One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
What is it about the semi-automatic...
Page <<first <prev 3 of 4 next>
Jun 9, 2022 02:45:22   #
nonalien1 Loc: Mojave Desert
 
Milosia2 wrote:
From which aspect ?


Exactly!





That's why YOU should never apply for a gun licence

Reply
Jun 9, 2022 02:57:28   #
Kickaha Loc: Nebraska
 
PeterS wrote:
that has you conservatives so transfixed that no amount of national carnage could ever convince you to give up your semi-automatic guns? I mean we have children who are killed, adults who are killed, and teenagers killed yet the only impact it makes on cons is that it's the Democrats who are at fault because they are stopping us [cons] from having more guns because it's only if we have more guns everything would be A-okay!

What's been lost on you cons is that we've been buying more guns, and buying more guns, to the point we are the most heavily armed "civilized" country in the world yet the violence hasn't subsided. Look at Texas, there is no question that all the conservatives have guns plus most of those in the middle and I'm making a safe assumption that 99% of them are packing yet, with the exception of stopping one church shooting, they have been totally ineffective in stopping the growing numbers of mass shootings in this once great state? Since Texas is such a heavily conservative state and they are so heavily armed why hasn't it caused mass shootings to go down instead of up? Shouldn't Texas be a great test for conservative theories on more guns are better and even better are more guns than those!

Now, as a liberal Democrat, I naturally think that we should disarm, not continue to arm ourselves. When we look at other countries it's clear that disarming works but I have come to realize the fact that cons have been successful in flooding this nation with so many semi-autos that it would be impossible to try to disarm ourselves now. So now, I'm at a loss for a solution. As Texas has shown, more guns simply meant more violence, so should we simply surrender ourselves to the violence that is to come? Is that the only choice we have? It seems like it is because conservatives have been so successful in getting their way...
that has you conservatives so transfixed that no a... (show quote)


Before we start demanding more laws that won't make a difference, we should examine what went wrong step by step and determine if anything could have made a difference. These latest shooters passed background checks despite juvenile records that should have raised red flags. That would be a reasonable place to start.

Reply
Jun 9, 2022 03:14:39   #
Zemirah Loc: Sojourner En Route...
 
LogicallyRight wrote:
Do you know how stupid that sounds?


It NOT only sounds stupid, it IS stupid!

Reply
 
 
Jun 9, 2022 03:56:17   #
melloncolley
 
PeterS wrote:
that has you conservatives so transfixed that no amount of national carnage could ever convince you to give up your semi-automatic guns? I mean we have children who are killed, adults who are killed, and teenagers killed yet the only impact it makes on cons is that it's the Democrats who are at fault because they are stopping us [cons] from having more guns because it's only if we have more guns everything would be A-okay!

What's been lost on you cons is that we've been buying more guns, and buying more guns, to the point we are the most heavily armed "civilized" country in the world yet the violence hasn't subsided. Look at Texas, there is no question that all the conservatives have guns plus most of those in the middle and I'm making a safe assumption that 99% of them are packing yet, with the exception of stopping one church shooting, they have been totally ineffective in stopping the growing numbers of mass shootings in this once great state? Since Texas is such a heavily conservative state and they are so heavily armed why hasn't it caused mass shootings to go down instead of up? Shouldn't Texas be a great test for conservative theories on more guns are better and even better are more guns than those!

Now, as a liberal Democrat, I naturally think that we should disarm, not continue to arm ourselves. When we look at other countries it's clear that disarming works but I have come to realize the fact that cons have been successful in flooding this nation with so many semi-autos that it would be impossible to try to disarm ourselves now. So now, I'm at a loss for a solution. As Texas has shown, more guns simply meant more violence, so should we simply surrender ourselves to the violence that is to come? Is that the only choice we have? It seems like it is because conservatives have been so successful in getting their way...
that has you conservatives so transfixed that no a... (show quote)

Simply, it is a SPORT. Responsible gun owners ARE NOT AT FAULT for some stupid idiot who decides to wreak havoc on the population. At a time like this. with this screwed up Administration, WHO KNOWS what kinds of people are being let into America? Guess what, Biden doesn’t care, BUT we do!

Reply
Jun 9, 2022 07:46:29   #
American Vet
 
Kickaha wrote:
Before we start demanding more laws that won't make a difference, we should examine what went wrong step by step and determine if anything could have made a difference. These latest shooters passed background checks despite juvenile records that should have raised red flags. That would be a reasonable place to start.



