I think the democratic party is racist

[actsnoblemartin]

because they are against allowing poor people, especially minorities to have the right to defend themselves with a fire-arm which also violates the constitution.

and why do they do it?

so minorities and the poor rely on the government, the more problems, the more government, the more government the more problems

[Psychoblues]

You don't extrapolate well, do you, marty?



because they are against allowing poor people, especially minorities to have the right to defend themselves with a fire-arm which also violates the constitution.

and why do they do it?

so minorities and the poor rely on the government, the more problems, the more government, the more government the more problems

Poverty plus guns equals anarchy. You of all here should be very afraid of that particular circumstance.

But, I know you were just kidding about the Democrats and all that. Your reading skills are about as deficient as your extrapolation abilities aren't they, marty?

[Hagbard Celine]

because they are against allowing poor people, especially minorities to have the right to defend themselves with a fire-arm which also violates the constitution.

and why do they do it?

so minorities and the poor rely on the government, the more problems, the more government, the more government the more problems

And this is based on what? Are you trying to decipher your tea leaves again Martin?

[Yurt]

http://www.billfulton.com/bfenterprises/mediafiles/confusion.bmp

[actsnoblemartin]

hey psychie :coffee:


You don't extrapolate well, do you, marty?

no, i elaborate fine thank you

big government + poor people = dependency


Poverty plus guns equals anarchy.


that is bullshit, are you saying that all people, living in the ghetto, barrio's, urban areas, which are mostly poor and mostly not white, are criminals and non-law abiding citizens? Yeah, that makes sense :laugh2:


You of all here should be very afraid of that particular circumstance.

im afraid of criminals with guns, and people in poor neighborhoods not being allowed to defend themselves, i guess only rich whites should be able to defend themselves, even when they live in better neighborhoods then poor non-white neighborhoods

But, I know you were just kidding about the Democrats and all that.

No, im not, I think the democratic party is very racist, or maybe you havent heard the racial slurs used against non white conservatives, or maybe you just have your head up your ass

Your reading skills are about as deficient as your extrapolation abilities aren't they, marty?

and your about as polite as a polar bear when its hungry :laugh2:

[Psychoblues]

And you're the one that wants to somehow accuse Democrats as racist. You make any person of even average intelligence sick from your innuendos, marty. Take all your non white shit and stick it back up your ass, OK?

[Hobbit]

Your angle's all wrong. What makes the Democrats racist is the fact that they are of the belief that only rich, white people and some Asians are capable of succeeding in the real world without the help of the government.

[Psychoblues]

You said that, hibbit, exposing your own racist attitudes and propensity.


Your angle's all wrong. What makes the Democrats racist is the fact that they are of the belief that only rich, white people and some Asians are capable of succeeding in the real world without the help of the government.

I know of no Democrat that espouses such or would even tolerate such from anyone. Can you name one, and please quote them, OK?

[Yurt]

You said that, hibbit, exposing your own racist attitudes and propensity.



I know of no Democrat that espouses such or would even tolerate such from anyone. Can you name one, and please quote them, OK?

thats your party platform. you know, affirmative action, stuff like that...calling republicans a racist party when it is republicans who have had more high powered people in government positions than dems...more republicans passed the civil rights act than dems...

[Noir]

Well it seems very specious argument to me, how you've been able to string this al together is beond me, but i shall adress it non the less.


im afraid of criminals with guns, and people in poor neighborhoods not being allowed to defend themselves, i guess only rich whites should be able to defend themselves, even when they live in better neighborhoods then poor non-white neighborhoods

Poor people not being able to protect themselves from who?
They won't have to protect themselves from other poor people (cus they won't have guns either)
And they won't have to protect themselves from rich people, cus what sort of 'rich person' is going to want to hold up a poor person? Just seems illogical.

Also as for the whole "I think the democratic party is very racist" this is an obvious attempt at a mix of wit and irony which has fallen flat on its face, it lulls users into the topic only for them to be disapointed, so much so it almost made me cringe when i read your post.

[midcan5]

because they are against allowing poor people, especially minorities to have the right to defend themselves with a fire-arm which also violates the constitution.

and why do they do it?

so minorities and the poor rely on the government, the more problems, the more government, the more government the more problems


"*The leading cause of death among black youth is homicide. A 1991 report from the National Center for Health Statistics found that 48 percent of black males between 15 and 19 who died were shot, while the figure for white males was just 18 percent.

