Opinion attached! U.S. Supreme Court Shoots Down
Opinion attached! U.S. Supreme Court Shoots Down Chicago's 28 Year-Old Gun Ban
http://www.crimefilenews.com/2010/06/us-supreme-court-shoots-down-chicagos.html
http://www.crimefilenews.com/2010/06/us-supreme-court-shoots-down-chicagos.html
0
-
I pose this question. If background checks and age verification are not reasonable, then something is really wrong. People who are convicted of a felony, should be banned from gun ownership...period.
Since this is a lawsuit happy society, why should the seller of a gun be liable for its use? We need government background checks, to insulate the sale of guns. Geez people, you give out your social security number to the cell phone companies just to buy service. You give out personal info just to receive health care.Whats the big deal about a background check? If I'm a law abiding citizen with no criminal record... felonies...and I'm qualified age wise, whats the big deal. If the gove decides to confiscate all guns, does anyone really believe, that whether you own one or not, your not going to be checked out. Go ahead, say what you want about the gov keeping a list...have you bought a hunting license lately...your already on a list as a gun owner. Have you ever purchased a gun on gun broker...hey.. you left a paper trial on the internet forever. Think that private sale was private...people keep list of names of people who buy guns from them, just for their own legal protection.
People might also want to remember this. if we have an all out war with another country and the draft is re-instated, its in the governments best interest to be able to have a citizen army, that can shoot. It appears to me, that this whole arguement about restrictions is bunk. by the way, talking about restricting something legal, I'll bet those that see infringement as wrong, also voted and promote bans on smoking in bars and the workplace.
Whether it be guns, autos, or smokes, society will place restrictions to promote the safety of all. Ya cant be for complete gun and un-adulterated gun ownership and then turn around and be a health nazi...Thats the question.0 -
J 1357
New Member;
Do you understand the difference between I, as a private citizen, dealing with a business that I DECIDE I will do business with...and a government murdering me if I refuse to obey arbitrary laws that are CONTRARY TO THE CONSTITUTION ???
The simple fact is...you cannot find it in your heart to defend the Second Amendment against domestic enemies.0 -
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
No, the individual who made a choice to ignore the rights of another individual, added the restriction.
How is this simple concept so difficult to grasp, joto?
Do you have multiple degrees interfering with your common sense? Or worse?
That's foolish. The person arrested didn't ask to have his rights infringed. We as a society tell him he has temporarily forfeited his rights by his actions, real or imagined.
An infringement is an infringement. It's the 2A absolutists that are always saying the amendment means just what it says. It doesn't refer to non-incarcerated people or white people or poor people or old people but just to people. Either you believe that or you don't. What is it? Is the question too tough for you?
edit: I love it when one side of an arguement uses 'common sense' as a basis for their position when almost universally they reject what the other side sees as common sense.
"That's foolish. The person arrested didn't ask to have his rights infringed. We as a society tell him he has temporarily forfeited his rights by his actions, real or imagined."
Since he, you, and every adult knows that very fact you yourself stated before they do something, it then is classified as a "choice" made by him. You know, that thing you libs love to toss around for killing babies, but when it comes to criminals. you all love them much more?
"... or worse? You didn't have any to begin with."
Joto, I have no more time for liberal trash. Have WASTED too much already on somone who simply isn't worth a damn. Since stroking yourself mentally by splitting hairs gets you off, great have at it, you are hardly the first, but enjoy yourself.
I'm out.0 -
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
[I'm out.
Not surprised to see you run.
I'm also out.0 -
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
[I'm out.
Not surprised to see you run.
I'm also out.
Run? No. Walk away from an ignorant ***(edited for pickenup[;)]) who thinks he's intelligent because he can throw up red herrings left and right, who's not worth wasting 1 more second of my valuable time? Yes.
Answering a question's with question's, asking ridulous questions to sensationalize some inane point, is not honesty, but is a tactic used by those who have no answer (literally in the last post) yet ironically still believe they are the more intelligent and have the upper hand in the debate. If the shoe fits...
