Mass Shooting in Germany

[Denny Crane]

It's sad the way the governments in those countries have assumed absolute power because of the unarmed population.

I can't remember the last time the UK had a meaningful election.

barfo

England has a queen and royal family. Let's make W King for life.

And except for the American Revolution, which occurred after a ban on guns.

 

[Denny Crane]

A little apples/oranges here.

US is just gun homicides, Britain is all homicides. Our gun homicide rate is a fraction of Britain's in 1990 and 2010. Our homicides have fallen from about 1990 on, while Britain only experienced a drop after a massive deployment of new police.

Speaking of police, there are a lot of pictures of British cops like this in Google search results:

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

Bernie wants to ban all guns except hunting?

What a fucking idiot.

Hate that guy even more now.

 

[Bandwagonfansince77]

Yet it is debated.

"Let's debate making W King."

I think I summed up your whole argument in those 5 words. Because we can debate it, the idea has merit.

Calling my argument weak doesn't make it so. It just means you have no better argument.

Otherwise, you have "broken down sentences" written by maris61 and myself and attributed your own straw man meanings to them.

We have laws against murder, yet people kill anyway. Using all sorts of methods. It is the "get rid of guns and you get rid of some murders: argument that we have shown to be downright silly. Absurd on the face of it, not worthy of debate. If the murderer wants to kill, they'll use other means.

Then you argue that nobody should have an AR-15, yet there are millions of them and they're not used to kill people except in the rarest of rare circumstances. What is the point of banning them? There was an assault rifle ban for a decade+ that had zero positive effect except to deny law abiding citizens from owning them. Makes no sense at all to have the ban in the first place. So, "let's debate it" some more? No thanks, I'd rather not debate repeating past mistakes. In fact, "it'll work better this time" rings of "fool me twice."

Women are smaller and weaker than men, for the most part. In an abusive relationship, being stalked, assaulted, or simply having to walk through a dark parking lot alone, if a woman wants a gun for protection, I am the last person that would deny her.

In spite of all the court rulings over 250 years, none have denied the 2nd amendment right to bear arms. It's not really the courts' job to rewrite the law, that is done by amendment or con con. It's only when outright ban was put in place was the court forced to clarify the obvious.

The sawed off shotgun case was the wrong ruling. The lower court favored the 2nd amendment. The Supreme Court heard no argument at all on behalf of the 2nd.

There is much I would like to address with what you write here. I could try another long discourse breaking down every sentence, but it doesn't get through to you and your cohorts. ( I don't say that in a mean way, I'm sure you feel that I don't get your perspective either )

I don't argue that "nobody should have an AR-15". I argued that your "fists and knives" argument didn't prove what you want it to prove. That is all. I wanted to hear an argument that was stronger than the one you proposed, but we got bogged down. Then I tried to get you to tell me what you feel would be your limit, and I get no answer.

You keep attributing to me the desire to take your guns! It's just like you're on auto-pilot and keep spouting the same talking points again and again. You aren't the only one here that does that, but our time is finite and it's not possible to address everyone with the responses they deserve. So apologizes to them if they bother to read this.

I wonder how many times I have to say that I have no problem with the 2nd amendment; that I don't want to do away with it, and that I merely want to know the best arguments you guys that really pay close attention to it have on the subject.

Honestly, I was hoping I wouldn't have to go down the route of trying to find some other forum to join in order to get the opinions of people I thought would be reasonable. I was completely and utterly wrong.

Honestly and seriously, you guys have lost an opportunity to make a case to someone that was giving an open ear to your arguments. Maybe you just don't come across people other than those that think according to an ideology without thinking for themselves. Maybe I shouldn't blame you guys for your attitude towards me. I'm too new and too different ( verbose and acerbic ) and it must be hard to let your guard down and give someone that is moderate the benefit of the doubt.

No need to address any of this with a comment. Just saying my peace as I find my way out the door to find another place to discuss this. Thanks for your time and patience. I mean that.