*For black men in Harlem, life expectancy is shorter than that for men in Bangladesh; nationally, black men aged 15 to 29 die at a higher rate than any other age group except those 85 and older."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE4DE143EF932A15757C0A9649582 60

[bullypulpit]

You don't extrapolate well, do you, marty?




Poverty plus guns equals anarchy. You of all here should be very afraid of that particular circumstance.

But, I know you were just kidding about the Democrats and all that. Your reading skills are about as deficient as your extrapolation abilities aren't they, marty?

Indeed, we need look no further than Iraq...Lots of loose guns...Lots of people out of work, especially ex-military who were sacked by Proconsul Bremer...Lots of violence.

[actsnoblemartin]

And you're the one that wants to somehow accuse Democrats as racist. You make any person of even average intelligence sick from your innuendos, marty. Take all your non white shit and stick it back up your ass, OK?

angry :laugh2:

[actsnoblemartin]

thats your party platform. you know, affirmative action, stuff like that...calling republicans a racist party when it is republicans who have had more high powered people in government positions than dems...more republicans passed the civil rights act than dems...

I couldnt have said it any better myself :clap:

[actsnoblemartin]

Well it seems very specious argument to me, how you've been able to string this al together is beond me, but i shall adress it non the less.



Poor people not being able to protect themselves from who?

criminals, who have easy access to guns, while they in cities like d.c. until now, were not allowed to defend themselves and their families with a fire arm


They won't have to protect themselves from other poor people (cus they won't have guns either)

Oh, yeah criminals dont exist in poorer neighborhoods, what you just said is not true.

And they won't have to protect themselves from rich people, cus what sort of 'rich person' is going to want to hold up a poor person? Just seems illogical.


rich neighborhoods have better security, higher standards of living, and they are not immune from crime, but rich neigborhoods can afford to take steps to protect themselves more then poor people with less money.

Also as for the whole "I think the democratic party is very racist" this is an obvious attempt at a mix of wit and irony which has fallen flat on its face, it lulls users into the topic only for them to be disapointed, so much so it almost made me cringe when i read your post.

Explain to me, why democrats dont want to allow law abiding american, especially though in poorer neighborhoods to defend themselves, how can they live in the illusion that not allowing law abiding american to own firearms will save them from criminals who have easy access to firearms.

Just another example of how dems want americans to be dependent on them, and more big government.

[Noir]

Explain to me, why democrats dont want to allow law abiding american, especially though in poorer neighborhoods to defend themselves, how can they live in the illusion that not allowing law abiding american to own firearms will save them from criminals who have easy access to firearms.


Because more guns=more gun deaths. Simple as.
Strict gun control and strict punishments is what is needed, personaly i think that anyone in the UK caught carrying a firearm should get 3 years in prison (as a min), period.

[Hagbard Celine]

Because more guns=more gun deaths. Simple as.
Strict gun control and strict punishments is what is needed, personaly i think that anyone in the UK caught carrying a firearm should get 3 years in prison (as a min), period.

That's way too harsh. A firearm is a tool--pure and simple. It's not a card that says "I intend on breaking the law." I know it's illegal in the UK to have them, but three years in prison is way too harsh. If it's against the law, they should be fined and that should be the end of it.

[glockmail]

Because more guns=more gun deaths. Simple as.
Strict gun control and strict punishments is what is needed, personaly i think that anyone in the UK caught carrying a firearm should get 3 years in prison (as a min), period. Freedom doesn't come cheap. It has risks. I'll cling to my guns before I give up my freedom.

[Noir]

That's way too harsh. A firearm is a tool--pure and simple. It's not a card that says "I intend on breaking the law." I know it's illegal in the UK to have them, but three years in prison is way too harsh. If it's against the law, they should be fined and that should be the end of it.

A tool? a tool for what?
A fire arm is only a tool for shooting, what does a person need a pistol for? I know it sounds damn harsh, but there is no need to have one, no good can come from having them. Therefore if yuo are caught in the streets in possession of a firearm then its a standard 3 year jail term, the harsh message will quickly get through to those stupid enough to think it is acceptable to walk around the streets with a weapon.


Freedom doesn't come cheap. It has risks. I'll cling to my guns before I give up my freedom.