Not sorry joto. Here's hoping you choke on it.0 -
Gordo, I look forward to your reply to my last post in this thread. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
(edited for pickenup[;)])
Thanks. [:D]0 -
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
[I'm out.
Not surprised to see you run.
I'm also out.
Run? No. Walk away from an ignorant ***(edited for pickenup[;)]) who thinks he's intelligent because he can throw up red herrings left and right, who's not worth wasting 1 more second of my valuable time? Yes.
Answering a question's with question's, asking ridulous questions to sensationalize some inane point, is not honesty, but is a tactic used by those who have no answer (literally in the last post) yet ironically still believe they are the more intelligent and have the upper hand in the debate. If the shoe fits...
Not sorry joto. Here's hoping you choke on it.
Funny little thing. I'd almost bet a weeks pay he came back to check for a reply from me and wasted some of his "valuable time". Never know and I wouldn't believe him if he denied it. Unimportant though.......0 -
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
Gordo, I look forward to your reply to my last post in this thread.
I'm sorry but I don't find anything I didn't answer. Could you please repost (or C&P the last) and I'll try to reply. Thanks.0 -
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
Funny little thing. I'd almost bet a weeks pay he came back to check for a reply from me and wasted some of his "valuable time". Never know and I wouldn't believe him if he denied it. Unimportant though.......
I'll bet your $100 of your "weeks pay" that you didn't address anything he said in your reply.0 -
quote: quote:Originally posted by Highball
Ca sucks;
I must have missed that part in the Second Amendment authorizing background checks to buy or sell weapons here in America...Please give a reference ?
quote:I must have missed the part prohibiting it.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.0 -
Here's another question?
Who is the government?
The government is the guy next door, who you voted in as a councilman. The government is no more than the people we elect to the offices we decided need to be there. A civil society needs to have elected people promoting the safety of all. Our government isn't just one entity, deciding whats good for the rest of us, its all of us by our vote making those decisions. All the laws and regs we have today, are because we elected people to represent us in making those laws. Majoity rules and minority lobbies. thats the way it works. When was the last time you actually called your congressman and expressed your concerns. For that matter do you vote?
One vote can have more power than any weapon ever manufactured.0 -
quote:Originally posted by J 1357
Here's another question?
Who is the government?
The government is the guy next door, who you voted in as a councilman. The government is no more than the people we elect to the offices we decided need to be there. A civil society needs to have elected people promoting the safety of all. Our government isn't just one entity, deciding whats good for the rest of us, its all of us by our vote making those decisions. All the laws and regs we have today, are because we elected people to represent us in making those laws. Majoity rules and minority lobbies. thats the way it works. When was the last time you actually called your congressman and expressed your concerns. For that matter do you vote?
One vote can have more power than any weapon ever manufactured.
Classic disconnect with our founding which has resulted in the democratic mob rule we experience today.
The majority does not rule. The current majority is empowered to make certain decision within the constraints of the Constitution (be it the US Constitution, a State Constitution, of both).
Your majority, and the majority that existed 6 years ago do and did not respect the limits of the Constitution. As a result there currently exists no supreme law of the land. We are winging it, and the lackeys of the Democrat Party today, just like the lackeys of the GOP 6 years ago, are just fine with it.
Majority rule is mob rule, and typically mobs have to be put down by force.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rockatansky
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
Funny little thing. I'd almost bet a weeks pay he came back to check for a reply from me and wasted some of his "valuable time". Never know and I wouldn't believe him if he denied it. Unimportant though.......
I'll bet your $100 of your "weeks pay" that you didn't address anything he said in your reply.
And just what, pray tell, did your little AH buddy ask in his last reply that needed addressing? He specifically said he didn't intend to waste his time on me so what would have been the point just on the off chance he did say something intelligent? He has admitted he believes in 'common sense' gun restrictions and that when his arguements can't stand up to scrutiny that it's because the opposition is just 'splitting hairs'. Laughable.0 -
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
(edited for pickenup[;)])
Thanks. [:D]
Not important but just curious... Is it just English language insults that are frowned on or do you not know what 'joto' means? Like I said, I don't really care what knuckleheads call me and if it was up to me I'd give them free rein to say just about anything. It just shows their limitations IMO. Thanks.0 -
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
Gordo, I look forward to your reply to my last post in this thread.