Cheers

 

[barfo]

Bernie wants to ban all guns except hunting?

What a fucking idiot.

Hate that guy even more now.

I'm not sure you should take Denny's word for it.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm not sure you should take Denny's word for it.

barfo

Right. I dubbed the words over what Sanders was really saying in that YouTube video. Or something.

 

[barfo]

England has a queen and royal family. Let's make W King for life.

I think your argument here is "they aren't exactly like us in every way, so we can't possibly learn anything from them"? Otherwise, I don't see the relevance.

And except for the American Revolution, which occurred after a ban on guns.

And which was successful, despite the gun ban? Are you arguing against yourself here?

barfo

 

[barfo]

Right. I dubbed the words over what Sanders was really saying in that YouTube video. Or something.

Or you found one video, where Sanders appeared to say that, and presented it as fact. It's just like Obama believes there are 57 states, because after all, he once said 'all 57 states'.

Sadly, that's the only time Sanders has ever talked about guns, so we have to assume that one sentence is his position. Right?

barfo

 

[MarAzul]

Bernie Sanders argues we should ban all guns not suitable for hunting.

Bernie wants to ban all guns except hunting?

What a fucking idiot.

Hate that guy even more now.

Aw! I'm cool with this! As long as I get to define what I may want to hunt and arm accordingly.

 

[Denny Crane]

There is much I would like to address with what you write here. I could try another long discourse breaking down every sentence, but it doesn't get through to you and your cohorts. ( I don't say that in a mean way, I'm sure you feel that I don't get your perspective either )

I don't argue that "nobody should have an AR-15". I argued that your "fists and knives" argument didn't prove what you want it to prove. That is all. I wanted to hear an argument that was stronger than the one you proposed, but we got bogged down. Then I tried to get you to tell me what you feel would be your limit, and I get no answer.

You keep attributing to me the desire to take your guns! It's just like you're on auto-pilot and keep spouting the same talking points again and again. You aren't the only one here that does that, but our time is finite and it's not possible to address everyone with the responses they deserve. So apologizes to them if they bother to read this.

I wonder how many times I have to say that I have no problem with the 2nd amendment; that I don't want to do away with it, and that I merely want to know the best arguments you guys that really pay close attention to it have on the subject.

Honestly, I was hoping I wouldn't have to go down the route of trying to find some other forum to join in order to get the opinions of people I thought would be reasonable. I was completely and utterly wrong.

Honestly and seriously, you guys have lost an opportunity to make a case to someone that was giving an open ear to your arguments. Maybe you just don't come across people other than those that think according to an ideology without thinking for themselves. Maybe I shouldn't blame you guys for your attitude towards me. I'm too new and too different ( verbose and acerbic ) and it must be hard to let your guard down and give someone that is moderate the benefit of the doubt.

No need to address any of this with a comment. Just saying my peace as I find my way out the door to find another place to discuss this. Thanks for your time and patience. I mean that.


Cheers

Fists and knives proved all it needed to. People kill, no matter what we legislate. Legislate against WMDs and those who desire to will turn a pressure cooker and ball bearings into a WMD. You cannot put a ridiculous number of restrictions on Liberty and remain free.

The whole car thing is in response to the fallacy that if banning weapons saves a few lives, it's worth it. Why limit that reasoning to guns?

What is obvious is that the intent is to ban guns. I posted a video of Sanders and Clinton saying so, and gave you a quote from an Obama speech where they outright said so. Couched in terminology like reasonable gun control laws, they suggest banning guns outright. And suckers buy it.

Aside from the obvious is how rights are eroded. They want a mile but are willing to take it an inch at a time. Anything given up along those lines is no victory for the masses, only for those who love government, want to be a part of it, or otherwise are sycophants.

 

[Denny Crane]

Or you found one video, where Sanders appeared to say that, and presented it as fact. It's just like Obama believes there are 57 states, because after all, he once said 'all 57 states'.

Sadly, that's the only time Sanders has ever talked about guns, so we have to assume that one sentence is his position. Right?

barfo

He said what he said. Two minutes of context, too.

