|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
davela 
Group: Members
Posts: 659
Joined: Dec. 2011
|
 |
Posted on: Dec. 18 2012, 9:02 pm |
|
   |
If you had to choose between having the right to walk around with assault weapons and 30 round clips or to have your children live in a safe,assault weapon-free environment,what would you choose?
--------------
Protect Greater Canyonlands!
Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
justwalkin
Group: Members
Posts: 396
Joined: Nov. 2008
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 18 2012, 9:58 pm |
|
 |
Violent video games or children? Take your pick.
Readily available, competent mental health care or children? Take your pick.
It ain't just a gun problem.
--------------
If a day in the mountains is better than a week at work, why aren't I working in the mountains?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
davela
Group: Members
Posts: 659
Joined: Dec. 2011
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 18 2012, 10:25 pm |
|
|
if you point a video game at a cop will he shoot you?
Now if you point an ar15 do you have to ask?Really?
When was the last time you wacked some deer with a video game?
I dont know why gun advocates lose complete rationale and common sense when it comes to a lethal device.I see very twisted,bizarre explanations that are so desperately void of logic.
--------------
Protect Greater Canyonlands!
Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
swimswithtrout
Group: Members
Posts: 7236
Joined: Jan. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 18 2012, 11:02 pm |
|
|
--------------
Want to see The Wind River Range in widescreen 1080p ?
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
davela
Group: Members
Posts: 659
Joined: Dec. 2011
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 18 2012, 11:51 pm |
|
|
(justwalkin @ Dec. 18 2012, 10:35 pm)
QUOTE
(davela @ Dec. 18 2012, 10:25 pm)
QUOTE if you point a video game at a cop will he shoot you?
Now if you point an ar15 do you have to ask?Really?
When was the last time you wacked some deer with a video game?
I dont know why gun advocates lose complete rationale and common sense when it comes to a lethal device.I see very twisted,bizarre explanations that are so desperately void of logic. I'm surprised you used the word logic to present your case, because you are all about histrionics. I don't detect much in the way of logic, or any ability to focus on anything but the gun side of the killing equation.
Ahem,you brought up the laughable video games as dangerous as guns analogy...
There is no compromise with gun advocates.If you restrict their clips to 6 rounds its the end of the world.Take away their bazookas,and they wont be able to fight off the omnipresent govt tyranny that theyve battled against exactly 0 times since the civil war.
--------------
Protect Greater Canyonlands!
Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
wwwest
Group: Members
Posts: 4071
Joined: Dec. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 19 2012, 12:52 am |
|
|
Nice cartoon, Swims, it makes the point beautifully.
I hope we can keep attention focussed on these issues until some legislation gets passed.
Maybe start a campaign to amend State Constitutions banning semi auto weapons as a way to build support for a change in the 2nd Amendment, thus removing all doubt??
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
BackpackHNTR
Group: Members
Posts: 459
Joined: Apr. 2009
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 19 2012, 1:14 am |
|
|
How about choosing whether you let mentally unstable individuals run around Scot free, or let children live and get those people help.
Stop blaming the tool used to kill, and blame the Tool that used it.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
davela
Group: Members
Posts: 659
Joined: Dec. 2011
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 19 2012, 2:10 am |
|
|
(Montanalonewolf @ Dec. 18 2012, 11:52 pm)
QUOTE
(davela @ Dec. 18 2012, 8:25 pm)
QUOTE I dont know why gun advocates lose complete rationale and common sense when it comes to a lethal device.I see very twisted,bizarre explanations that are so desperately void of logic. You're not one to make that kind of judgement since you're an irrational whackjob.
Any threat of taking away little boys guns brings out the crazy in them,dont it?Male PMS.
--------------
Protect Greater Canyonlands!
Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
Montanalonewolf
Group: Members
Posts: 4814
Joined: Mar. 2010
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 19 2012, 8:34 am |
|
|
(davela @ Dec. 19 2012, 12:10 am)
QUOTE
(Montanalonewolf @ Dec. 18 2012, 11:52 pm)
QUOTE
(davela @ Dec. 18 2012, 8:25 pm)
QUOTE I dont know why gun advocates lose complete rationale and common sense when it comes to a lethal device.I see very twisted,bizarre explanations that are so desperately void of logic. You're not one to make that kind of judgement since you're an irrational whackjob. Any threat of taking away little boys guns brings out the crazy in them,dont it?Male PMS.