You did answer, I missed it.
Contitnued.
First, I support full reinstatement of rights upon completion of sentence, you walk out the door you have them. That's why I would make it part of their sentence.
Second, our legal system does not have effective punishment for most violent crimes. They are not severe enough. I would make more than just murder a capital offense. Meaningless point. There will always be lesser offenses to deal with.
How will you keep felon you describe from getting guns, without restricting the law abiding citizen? Is he really going to follow the law? Obviously you can't keep bad guys from being bad guys but you don't have to make it easy for them and it does give the law another tool to use. If a restricted felon is busted on a traffic stop with a gun he goes back to jail, for instance.
If you can't stop them from being bad guys, why does how easy it is for them to get guns matter? Does it just make you feel better, or do you have any evidence that felons are stopped from getting guns? You're not stopping them from being bad guys and forcing the rest of society to accept a burden because of it. If anything it is easier and cheaper for felons to get guns from other bad guys than it is to go into a gun store. Buying a stolen gun from the local drug dealer is cheaper than retail and the drug dealer doesn't care who you are. There are many gun dealers who will and do refuse to sell to those they believe to be scumbags, even if they can pass background check.
The guy at the traffic stop, why was he ever let out of jail to begin with? If he is not deemed trustworthy to posses a gun, then he should not be out. He will use anything he can to injure others. Just because you think you might, maybe, there is a small chance, keep him from getting a gun, will not stop him from hurting someone if that is his intent. Next you will want to restrict knives and baseball bats? Make everyone get background checked for the kids Louisville slugger?
You will get more results fixing the legal/justice system than infringing free peoples rights. Honestly, if a person is deemed to not be safe with a gun out in society, wouldn't we actually be safer just killing them or exiling them to some other country?0 -
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
Gordo, I look forward to your reply to my last post in this thread.
You did answer, I missed it.
Contitnued.
First, I support full reinstatement of rights upon completion of sentence, you walk out the door you have them. That's why I would make it part of their sentence.
Second, our legal system does not have effective punishment for most violent crimes. They are not severe enough. I would make more than just murder a capital offense. Meaningless point. There will always be lesser offenses to deal with.
How will you keep felon you describe from getting guns, without restricting the law abiding citizen? Is he really going to follow the law? Obviously you can't keep bad guys from being bad guys but you don't have to make it easy for them and it does give the law another tool to use. If a restricted felon is busted on a traffic stop with a gun he goes back to jail, for instance.
If you can't stop them from being bad guys, why does how easy it is for them to get guns matter? Does it just make you feel better, or do you have any evidence that felons are stopped from getting guns? You're not stopping them from being bad guys and forcing the rest of society to accept a burden because of it. If anything it is easier and cheaper for felons to get guns from other bad guys than it is to go into a gun store. Buying a stolen gun from the local drug dealer is cheaper than retail and the drug dealer doesn't care who you are. There are many gun dealers who will and do refuse to sell to those they believe to be scumbags, even if they can pass background check.
The guy at the traffic stop, why was he ever let out of jail to begin with? If he is not deemed trustworthy to posses a gun, then he should not be out. He will use anything he can to injure others. Just because you think you might, maybe, there is a small chance, keep him from getting a gun, will not stop him from hurting someone if that is his intent. Next you will want to restrict knives and baseball bats? Make everyone get background checked for the kids Louisville slugger?
You will get more results fixing the legal/justice system than infringing free peoples rights. Honestly, if a person is deemed to not be safe with a gun out in society, wouldn't we actually be safer just killing them or exiling them to some other country?
In my opinion the "they're going to do it anyway" arguement falls apart logically. Try these; 'people will get sick anyway so why should they bother to eat well and exercise?' or 'some people ignore traffic regulations so why have any?'. My position is that 'an ounce of prevention.....etc' is a reasonable approach. I don't consider it a burden on me to have a convicted felons' name on a restricted list.
