, not the document, nor the beiliefs behind it.

In other words, you're a piece of ****, and any ancestor of yours that died defending the nation would be ashamed of the mockery you've made out of their sacrifice.

nyuk nyuk
03-27-2013, 11:49 AM
I didn't ask you if you knew what it doesn't mean -- I asked you if you know what is DOES mean. Your founding fathers quotes do not expand upon what 'regulated' means.

So one last time vapid one: do you know what 'well regulated' means in the context of the 2nd amendment?

It's a reference to adequate mastery of one's weapon. There is ample reference to that end.

I think the issue of what is meant by "the militia" is more important. That can be found here (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311).

nyuk nyuk
03-27-2013, 11:53 AM
You can think whatever you want. You've demonstrated that quite well with the Play-Doh Poop Factory of bull**** that flies out of your mouth on a daily basis.

This does not change the fact that he's a US citizen and is afforded the same rights as you are, again despite you never having done anything to earn it other than be lucky enough to be born here. There is nothing in the Constitution that lessens a citizen's rights because of where they came from or why. For someone who claims to respect the Constitution as much as you do, you're sure critical of other people's usage of that same Constitution.

But you don't respect the Constitution. You're an opportunist. You only respect the opportunity it provides you, not the document, nor the beiliefs behind it.

In other words, you're a piece of ****, and any ancestor of yours that died defending the nation would be ashamed of the mockery you've made out of their sacrifice.

I didn't say he didn't have the same rights. Just because you CAN doesn't mean it's okay and you SHOULD. I find it as distasteful that someone would flee their fouled nest (be it the UK or California) and come over here and try to forcefeed their politics on the locals as I do when the Catholics tried to forcefeed Christianity down the throats of the Indian tribes. They did it under the same banner of "getting along" and "progressing." It's a simple matter of respecting the culture you're in, and if you don't like it, simply remove yourself. Don't browbeat people to go along with you. When in Rome, baby. Hickenlooper has the same problem; on more than one occasion he's referred to Coloradans as either backward or most recently, in need of "maturation." Someone needs to tell him this isn't Philadelphia, apparently.

Oh no, a movie theater man called me a piece of ****. My day is RUINED, I tell you, RUINED... I shall never recover!

!Booya!

houghtam
03-27-2013, 12:01 PM
I didn't say he didn't have the same rights. Just because you CAN doesn't mean it's okay and you SHOULD. I find it as distasteful that someone would flee their fouled nest (be it the UK or California) and come over here and try to forcefeed their politics on the locals as I do when the Catholics tried to forcefeed Christianity down the throats of the Indian tribes. They did it under the same banner of "getting along" and "progressing." It's a simple matter of respecting the culture you're in, and if you don't like it, simply remove yourself. Don't browbeat people to go along with you. When in Rome, baby. Hickenlooper has the same problem; on more than one occasion he's referred to Coloradans as either backward or most recently, in need of "maturation." Someone needs to tell him this isn't Philadelphia, apparently.

Oh no, a movie theater man called me a piece of ****. My day is RUINED, I tell you, RUINED... I shall never recover!

!Booya!

Yep. When in Rome, don't go along with racist requests in clear violation of employment law.

You're a walking contradiction.

DenverBrit
03-27-2013, 12:03 PM
I'm not ashamed at all - I don't call a racist agitator like Gandhi a great man while sitting on a bull**** moral high chair lobbing righteous accusations of racism at people I don't like.

You only cry xenophobia because you don't want to live in Britain. And you know what? I don't blame you. I wouldn't live there, either.

You just can't help lying, it's pathological with you.

nyuk nyuk
03-27-2013, 12:05 PM
Yep. When in Rome, don't go along with racist requests in clear violation of employment law.

You're a walking contradiction.

Non sequitur.

W*GS
03-27-2013, 12:05 PM
Of course I'm far more American than he is. I had an ancestor in the New Jersey Line of the Continental Army during the Revoltionary War, in specific. Others, I'm not sure where they fought.

You're a dork.

nyuk nyuk
03-27-2013, 12:06 PM
You're a dork.

You belong to MENSA.

nyuk nyuk
03-27-2013, 12:07 PM
I'd hate to see Brit's track record with women.

If we apply his political mentality to the opposite sex, what we'd see is that he would voluntarily move in with someone whose views he cannot stand and instead of either admitting you accept that person as they are or GTFO, he instead refuses to leave and endlessly bitches at her trying to armtwist her into going along with his way of doing things.

Some people just can't take a hint.

W*GS
03-27-2013, 12:09 PM
You belong to MENSA.

You're a newbie compared to my ancestry.

GTFO.

Fedaykin
03-27-2013, 12:12 PM
It's a reference to adequate mastery of one's weapon. There is ample reference to that end.

I think the issue of what is meant by "the militia" is more important. That can be found here (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311).

Incorrect. It means a militia that is organized and well disciplined (i.e. having a command structure and enforced rules of behavior), well trained (as in well trained in military style combat) , AND to be proficient with their weapons. In other words, 'well regulated militia' is one that is a cohesive, effective fighting force comparable to, but separate from a professional army.

It does not mean or require that it be government run (in fact it implies that it should not be), but it also does not mean a bunch of unorganized, untrained, undisciplined rednecks with guns.

nyuk nyuk
03-27-2013, 12:13 PM
You're a newbie compared to my ancestry.

GTFO.

Oh? I had ancestors in New Amsterdam by at least 1650, possibly the late 1620s.

How many of yours owned slaves? I can't find any of mine that did.

DenverBrit
03-27-2013, 12:16 PM
At least you admit you voted with your feet.

Every immigrant does, including your ancestors, unless they were on a slave ship.

I have no dislike or fear of people from other countries, that's a strawman.