Yeah well american "freedom" is causing thousands of needless deaths every year, but surly thats worth it so you can have a gun in your house, right?

[glockmail]

...Yeah well american "freedom" is causing thousands of needless deaths every year, but surly thats worth it so you can have a gun in your house, right? Yes it is.

[Hagbard Celine]

A tool? a tool for what?
A fire arm is only a tool for shooting, what does a person need a pistol for? I know it sounds damn harsh, but there is no need to have one, no good can come from having them. Therefore if yuo are caught in the streets in possession of a firearm then its a standard 3 year jail term, the harsh message will quickly get through to those stupid enough to think it is acceptable to walk around the streets with a weapon.

It's a tool for hunting game and it's a tool for protection. The butt can also be used as a tool for bashing the heads of tools. :poke:

Three years is too harsh. Any time in jail is too harsh just for having an item on your person. A real crime needs to be committed for there to be jail time imo.

[Abbey Marie]

It's a tool for hunting game and it's a tool for protection. The butt can also be used as a tool for bashing the heads of tools. :poke:
...


:laugh2:

[hjmick]

Hag, Glock, are you two seriously arguing the merits of the Second with a teenager from the U.K.? A country whose gun control laws are far more strict than those of California? A country where it essentially illegal to own a handgun and where it's getting increasingly more difficult to own a shotgun or rifle. A country where a young fellow like Noir has probably never seen an actual gun unless it was on television.

His point of view comes from the perspective of "never had, not allowed, government doesn't trust us." It's easy to advocate stripping others of rights you've never had.

Okay...my turn...


A tool? a tool for what?
A fire arm is only a tool for shooting, what does a person need a pistol for? I know it sounds damn harsh, but there is no need to have one, no good can come from having them. Therefore if yuo are caught in the streets in possession of a firearm then its a standard 3 year jail term, the harsh message will quickly get through to those stupid enough to think it is acceptable to walk around the streets with a weapon.

Yes, a tool. A tool for shooting. A tool for shooting game for food. A tool for protecting one's personal property. A tool for protecting one's rights. A tool for protecting the populace from criminals. What good can come from having a gun? While I'm away, my wife can protect herself if someone breaks into our house and attempts to do her harm. I can protect my wife and myself should it happen. As a rule, unless a person has a CCW permit, the only people carrying a gun on the streets are criminals, and guess what? They are going to do that regardless of what the laws may be. They are criminals. The only thing you've done by restricting ownership of guns is to disarm the law abiding.

You've completely ignored the competition aspect of guns. Shooting is also a sport of sorts. That's right, it's a recreation for thousands in this country.



Yeah well american "freedom" is causing thousands of needless deaths every year, but surly thats worth it so you can have a gun in your house, right?

The majority of those "thousands of deaths" you contemptuously refer to are committed by criminals. More often that not, they are criminal on criminal assaults. Yes, there are some tragic accidents that occur, and almost all of those are the result of irresponsible gun owners. Until you find a way to outlaw stupidity, there's not much you can do about that. Surely you would not punish millions for the actions of a few, or would you?

In the end, I have to say yes, as regrettable and tragic as some of the deaths you hear about are, they are very much worth it so I can have a gun in my house.

Fear the government that fears your gun.

[Hagbard Celine]

Doing it on skis is an Olympic sport.

[Noir]

Hag, Glock, are you two seriously arguing the merits of the Second with a teenager from the U.K.? A country whose gun control laws are far more strict than those of California? A country where it essentially illegal to own a handgun and where it's getting increasingly more difficult to own a shotgun or rifle. A country where a young fellow like Noir has probably never seen an actual gun unless it was on television.

Not really part of the debate but just as a side note; During my dads last few years in the army i'd go to work with him and loved spending time in the weapons store and have seen many weapons in my time. But i digress


His point of view comes from the perspective of "never had, not allowed, government doesn't trust us." It's easy to advocate stripping others of rights you've never had.

I don't care if the goverment trust me or not, what i care about is if i trust the people, and i definitely don't. I've had some trouble with scumbags at the top of my street, but in the end i know that the very worst they can do is stab me, inwhich case i have a resonable chance of stopping them or being able to run away, now what if Guns were legal to buy in the UK? Anyone of them could walk into a shop, buy a gun and ammo, and then what can i do? They can threaten with it, spread fear with it, and possibly use it. You don't ahve much chance of fighting of or out running a bullet.

