blackascoal
The Force is With Me
I hear they buried him with it surgically attached to his ass .. just in case he needed it when he got to Heaven .. or where he was going.
Philthydelphia mayor signs five new anti-gun-rights laws
- Thread starter Little-Acorn
- Start date
- Status
I hear they buried him with it surgically attached to his ass .. just in case he needed it when he got to Heaven .. or where he was going.
uscitizen
Villified User
Well from the one shown in the clip, he had better keep his powder dry.
why would anyone need a gun in heaven anyway ?
Well I guess so , A DVD the preacher had me watch a couple of years aog...well the guy on there seemed to think if you liked to kyak heaven would be kyacking, so I suppose if you like to hunt it would be hunting. and if you are in the FLDS it would be. OOPS about went into rule 13 banning territory there.
why would anyone need a gun in heaven anyway ?
Well I guess so , A DVD the preacher had me watch a couple of years aog...well the guy on there seemed to think if you liked to kyak heaven would be kyacking, so I suppose if you like to hunt it would be hunting. and if you are in the FLDS it would be. OOPS about went into rule 13 banning territory there.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
They're too bitter to speak up.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
You've got it twisted.
I don't give a damn about you or your gun. You're just a blip on my screen.
Id rather you keep your gun and do what many with them do .. open wide and blow your own brains out.
"YOU come get my gun" .. what the fuck are you .. a child?
I have no fear of the stupid and anyone who would utter such incredible macho-girl ignorance is most ceratinly not someone to take seriously.
I overestimate the ability of the police?????
Stupid.
Good Luck
New member
Interesting how the gun control advocates ignore real facts. For instance, DC banned handguns in 1976. Murder rates peaked in 1991. Hmmm, not looking so good for gun control laws is it?
They also ignore the fact that a number of additional law enforcement programs were enacted between the late 80s and mid 90s. Considering the complete ineffectiveness of gun control laws through 1991, even a high school statistics student would be able to see a correlation between crime rates and the crime prevention programs enacted in the late 80s and early 90s that did not involve stricter gun control, and no correlation between crime rates and gun control laws which were enacted much earlier, or several years after crime rates started to drop.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.
Another little fact gun control advocates love to ignore is the fact that ALL types of violent crime are out of control, not just gun related crimes. When looking seriously at violent crime and possible solutions, why are they so eager to concentrate on one type while ignoring the others, and also ignoring the implications behind the facts? (ie: our society's problem is not with a "gun loving" culture, it's problem is with people more and more willing to turn to violence to address their problems. (note I said address, not solve...) Case in point is the recently discussed case of several teens video taping themselves beating another teen and posting the video online. Add that to the frequency and type of violent events our society uses as entertainment, and the obvious conclusion is that our society glorifies violence. Gone are the days of "Adam-12" or "dragnet" when police officers did their jobs and very rarely had to even pull their weapons, let alone actually fire them. Those shows would be considered deadly boring in our current society.
Another thing gun control advocates seem to get consistently wrong is the mind set of the average gun owner. (Well, they pretty much get every thing wrong on the topic of weapons, but I am being specific.) One does not "love guns" in order to own one. There are probably a few who do, but there are extremists no matter what sub section of our society one wishes to look at.
I enjoy the sport of target shooting. I do not "love" my weapons, but I do enjoy using them in a manner that tests my physical abilities (eye sight, steadiness of hand and body, coordination, etc.) Not one of my personally owned weapons has ever been even pointed at another person, even unloaded. This is true for most owners.
Last point is related to that one something that gun control advocates gnash their teeth in frustration while composing lie after lie about the meaning. The right to keep and bear arms is one the the few fully and explicitly enumerated rights of the people outlined in the Constitution of the United States of America.
The claim that that right is referring to the state's national guards is ludicrous. Every where else in the Constitution when a right or authority is reserved to the states, the states are mentioned. But the second amendment specifically names the PEOPLE are the ones with the right to keep and bear arms. And the reason for giving the people the right to keep and bear arms is to have a well regulated militia, which was (and still is) deemed to be essential to the security of a free state. NOT because a militia is needed to repel foreign invaders. The provision of a common defense does that job. But as once was stated in the debate to declare independence from England, "There is little difference between being ruled by one tyrant over seas, or a hundred tyrants here at home." The people's right to keep and bear arms is to assure we have a defense against those who would view the Constitution as an inconvenient piece of paper, not as a well-thought collection of rules to limit the authority of government. The second amendment was conceived to give the people some teeth should it come necessary to defend the Constitution from domestic threats.
