• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

My right to bear arms is under fire right now.

tsst said:
Yes because punishing the law abiding for the acts of a lawbreaker is always the solution that works. /sarcasm

Oy Vey! :headbang:
Click to expand...

I was just ignoring that person, because I couldn't tell if they were being serious or sarcastic.
 
the_edsta said:
Yes... Lord only knows any kind of 'course', on guns or otherwise, can only be construed as a puntative measure... Not to mention LAWS! Only fictions by some ethereal government I must always guard against. I'll try that banging my head against the wall thing for a while... See if I can wrap my head around the utter complexity of this indefatigable 'guns as panacea' argument...
Click to expand...
How else would you have us interpret more laws and infringement of liberty?

The 20,000 existing gun laws have done wonders to cure crime committed by a person using a firearm! /sarcasm

The course is misconstrued because the causation is not the inanimate object you seek to implicate but rather the human element. Scream indefatigable if you will but 20,000 laws would seem a demonstrable failure. The anti-gun crowd has become adept at deflecting answerability to their immense debacle that is 'just one more law is surely all we need'. Please tell me how many more laws are needed? While you ponder that question bear in mind they must be laws that lawbreakers will obey.

So if the choice is another law and stab at liberty or you banging your head against a wall until you can comprehend the monumental failure that course is, by all means choose the wall. It will have the very same effect on crime while not furthering the degradation of liberty.

:headbang::headbang::headbang:
 
Sadly, I do believe that this person was serious. I have seen other posts by this member stating the same in the past.
Just another that in a politcal context might be dubbed a useful idiot.
 
Seriously now, if someone is intent on ignoring the law against murder, just what sort of NEW laws do you think will REALLY get his attention and cause him to give pause?

It's just easier with guns? Ever see a molotov cocktail in action? Ever see someone drive a car at high speed into a crowd? :rolleyes:

Then please explain to me why crimes using guns NOW are much more common than back in the days where there really weren't nearly the laws against them as there are now. Does the term "inverse correlation" in relation to the effectiveness of gun laws ring any bells of comprehension?

It's just not the guns. It's something else that apparently everyone is studiously avoiding making an effort to figure out. Anyone with multiple working brain cells should be able to see that. So in my opinion, the GOAL is gun restriction and likely confiscation, and all of the hand wringing rhetoric (do it for the CHILDREN!) being used as "compelling" reasons for the laws are nothing more than trying to use any means necessary to justify the desired end goal.
 
"How else would you have us interpret more laws and infringement of liberty?

The 20,000 existing gun laws have done wonders to cure crime committed by a person using a firearm! /sarcasm

The course is misconstrued because the causation is not the inanimate object you seek to implicate but rather the human element. Scream indefatigable if you will but 20,000 laws would seem a demonstrable failure. The anti-gun crowd has become adept at deflecting answerability to their immense debacle that is 'just one more law is surely all we need'. Please tell me how many more laws are needed? While you ponder that question bear in mind they must be laws that lawbreakers will obey.

So if the choice is another law and stab at liberty or you banging your head against a wall until you can comprehend the monumental failure that course is, by all means choose the wall. It will have the very same effect on crime while not furthering the degradation of liberty. "

WOW - what a wonderful, logical post! But it won't let me give you any more rep points!
 
Just received this BS in an email...
Hello, all --

For the first time since the 1990s, Congress might be on track to pass legislation aimed at reducing gun violence in the United States. And it's because folks in Washington are starting to understand that the rest of the country isn't going to sit by and let them ignore this issue. Your voices are the reason we have a chance to win this debate. The American people expect and demand a yes or no vote.

But this is a critical moment. It's been almost four months since the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, thousands more Americans have died at the hands of gun violence, and time is on the side of those who would prefer that we do nothing.

We want to make sure that your voices are impossible to ignore. So we're asking people from all over the country to speak out online in concert -- all at the same time. Will you join us?

Pledge to speak out about the need to reduce gun violence.

It's easy to participate. Over the next few days, anyone can sign up to tweet or share a message to Facebook. Through that time, we'll gather up as many people as we can. Then we'll make sure that all these individual messages get posted together in the same moment for maximum effect.

That wave of social media will get seen by millions and millions of people.

We're talking about common-sense reforms. Like the idea that any of us who want to buy a gun should have to go through a background check first -- which 90 percent of Americans support.

So let's make sure that there's absolutely no confusion about the public consensus.

Pledge to speak out with us, and then forward this email to your family and friends:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/now-is-the-time/action

Thanks!

David

David Simas
Deputy Senior Advisor
The White House
Click to expand...
 
With that will come incredible backlash. Remember '96.
 
tsst said:
How else would you have us interpret more laws and infringement of liberty?

The 20,000 existing gun laws have done wonders to cure crime committed by a person using a firearm! /sarcasm

The course is misconstrued because the causation is not the inanimate object you seek to implicate but rather the human element. Scream indefatigable if you will but 20,000 laws would seem a demonstrable failure. The anti-gun crowd has become adept at deflecting answerability to their immense debacle that is 'just one more law is surely all we need'. Please tell me how many more laws are needed? While you ponder that question bear in mind they must be laws that lawbreakers will obey.

So if the choice is another law and stab at liberty or you banging your head against a wall until you can comprehend the monumental failure that course is, by all means choose the wall. It will have the very same effect on crime while not furthering the degradation of liberty.

:headbang::headbang::headbang:
Click to expand...

Just keep repeating '20,000 laws' and using 'liberty' as if it means 'I get to do whatever I want or I will hold my breath! Pass the machine gun!' It is childish and silly. Just laws are not infringements, they are protections. And how do you suppose those 20,000 are distributed among states? I require SOME impediment between random idiots walking into a retail store, getting a gun, and driving around with in loaded in their glove boxes. In MA, you need to put some EFFORT in just to be able to buy one. That seems fair. It doesn't inhibit anyone's rights, it just requires some minimal effort beyond mere whim. Here in FL, I need someone to step up and try to implement something that makes sense, and since ignorance presides in this state, I am glad to see the Federal government at least concerned.

If mere whim is all liberty means to you, then this very notion is 'degrading' liberty. If liberty is simply allowing me to do what I want and f*%$ everyone else, then it shouldn't be such a ready and pliant chorus.
 
the_edsta said:
Just keep repeating '20,000 laws' and using 'liberty' as if it means 'I get to do whatever I want or I will hold my breath! Pass the machine gun!' It is childish and silly. Just laws are not infringements, they are protections. And how do you suppose those 20,000 are distributed among states? I require SOME impediment between random idiots walking into a retail store, getting a gun, and driving around with in loaded in their glove boxes. In MA, you need to put some EFFORT in just to be able to buy one. That seems fair. It doesn't inhibit anyone's rights, it just requires some minimal effort beyond mere whim. Here in FL, I need someone to step up and try to implement something that makes sense, and since ignorance presides in this state, I am glad to see the Federal government at least concerned.

If mere whim is all liberty means to you, then this very notion is 'degrading' liberty. If liberty is simply allowing me to do what I want and f*%$ everyone else, then it shouldn't be such a ready and pliant chorus.
Click to expand...
Apparently the wall wasn't hard enough. Try brick next time and get a good run at it. :D

I am dumbfounded that anyone could conclude laws intended to prevent will have any affect on those that intend to break laws. And laws that restrict rights do indeed absolutely infringe. I am at a loss as to why these facts could really be that incomprehensible.

Perhaps our definition of liberty differs.

liberty -
lib-er-tee
noun, plural lib·er·ties.
1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.
2. freedom from external or foreign rule; independence.
3. freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top