I know it may be laughed at, but i would feel seriously threated if i knew half the people where i live could legally own a gun.



Yes, a tool. A tool for shooting. A tool for shooting game for food.

Yeah you can use hunting rifles in the UK too, but you have to go through a set of strict checks to make sure that not just any nutter can get there hands on a rifle, but means that those who wish to hunt legitamitly can do


A tool for protecting one's personal property. A tool for protecting one's rights. A tool for protecting the populace from criminals.

Yeah, protecting you from the criminals who find it all to easy to get their hands on guns to help their criminal asperations.



What good can come from having a gun? While I'm away, my wife can protect herself if someone breaks into our house and attempts to do her harm. Quote]

Yeah, and if someone breaks into the house they will likly have a gun, however here in the UK a common thief is far far less likly to have a gun, so we keep a riot batton in the house, if anyone breaks in you can protect yourslef with that, and when you know the worse they'll have is a knife you can be quiet confident.

[QUOTE=hjmick;266674]I can protect my wife and myself should it happen. As a rule, unless a person has a CCW permit, the only people carrying a gun on the streets are criminals, and guess what? They are going to do that regardless of what the laws may be. They are criminals. The only thing you've done by restricting ownership of guns is to disarm the law abiding.

That's why you remove CCW permits and impose and instant 3 year sentance to anyone caught with a gun. I'm sure it wouldn't take long for the message to get through once truckloads of these illegal gun owners are sent down.


You've completely ignored the competition aspect of guns. Shooting is also a sport of sorts. That's right, it's a recreation for thousands in this country.
I had ignored it up until this post, however i have now adress this point at the start of this post



The majority of those "thousands of deaths" you contemptuously refer to are committed by criminals. More often that not, they are criminal on criminal assaults. Yes, there are some tragic accidents that occur, and almost all of those are the result of irresponsible gun owners. Until you find a way to outlaw stupidity, there's not much you can do about that. Surely you would not punish millions for the actions of a few, or would you?

And becuase they are criminal on criminal assults its ok? they are needless deaths that could be avoided, and strict gun control would reduce the number of deaths. period



Fear the government that fears your gun.

Fear the scumbags at the bottem of the street that can legaly buy guns.

[gabosaurus]

http://i28.tinypic.com/eikxkz.jpg

[hjmick]

Not really part of the debate but just as a side note; During my dads last few years in the army i'd go to work with him and loved spending time in the weapons store and have seen many weapons in my time. But i digress

Then for my specious comment, I issue to you an apology.


I don't care if the goverment trust me or not, what i care about is if i trust the people, and i definitely don't. I've had some trouble with scumbags at the top of my street, but in the end i know that the very worst they can do is stab me, inwhich case i have a resonable chance of stopping them or being able to run away, now what if Guns were legal to buy in the UK? Anyone of them could walk into a shop, buy a gun and ammo, and then what can i do? They can threaten with it, spread fear with it, and possibly use it. You don't ahve much chance of fighting of or out running a bullet.

Wasn't there recently a fatal stabbing of a minor movie star in the U.K.? I believe the actor in question had appeared in the Harry Potter movies. The point is, any criminal wishing to do serious harm will find a way. Despite the lack of availability in the U.K., I imagine that any serious criminal who wanted one could easily purchase a gun on the black market.


I know it may be laughed at, but i would feel seriously threated if i knew half the people where i live could legally own a gun.

It's not the people who legally own a gun that should worry you, it's the ones who purchase them illegally.


Yeah you can use hunting rifles in the UK too, but you have to go through a set of strict checks to make sure that not just any nutter can get there hands on a rifle, but means that those who wish to hunt legitamitly can do

While the system of checks in the U.S. may not be as stringent as those in the U.K., we do have some in place. For the most part, they work. I for one am not opposed to strengthening the system, allowing for more thorough background checks including mental health histories, I am simply opposed to an all out ban on the individuals right to own a firearm.


Yeah, protecting you from the criminals who find it all to easy to get their hands on guns to help their criminal asperations.

They don't buy them legally and my having one somewhat evens the playing field, does it not?


Yeah, and if someone breaks into the house they will likly have a gun, however here in the UK a common thief is far far less likly to have a gun, so we keep a riot batton in the house, if anyone breaks in you can protect yourslef with that, and when you know the worse they'll have is a knife you can be quiet confident.[quote]

While this may be true, I still feel more safe with my 12 gauge.