The UK does indeed suck dog ass.


Right, you're not a xenophobe. ::)


Being lectured by a bigoted, anti-American Marxist trying to claim they are a superior American is irony gold.

Fedaykin
03-27-2013, 12:19 PM
I'd hate to see Brit's track record with women.

If we apply his political mentality to the opposite sex, what we'd see is that he would voluntarily move in with someone whose views he cannot stand and instead of either admitting you accept that person as they are or GTFO, he instead refuses to leave and endlessly b****es at her trying to armtwist her into going along with his way of doing things.

Some people just can't take a hint.

TMI. We don't need to hear about the failures of your love life as projected on to others.

nyuk nyuk
03-27-2013, 12:21 PM
Incorrect. It means a militia that is organized and well disciplined (i.e. having a command structure and enforced rules of behavior), well trained (as in well trained in military style combat) , AND to be proficient with their weapons. In other words, 'well regulated militia' is one that is a cohesive, effective fighting force comparable to, but separate from a professional army.

It does not mean or require that it be government run (in fact it implies that it should not be), but it also does not mean a bunch of unorganized, untrained, undisciplined rednecks with guns.

This is basically what I just said. Proficiency with weapons.

If the people are a fighting force comparable to that of a professional army, I assume you consider the laws outlawing possession of automatic weapons by the people to be unconstitutional. What we are allowed to currently possess isn't remotely what our professional fighting forces have. The feds are trying to outlaw our owning semiauto rifles that fire 60 rounds a minute while our professional soldiers have fully auto rifles that fire upwards of 6,000 rounds a minute.

Also, the government doesn't look kindly when the people wish to receive military combat training. To this day they still spy on militia groups who do just that. Illegal? Unconstitutional?

nyuk nyuk
03-27-2013, 12:22 PM
Being lectured by a bigoted, anti-American Marxist trying to claim they are a superior American is irony gold.

If you want bigots, look at your "great man" Gandhi and no further. If you can't condemn that guy for racially instigating Indians against blacks, you have no business crying foul elsewhere.

Hilarious!

nyuk nyuk
03-27-2013, 12:23 PM
TMI. We don't need to hear about the failures of your love life as projected on to others.

Very relevant and manly response. Cheers.

DenverBrit
03-27-2013, 12:23 PM
I'd hate to see Brit's track record with women.

If we apply his political mentality to the opposite sex, what we'd see is that he would voluntarily move in with someone whose views he cannot stand and instead of either admitting you accept that person as they are or GTFO, he instead refuses to leave and endlessly b****es at her trying to armtwist her into going along with his way of doing things.

Some people just can't take a hint.

You're trying way too hard. Your hole is deep enough, you can stop digging now.

nyuk nyuk
03-27-2013, 12:24 PM
You're trying way too hard. Your hole is deep enough, you can stop digging now.

In other words you have no defense for yourself.

I feel you, dog.

Evasive maneuvers, number one!

W*GS
03-27-2013, 12:32 PM
Oh? I had ancestors in New Amsterdam by at least 1650, possibly the late 1620s.

My ancestor Anna Richards died in MA in 1627.

Newbie.

Fedaykin
03-27-2013, 12:41 PM
This is basically what I just said. Proficiency with weapons.


No, it's not. You're just being silly trying to claim you were not incorrect. Being proficient with a weapon is not the same thing as being proficient in combat. Whether we're talking militias or people in theaters, proficiency with a weapon is not the primary skill of combat.



If the people are a fighting force comparable to that of a professional army, I assume you consider the laws outlawing possession of automatic weapons by the people to be unconstitutional. What we are allowed to currently possess isn't remotely what our professional fighting forces have. The feds are trying to outlaw our owning semiauto rifles that fire 60 rounds a minute while our professional soldiers have fully auto rifles that fire upwards of 6,000 rounds a minute.


Once again, the weapons are not important, it's the training, discipline and organization that are the key to what a 'well regulated militia' is. No militia in the history of the world (even the historically effective ones) has been as well equipped as a standing professional army.


Also, the government doesn't look kindly when the people wish to receive military combat training. To this day they still spy on militia groups who do just that. Illegal? Unconstitutional?

Militia groups that operate legally have no problems. Groups that call themselves "militias" but are just fronts for illegal activity, have, unfortunately, made life more difficult for all parties (legit militias and law enforcement).

Fedaykin
03-27-2013, 12:43 PM
Very relevant and manly response. Cheers.


:rofl: This is a fun game! Spew idiocy all over the thread, then pretend to have the high ground.

errand
03-27-2013, 04:22 PM
When?

How?

McMinn Co. TN in 1946....Battle of Athens

errand
03-27-2013, 04:25 PM
Lol. Our government would never act in a tyrannical fashion. Ask the Cherokees about that.


Or those Americans of Japanese descent, who were interned in 1940's....

W*GS
03-27-2013, 04:25 PM
McMinn Co. TN in 1946....Battle of Athens

Yeah, I've heard of it.

How does that show that a national revolt by gun-owners will effectively overthrow a tyrannical regime?

Do note, also, that widespread gun ownership is not well-correlated with a healthy civic society and democracy when you look at the entire planet.

errand
03-27-2013, 04:29 PM
Lol. Some of us have learned and have stockpiles of mechanisms to keep those sorts of things from happening.

Exactly....

errand
03-27-2013, 04:36 PM
Do you think that those who aren't armed whilst going about their daily lives are shirking their civic duty?

Those folks in Aurora and the kids in Newtown got what they deserved, then, didn't they?

Those who choose not to own a gun are free to do so....our right to own a gun is what protects their right to tell us we can't.