It's undeniable, yet here you are denying it.

lOL.

 

[Denny Crane]

I think your argument here is "they aren't exactly like us in every way, so we can't possibly learn anything from them"? Otherwise, I don't see the relevance.



And which was successful, despite the gun ban? Are you arguing against yourself here?

barfo

You're the one that said that Britain had success with gun bans. I don't think they consider losing their colonies to be a success. You seem to for some strange reason.

 

[Denny Crane]

Or you found one video, where Sanders appeared to say that, and presented it as fact. It's just like Obama believes there are 57 states, because after all, he once said 'all 57 states'.

Sadly, that's the only time Sanders has ever talked about guns, so we have to assume that one sentence is his position. Right?

barfo

“Nobody should have a gun who has a criminal background, who’s involved in domestic abuse situations. People should not have guns who are going to hurt other people, who are unstable. And second of all I believe that we need to make sure that certain types of guns used to kill people, exclusively, not for hunting, they should not be sold in the United States of America, and we have a huge loophole now with gun shows that should be eliminated.”

Clear as the point on your head.

 

[barfo]

Fists and knives proved all it needed to. People kill, no matter what we legislate. Legislate against WMDs and those who desire to will turn a pressure cooker and ball bearings into a WMD. You cannot put a ridiculous number of restrictions on Liberty and remain free.

The whole car thing is in response to the fallacy that if banning weapons saves a few lives, it's worth it. Why limit that reasoning to guns?

What is obvious is that the intent is to ban guns. I posted a video of Sanders and Clinton saying so, and gave you a quote from an Obama speech where they outright said so. Couched in terminology like reasonable gun control laws, they suggest banning guns outright. And suckers buy it.

Aside from the obvious is how rights are eroded. They want a mile but are willing to take it an inch at a time. Anything given up along those lines is no victory for the masses, only for those who love government, want to be a part of it, or otherwise are sycophants.

That's right! Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! Never give an inch!

Fuck common sense and moderation.

It’s a good first step toward an understanding of why, more than a half-century after Goldwater’s failed campaign, an attraction to extremes and a disdain for moderation has left libertarianism languishing at the margins of American political life.

barfo

 

[JfizzleBlazer]

People wanting to ban guns are idiots.

With guns, bad guys have to wonder if some random stranger has a gun. If they are banned, he will still be able to get a gun and might not be as scared.

Crazy people can make bombs. I knew kids in high school that made bombs and would take them to fields to set them off. Dont think people will make bombs if they wanna kill large groups of people? Then youre an idiot.

One on one murders can still happen with knives, suffocation, whatever.

You want to make it harder to get guns? Fine. But having purchased one myself a couple years ago. It took them hours to perform a background check that i had to stand around for. Did i have an issue in doing so? No. But its not like background checks arent happening. And even if they didnt pass them, they still can get weapons on the black market.

 

[barfo]

“Nobody should have a gun who has a criminal background, who’s involved in domestic abuse situations. People should not have guns who are going to hurt other people, who are unstable. And second of all I believe that we need to make sure that certain types of guns used to kill people, exclusively, not for hunting, they should not be sold in the United States of America, and we have a huge loophole now with gun shows that should be eliminated.”

Clear as the point on your head.

Sometimes people use shorthand. He's been pretty clear in multiple other statements that the 'certain types' of guns he wants to ban is assault weapons.

But do go ahead and tell us how Obama believes there are 57 states. That's always good fun.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

That's right! Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! Never give an inch!

Fuck common sense and moderation.



barfo

Fuck giving away Liberty one step at a time. Your "moderation" is bullshit.

 

[Denny Crane]

Sometimes people use shorthand. He's been pretty clear in multiple other statements that the 'certain types' of guns he wants to ban is assault weapons.

But do go ahead and tell us how Obama believes there are 57 states. That's always good fun.

barfo

57 states just means he's prone to malapropism. Dan Quayle couldn't have said it better.