Reply
Jun 9, 2022 07:53:47   #
JR-57 Loc: South Carolina
 
PeterS wrote:
that has you conservatives so transfixed that no amount of national carnage could ever convince you to give up your semi-automatic guns? I mean we have children who are killed, adults who are killed, and teenagers killed yet the only impact it makes on cons is that it's the Democrats who are at fault because they are stopping us [cons] from having more guns because it's only if we have more guns everything would be A-okay!

What's been lost on you cons is that we've been buying more guns, and buying more guns, to the point we are the most heavily armed "civilized" country in the world yet the violence hasn't subsided. Look at Texas, there is no question that all the conservatives have guns plus most of those in the middle and I'm making a safe assumption that 99% of them are packing yet, with the exception of stopping one church shooting, they have been totally ineffective in stopping the growing numbers of mass shootings in this once great state? Since Texas is such a heavily conservative state and they are so heavily armed why hasn't it caused mass shootings to go down instead of up? Shouldn't Texas be a great test for conservative theories on more guns are better and even better are more guns than those!

Now, as a liberal Democrat, I naturally think that we should disarm, not continue to arm ourselves. When we look at other countries it's clear that disarming works but I have come to realize the fact that cons have been successful in flooding this nation with so many semi-autos that it would be impossible to try to disarm ourselves now. So now, I'm at a loss for a solution. As Texas has shown, more guns simply meant more violence, so should we simply surrender ourselves to the violence that is to come? Is that the only choice we have? It seems like it is because conservatives have been so successful in getting their way...
that has you conservatives so transfixed that no a... (show quote)

In response to your first question the answer is simple; the 2nd Amendment. Take time to learn the basis for it. The 2nd Amendment wasn’t drafted because rabid chipmunks were acting sassy; it was to stop totalitarian madness.

Reply
Jun 9, 2022 08:01:36   #
melloncolley
 
JR-57 wrote:
In response to your first question the answer is simple; the 2nd Amendment. Take time to learn the basis for it. The 2nd Amendment wasn’t drafted because rabid chipmunks were acting sassy; it was to stop totalitarian madness.


AND the second amendment makes all the rest possible.

Reply
Jun 9, 2022 08:09:18   #
JR-57 Loc: South Carolina
 
melloncolley wrote:
AND the second amendment makes all the rest possible.

Without the 2nd there is no 1st.

Reply
Jun 9, 2022 08:23:38   #
RandyBrian Loc: Texas
 
melloncolley wrote:
AND the second amendment makes all the rest possible.


The Second Amendment. Protecting all our other rights since 1791.

Reply
Jun 9, 2022 14:31:42   #
Big dog
 
RandyBrian wrote:
The Second Amendment. Protecting all our other rights since 1791.


👍👍👍🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸👍👍👍👍👍👍

Reply
Jun 12, 2022 05:39:36   #
PeterS
 
Blade_Runner wrote:
Nothing like exaggerating your fears with a couple tons of hyperbole, right, Peter?

Seriously, do you actually believe that semi-auto firearms are causing a "national carnage"?
You make it sound like everybody and their brother who owns a semi-auto firearm is out there gunning down everything that moves.

Crime, drug abuse, broken families, racist violence, psychosis, you name it, are all symptoms of a diseased society.
You wanna heal a sick society, you must focus on the cause, not the effects.

Do you have any idea how many people have been killed in mass shootings.
Since 1982, the number is 1363. This accounts for all public mass shootings, including schools, in which 5 or more people were killed. It does not account for the high percentage of mass killings resulting from family squabbles or those in which people were only wounded and none killed.

Fact is the number of times firearms of all kinds have been used in self defense far exceeds the number of times one has been used in commission of a crime. GDU research studies have confirmed this.

Based on research by University and Independent criminologists (CPRC for example),
and the research methods used, the number of times per year in which an armed citizen stopped an attack or prevented a crime is between 500,000 and 2.5 million. Even CDC found no reason to question these studies.

Gun related deaths in US are around 40,000 per year and climbing.
54% are suicides, 43% are homicides, and 3% are accidental.
43% of 40,000 is 17,200 murders.

At 52 homicides per 100,000 people, El Salvador has the highest murder rate in the world,
followed closely by Honduras and Venezuela.

At 5.3 homicides per 100,000 people, the United States murder rate is lower than 75 other countries.
.
Nothing like exaggerating your fears with a couple... (show quote)

And you don't think that any of this demonstrates a national carnage? Howmany have to die for it to qualify as carnage? And where are those 75 other countries? Do you honestly think that comparing yourself to third-world countries and worse gives a big thumbs up to having guns in this country? Gosh, we're better than Zambia, give us a big thumbs up!!! You're winning my argument for me Blade. Tell me why even one Uvalde justifies having semi-automatic weapons in this country?