Please don't tell me what I want to do regarding baseball bats and knives when all you have to do is ask. That's a cheap tactic and unworthy of debate. It's as ridiculous as if I said since you would allow felons firearms next you'll want to give pedophiles babysitter jobs. Afterall, we can't predict what MIGHT happen.
BTW, I agree with you, in principle if not in detail, that the legal system needs fixing but I don't see any one thing as a panacea for solving crime. I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time.
I am leaving for most of the day so if I don't reply to any response you may have I'm not being rude. I will check in this evening. Nice day to you.0 -
quote:In my opinion the "they're going to do it anyway" arguement falls apart logically. Try these; 'people will get sick anyway so why should they bother to eat well and exercise?' or 'some people ignore traffic regulations so why have any?'. My position is that 'an ounce of prevention.....etc' is a reasonable approach. I don't consider it a burden on me to have a convicted felons' name on a restricted list.
You say it falls apart logically, how so? Nobody is forcing people to eat well or exercise, apples to oranges, and driving has been agreed upon to be a privilege, therefore subject to limitations. What are you preventing? Please show were this ounce of prevention has more than a negligible effect. You may see some benefit, I see none. The burden is having to ask the govt. permission to execise a right. That permission is "Am I worthy in the eyes of the govt. and society to own and posses this gun?" That is wrong.
Please don't tell me what I want to do regarding baseball bats and knives when all you have to do is ask. That's a cheap tactic and unworthy of debate. It's as ridiculous as if I said since you would allow felons firearms next you'll want to give pedophiles babysitter jobs. Afterall, we can't predict what MIGHT happen.
Ok, a few years from now when guns no longer exist in public in any meaningful number and knives and bats are the weapon of choice for bad guys, are you going to support thier restriction? I made the assumption as it has been the progression in other countries where people with a similar mind set to yours have advocated for reasonable restrictions. Then supported the outright ban of guns. Now in the last few years have started to call for and get limitations on knives.
Your statement, "Afterall, we can't predict what Might happen." applies to both sides. You seem to feel that we need restrictions because of what might happen if we don't restrict. Even though the restrictions are ineffective.
BTW, I agree with you, in principle if not in detail, that the legal system needs fixing but I don't see any one thing as a panacea for solving crime. I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time.
I am not talking about solving crime. I think the solving of crimes is done pretty well. I am talking about the punishment and incarceration for committing crimes. Our society and the legal/judicial system do a horrible job of punishment and incarceration. If we did a good job there would be few dangerous criminals on the street, and citizens would not be fearful of protecting themselves. We knowingly let dangerous criminals out, and have through propaganda and and prosecution made a majority of citizens afraid to take the steps to defend themselves.
I am leaving for most of the day so if I don't reply to any response you may have I'm not being rude. I will check in this evening. Nice day to you.
Please opine on the effectiveness of gun restrictions as they apply to felons. I propose they have little to no effectiveness and therefore not worth the trade off of freedom.
Good day.0 -
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
The 'should be' bunch are out in full force.[;)]
I only wish reality would permit what they think 'should be' but it will not. Reasonable will NEVER be the way it 'should be'.
HB,
Your insistence that the 'legal' system do what it 'should' is just as unreasonable and this is the fallacy in your argument. If the 'legal' system did as it 'should' there would be no need for us to be armed.
*yawn* Wrong, as usual.
LOL, if you are so sure of yourself MR. Wolf, prove me wrong, I dare you![;)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
quote:In my opinion the "they're going to do it anyway" arguement falls apart logically. Try these; 'people will get sick anyway so why should they bother to eat well and exercise?' or 'some people ignore traffic regulations so why have any?'. My position is that 'an ounce of prevention.....etc' is a reasonable approach. I don't consider it a burden on me to have a convicted felons' name on a restricted list.
You say it falls apart logically, how so? Nobody is forcing people to eat well or exercise, apples to oranges, and driving has been agreed upon to be a privilege, therefore subject to limitations. What are you preventing? Please show were this ounce of prevention has more than a negligible effect. You may see some benefit, I see none. The burden is having to ask the govt. permission to execise a right. That permission is "Am I worthy in the eyes of the govt. and society to own and posses this gun?" That is wrong.