So now crime rates are on the rise again? The more recent and most strict gun control laws in the nation are still in effect while SCOTUS ponders the lawsuit against those gun restrictions, and crime rates are rising fast enough to warrant emergency action? STILL not looking too good for the effectiveness of gun control, is it?
They also ignore the fact that a number of additional law enforcement programs were enacted between the late 80s and mid 90s. Considering the complete ineffectiveness of gun control laws through 1991, even a high school statistics student would be able to see a correlation between crime rates and the crime prevention programs enacted in the late 80s and early 90s that did not involve stricter gun control, and no correlation between crime rates and gun control laws which were enacted much earlier, or several years after crime rates started to drop.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Washington,_D.C.
Another little fact gun control advocates love to ignore is the fact that ALL types of violent crime are out of control, not just gun related crimes. When looking seriously at violent crime and possible solutions, why are they so eager to concentrate on one type while ignoring the others, and also ignoring the implications behind the facts? (ie: our society's problem is not with a "gun loving" culture, it's problem is with people more and more willing to turn to violence to address their problems. (note I said address, not solve...) Case in point is the recently discussed case of several teens video taping themselves beating another teen and posting the video online. Add that to the frequency and type of violent events our society uses as entertainment, and the obvious conclusion is that our society glorifies violence. Gone are the days of "Adam-12" or "dragnet" when police officers did their jobs and very rarely had to even pull their weapons, let alone actually fire them. Those shows would be considered deadly boring in our current society.
Another thing gun control advocates seem to get consistently wrong is the mind set of the average gun owner. (Well, they pretty much get every thing wrong on the topic of weapons, but I am being specific.) One does not "love guns" in order to own one. There are probably a few who do, but there are extremists no matter what sub section of our society one wishes to look at.
I enjoy the sport of target shooting. I do not "love" my weapons, but I do enjoy using them in a manner that tests my physical abilities (eye sight, steadiness of hand and body, coordination, etc.) Not one of my personally owned weapons has ever been even pointed at another person, even unloaded. This is true for most owners.
Last point is related to that one something that gun control advocates gnash their teeth in frustration while composing lie after lie about the meaning. The right to keep and bear arms is one the the few fully and explicitly enumerated rights of the people outlined in the Constitution of the United States of America.
The claim that that right is referring to the state's national guards is ludicrous. Every where else in the Constitution when a right or authority is reserved to the states, the states are mentioned. But the second amendment specifically names the PEOPLE are the ones with the right to keep and bear arms. And the reason for giving the people the right to keep and bear arms is to have a well regulated militia, which was (and still is) deemed to be essential to the security of a free state. NOT because a militia is needed to repel foreign invaders. The provision of a common defense does that job. But as once was stated in the debate to declare independence from England, "There is little difference between being ruled by one tyrant over seas, or a hundred tyrants here at home." The people's right to keep and bear arms is to assure we have a defense against those who would view the Constitution as an inconvenient piece of paper, not as a well-thought collection of rules to limit the authority of government. The second amendment was conceived to give the people some teeth should it come necessary to defend the Constitution from domestic threats.
I just wanted to address this one thing. If you are talking about Afghanistan then the answer is yes. If you are talking about Iraq then the answer is no. Lorax and I had a long discussion about the Iraq war back when it was being talked up even before it started. I still feel there is no way we should have handled Iraq as we did.
As to the "gunlove" part of the quote....it is not love of the gun but love of the freedom. I enjoy shooting sports and hunting. I also enjoy a good steak but do not "love" it. I realize there are some kooks out there like the nut on the youtube debate earlier in the election cycle. He is certainly not representative of the average gun owner.
Frankly, I don't really see a problem with any of the new regulations:
One gun a month seems reasonable.
Reporting lost or stolen firearms within 24 hours seems very reasonable.
Prohibiting individuals under protection-from-abuse orders from possessing guns if ordered by the court (i.e. after some type of legal process) also seems very reasonable.
Allowing removal of firearms from persons posing a risk of imminent personal injury to themselves or others (i.e. one step shy of being subject to involuntary civil commitment) seems reasonable.
Finally, outlawing the possession and sale of certain assault weapons within the city of Philadelphia also seems reasonable but I suppose the most subject to criticism.
By and large, the five new regulations appear eminently reasonable.
One gun a month seems reasonable.
Reporting lost or stolen firearms within 24 hours seems very reasonable.
Prohibiting individuals under protection-from-abuse orders from possessing guns if ordered by the court (i.e. after some type of legal process) also seems very reasonable.
Allowing removal of firearms from persons posing a risk of imminent personal injury to themselves or others (i.e. one step shy of being subject to involuntary civil commitment) seems reasonable.
Finally, outlawing the possession and sale of certain assault weapons within the city of Philadelphia also seems reasonable but I suppose the most subject to criticism.