A handgun is designed to kill people and shoot targets, not hunting.

There are no assault rifles made anymore. He said nothing about self defense.

You have to do more of this code translation for me.

 

[MarAzul]

Fuck giving away Liberty one step at a time. Your "moderation" is bullshit.

I 100% agree. ^^^

My joke earlier about being cool with it was in jest. The 2nd amendment needs no fixing. It works just fine There is no universal common sense change to discuss.

If there is a change to be made, it should be training for every person in self protection including the use of weapons. Fear of weapons is a large problem in this country and the weasle politician of the left exploit the fear. Perhaps during this training, we identify those that will not pass a background check.

I take it to heart that every person has the right to defend them self using the best means possible. There are not many reason to strip a woman of the right to protect herself from would be attackers. The small caliber hand guns and small caliber rifle like the .223 are ideal for a small female. Banning those would be totally misguided in my view.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Hawaii becomes first U.S. state to place gun owners on FBI database

Hawaii's governor signed a bill making it the first state to place its residents who own firearms in a federal criminal record database and monitor them for possible wrongdoing anywhere in the country, his office said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-hawaii-gun-law-idUSKCN0ZA3IP

:MARIS61: :MARIS61: :MARIS61: :MARIS61: :MARIS61: :MARIS61: :MARIS61: :MARIS61: :MARIS61: :MARIS61: :MARIS61: :MARIS61:

 

[barfo]

Fuck giving away Liberty one step at a time. Your "moderation" is bullshit.

Compromise is inevitable in society - you can either participate in the process or you can be an extremist and be marginalized.

For some reason, Libertarians prefer to be marginalized.

There's nothing really wrong with Libertarianism other than the Libertarians.

barfo

 

[barfo]

57 states just means he's prone to malapropism.

No, it doesn't mean that. 57 states isn't a malaprop.

A handgun is designed to kill people and shoot targets, not hunting.

There are no assault rifles made anymore. He said nothing about self defense.

You have to do more of this code translation for me.

It's not code translation. It's context. I agree he said what you think he said. However, there's ample evidence that he didn't mean it exactly the way it came out of his mouth on that one occasion.

But whatever. Go ahead and believe big bad Bernie is coming for your guns if that makes you happy.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Compromise is inevitable in society - you can either participate in the process or you can be an extremist and be marginalized.

For some reason, Libertarians prefer to be marginalized.

There's nothing really wrong with Libertarianism other than the Libertarians.

barfo

Compromise is done by amending the constitution.

If (and since) you can't muster the votes to do that, it's not going to happen. It sucks to be you.

 

[Denny Crane]

No, it doesn't mean that. 57 states isn't a malaprop.



It's not code translation. It's context. I agree he said what you think he said. However, there's ample evidence that he didn't mean it exactly the way it came out of his mouth on that one occasion.

But whatever. Go ahead and believe big bad Bernie is coming for your guns if that makes you happy.

barfo

No, it's secret code only you understand. Anyone else who heard it understood it as he said it.

 

[Denny Crane]

No, it doesn't mean that. 57 states isn't a malaprop.



It's not code translation. It's context. I agree he said what you think he said. However, there's ample evidence that he didn't mean it exactly the way it came out of his mouth on that one occasion.

But whatever. Go ahead and believe big bad Bernie is coming for your guns if that makes you happy.

barfo

57 states is a malaprop.

Geez. You're wrong on this, too.

 

[Denny Crane]

5th grade history.

http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/explaining-bill-rights

When the delegates sought to have the new Constitution ratified, they faced a similar problem. They thought everyone knew what individual rights were, so they did not define them in the Constitution. However, the lack of specific guarantees of personal liberty was one of the main reasons why a number of states were reluctant to accept the Constitution.

Objections to the Constitution
In order to approve the new Constitution, voters were to elect representatives to special state conventions. In New York, Virginia, and Massachusetts, the people and their representatives were strongly opposed to the Constitution. They were called the "Antifederalists." The Antifederalists included such patriots as Patrick Henry, the Virginia orator; Sam Adams, the Massachusetts agitator; George Mason, who had written much of the Virginian Constitution; and Richard Henry Lee, who had served as Virginia's delegate to the Continental Congress.