Do you know what my arsenal was at its peak? Single-shot .22, double-barrel 12 gauge, 30-30, .270 Winchester, 30-06 Winchester, .50 Hawkin kit rifle, .50 Hawkin...the real deal.So was I unarmed? I made my own bullets for the Hawkin rifles and reloaded for myself and my brother. Could I have mustered for any militia and still been considered armed? With both the .270 and 30-06 anything under 500 yards would have been dead. And with the proper scope, I probably could have set the 30-06 up for 1000 yards...and that's for a guy who never once had the training that you had.

So don't tell me why an AR-15 is mandatory for your man card? And we all know the only reason you cons want the gun is because you've been sold on the BS that you are going to have to go to war against your government...more specifically a government controlled by Democrats. Isn't that what you always refer to in the Federalist's papers...so you can be prepared to fight tyrants?

You are still sold on the second amendment meaning something other than what it says. The second amendment was written along the lines of the Minute Men who were a well-regulated militia by civilian authorities. But you don't want to be regulated by civilian authorities do you Blade...unless those authorities are more Conservative than you are. That would be okay but not if they were less, nooooo, that wouldn't do at all, would it. That's why the second amendment in the hands of people like you is so dangerous because you don't want it for the reason that it was written. Don't you think, to put down tyrants would be in there if that was the principal intent? Do you think they were such poor wordsmiths that they couldn't have put that in there as one of the clauses?

Why is one Uvalde worth the paranoia that you've been fed all these years?

Reply
Jun 12, 2022 05:40:50   #
PeterS
 
RandyBrian wrote:
The Second Amendment. Protecting all our other rights since 1791.

How? How has the second amendment protected anything but overblown egos in all these years?

Reply
Jun 12, 2022 05:41:23   #
PeterS
 
JR-57 wrote:
Without the 2nd there is no 1st.

Why?

Reply
Jun 12, 2022 05:46:19   #
PeterS
 
Peewee wrote:
Why did LBJ destroy the black families with welfare? The problem is dad's were replaced by a government check. That's on you guys. And you did it on purpose.

That's only because you conservatives would refuse welfare if the father was still at home. You couldn't imagine how a family could have a father working and still need welfare. Don't point your crooked finger at us bubba. You're the ones who caused the damage, not us...

Reply
Jun 12, 2022 06:11:27   #
JR-57 Loc: South Carolina
 
PeterS wrote:
And you don't think that any of this demonstrates a national carnage? Howmany have to die for it to qualify as carnage? And where are those 75 other countries? Do you honestly think that comparing yourself to third-world countries and worse gives a big thumbs up to having guns in this country? Gosh, we're better than Zambia, give us a big thumbs up!!! You're winning my argument for me Blade. Tell me why even one Uvalde justifies having semi-automatic weapons in this country?

Do you know what my arsenal was at its peak? Single-shot .22, double-barrel 12 gauge, 30-30, .270 Winchester, 30-06 Winchester, .50 Hawkin kit rifle, .50 Hawkin...the real deal.So was I unarmed? I made my own bullets for the Hawkin rifles and reloaded for myself and my brother. Could I have mustered for any militia and still been considered armed? With both the .270 and 30-06 anything under 500 yards would have been dead. And with the proper scope, I probably could have set the 30-06 up for 1000 yards...and that's for a guy who never once had the training that you had.

So don't tell me why an AR-15 is mandatory for your man card? And we all know the only reason you cons want the gun is because you've been sold on the BS that you are going to have to go to war against your government...more specifically a government controlled by Democrats. Isn't that what you always refer to in the Federalist's papers...so you can be prepared to fight tyrants?

You are still sold on the second amendment meaning something other than what it says. The second amendment was written along the lines of the Minute Men who were a well-regulated militia by civilian authorities. But you don't want to be regulated by civilian authorities do you Blade...unless those authorities are more Conservative than you are. That would be okay but not if they were less, nooooo, that wouldn't do at all, would it. That's why the second amendment in the hands of people like you is so dangerous because you don't want it for the reason that it was written. Don't you think, to put down tyrants would be in there if that was the principal intent? Do you think they were such poor wordsmiths that they couldn't have put that in there as one of the clauses?

Why is one Uvalde worth the paranoia that you've been fed all these years?
And you don't think that any of this demonstrates ... (show quote)

No need for clauses. The 2nd is written to be short and concise.

I don’t think they were poor wordsmiths at all………

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Stephens Smith, son-in-law of John Adams, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"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 ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."
- Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War" in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

"For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 4 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.