Rants like you've been posting proves you're just as much a whackjob as the Sandy Hook shooter, albeit on the other side.
You want a rational discussion, try doing it without being an irrational, insulting fruitcake. Until then, go **** yourself.
--------------
Ignorance is curable with education. Stupidity is refusing to be educated.
Those who don't read have no advantage over those who can't.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 15
|
|
|
| Post Number: 16
|
|
|
| Post Number: 17
|
|
|
| Post Number: 18
|
|
|
| Post Number: 19
|
|
|
| Post Number: 20
|
|
|
| Post Number: 21
|
Dennis The Menace
Group: Members
Posts: 8462
Joined: Apr. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 19 2012, 12:44 pm |
|
|
(Montanalonewolf @ Dec. 19 2012, 8:34 am)
QUOTE
(davela @ Dec. 19 2012, 12:10 am)
QUOTE
(Montanalonewolf @ Dec. 18 2012, 11:52 pm)
QUOTE
(davela @ Dec. 18 2012, 8:25 pm)
QUOTE I dont know why gun advocates lose complete rationale and common sense when it comes to a lethal device.I see very twisted,bizarre explanations that are so desperately void of logic. You're not one to make that kind of judgement since you're an irrational whackjob. Any threat of taking away little boys guns brings out the crazy in them,dont it?Male PMS. Rants like you've been posting proves you're just as much a whackjob as the Sandy Hook shooter, albeit on the other side. You want a rational discussion, try doing it without being an irrational, insulting fruitcake. Until then, go **** yourself.
The Sandy Hook shooter killed 27 people including 20 children followed by killing himself.
If davela is just as "just as much a whackjob as the Sandy Hook shooter" then he would be
just as infamous as the Sandy Hook shooter for committing just as evil and insane an act as
the Sandy Hook shooter but obviously Davela hasn't committed even close to an act.
So what is the point? Before talking about rational discussions and who is an irrational
fruitcake as opposed to who isn't why don't you first look in the mirror because no rational
person would say about Davela or anyone posting in this forum that they are "just as much a
whackjob as the Sandy Hook shooter"?
What an asinine comment
--------------
if you first punch someone and then that someone punches back and then you complain to
someone else that you were punched, then you're a silly fool
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 22
|
|
|
| Post Number: 23
|
|
|
| Post Number: 24
|
wwwest
Group: Members
Posts: 4071
Joined: Dec. 2002
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 19 2012, 4:23 pm |
|
|
And, the Bushmaster isn't on the assault weapons list.
Which is exactly why the list needs to be revised with some common sense definitions and a lot less legalism from the gun lovers.
We could make it simple and get rid of all auto loading and semi auto guns, since they are not needed for hunting or for target practice.
The definition certainly needs to be much broader than the '93 version, and has to include the Bushmaster and its brothers.
Once again, if the techies come up with a high tech safety feature that allows only you to fire your gun, would you be willing to apply it to all of your guns??
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 25
|
N2theWild
Group: Members
Posts: 1641
Joined: Feb. 2008
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 19 2012, 5:04 pm |
|
|
(wwwest @ Dec. 19 2012, 4:23 pm)
QUOTE We could make it simple and get rid of all auto loading and semi auto guns, since they are not needed for hunting or for target practice.
Once again, if the techies come up with a high tech safety feature that allows only you to fire your gun, would you be willing to apply it to all of your guns??
We could make it simple and get rid of all auto loading and semi auto guns, since they are not needed for hunting or for target practice.
So the 2nd Amendment was written to ensure hunting and target practice? That's news to me.
Once again, if the techies come up with a high tech safety feature that allows only you to fire your gun, would you be willing to apply it to all of your guns??
Depends. Would it run on something like Windows ?