Please don't tell me what I want to do regarding baseball bats and knives when all you have to do is ask. That's a cheap tactic and unworthy of debate. It's as ridiculous as if I said since you would allow felons firearms next you'll want to give pedophiles babysitter jobs. Afterall, we can't predict what MIGHT happen.
Ok, a few years from now when guns no longer exist in public in any meaningful number and knives and bats are the weapon of choice for bad guys, are you going to support thier restriction? I made the assumption as it has been the progression in other countries where people with a similar mind set to yours have advocated for reasonable restrictions. Then supported the outright ban of guns. Now in the last few years have started to call for and get limitations on knives.
Your statement, "Afterall, we can't predict what Might happen." applies to both sides. You seem to feel that we need restrictions because of what might happen if we don't restrict. Even though the restrictions are ineffective.
BTW, I agree with you, in principle if not in detail, that the legal system needs fixing but I don't see any one thing as a panacea for solving crime. I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time.
I am not talking about solving crime. I think the solving of crimes is done pretty well. I am talking about the punishment and incarceration for committing crimes. Our society and the legal/judicial system do a horrible job of punishment and incarceration. If we did a good job there would be few dangerous criminals on the street, and citizens would not be fearful of protecting themselves. We knowingly let dangerous criminals out, and have through propaganda and and prosecution made a majority of citizens afraid to take the steps to defend themselves.
I am leaving for most of the day so if I don't reply to any response you may have I'm not being rude. I will check in this evening. Nice day to you.
Please opine on the effectiveness of gun restrictions as they apply to felons. I propose they have little to no effectiveness and therefore not worth the trade off of freedom.
Good day.
Actually you are wrong. I have discussed this with A LOT of felons I have arrested in the past. Many don't care about the laws that restrict or penalize them for being armed, but about one in four (25%) have told me they stay away from the 'guns' so if they are caught they will not have the 'extra' charges and the judges will not consider the 'aggravating' circumstance when they are sentenced. Nothing is perfect in this world, but we still must try and do what we can to make things better.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Actually you are wrong. I have discussed this with A LOT of felons I have arrested in the past. Many don't care about the laws that restrict or penalize them for being armed, but about one in four (25%) have told me they stay away from the 'guns' so if they are caught they will not have the 'extra' charges and the judges will not consider the 'aggravating' circumstance when they are sentenced. Nothing is perfect in this world, but we still must try and do what we can to make things better.
Thanks, Jim.
Good to know that felons are always up-front and honest with the lawmen that have busted them.
Guy Jim caught: 'I didn't do nuthin' officer.'
Jim: 'My bad, here's your keys, sorry to have bothered you.'
Why do we have courts?[:)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
Dear Mr. Pel,
I know you have some basic confusion as to the state of the nation and its jurisprudence vurses its supreme law... Allow me to make counter arguments according to my personal assumtions of where youre logic will go over a period of posts, thus makeing a concise answer of this one post..
Violent criminals, rapeists, and robbers, were once upon a time hanged, shot, electricuted, or gasses. As they were deemed unfit to live in a society of their peers by jurros from among said peers.. Crime and the scurges caused by it were considered part of the price of living in a free society..
Today, however our judicial system seems to be of the opinion that said rapists and murders and robbers lives have some inherent worth, thus they are released back into society.. If their lives have worth, it would then be unlogical to make them live defenselessly, or make them break laws to provide for their self defense.
By allowing unfit people back into society insures two things, first that the state can create more and more laws based on the menace of the unfit. Useing our constitution to make them uniform to all citizens, growing government, its control over all citizens, and justifying more taxes all in the name of the "greater good".. Thats what governments do...
This also creates a lucritive business of law despensation and the houseing of convicts.. All done at the expense of the peoples safety and freedom, logical reasons for this covered above.
Most all of that is unconstituional in its own right, but by rigging the system, and indoctrination it has been successful thus far..