As for the Aurora and Sandy hook shootings......too many holes in those "official stories" to know if the "official story" is what actually happened.

errand
03-27-2013, 04:38 PM
Nope.

You think only the 2nd really matters - the rest are just fluff and dross, and only your popguns mean anything.

The entirety of the rest of the Constitution and the totality of all our laws is mere piffle and a fragile, weak, and sad joke.



the 2nd amendment is what protects the other amendments.....

houghtam
03-27-2013, 04:38 PM
I don't know about you guys, but I just have to keep refreshing to see racist errand's genius real time responses as he slowly catches himself up.

Fedaykin
03-27-2013, 04:39 PM
Those who choose not to own a gun are free to do so....our right to own a gun is what protects their right to tell us we can't.

As for the Aurora and Sandy hook shootings......too many holes in those "official stories" to know if the "official story" is what actually happened.

What are you implying happened? What holes?

W*GS
03-27-2013, 04:40 PM
the 2nd amendment is what protects the other amendments.....

This message brought to you by the NRA.

Note that this does not mean it's true.

W*GS
03-27-2013, 04:40 PM
What are you implying happened? What holes?

The holes in errand's head from too many games of Russian roulette with a semi-automatic.

houghtam
03-27-2013, 04:45 PM
What are you implying happened? What holes?

Well for one, the librul media said the aurora shooter was wearing a bullet proof vest but it was really just a tactical vest, so obviously if you take that to its logical conclusion the media just blew a fistfight out of proportion to move along Obama's Nazi gun agenda.

houghtam
03-27-2013, 04:47 PM
It is of very, very little surprise to me that the people who are insinuating a government coverup to move along anti-gun agenda are the same people who think the government is coming for their guns.

errand
03-27-2013, 04:55 PM
Do you really think 100% of the military and police will turn their weapons on their mothers fathers brothers sisters etc The tyranny always consists of a very small number of people. The power always rests with the people except when the don'r know that or are paralyzed by fear then it doesn't.

Exactly....

Our military swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, and defend it from all enemies foreign, or domestic. The day may come when that domestic enemy that threatens the Constitution is our very own government

errand
03-27-2013, 04:58 PM
A very small number of people in power with power over a huge military.

Are our men and women of the US military somehow of a higher moral fiber than their German counterparts 70 years ago? No.

The reality is that the vast majority of the population saw increased gun rights, and when the weakest of their society was in peril, the gun owners were not out there fighting for their fellow countrymen, were they? Kind of throws the "benevolent gun owners protecting society from government" argument right on its head doesn't it?

Umm, the German military during Hitler's reign swore an oath to Adolph Hitler, where as our military swears an oath to defend our Constitution......not our government or our president.

errand
03-27-2013, 05:03 PM
That's what went wrong in 1930s Germany. The German population was not disarmed, it had blinders put on. It was convinced to be PART of the tyranny.


... kind of like you are being convinced, correct?

Fedaykin
03-27-2013, 05:05 PM
... kind of like you are being convinced, correct?

LMAO Who am I being convinced to be tyrannical toward? By doing what?

errand
03-27-2013, 05:05 PM
Well, take that to the bank!

Those kids in Newtown got what they deserved, didn't they, because they didn't take their civic duty seriously and arm themselves. Right?

If it even happened at all......

errand
03-27-2013, 05:09 PM
So Brits were only redcoats? Are you really so stupid??

As a citizen, I'm entitled to my opinion, unlike you, most here don't use the 2nd amendment to squash the first.

Now go get me a sandwich!

why would you leave Great Britain which is such a utopia of safety with their gun control laws for the alleged wild wild west of a shoot 'em up ok corral?

W*GS
03-27-2013, 05:11 PM
If it even happened at all......

You, gaffe, and baja ought to get together.

If we're lucky, a black hole of idiocy will form and all three of you will be sucked out of existence altogether.

Fedaykin
03-27-2013, 05:14 PM
If it even happened at all......

:rofl:

Nutjob, check.

houghtam
03-27-2013, 05:20 PM
Umm, the German military during Hitler's reign swore an oath to Adolph Hitler, where as our military swears an oath to defend our Constitution......not our government or our president.

LOL

There goes someone trying to out-German the expert in German again.

The Reichsvereid existed in 1933 before Hitler came to power, too, and it swore allegiance to the constitution. What do you think happened, Hitler sent everyone home and got an entirely new army?

Nope, they just took a new oath. Oaths are worth their weight in gold.

errand
03-27-2013, 05:21 PM
Dismantling of the myth pushed by gun activists that Hitler's rise was aided by gun control laws:
http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/119543/gun-control-and-the-holocaust

Nobody said Hitler's rise to power was aided by gun control laws...Dr. Broncenstein was illustrating what can happen once people are disarmed...and guess what? the Jews were disarmed by the Nazi's......

Hitler's rise was aided by a media that dished out propaganda and the population being fed lies about what his intentions were. He used the Reichstag fire to assume total control under the guise of protecting the people.

The same kind of **** is happening here in the US....damn near every media outlet is screaming for gun control based on saving the people.....btw has anyone seen the video of Adam Lanza shooting the Sandy Hook school up?

houghtam
03-27-2013, 05:34 PM
Nobody said Hitler's rise to power was aided by gun control laws...Dr. Broncenstein was illustrating what can happen once people are disarmed...and guess what? the Jews were disarmed by the Nazi's......

Hitler's rise was aided by a media that dished out propaganda and the population being fed lies about what his intentions were. He used the Reichstag fire to assume total control under the guise of protecting the people.

The same kind of **** is happening here in the US....damn near every media outlet is screaming for gun control based on saving the people.....btw has anyone seen the video of Adam Lanza shooting the Sandy Hook school up?