The Antifederalists argued that the states would be absorbed into an all-too-powerful national government. They claimed that the limits on direct voting and the long terms of the president and senators would create an aristocratic class. They also feared that the president might become another monarch. In other words, these Antifederalists felt that the new Constitution was most undemocratic.

Their major objection to the new Constitution was its lack of a bill of rights. "Bills of rights" list the specific freedoms that governments cannot threaten or take away. When the Constitution was being written, many state constitutions already had bills of rights. For that reason, the authors of the Constitution did not feel it was necessary to have another one. The antifederalists believed that without a list of personal freedoms, the new national government might abuse its powers. They worried that it would destroy the liberties won in the Revolution.

...

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments: Reserved Powers
The last two amendments address the liberties of citizens and the rights of states. The Ninth Amendment states that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights do not define all of the fundamental rights people have. Such rights exist whether or not they are defined. The Tenth Amendment makes a similar claim concerning the rights of the states. It holds that the states and the people have powers that are set aside and not listed item by item. These powers are called "reserved powers." They can be contrasted with "express powers," which are specifically defined in the Constitution.

In this way the Constitution allows for growth and change.

-------

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.

-- Associate Justice Joseph Story, appointed by James Madison, served 1812-1845, on the 2nd amendment

 

[jlprk]

Aw, stick your gun up your ass.

 

[MarAzul]

Well the right to bear arms will never be conceded or abandon. It seems every point in the Constitution is a point of contention these days. The Federalist and the Democrats of that day battled long and hard, but they did come to the
common ground, the Constitution we see with few amendments since. Now how did we arrive at a place where we can not begin from the common place handed to all of us, along with a diaper. We can not even agree what the meaning of words used are, like "infringed". A well documented procedure exists to amend the Constitution but those would like a change, never offer an amendment. They prefer to ignore the process, change the definition of a word, ignore a word,
or offer a new common sense (non sense) understanding.

How did we arrive at a place where we can not begin with the common understanding we all were handed when we arrived? Does anyone else see this as bazaar? Is it the education system?

Did anyone ever read the baloney in the Roe vs Wade decision? Was there ever an amendment offered to make a woman's choice a right? I don't recall it, but I would support it.
I hate the idea of killing the child (yes right word) but the idea of forcing a woman to raise a child she does not want is even worse. More feral children is worse yet.

 

[Natebishop3]

Well the right to bear arm will never be conceded or abandon. It seems every point in the Constitution is a point of contention these days. The Federalist and the Democrats of that day battle long and hard, but they did come to the
common ground, the Constitution we see with few amendments since. Now how did we arrive at a place where we can not begin from the common place handed to all of us, along with a diaper. We can not even agree what the meaning of words used are, like "infringed". A well documented procedure exists to amend the Constitution but those would like a change, never offer an amendment. They prefer to ignore the process, change the definition of a word, ignore a word,
or offer a new common sense (non sense) understanding.

How did we arrive at a place where we can not begin with the common understanding we all were handed when we arrived? Does anyone else see this as bazaar? Is it the education system?

Because Liberals live in a Utopian world where everyone is going to get along, and we should feed everybody, and cloth everybody, and provide everyone a home and healthcare and a stipend to live off of.

They want their iphones and their starbucks and their Prius, but they don't want to acknowledge how those things are made, what they're made of, and where those resources come from. America is the clueless rich people living upstairs while China, and India, and Mexico are doing all the polluting and manufacturing downstairs. Out of sight, out of mind. We just want everything made for us and we don't care how it came to be. We are the Downton Abbey of the global economy.

 

[barfo]

Does anyone else see this as bazaar? Is it the education system?

It's the marketplace of ideas, I guess. Shop there sometime, there have been some new ones introduced since you and the founding fathers got together.

barfo