--------------
For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, (2 Timothy 4:3)
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 26
|
yosemite girl
Group: Members
Posts: 993
Joined: Oct. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 19 2012, 6:52 pm |
|
|
(wwwest @ Dec. 19 2012, 1:23 pm)
QUOTE We could make it simple and get rid of all auto loading and semi auto guns, since they are not needed for hunting or for target practice.
That's not what the 2nd amendment is for.
How about defense. Defense from how many people? Riots? I've been in LA and Oakland during riots. If that was happening around my property I would want more than just a handgun.
From the US Supreme Court: "the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense."
Furthermore, the fact that a protected right is dangerous to society is no reason to abridge that right. In the same case (see the link above), the USSC stated:
The right to keep and bear arms, however, is not the only constitutional right that has controversial public safety implications. All of the constitutional provisions that impose restrictions on law enforcement and on the prosecution of crimes fall into the same category. See, e.g., Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U. S. 586, 591 (2006) (“The exclusionary rule generates ‘substantial social costs,’ United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897, 907 (1984), which sometimes include setting the guilty free and the dangerous at large”); Barker v. Wingo, 407 U. S. 514, 522 (1972) (reflecting on the serious consequences of dismissal for a speedy trial violation, which means “a defendant who may be guilty of a serious crime will go free”); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 517 (1966) (Harlan, J., dissenting); id., at 542 (White, J., dissenting) (objecting that the Court’s rule “[i]n some unknown number of cases . . . will return a killer, a rapist or other criminal to the streets . . . to repeat his crime”); Mapp, 367 U. S., at 659. Municipal
respondents cite no case in which we have refrained from holding that a provision of the Bill of Rights is binding on the States on the ground that the right at issue has disputed public safety implications."
"Someone got hurt so we should take away or seriously abridge a right" is not the best argument when you think about what the Supreme Court pointed out - that lots of our rights are dangerous to society.
--------------
QUOTE ...there's just something about him.
Something around the eyes...I don't know...reminds me of...me. No. I'm sure of it, I hate him.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 27
|
Montecresto
Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 19 2012, 7:08 pm |
|
|
Good job Yosemite girl.
--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 28
|
Land Rover
Group: Members
Posts: 6529
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 19 2012, 7:12 pm |
|
|
But Yosemite - we've been told time and time again that these weapons are no more deadly thank hand guns - yet you seem to insist that they are?
Who is right? How can we know who to listen to here. Are they no more deadly, or more deadly?
I'm beginning to suspect you guys make this stuff up as you go along.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 29
|
Land Rover
Group: Members
Posts: 6529
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 19 2012, 7:14 pm |
|
|
But again from the Scalia writing the majority verdict.
We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons"
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 30
|
yosemite girl
Group: Members
Posts: 993
Joined: Oct. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Dec. 19 2012, 7:22 pm |
|
|
(Land Rover @ Dec. 19 2012, 4:12 pm)
QUOTE But Yosemite - we've been told time and time again that these weapons are no more deadly thank hand guns - yet you seem to insist that they are?
Who is right? How can we know who to listen to here. Are they no more deadly, or more deadly?
I'm beginning to suspect you guys make this stuff up as you go along.
I never said they weren't more dangerous - why would one even make that argument? Of course they are if they are shooting more rounds per minute right?
Now, if you take something that is what I'll call a "low level" assault weapon and compare it to a handgun with a speed loader, or other new technology, maybe not.
Despite my advocacy for the 2nd Amendment and my ability to use many firearms, I don't actually know all THAT much about various firearm specs. I'm sure if someone wanted to do the research they could figure out the round per minute of a handgun with speedloader versus what has recently been termed an "assault weapon." I don't know the answer to the specs question, but I'm not sure that it matters to me as far as regulation goes.
I really believe (and this is my belief, just my opinion) that these shooters could have done just as much killing as they did with a handgun versus what they used. Dead is dead, whether you were shot with a handgun or an "assault rifle."
While we're at it, I'd like a specific definition of what we are all considering an "assault rifle" here - just for clarity. Is it anything not a handgun? What?
--------------
QUOTE ...there's just something about him.
Something around the eyes...I don't know...reminds me of...me. No. I'm sure of it, I hate him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.jpg)
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