[quote]That's why you remove CCW permits and impose and instant 3 year sentance to anyone caught with a gun. I'm sure it wouldn't take long for the message to get through once truckloads of these illegal gun owners are sent down.

The problem is, the illegal gun owners do not have nor can they obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Hell, in California I probably couldn't get one. This does not matter to them, they will carry regardless of the laws. When their three years is up, they will carry again.



And becuase they are criminal on criminal assults its ok? they are needless deaths that could be avoided, and strict gun control would reduce the number of deaths. period

As callous as it may sound, yeah, I am pretty much okay with one criminal killing another criminal. Better that than some bystander who just happens by. Strict gun control would only mean the bad guys would find some other way to kill each other.


Fear the scumbags at the bottem of the street that can legaly buy guns.

I have noticed a common refrain in your posts and that is, you seem to think that anyone can legally buy a gun in the U.S. This is not the case. If a person has a criminal record they can not legally buy a gun. In most cases they obtain them by purchasing them off of the street. In some cases they steal them. But rest assured, if a criminal wants one, he or she will find a way to get one.

With the loss of the right to bear arms, you are nothing more than a slave who can be killed at will by those who have the weapons, be they gangsters or agents of the state.

[Yurt]

hjmick;266793]


It's not the people who legally own a gun that should worry you, it's the ones who purchase them illegally.

absolutely.



With the loss of the right to bear arms, you are nothing more than a slave who can be killed at will by those who have the weapons, be they gangsters or agents of the state.

:clap: this is why the founders created the 2nd amendment.

[glockmail]

Hag, Glock, are you two seriously arguing the merits of the Second with a teenager from the U.K.? .... Sure why not? The mere question he asked 'is freedom worth it' shows how Europeans don't, and will likely never, understand Americans.

[Abbey Marie]

Sure why not? The mere question he asked 'is freedom worth it' shows how Europeans don't, and will likely never, understand Americans.

Did he really say that? Sheesh.

[glockmail]

Did he really say that? Sheesh. That he did:


....Yeah well american "freedom" is causing thousands of needless deaths every year, but surly thats worth it so you can have a gun in your house, right?

[Noir]

Sure why not? The mere question he asked 'is freedom worth it' shows how Europeans don't, and will likely never, understand Americans.




Did he really say that? Sheesh.



That he did:



....Yeah well american "freedom" is causing thousands of needless deaths every year, but surly thats worth it so you can have a gun in your house, right?

Wow, hold the bus, you guys really know how to twist things. I was not asking 'is freedom worth it' if you look closely you'll see i said 'Is "freedom" worth it' which is a completly differnet question, so please re-read, if you don't get the difference i will happily explain though i assume that you were deliberatly mis-understanding me glock.

Also my apoligies hjmick,i will reply in another post but my girlfriend wants to go shoe shopping and i can't get anymore time on the comp (bloody women :p)

[glockmail]

Wow, hold the bus, you guys really know how to twist things. I was not asking 'is freedom worth it' if you look closely you'll see i said 'Is "freedom" worth it' which is a completly differnet question, so please re-read, if you don't get the difference i will happily explain though i assume that you were deliberatly mis-understanding me glock.

Also my apoligies hjmick,i will reply in another post but my girlfriend wants to go shoe shopping and i can't get anymore time on the comp (bloody women :p)
Please clue me in on how "is freedom worth it" different from "is freedom worth it".

[emmett]

You said that, hibbit, exposing your own racist attitudes and propensity.



I know of no Democrat that espouses such or would even tolerate such from anyone. Can you name one, and please quote them, OK?

I got you this time Psycho. You asked so here you go!

Ah..........George Wallace! Which quote do you want.


End of that debate. Not even you would amke yourself look bad by trying to say that he did not do exactly what you claim NO DEMOCRAT has ever done.

If you want a backup, try Lester Maddox.

Maybe Louis Faraconnman.

Nah, I'll just stick with george for my answer!

[Noir]

Please clue me in on how "is freedom worth it" different from "is freedom worth it".

Again you have not understood, the 2 statements were (a)'is freedom worth it' and (b)'is "freedom" worth it'

You are saying that i was asking 'is freedom worth it'.