Woefully uninformed post. You're treading on dangerous ground here, and I'm calling you out and wagering you have nothing more than a 6th grader's understanding of the sociopolitical environment of late 19th to mid 20th century Germany.

What intentions did the Nazi propaganda portray Hitler as having, exactly? What were the coverups? Cite your sources.

Dr. Broncenstein
03-27-2013, 05:46 PM
http://worldwar2-facts.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/The-Holocaust-Execution-of-a-Jew.jpg

The convenient thing about a disarmed populace is that you can dispose of them in a centralized location, without all the hassles of return fire.

errand
03-27-2013, 05:46 PM
So one last time vapid one: do you know what 'well regulated' means in the context of the 2nd amendment?

We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.

This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:

Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, maneouvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.

In the passage that follows, do you think the U.S. government was concerned because the Creek Indians' tribal regulations were superior to those of the Wabash or was it because they represented a better trained and disciplined fighting force?

"That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troops always ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions."

I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.
--- George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.

The above quote is clearly not a request for a militia with the best set of regulations....This brief textual analysis also suggests "to put in good order" is the correct interpretation of well regulated, signifying a well disciplined, trained, and functioning militia.

And finally, when regulated is used as an adjective, its meaning varies depending on the noun its modifying and of course the context. For example: well regulated liberty (properly controlled), regulated rifle (adjusted for accuracy), and regulated commerce (governed by regulations) all express a different meaning for regulated. This is by no means unusual, just as the word, bear, conveys a different meaning depending on the word it modifies: bearing arms, bearing fruit, or bearing gifts.

I think that the meaning of the word regulated had nothing to do with rules or limits when the 2nd amendment was written.....and the words above support my belief.

DenverBrit
03-27-2013, 05:50 PM
why would you leave Great Britain which is such a utopia of safety with their gun control laws for the alleged wild wild west of a shoot 'em up ok corral?

Why are you asking such a stupid question?

Because I suggested the Founders were thinking more along the lines of the Swiss model when they wrote "A well regulated Militia"?

Are you so threatened by a simple suggestion?

Let me ask you a question: What was the inspiration for the 2nd amendment?

W*GS
03-27-2013, 05:52 PM
This brief textual analysis also suggests "to put in good order" is the correct interpretation of well regulated, signifying a well disciplined, trained, and functioning militia.

Does the US have such an entity?

TonyR
03-27-2013, 06:16 PM
Nobody said Hitler's rise to power was aided by gun control laws...Dr. Broncenstein was illustrating what can happen once people are disarmed...

Educate thyself. Even to the extent what you're saying is true, this is not remotely what's happening in this country despite what the fear mongering right-wing media is suggesting.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/01/hitler-stalin-gun-control

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/

errand
03-27-2013, 06:19 PM
What are you implying happened? What holes?

Well, let's see....I personally don't know what happened as I wasn't there...however I've watched and read of many oddities and have come to the conclusion that this story isn't making any sense.

The official story is that Adam Lanza for whatever reason snapped, and murdered his mother, stole her guns and car, drove to the school, shot his way in and murdered 20 kids and 6 adults with an AR-15....that he was a lone wolf.

however there have been conflicting eyewitness accounts

[] reports from official sources (media's words, not mine) that the day prior Lanza was involved in a confrontation at the school, then later these same "offical" reports were denied.

[] a website that tracks such things stating that the SSDI (Social Security Death Index) shows Adam Lanza died the day before in New Hampshire

[] police communications saying they were looking for a purple van with suspects dressed as nuns

[] video of police chasing a suspect into woods, arresting him, eyewitness reports of the arrest but no news on who he was or what he was doing running away from the school

[]eyewitness testimony that they saw two other people in handcuffs,

[]police radio communications stating they found shotguns and rifles...

[]the alleged car he stole from his mother is registered to a career criminal, not his mom....

[]no footage of him shooting or even entering the school despite it having surveillance cameras throughout being released

[]alleged victim parents laughing and smiling and shedding not one solitary tear during interviews

[] medical examiner stating that he hopes this whole event doesn't crash on top of Newtown's head

[] people walking into the fire station building and then walking around the building and back into it in a circle

[] No emergency vehicles at the school.....no aerial video of kids evacuating the school or bodies being taken out

[] CNN using footage of a drill at another school but claiming it was of Sandy Hook elementary

[] photo of alleged victim shown on news media, etc. that was actually a photo of child that didn't go to Sandy Hook, and who is alive and well.

[] photo of alleged victim wearing red/black dress in family photo also somehow miraculously sitting on Obama's lap when he went to memorial service two days after the shooting.

[] contradictory accounts of the sounds kids heard, ranging from "it sounded like someone kicking a door" to "we thought the janitor had knock something over" vs. the reporter stating she talked to a woman who heard "hundreds of shots"

[] the reporter who claims she talked to the school nurse who stated she "met eyes" with Lanza, ducked below her desk, and he just left the room, and that she knew his mother very well, stating that she was "a wonderful kindergarten teacher that you'd love having teach your child" despite the fact that Lanza's mom never worked for the school, and later the nurse claimed she never saw him, but was hiding under her desk and saw his legs only.

[] memorial social media pages like R.I.P. Virginia Soto on Facebook for example that was created on December 10th, however the shooting was Dec. 14th....this doesn't include the one set up for the school weeks before the shooting.

[] Homeland Security and FEMA holding a drill approximately 20 miles away on the same day....

Sure one or two of these oddities can be explained away, but all of them?

W*GS
03-27-2013, 06:21 PM
Sure one or two of these oddities can be explained away, but all of them?

Please visit Snopes.