By and large, the five new regulations appear eminently reasonable.
What part of "shall not be infringed" means, "only infringed by 'reasonable' legislation"?
If you want to change the meaning of the constitution and our rights then there is an amendment process. I know it is harder than just ignoring the pesky thing, but it is there.
Oooh, an absolutist.
Run outside, find a cop and begin to scream obscenities and threats at the cop and assert that "no law" means "no law" and see where that gets you.
Yeah, because we should just get used to our rights being infringed, not fight against it.
uscitizen
Villified User
Little-Acorn
New member
How hard have you looked?
By what standard?
Really? So when a couple is going trough a fairly amicable divorce (which most divorces are) and the judge issues the routine orders that neither spouse shall abuse, threaten etc. the other, you favor immediately throwing them in jail if they happen to be a gun owner?
This happened to me (not the thrown in jail part). It's already Federal law that if someone is under such an order, he cannot own guns. In my fairly-amicable divorce, all parties agreed that there had never been any abuse, anger, threats, or any other such incidents. But the judge issued those routine orders, my lawyer assuring me they happen all the time and are no big deal. As soon as the judge signed them, I became a felon at that instant.
The statute of limitations on my "felony" expired a few years ago.
Yup, perfectly reasonable. The fact that Dungheap "doesn't see any problem", must mean there isn't one.
God save us from do-gooders who want to legislate against us "for our own good", without even checke whether it's good or not.
Sure they do... to people who haven't bothered looking into them, have no interest in doing so, and basically don't know what they're talking about... and yet they have a vote.
Last edited:
I was never one of those.
Little-Acorn
New member
One of the main reasons the 2nd amendment exists, is to ensure the people have the means to resist tyrannical government.
Yet here we have a bunch of people insisting that government should have the power to decide which of us should be armed, which should be disarmed, and why. Incredibly, their main reason for wanting govt to be able to disarm us, is "I don't see any reason why not".
Since when is your lack of vision, and complete unwillingness to do your homework, a legitimate reason for making the rest of us vulnerable to tyranny, attack, robbery etc.?
The 2nd amendment says that govt cannot take away or restrict our right to own and carry guns etc., period. It's a statement by the Framers, and ratified by the people's representatives, that we do NOT trust government with the power to disarm us.
And yet we have these niggling little ankle-biters who haven't studied the problem, who know nothing about our history or the reason for our distrust of government, saying that since they can't see the problem, then govt must be trustworthy after all.
Of course, they could put their wishful thinking into law, as Damo pointed out, simply by the amendment process. But the ankle-biters know this would require them to get the approval of LOTS of people... and they know they could never get that approval. That's what makes them ankle-biters. They know they would be legislating against the will of the vast majority of the people... a task they have no problem with, believing as they do in the goodness and niceness of government, and the superiority of government's "wisdom" over the common sense of the people who must look out for themselves, their family and neighbors, and their own society.
These people's foolishness is exceeded only by their extreme arrogance and hubris. A dangerous combination.
Yet here we have a bunch of people insisting that government should have the power to decide which of us should be armed, which should be disarmed, and why. Incredibly, their main reason for wanting govt to be able to disarm us, is "I don't see any reason why not".
Since when is your lack of vision, and complete unwillingness to do your homework, a legitimate reason for making the rest of us vulnerable to tyranny, attack, robbery etc.?
The 2nd amendment says that govt cannot take away or restrict our right to own and carry guns etc., period. It's a statement by the Framers, and ratified by the people's representatives, that we do NOT trust government with the power to disarm us.
And yet we have these niggling little ankle-biters who haven't studied the problem, who know nothing about our history or the reason for our distrust of government, saying that since they can't see the problem, then govt must be trustworthy after all.
Of course, they could put their wishful thinking into law, as Damo pointed out, simply by the amendment process. But the ankle-biters know this would require them to get the approval of LOTS of people... and they know they could never get that approval. That's what makes them ankle-biters. They know they would be legislating against the will of the vast majority of the people... a task they have no problem with, believing as they do in the goodness and niceness of government, and the superiority of government's "wisdom" over the common sense of the people who must look out for themselves, their family and neighbors, and their own society.
These people's foolishness is exceeded only by their extreme arrogance and hubris. A dangerous combination.
Last edited:
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
I apologize for my some of my overly-passionate posts my brother .. but I sincerly do not understand the culture of guns, At what point does the culture of guns and America being the most violent nation on earth intellectually/ideologically intersect in the minds of gun lovers? I don't get it .. SERIOUSLY.