If we suffer them to live, and their "debts" are paid to society, they should be allowed to defend themselves, because if they want to kill, rape and rob they will, no laws will stop them.0 -
quote:Jim Rau Posted - 06/30/2010 : 2:21:17 PM
Actually you are wrong. I have discussed this with A LOT of felons I have arrested in the past. Many don't care about the laws that restrict or penalize them for being armed, but about one in four (25%) have told me they stay away from the 'guns' so if they are caught they will not have the 'extra' charges and the judges will not consider the 'aggravating' circumstance when they are sentenced. Nothing is perfect in this world, but we still must try and do what we can to make things better.
Thanks for the insight Jim, I appreciate it. Forgive me if I don't take it as qauntitative or qaualitative analysis. My own personal experience is that large majority do not care about the restrictions until after they get caught/arrested and it too is neither quantitative nor qualitative(only insight gained as a side note while counseling/coaching felons trying to get jobs after release). I think that most of those who claim they stayed away from guns to avoid extra trouble were probably not those prone to violence. If not then they we had better restrict whatever thier weapon of choice is. Don't want to make it too easy for them to get and reoffend.
As a side note to this discussion. Would you really care if Joe Banker who swindled millions in a ponzi scheme, got caught, served his time, paid lots of restitution, met all the requirements of his punishment, wanted to take up trap shooting? Think he's gonna use a ratty ol 20ga(all he can afford, no bank will ever hire him again) to commit some violent crime? Are you afraid of what he might do, or how he might harm someone?
Not poking at you or trying to start arguement. Just trying to understand the logic of reasonable restriction supporters.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Made up words ?
Please answer one simple question, Gordo;
Does the Second Amendment allow the federal government OR state government the authority to regulate, restrict, or otherwise hinder citizens from buying, carrying,selling or freely using the weapons of their choice ?
Oh Oh pick me pick me I know the answer I know the answer.............
[:)][:D][8D][:I][:p][;)][:o)][8)]
What is............................................NO
Geez,why do we have to put up with these fakers, its a waste of our time when we could be strategizing, planning and organizing not wasting our time with these progressive collectivist liberal clowns that support a malevolent jbt federal government, police force and military, we need our own website forum where they are not invited, welcome or allowed; as it simply serves NO purpose other than to argue back and forth with those that refuse and or cannot understand the Constitution as it was written, NO compromises, NO alterations, NO legislations.0 -
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
quote:In my opinion the "they're going to do it anyway" arguement falls apart logically. Try these; 'people will get sick anyway so why should they bother to eat well and exercise?' or 'some people ignore traffic regulations so why have any?'. My position is that 'an ounce of prevention.....etc' is a reasonable approach. I don't consider it a burden on me to have a convicted felons' name on a restricted list.
You say it falls apart logically, how so? Nobody is forcing people to eat well or exercise, apples to oranges, and driving has been agreed upon to be a privilege, therefore subject to limitations. What are you preventing? Please show were this ounce of prevention has more than a negligible effect. You may see some benefit, I see none. The burden is having to ask the govt. permission to execise a right. That permission is "Am I worthy in the eyes of the govt. and society to own and posses this gun?" That is wrong.
Please don't tell me what I want to do regarding baseball bats and knives when all you have to do is ask. That's a cheap tactic and unworthy of debate. It's as ridiculous as if I said since you would allow felons firearms next you'll want to give pedophiles babysitter jobs. Afterall, we can't predict what MIGHT happen.
Ok, a few years from now when guns no longer exist in public in any meaningful number and knives and bats are the weapon of choice for bad guys, are you going to support thier restriction? I made the assumption as it has been the progression in other countries where people with a similar mind set to yours have advocated for reasonable restrictions. Then supported the outright ban of guns. Now in the last few years have started to call for and get limitations on knives.
Your statement, "Afterall, we can't predict what Might happen." applies to both sides. You seem to feel that we need restrictions because of what might happen if we don't restrict. Even though the restrictions are ineffective.
BTW, I agree with you, in principle if not in detail, that the legal system needs fixing but I don't see any one thing as a panacea for solving crime. I think we can walk and chew gum at the same time.
I am not talking about solving crime. I think the solving of crimes is done pretty well. I am talking about the punishment and incarceration for committing crimes. Our society and the legal/judicial system do a horrible job of punishment and incarceration. If we did a good job there would be few dangerous criminals on the street, and citizens would not be fearful of protecting themselves. We knowingly let dangerous criminals out, and have through propaganda and and prosecution made a majority of citizens afraid to take the steps to defend themselves.