You're more full of **** than ****.

houghtam
03-27-2013, 06:32 PM
Educate thyself. Even to the extent what you're saying is true, this is not remotely what's happening in this country despite what the fear mongering right-wing media is suggesting.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/01/hitler-stalin-gun-control

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/11/stop_talking_about_hitler/

Well, since racist errand probably won't indulge us, I'll tell you all the full story of what happened after the Reichstag fire. Although the perpetrator claimed to act alone, Nazi propaganda blamed the communists, stoking anti communist fervor and effectively repressing the vote in favor of the NDAP.

So what actually happened in 1933 is much closer to the voter suppression efforts headed by your beloved conservatives. Interestingly, the fascists in Germany and Italy were conservatives, not liberals.

By the way, the gun restrictions didn't come until 5 years after the conservatives in Germany used voter suppression to take power.



Let's let that last part sink in a bit, and then ask ourselves this question, as long as we're talking about conspiracies?



Given actual historical precedent, which of these situations is more likely to happen?

A - The US Government passes legislation banning guns and conducts a house-to-house search for anyone owning a gun

OR

B - Conservatives blame a disastrous event on the moral decay of the US caused by the "cultural deviancy of minorities" and use the ensuing chaos to instill voter suppression efforts to take away the rights and liberties of a minority of its citizens



You all know the answer.

errand
03-27-2013, 06:34 PM
Please visit Snopes.

You're more full of **** than ****.

OK...if you agree to watch this video


<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/JkZ9HnMLKXg?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

W*GS
03-27-2013, 06:41 PM
OK...if you agree to watch this video

Seen it - from the bull**** dickheads like you.

baja
03-27-2013, 06:48 PM
Please visit Snopes.

You're more full of **** than ****.

hope that government check is worth it traitor

W*GS
03-27-2013, 06:50 PM
hope that government check is worth it traitor

Go F yourself, bunker boy.

PS - Is Alex Jones' spooge really salty?

Requiem
03-27-2013, 06:50 PM
So much crazy in this thread it is frightening.

W*GS
03-27-2013, 06:57 PM
So much crazy in this thread it is frightening.

Yup. Between ba-bunker-boy-ja and erracist...

The loony is deep.

baja
03-27-2013, 07:02 PM
Yup. Between ba-bunker-boy-ja and erracist...

The loony is deep.

How do you know he is not talking about you?

Do you get paid by the word or by the post?

Fedaykin
03-27-2013, 07:03 PM
I think that the meaning of the word regulated had nothing to do with rules or limits when the 2nd amendment was written.....and the words above support my belief.

Good work nutter, you're only a couple pages behind.

Requiem
03-27-2013, 07:05 PM
How do you know he is not talking about you?

Do you get paid by the word or by the post?

Well, W*GS isn't regurgitating David Icke conspiracies, now is he?

W*GS
03-27-2013, 07:09 PM
How do you know he is not talking about you?

Because I'm not insane, like you.

Do you get paid by the word or by the post?

Do you get laid?

W*GS
03-27-2013, 07:10 PM
Belief in conspiracy is way to avoid responsibility.

It's engaged in by spineless and balls-less cowards.

Fedaykin
03-27-2013, 07:20 PM
Sure one or two of these oddities can be explained away, but all of them?

:rofl:

So a list of clerical errors and the typical things you expect to crop up, like different accounts from different witnesses.

My god you're gullible.

Meck77
03-27-2013, 07:25 PM
Answer: Yes. It will save mine but probably not the guy on the other end.

Fedaykin
03-27-2013, 07:32 PM
Gotta love it, the one constant of all conspiracy nutbaggery is that they want to to believe two competing things: that the alleged conspirators are both highly competent and complete, bumbling fools simultaneously.

Take the social security record thing. Nutbags like errand want you to believe that there is a vast conspiracy to cover up ???? in Newtown in which Adam Lanza was murdered the day before the massacre and some other person or persons were the actual killer. They want you to believe that some entity (the gubment) went to alllll that trouble to do a coverup, and then went ahead and entered the real date of Lanza's death in a publicly available database. Cause, no matter what their goals are, the paperwork's gotta be accurate, right???

Epically stupid ****.

Dr. Broncenstein
03-27-2013, 07:38 PM
Go F yourself, bunker boy.

PS - Is Alex Jones' spooge really salty?

Should I be surprised that you sport a queer solidarity avatar while suggesting another poster is a c0****cker? Because, I'm not at all surprised.

baja
03-27-2013, 07:47 PM
Well, W*GS isn't regurgitating David Icke conspiracies, now is he?

I have been reading your posts long enough to know you are a person with integrity. I see you as a young searcher much the way I was and hope still am. A friend of mine suggested I read David Icke about ten years ago. I valued this person's perspective on the human experience so I watched a David Icke video. At about the half way point I turned it off and thought to myself Icke is bat shiit crazy and wondered what happened to my otherwise wise friend that she could buy into the crazy talk. Several years and much research later I came to understand as bazaar and horrible as his scenario is he has it right. I understand it sounds like complete loony tunes but if you watch a few of his videos and seek out and verify those things that are verifiable you may have a holy shiit moment when you realize this war between good and evil is very real. Does he have all the details correct? I don't know but he has the scope of the battle right and it is chilling. There is a battle on for your soul and unless we wake up the cost will be beyond believe. The fact this is so unbelievable serves as their cover. Still I do not want to believe the scope of this but there is too much evidence not to and it is readily available.

I do not think they will win in the end but the longer we stay asleep the more horrendous the experience will be for all of us. At some point, likely soon they will have to tip their hand and human beings will wake up in mass and we will put a stop to this madness. I trust it will not be too late.....

baja
03-27-2013, 07:48 PM
As for WA*GS he is either a useful idiot or in their employ.

