InHouston "wrote"You rested your case...fucking moron. Go ejaculate some lead with your toy soldier friends. They're para-masturbating at the target range right now.Quote:
I rest my case ... fucking moron.
Printable View
InHouston "wrote"You rested your case...fucking moron. Go ejaculate some lead with your toy soldier friends. They're para-masturbating at the target range right now.Quote:
I rest my case ... fucking moron.
Everyday teenager on his porch in New Orleans ... probably a gang related drive-by shooting.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Murder suicides are the fault of the perpetrator, and not the firearm. Hypothetically if guns did not exist, he probably would have stabbed her and hung himself as alternative means to kill.
As far as gun safety in the home with children, one need only properly educate and train children to understand and respect firearms. Case in point. A well trained 11 year old girl in the proper use of a handgun:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bDlodGEp_9o
This young girl will never have to worry about becoming a victim of a violent crime.
That is your second attempt at answering that point, but all you can manage is monosyllabic grunting.Quote:
Originally Posted by InHouston
You disappoint me, ArmedandsleeplessInHouston. You've shattered my perception of gun nuts as lucid Adults capable of holding a conversation.
What a hypocrit you are. And you absolutely support the 2nd amendment right Trish? It's obvious you have little and/or no respect for gun owners.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
@Houston
Like I said man. It's no use talking about this issue. Let's just say this. Trish and Oli et. al. who think like them on this issue are right and we are wrong.... (Until the day eventually comes when they will need people like you and I to confront Tyrany with violence. Be it the tyrany of our own govt or hijackers on a airplane. They just don't understand that some evil people only respect a threat of violence.)
You are suggesting shooting guns on an airplane???!!!!
Please keep firearms away from this woman!!!
Umm hmmm ... and you misspelled the word 'weapons' brainiac.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomfurbs
But you managed to spell 'Pussy' and 'Moron' correctly, totally solidifying any point you were trying to make.
How about making a third attempt, boss?
I agree, however that is very inprobable. What is possible is that an armed attacker might come crawling through their window late one night. And as they shutter under the bed, or in a closet absolutely defenseless, or face down on their hands and knees as the intruder manipulates their life, maybe they'll understand what the hell we're talking about.Quote:
Originally Posted by BrendaQG
I have more reasonable conversations with my 11 year old nephew.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomfurbs
Some gun owners I respect. You ... not so much.
You did rest your case didn't you, or were you lying about that?
How many guns does he own?Quote:
Originally Posted by InHouston
Well, if you won't consider my opinion, then listen to an actual interview with a criminal who shot and killed two people for their car because they didn't want to walk home. While they were at it, they went through the dead men's pockets and made off with about $2.00
http://www.myfoxdfw.com/myfox/pages/...Y&pageId=1.1.1
The point is, a gun wouldn't have save him. Indeed, if you're right, he probably had one.Quote:
Everyday teenager on his porch in New Orleans ... probably a gang related drive-by shooting.
Of course, all crimes are the fault of the perp. Hypothetically, if he tried to stab his entire family they might have overcome him. In reality, he shot them with a gun which happen(ed) to (be) handy when his insanity peaked.Quote:
Murder suicides are the fault of the perpetrator, and not the firearm. Hypothetically if guns did not exist, he probably would have stabbed her and hung himself as alternative means to kill.
I considered your opinion. You rested your case. Now you want to submit more anecdotal crap as evidence?
http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoo...statistics.htm
http://www.futureofchildren.org/pubs...?doc_id=154414
http://www.bradycenter.org/stop2/facts/
http://www.paxusa.org/
Some gun owners? Well, as a law-abiding gun owner, and in the spirit of the 2nd amendment and being an American, it would be my moral and civic responsibility as an armed citizen to come to your aid Trish if your life was being endangered by a criminal. That means I respect you as a human being and your right to life, and to live your life and die on your own terms, and not on the whimsical terms of a criminal who doesn't value your life. I own and train with firearms to defend life, not to just wait for the opportunity to legally shoot someone like the 'gun nut' you perceive me to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
That is about the fairest rebuttal that I post on this topic.