I'm betting that you don't take a 357 Magnum or an Uzi to go hunting with. That's a disingenuous argument my brother and comprised to detract from serious discussion. Remove hunting rifles from the argument because hunting rifles aren't what's being used to murder 15,000 Americans every year.
America is not only the most violent nation on earth, we are now the greatest prison nation the world has ever seen. Our prison population dwarfs every totalitarian nation we love to hate. We dwarf China and India by every measure and they have 4 and 5 times our total population.
The American culture of violence.
We're proud of that shit. We peddle it to children. We export it all over the world .. sometimes up REAL close .. like when we attacked Iraq and mass-murdered countless innocent fucking people, including babies and children. We even MELTED some children.
Smart bombs .. guided by really dumb people.
The American culture of violence .. with religion on its side.
No disrespect intended to you my brother.
The right loves to point to the Constitution, but I like to point to the Declaration of Independance because it distinguishes the difference between a citizen and a being subject.
How hard have you looked?
By what standard?
Really? So when a couple is going trough a fairly amicable divorce (which most divorces are) and the judge issues the routine orders that neither spouse shall abuse, threaten etc. the other, you favor immediately throwing them in jail if they happen to be a gun owner?
This happened to me (not the thrown in jail part). It's already Federal law that if someone is under such an order, he cannot own guns. In my fairly-amicable divorce, all parties agreed that there had never been any abuse, anger, threats, or any other such incidents. But the judge issued those routine orders, my lawyer assuring me they happen all the time and are no big deal. As soon as the judge signed them, I became a felon at that instant.
The statute of limitations on my "felony" expired a few years ago.
Yup, perfectly reasonable. The fact that Dungheap "doesn't see any problem", must mean there isn't one.
God save us from do-gooders who want to legislate against us "for our own good".
Sure they do... to people who haven't bothered looking into them, have no interest in doing so, and basically don't know what they're talking about... and yet they have a vote.
First, how is a limit of one handgun purchase a month is purchasing one not reasonable? How many do you need to buy each month? In what way is your right to own a firearm restricted by limited the number of handguns you can buy each month?
Second, that explanation of you becoming a felon is ridiculous on its face. I don't think it is routine for protection from abuse orders to issue is amicable divorces as a matter of course. Protection from abuse orders in Pennsylvania only issue if the person seeking the protection has in fact been abused. Prohibiting an abuser from possessing a gun is very reasonable. And it isn't automatic, the judge has to order that the abuser cannot possess a gun in addition to the protection-from-abuse order. Finally, a gun owner isn't immediately thrown in jail but rather would be force to give up the gun during the term of the order.
As I said, the new regulations seem reasonable to me.
Little-Acorn
New member
It's factual. That you feel it's ridiculous, shows your continued lack of interest or concern for the problem.
The first three words of your statement reveal its entire basis.
And this matters to me, and the millions of others for whom such restraint orders ARE routine, how?
And unrelated to the present situation, as I have already pointed out.
It is quite automatic, as I have already pointed out.
The Federal law I cited (Lautenberg Act) makes no such provision, as I have already pointed out.
Because, as usual, you either ignore the very real problems you are causing, or are foolishly unaware of both the present and the past.
And yet you have a vote.
You seem to think that simply by putting your hands over your ears and repeating, "No it isn't, no it isn't, the problem isn't there, the problem isn't there, waaaahhhhhh", you can create a situation in which all probems have vanished, people who point out what's going on are somehow wrong, and you can go ahead with your wishful thinking, and even impose it by force on the rest of us. Most people give up this approach by around age 7. Why haven't you?
Do you begin to see, why sensible people who live in the real world and have to take the consequences of your silly mouthings when enacted, have nothing but contempt for you and your "ideals"?
Last edited:
Hey, I understand some of your viewpoints and I can disagree wtih someone without disliking them. We disagree on guns and on religion and probably on other things that haven't been discussed. We probably agree on a lot of things as well. When disagreements are handled in adult ways the U.S. is a better place for it. That's what makes the world go around.
I will point out that I do use a .357 (as I have other pistols) for hunting and have taken three deer with this particular handgun. It is a challenge and I enjoy the opportunity I have had to do so. As to the Uzi's, I have no qualms with certain restrictions placed upon them (magazine capacity, must be semi-auto, etc.) but don't want an outright ban.
I do not think we are the most violent nation in the world (http://www.haciendapub.com/stolinsky.html) but even if we are I don't think it is because of our freedom to own guns. I think there is much more to it than that. But again, we can disagree.
Again, if they are reasonable change the limitations set on the government to allow for your limitations. Otherwise we are spinning our wheels. If we don't hold the government to the rules we have set them to, then the rules and our "freedoms" are non-existent.
- Status