Dr. Broncenstein
03-27-2013, 07:54 PM
http://gdb.rferl.org/835E0A71-625B-4738-BA24-E417B6CB0D23_mw1024_n_s.jpg

Unarmed human beings can be herded to their own slaughter like cattle, but without the need for expensive corrals.

baja
03-27-2013, 07:58 PM
If you want to take an objective look at the evidence I refer to watch any or better all of the videos in my thread Fantasy?

baja
03-27-2013, 08:02 PM
What is the answer to the fairy tale called Global Warming (now called climate change because the planet did not cooperate) ? Massive population reduction. Right WA*GS

errand
03-27-2013, 08:07 PM
Gotta love it, the one constant of all conspiracy nutbaggery is that they want to to believe two competing things: that the alleged conspirators are both highly competent and complete, bumbling fools simultaneously.

Take the social security record thing. Nutbags like errand want you to believe that there is a vast conspiracy to cover up ???? in Newtown in which Adam Lanza was murdered the day before the massacre and some other person or persons were the actual killer. They want you to believe that some entity (the gubment) went to alllll that trouble to do a coverup, and then went ahead and entered the real date of Lanza's death in a publicly available database. Cause, no matter what their goals are, the paperwork's gotta be accurate, right???

Epically stupid ****.

there are just too many oddities to believe the "official" story....

They show footage of Harris and Klebold walking around Columbine, but have none of Lanza....

What about the United Way Sandy hook elementary fund page that was started on Dec. 11th? Or the Sandy Hook tribute video that was uploaded in November?

Or the Newtown Bee stating the principal told them what happened......I guess dead men do tell tales.

W*GS
03-27-2013, 08:31 PM
Should I be surprised that you sport a queer solidarity avatar while suggesting another poster is a c0******er? Because, I'm not at all surprised.

What's wrong with being queer?

Explain.

W*GS
03-27-2013, 08:32 PM
there are just too many oddities to believe the "official" story....

Nope.

Since when did you become the gaffe Wonder Boy?

W*GS
03-27-2013, 08:33 PM
What is the answer to the fairy tale called Global Warming (now called climate change because the planet did not cooperate) ? Massive population reduction. Right WA*GS

Are you really this stupid?

Dr. Broncenstein
03-27-2013, 08:42 PM
What's wrong with being queer?

Explain.

What's wrong with a man swallowing another man's load?

Explain.

baja
03-27-2013, 08:45 PM
W*GS

You have outed as a paid government disinformation scoundrel you might as well go find another website to pollute.

houghtam
03-27-2013, 08:48 PM
What's wrong with a man swallowing another man's load?

Explain.

Well for one, most courts would rule that it would create a bond that inhibits the ability of either party to make a clear character judgment about the other. In short, if he were giving BJs to this guy, not saying that he is or that there is anything wrong with it, his referencing him as a source is inherently biased.

W*GS
03-27-2013, 08:50 PM
What's wrong with a man swallowing another man's load?

Explain.

You were the one that whined...

baja should be proud to be Jones' bottom.

W*GS
03-27-2013, 08:52 PM
W*GS

You have outed as a paid government disinformation scoundrel you might as well go find another website to pollute.

http://tomwhahappen.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/gorn_flotsam.jpg

Jealous?

Dr. Broncenstein
03-27-2013, 09:02 PM
You were the one that whined...

baja should be proud to be Jones' bottom.

So basically you have no coherent response as to why you essentially called someone a fag while symbolically claiming to support gay rights. Again, it's not at all a surprise.

Fedaykin
03-27-2013, 09:23 PM
there are just too many oddities to believe the "official" story....

[quote]
They show footage of Harris and Klebold walking around Columbine, but have none of Lanza....


What evidence is there that no video exists?

Crime scene evidence isn't released until after the bloody investigation and/or trial ends. Not for Columbine, not for this. All SOP.


What about the United Way Sandy hook elementary fund page that was started on Dec. 11th? Or the Sandy Hook tribute video that was uploaded in November?


How were these dates determined? You know how mindnumbingly easy it is to fudge a date on the internet and/or have Google pull an incorrect date?


Or the Newtown Bee stating the principal told them what happened......I guess dead men do tell tales.

Or some reporter or copy editor (or someone else in the chain of info) ****ed up in attributing the information. Happens all the time nutter.

And again. Massive, coordinated conspiracy that happens to be so bumbling stupid that they feed fake information from a fake dead principal? Pull your head out of your ass buddy.

nyuk nyuk
03-28-2013, 09:01 AM
So basically you have no coherent response as to why you essentially called someone a fag while symbolically claiming to support gay rights. Again, it's not at all a surprise.

Liberals do it all the time.

nyuk nyuk
03-28-2013, 09:03 AM
They show footage of Harris and Klebold walking around Columbine, but have none of Lanza....

Where did they say they had no footage of Lanza? Footage of Holmes in the lobby of Century Aurora exists, but it hasn't been released to the public.

baja
03-28-2013, 05:46 PM
87% of the poll voters say citizen gun ownership saves lives.

Fedaykin
03-28-2013, 05:58 PM
87% of the poll voters say citizen gun ownership saves lives.

And probably all of those 87% would argue fiercely that guns _don't_ take lives.

baja
03-28-2013, 06:19 PM
Unless guns have learned to shoot by themselves that you are correct

Fedaykin
03-28-2013, 06:24 PM
Unless guns have learned to shoot by themselves that you are correct

How does an object that you agree can't shoot itself be simultaneously capable of saving, but incapable of taking a life?

nyuk nyuk
03-28-2013, 06:26 PM
87% of the poll voters say citizen gun ownership saves lives.

Polls that affirm liberal goals are the only polls that matter! :thumbs:

baja
03-28-2013, 06:48 PM
How does an object that you agree can't shoot itself be simultaneously capable of saving, but incapable of taking a life?