When my post says 'Is "freedom" worth it' freedom in "" this refers to not true 'freedom' (as you are suggesting i am) but freedom as you see it, to a point it is almost sarcastic.

I must sasy it is rather difficult to explain, but in my past few years of debating through the internet i have never had to explain such simple debating techniques before, so either you are deliberatly misunderstanding me and misrepresenting my position or you are naive to simple debating techniques, i'll leave it up to you to suggest which is true.

[Noir]

Then for my specious comment, I issue to you an apology.
No worries.


Wasn't there recently a fatal stabbing of a minor movie star in the U.K.? I believe the actor in question had appeared in the Harry Potter movies. The point is, any criminal wishing to do serious harm will find a way. Despite the lack of availability in the U.K., I imagine that any serious criminal who wanted one could easily purchase a gun on the black market.

Yep, we have stabbings every now and then, which is why we currently ahve a huge crack down on those carrying knives, and the problem is simple. Youths are feeling unsafe, so they are carrying knives to feel safe, but the more knives tat are being carried the more deaths by stabbings there are. And What our solution? to convince young people not to carry knives. Compare this in amerca were people want guns to stay safe, and due to the huge number of guns their are vast numbers of deaths by guns, and what do pro-gun rights folk want? More guns for to 'stay safe' which is totally false logic.




It's not the people who legally own a gun that should worry you, it's the ones who purchase them illegally.
But in (most) amercian states you do not need to buy the guns illegally because they are so easy to buy. I mean (continuing the idea of guys down my street) they're 18, known in the area as scumbags but with no crimal convictions, would they be able to buy a gun in your state?




While the system of checks in the U.S. may not be as stringent as those in the U.K., we do have some in place. For the most part, they work. I for one am not opposed to strengthening the system, allowing for more thorough background checks including mental health histories, I am simply opposed to an all out ban on the individuals right to own a firearm.

How do you know they 'work' as such, can you give examples of were they work? what is to stop a student who seems sound, walking into a gun store, buying some guns and go and shoot up some class mates?




They don't buy them legally and my having one somewhat evens the playing field, does it not?
Ofocourse there is always going to be a blackmarket, but the chance of someone breaking into you house with a gun is much much lower, and ofcourse you can have a knife or a baseball bat in your house, and as that's what they're gonna have then its a level playing field.



While this may be true, I still feel more safe with my 12 gauge.

Okie dokes. So lets put this into a simple question.

Would you feel safer
(a) having a 12 gauge and knowning that a crimal in your house also has a gun. Or
(b) havinf a baseball bat or a knife and knowing that somone in your house has, at worst, a knife.




The problem is, the illegal gun owners do not have nor can they obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Hell, in California I probably couldn't get one. This does not matter to them, they will carry regardless of the laws. When their three years is up, they will carry again.

Well if they wanna spend a few years in prision that's fine, would you be against crimals being locked up for 3 years? you ain't against them dying so i guess you'd be fine if they were in jail.





As callous as it may sound, yeah, I am pretty much okay with one criminal killing another criminal. Better that than some bystander who just happens by. Strict gun control would only mean the bad guys would find some other way to kill each other.

I have no response to that.



I have noticed a common refrain in your posts and that is, you seem to think that anyone can legally buy a gun in the U.S. This is not the case. If a person has a criminal record they can not legally buy a gun. In most cases they obtain them by purchasing them off of the street. In some cases they steal them. But rest assured, if a criminal wants one, he or she will find a way to get one.

And do you need a permit to ahve a gun? i.e. if a policeman came to your house now and asked for some documents to say its ok for you to ahve a gun would you ahve to produce them.


With the loss of the right to bear arms, you are nothing more than a slave who can be killed at will by those who have the weapons, be they gangsters or agents of the state.

Right, well i'm doing fine as a "slave" at the moment (note to glock please note the "" i.e. i am not saying 'I'm fine being a slave ;))

[Sitarro]

Because more guns=more gun deaths. Simple as.
Strict gun control and strict punishments is what is needed, personaly i think that anyone in the UK caught carrying a firearm should get 3 years in prison (as a min), period.