I am leaving for most of the day so if I don't reply to any response you may have I'm not being rude. I will check in this evening. Nice day to you.
Please opine on the effectiveness of gun restrictions as they apply to felons. I propose they have little to no effectiveness and therefore not worth the trade off of freedom.
Good day.
You know what they say about repeating the same thing over and over so I'm going to just accept that you 'propose' and I 'opine' and that the two views collide without resolution.
I sometimes feel like the language we supposedly share is inadequate in some way because I just don't understand how or why seemingly simple concepts are so poorly understood. I don't mean that as a slam against you in particular so please take no offense as none is intended. I know others wonder why I don't 'get' what they're saying.
Anyway, I'm out on this subject. Good luck.0 -
quote:Geez,why do we have to put up with these fakers, its a waste of our time when we could be strategizing, planning and organizing not wasting our time with these progressive collectivist liberal clowns that support a malevolent jbt federal government, police force and military, we need our own website forum where they are not invited, welcome or allowed; as it simply serves NO purpose other than to argue back and forth with those that refuse and or cannot understand the Constitution as it was written, NO compromises, NO alterations, NO legislations
Werwolf ;
The reasons for the continued arguments are manyfold ;
We that actually support the Constitution as written MUST learn to defend it against those that would destroy it.
There will come a time, after the bloodletting..that decent men must sit in a room and once again hammer out the details of civilized life.
Would you have the Jim Raus or the GatoGordo's do that ? Do you REALLY want those kind of folks making the new laws...that will look JUST LIKE THE OLD LAWS that we will be forced to go to war over ?
Compromise away all that decent men spilled their blood over..once again handing over to government the power to insulate themselves from the horrors they enact daily ?
I think NOT..therefore...we every one of us NEED to know how those other people think, and the arguments they bring to the table. ONLY by listening keenly to them can we know how to fight them...like it or not.
Most of those folks live perpetually in the 'gray' area...they are unable to see black and white..therefore they do not hold the high ground. There IS INDEED 'right' and 'WRONG' in this world..no matter HOW they try to convince others there is not.0 -
Hmm, apparently you didn't catch my sarcasm making fun of the anti's and that there comes a point in time that it is futile to try and educate those that prefer to remain uneducated and refuse to learn.
I know that your questions were rhetorical as to me you are preaching to the choir; although if need be I can answer, even though the answer would be an obvious NO however you answered your own question for me.
I think that I have established my intentions and beliefs here on these boards and elsewhere enough and if anyone is ignorant of those intentions and beliefs then I really cant convey that to them in any other manner for that would be frivolous in and of itself.0 -
Certainly 'I caught your sarcasm'. It pretty much sums up MY thoughts, many days when I tire of the endless attacks of the Beast-Lovers.
I have found no reason to argue with you..and I read most posts of most people concerning these subjects....or try to.
Hpwever..there is yet other reasons to continue the ongoing dialogue here publically. A quick review of the numbers of readers versus the number of posters seems to indicate that there is a silent presence out there..reading and learning.
Not ALL of them sit in office chairs in shirtsleeves making notes....slavishly doing the bidding of their Masters....enemies of the Constitution, all....0 -
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
(edited for pickenup[;)])
Thanks. [:D]
Not important but just curious... Is it just English language insults that are frowned on or do you not know what 'joto' means? Like I said, I don't really care what knuckleheads call me and if it was up to me I'd give them free rein to say just about anything. It just shows their limitations IMO. Thanks.
How many languages must I be fluent in?0 -
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by GatoGordo
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
(edited for pickenup[;)])
Thanks. [:D]
Not important but just curious... Is it just English language insults that are frowned on or do you not know what 'joto' means? Like I said, I don't really care what knuckleheads call me and if it was up to me I'd give them free rein to say just about anything. It just shows their limitations IMO. Thanks.
How many languages must I be fluent in?
The language of Google would be enough if you cared, but forget I asked. Do whatever you think is right.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
106 comments