Criminals are most often cowards if they think a potential victim might be armed or a home owner might have guns in the house they will think twice before victimizing a citizen.

Fedaykin
03-28-2013, 06:58 PM
Criminals are most often cowards if they think a potential victim might be armed or a home owner might have guns in the house they will think twice before victimizing a citizen.

Washington D. C. and NYC have the strictest gun laws in the nation yet they are two of the highest murder per capata cities in the nation.

Nice evasion! care to honestly answer the question?

Fedaykin
03-28-2013, 06:59 PM
Polls that affirm liberal goals are the only polls that matter! :thumbs:

LMAO. Careful there. Need I remind you of the complete face plant all the right wing nutters did when they claimed all the polling numbers showing Obama winning the election were false?

nyuk nyuk
03-28-2013, 07:06 PM
LMAO. Careful there. Need I remind you of the complete face plant all the right wing nutters did when they claimed all the polling numbers showing Obama winning the election were false?

Ad hominem tu quoque from months ago covers the current affirmation bias liberal echo chamber here? I think not.

houghtam
03-28-2013, 07:07 PM
Criminals are most often cowards if they think a potential victim might be armed or a home owner might have guns in the house they will think twice before victimizing a citizen.

Washington D. C. and NYC have the strictest gun laws in the nation yet they are two of the highest murder per capata cities in the nation.

Check your stats. Homes with guns in them are no less likely to be burgled than homes without. Even ones with those cute signs about how their neighbor doesn't have a gun.

Know why?

Burglars know that A) you're likely not going to be home when they rob you, B) even if you were, statistically speaking, the chances of you getting to your gun before they're in and out with what they came there to do are slim.

Go to any police department website, or just do a Google search for "burglary prevention tips". Hmmm...looks like right off the top page, the cities of Memphis, Los Angeles and Phoenix don't mention owning a gun anywhere on their burglary prevention tips.

I wonder why that is.

Fedaykin
03-28-2013, 07:18 PM
Ad hominem tu quoque from months ago covers the current affirmation bias liberal echo chamber here? I think not.

What affirmation bias liberal echo chamber? 87% of people here thing guns save lives -- no one is denying that 87% of people who answered the poll have that opinion. I pointed out that, likely, most of those 87% pf people would have the contradictory opinion that guns don't kill (people kill!). The reality is, people do both the killing and the saving, not the guns which are merely tools. In other words, you can't have it both ways.

Meanwhile, you come up with a pointless, lame, hypocritical ad hominem. Great job there vapid one.

nyuk nyuk
03-28-2013, 07:57 PM
What affirmation bias liberal echo chamber? 87% of people here thing guns save lives -- no one is denying that 87% of people who answered the poll have that opinion. I pointed out that, likely, most of those 87% pf people would have the contradictory opinion that guns don't kill (people kill!). The reality is, people do both the killing and the saving, not the guns which are merely tools. In other words, you can't have it both ways.

Meanwhile, you come up with a pointless, lame, hypocritical ad hominem. Great job there vapid one.

The one you just threw, defending what goes on here now by dragging something irrelevant in from LAST YEAR by others as a defense.

As far as the gun issue, since more drive by drunken drivers than are murdered by guns annually, those who want gun restrictions need to be consistent and demand at the least the same restrictions on booze they want for guns, otherwise their "it's for saving lives" rhetoric is nothing but hollow political opportunism off the fresh corpses of the latest cash-in shooting.

nyuk nyuk
03-28-2013, 07:58 PM
Check your stats. Homes with guns in them are no less likely to be burgled than homes without. Even ones with those cute signs about how their neighbor doesn't have a gun.

Know why?

Burglars know that A) you're likely not going to be home when they rob you, B) even if you were, statistically speaking, the chances of you getting to your gun before they're in and out with what they came there to do are slim.

Go to any police department website, or just do a Google search for "burglary prevention tips". Hmmm...looks like right off the top page, the cities of Memphis, Los Angeles and Phoenix don't mention owning a gun anywhere on their burglary prevention tips.

I wonder why that is.

Because they're not made to "prevent" burglaries, but rather fend off breakins in progress.

Fedaykin
03-28-2013, 08:00 PM
The one you just threw, defending what goes on here now by dragging something irrelevant in from LAST YEAR by others as a defense.


What was I defending, hmm?


As far as the gun issue, since more drive by drunken drivers than are murdered by guns annually, those who want gun restrictions need to be consistent and demand at the least the same restrictions on booze they want for guns, otherwise their "it's for saving lives" rhetoric is nothing but hollow political opportunism off the fresh corpses of the latest cash-in shooting.

Oh look, a totally irrelevant tangent. Weeeeeeeeeeeee!

houghtam
03-28-2013, 08:01 PM
Because they're not made to "prevent" burglaries, but rather fend off breakins in progress.

And statistically speaking, they do neither.

nyuk nyuk
03-28-2013, 08:05 PM
And statistically speaking, they do neither.

A small collection of incidents of where they do (http://gunssavelives.net/incident-map/). Enjoy!

http://i49.tinypic.com/s623gn.png

nyuk nyuk
03-28-2013, 08:06 PM
What was I defending, hmm?

Explained throughly. No game playing.


Oh look, a totally irrelevant tangent. Weeeeeeeeeeeee!

How is it an irrelevant tangent? Care to explain the discrepancy in hysteria?

Fedaykin
03-28-2013, 08:07 PM
A small collection of incidents of where they do (http://gunssavelives.net/incident-map/). Enjoy!

http://i49.tinypic.com/s623gn.png

If guns don't kill people, how is it that they save people vapid one?

houghtam
03-28-2013, 08:09 PM
A small collection of incidents of where they do (http://gunssavelives.net/incident-map/). Enjoy!

http://i49.tinypic.com/s623gn.png

LMFAO

There are what, 2-300 dots on that map?