Americans are known for coming to the aid of those who can't help themselves, give us a call when that pesky muslim population becomes to much for you guys to handle, a few of us Texans will come rescue you guys....... we would enjoy the target practice.:salute:

[Noir]

Americans are known for coming to the aid of those who can't help themselves, give us a call when that pesky muslim population becomes to much for you guys to handle, a few of us Texans will come rescue you guys....... we would enjoy the target practice.:salute:

:laugh2:

[Abbey Marie]

Again you have not understood, the 2 statements were (a)'is freedom worth it' and (b)'is "freedom" worth it'

You are saying that i was asking 'is freedom worth it'.

When my post says 'Is "freedom" worth it' freedom in "" this refers to not true 'freedom' (as you are suggesting i am) but freedom as you see it, to a point it is almost sarcastic.

I must sasy it is rather difficult to explain, but in my past few years of debating through the internet i have never had to explain such simple debating techniques before, so either you are deliberatly misunderstanding me and misrepresenting my position or you are naive to simple debating techniques, i'll leave it up to you to suggest which is true.


I understand that by putting the word freedom in quotes, you intended it to mean something different or special from the normal meaning of the word.

So, what did you mean by "freedom"?

Freedom from tyranny, from dictatorship, from government intrusion in our lives, are all just points on the same line. It is still basically the same thing.

[glockmail]

Again you have not understood, the 2 statements were (a)'is freedom worth it' and (b)'is "freedom" worth it'

You are saying that i was asking 'is freedom worth it'.

When my post says 'Is "freedom" worth it' freedom in "" this refers to not true 'freedom' (as you are suggesting i am) but freedom as you see it, to a point it is almost sarcastic.

I must sasy it is rather difficult to explain, but in my past few years of debating through the internet i have never had to explain such simple debating techniques before, so either you are deliberatly misunderstanding me and misrepresenting my position or you are naive to simple debating techniques, i'll leave it up to you to suggest which is true. So like any true liberal, you are trying to justify your position by re-defining the English language. I've seen that technique before and I find it tiring.

[glockmail]

I understand that by putting the word freedom in quotes, you intended it to mean something different or special from the normal meaning of the word.

So, what did you mean by "freedom"?

Freedom from tyranny, from dictatorship, from government intrusion in our lives, are all just points on the same line. It is still basically the same thing.
The liberal definition is "freedom from responsibility".

[Noir]

I understand that by putting the word freedom in quotes, you intended it to mean something different or special from the normal meaning of the word.

So, what did you mean by "freedom"?

Freedom from tyranny, from dictatorship, from government intrusion in our lives, are all just points on the same line. It is still basically the same thing.

My quotes were intended to refer to Glocks freedom. i.e. for him to have his freedom to have a gun in his house is resulting in untold death, but he finds that an acceptable price to pay.

Glock has tried to incite that i said "is freedom worth it" which when taken out of context (and when the quote is edited) makes it look completly different. Again its awkward to explain but the "" adds a sarcastic twist to the sentance, which is essentail to understand what i meant.


So like any true liberal, you are trying to justify your position by re-defining the English language. I've seen that technique before and I find it tiring.

LOL if you think that using sarcasim is "redefining the English language" then i suggest you go back and study up on the English language.

[glockmail]

My quotes were intended to refer to Glocks freedom. i.e. for him to have his freedom to have a gun in his house is resulting in untold death, but he finds that an acceptable price to pay.

Glock has tried to incite that i said "is freedom worth it" which when taken out of context (and when the quote is edited) makes it look completly different. Again its awkward to explain but the "" adds a sarcastic twist to the sentance, which is essentail to understand what i meant.
......
I'm not trying to incite anything. To me, freedom should be the number one goal of government. "Live Free or Die" and all that. It's why we fought the Brits in 1776 and is why we fight terrorists now.

With regards to guns, I have them to protect myself, my family and my property.

With freedom comes responsibility- not freedom from responsibility.

Maybe I'm misundersanding your attempt at sarcasm.

[actsnoblemartin]

exactly

:clap:


I'm not trying to incite anything. To me, freedom should be the number one goal of government. "Live Free or Die" and all that. It's why we fought the Brits in 1776 and is why we fight terrorists now.

With regards to guns, I have them to protect myself, my family and my property.

With freedom comes responsibility- not freedom from responsibility.

Maybe I'm misundersanding your attempt at sarcasm.