How many burglaries happen in the US again?

Now let's look at gun accidents in the home...

Fedaykin
03-28-2013, 08:10 PM
Explained throughly. No game playing.
[q/uote]

I asked to you identify what exactly I was supposedly "defending". And once again, just more b.s. from you.


[quote[
How is it an irrelevant tangent? Care to explain the discrepancy in hysteria?

The most immediate topic is: do guns save lives and if they do, how is it that they don't also kill? We're not talking about gun restrictions. This is a difficult concept for you to grasp?

houghtam
03-28-2013, 08:11 PM
The one you just threw, defending what goes on here now by dragging something irrelevant in from LAST YEAR by others as a defense.

As far as the gun issue, since more drive by drunken drivers than are murdered by guns annually, those who want gun restrictions need to be consistent and demand at the least the same restrictions on booze they want for guns, otherwise their "it's for saving lives" rhetoric is nothing but hollow political opportunism off the fresh corpses of the latest cash-in shooting.

How much more money have the gun manufacturers made since Newtown?

Cash-in is right. And you gomers are the ones doing the lining of the pockets.

nyuk nyuk
03-28-2013, 08:12 PM
If guns don't kill people, how is it that they save people vapid one?

Guns can do many things if used certain ways. So can anything else. Your point is what besides butt hurt namecalling?

nyuk nyuk
03-28-2013, 08:13 PM
LMFAO

There are what, 2-300 dots on that map?

How many burglaries happen in the US again?

Now let's look at gun accidents in the home...

You're assuming it's all-encompassing. Is there a reason for that other than a quick brush-off?

So how many people are injured or killed in gun accidents vs drunken drivers?

:thumbsup:

nyuk nyuk
03-28-2013, 08:13 PM
How much more money have the gun manufacturers made since Newtown?

Cash-in is right. And you gomers are the ones doing the lining of the pockets.

If the media herd vag cavs weren't calling for gun bans left and right, nobody would be running out and buying everything up anticipating a ban.

nyuk nyuk
03-28-2013, 08:14 PM
The most immediate topic is: do guns save lives and if they do, how is it that they don't also kill? We're not talking about gun restrictions. This is a difficult concept for you to grasp?

If you keep changing the subject, you will not be responded to.

Tut tut.

Fedaykin
03-28-2013, 08:15 PM
Guns can do many things if used certain ways. So can anything else. Your point is what besides butt hurt namecalling?

LMAO. Nice try, but the only on "butt hurt" here is you.

True or false:

* Guns kill people
* Guns save people

Fedaykin
03-28-2013, 08:16 PM
If you keep changing the subject, you will not be responded to.

Tut tut.

Apparently you've suffered some sort of mental break, beyond the usual. The only one trying to change the topic here is you vapid one.

nyuk nyuk
03-28-2013, 08:17 PM
LMAO. Nice try, but the only on "butt hurt" here is you.

True or false:

* Guns kill people
* Guns save people

Answered. You chose to ignore. Conversation over.

houghtam
03-28-2013, 08:17 PM
You're assuming it's all-encompassing. Is there a reason for that other than a quick brush-off?

So how many people are injured or killed in gun accidents vs drunken drivers?

:thumbsup:

Once someone makes the argument that drunk driving saves lives, I'll let you know.

:yayaya:

nyuk nyuk
03-28-2013, 08:18 PM
Apparently you've suffered some sort of mental break, beyond the usual. The only one trying to change the topic here is you vapid one.

Perhaps you have severe short term memory loss but it's easily seen in scrolling up the page. Beyond that, I'm not the one dispensing your Ritalin.

Have a nice evening.

nyuk nyuk
03-28-2013, 08:19 PM
Once someone makes the argument that drunk driving saves lives, I'll let you know.

:yayaya:

Non sequitur.

Silly escape hatch. Surely you can tell us why the ban crowd have no interest in limiting alcohol such as they do guns since alcohol kills far more people, no?

I guess not - no response from any lib here about that yet.

:pimp:

houghtam
03-28-2013, 08:20 PM
If the media herd vag cavs weren't calling for gun bans left and right, nobody would be running out and buying everything up anticipating a ban.

I see, so even though you and pretty much every other gun nut on here has admitted that there will never be a gun ban because there's no support for it, you're still stupid enough to go out and buy 14 guns every time one of your gun-wielding peers shoots a bunch of people.

Doesn't surprise me.

Fedaykin
03-28-2013, 08:25 PM
Perhaps you have severe short term memory loss but it's easily seen in scrolling up the page. Beyond that, I'm not the one dispensing your Ritalin.

Have a nice evening.

:rofl: Yep, very easily seen by scrolling up the page. We're talking about whether or not guns save lives, not whether or not we should have more restrictions. Before that we had a tangent about Lanza/Sandy Hook. No mention of gun control until you tried to go off on that tangent.

Vapid one is vapid.

houghtam
03-28-2013, 08:40 PM
:rofl: Yep, very easily seen by scrolling up the page. We're talking about whether or not guns save lives, not whether or not we should have more restrictions. Before that we had a tangent about Lanza/Sandy Hook. No mention of gun control until you tried to go off on that tangent.

Vapid one is vapid.

Well considering he voted No, I can only assume either since there was no option for both, he chose the one he most identified with. Or that he believes that guns magically save lives by preventing robberies (but only ones in progress, because thwre's no statistical evidence to support the idea that they prevent them in the first place), but someone do NOT kill people.

Dramanyuk is a very nuanced individual.

LOL