[mythbuster]

because they are against allowing poor people, especially minorities to have the right to defend themselves with a fire-arm which also violates the constitution.

and why do they do it?

so minorities and the poor rely on the government, the more problems, the more government, the more government the more problems

Democrats want gun laws, not to ban guns. Now some far left liberals might want to ban all guns, but that's not the Democratic party. We just don't want cop killer bullets on the streets. We don't want automatic guns to be sold. We don't want gun dealers selling unregistered guns on the black market.

You guys must really have NOTHING on Obama because you are trying soooo hard to make the gun argument stick. We are not biting. But maybe if the Mainstream Media keeps reporting what you tell them to report, maybe it will become an issue before November.

Or, maybe they could focus on the most corrupt Administration since Hoover, and the GOP Senators that aided and abedded them. IE, McCain.

:dance::dance::dance::dance::dance:

[actsnoblemartin]

I admire your spirit, and humor here :laugh2:

but do you really think, that conservatives, im not talking about republicans, cause most people on this board are atleast upset with the republican party, want criminals to own cop killer bullets, and semi automatic hand guns :laugh2:

how exactly do you propose to stop criminals from getting weapons, and since criminals can easily get guns, how do innocent civilians, a.k.a. law abiding civilians protect themselves?, :dance:

I await your answer :coffee:


Democrats want gun laws, not to ban guns. Now some far left liberals might want to ban all guns, but that's not the Democratic party. We just don't want cop killer bullets on the streets. We don't want automatic guns to be sold. We don't want gun dealers selling unregistered guns on the black market.

You guys must really have NOTHING on Obama because you are trying soooo hard to make the gun argument stick. We are not biting. But maybe if the Mainstream Media keeps reporting what you tell them to report, maybe it will become an issue before November.

Or, maybe they could focus on the most corrupt Administration since Hoover, and the GOP Senators that aided and abedded them. IE, McCain.

:dance::dance::dance::dance::dance:

[mythbuster]

Explain to me, why democrats dont want to allow law abiding american, especially though in poorer neighborhoods to defend themselves, how can they live in the illusion that not allowing law abiding american to own firearms will save them from criminals who have easy access to firearms.

Just another example of how dems want americans to be dependent on them, and more big government.


some far left liberals dream of a day when guns are no longer around. But, that's their fantasy. They are a very small percent of the Democratic Party.

And remember Katrina and how Blackwater went around under Marshall law, brandished their hi-tech weapons on civilians. Some of the citizens were even forced to give up their right to arms and their guns were confiscated.

So remember, Bush did that. They just bring up guns because it is a wedge issue. If anyone is going to take your rights away, it is the GOP.

The difference between the liberals and conservatives, you will let the conservatives bend you over. Because it is for "safety"

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

[theHawk]

Dems favor every policy that keeps blacks poor and in the hood and on welfare.

First and foremost, they are in total support of pro-abortion policies. While they use the guise of "pro-choice", it really boils down to supporting Planned Parenthood, which is a racist organization that largely targets blacks to make money off them while literally killing them off at the same time.
Gun control laws probably effect poor blacks the most. Gun control laws only effect good citizens and are flately ignored by the criminal element. As someone else pointed out poor people are more effected by things like armed robbery and murder. So we end up with good law abiding black folks who happen to live in a poor neighborhood rampant with crime, not even able to own a handgun for protection. The thugs with weapons know that, and take advantage. Apparently, thats exactly what Democrats want. Such liberal policies including welfare, have been the norm in urban areas for decades. And has there situation gotten any better? No. We know liberal policies don't work, we know they only work to keep poor people and black people down. To want to continue such policies is the same as wanting the continued oppression of blacks. The only reason the Democrats get away with it is by a propaganda campaign to blame all the society woes on conservatives and republicans and label them all racist.

Keep 'em poor, keep 'em dumb, and keep 'em hooked on the government. Thats been the Democratic way for decades, and its worked out good for them. I don't foresee them changing anytime soon.

[theHawk]

And remember Katrina and how Blackwater went around under Marshall law, brandished their hi-tech weapons on civilians. Some of the citizens were even forced to give up their right to arms and their guns were confiscated.
Marshall law was not declared in NO after Katrina. Blackwater was there under contract by Homeland security to protect FEMA projects.



So remember, Bush did that. They just bring up guns because it is a wedge issue. If anyone is going to take your rights away, it is the GOP.

Bush nor the GOP "did that". In fact the governor of Louisiana deputized some of the good Blackwater folks. And that was a governor with a (D).