I can take care of myself thank you. I don't (...) trust you to judge whether my life is in danger. If I handle the situation, most likely nobody winds up wounded or dead. If you interfere with your two big shiny steel guns there in your avatar...who knows what'll happen.
(edited for grammar)
By the way, if you rest your case you don't get a rebuttal.
Yeah right. Spoken like a true victim. Remember when I referred to your judgment? You'll be one the one that winds up wounded or dead should you handle such a situation yourself. I suppose you feel you can reason with a killer. Good luck.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
I reached out to you in a sincere and respectful gesture in an attempt to find some middle ground, and you cut my hand off. No problem. I congratulate you on your shining and consistent examples of how to 'think inside the box'. Your wisdom and judgment stinks to high heaven.
I'm outta here. :moon
Reply notifications are now off on this thread.
Get back in your little box Trish.Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
Thanks again, but I really don't want anyone getting shot because some brainless oaf thinks he's rescuing me. Keep your guns out of other people's business, InHouston, please.
So you're outta here, eh? I hope so. I know you and your toy soldier buddies must have that special bond that develops between men who para-masturbate on the rifle range together. The next time, why don’t all you guys ejaculate in a circle?
Even after the '39 ruling, None of this was ever an issue until Wayne la Pierre & his merry band of right wing fanatics managed to take control of the NRA. Now they're just another lunatic fringe group This is going to get even more interesting the first time some nutbar tries to use this ruling to justify strapping an M60 or a rocket launcher to the back of his pickup.Quote:
Originally Posted by InHouston
Because they might get caught in the "crossfire"Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
:lol:
Contraty to many uninformed people's opinion, a few bullet holes in the side of an airplane will have NO adverse effects on the plane's safety or maneuverability. This is a documented fact. The world's first pressurized airplane, a little Boeing job by the number B-29 sustained numerous large caliber shots and was able to keep it's internal pressure by merely increasing power to the superchargers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomfurbs
No one is going to get sucked out of a bullet hole in an airplane.
Ghandi and his followers were dealing with a CIVILIZED people, Great Britain. You cnnot equate Ghandi & GB with Nazi Germany, or the bolsheviks, etc.......Quote:
Originally Posted by trish
That's just as bad as mc-same-as-bush trying to equate iraq with post WWII, and post Korea, which WILL haunt him in november.
I'd rather not be in a crowded, sealed tube with people firing guns at each other, thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paladin
The fact that we are suspended in mid-air is just icing on the cake.
Paladin writes:If you read carefully I'm asserting no such equation. What I do presume is that Americans are civilized people and that we too can settle our disagreements peacefully. It's a wonderful adolescent fantasy that in the apocalyptic future an armed citizenry will take back their government from the politicians. In reality, Americans have a lot of recourse besides violence. We've more political power then we use. Look at how many people actually vote. We've representation in local, State and Federal government. We have the courts, we have unions, we have political action organizations, we have freedom of assembly...and we have civil disobedience. I'm not saying the adolescent fantasy is an impossibility...I'm not saying we should ax the 2nd amendment...I'm just saying we've got a long long way to go before take over of the government by armed citizens is even a remotely serious consideration. Frankly, if it ever came down to it, I don't know whose side I'd be on (it depends on which citizens and which government). The citizens can be pretty stupid and morally warped sometimes.Quote:
Ghandi and his followers were dealing with a CIVILIZED people, Great Britain. You cnnot equate Ghandi & GB with Nazi Germany, or the bolsheviks, etc.......
We ARE the government.
Really? Right Now?
Yes. Right now.
really?
Really
House Keeping
Stick with the orginal question. Hippiefried noted: "We ARE the government." You questioned it and I affirmed it. Twice. I'll affirm it again if you like: Yes, We ARE the government.
If we don't have the same laws or understandings that we started with in the eighteenth century, then that's our doing. For what goes right, we take the credit. For what goes wrong, we take the blame. I proudly count myself IN on this historical ride.
House Keeping
I'd say a constitutional republic is the term. There are indeed powerful extra-governmental influences( e.g. corporations, unions, political parties, individual action organizations, political action organizations , environmental organizations etc.) but none of them are in command of the government. All of them court public opinion and all of them court the same representatives the public elects. It's nowhere near an oligarchy as I see it. When it gets that far, I'll pick up my old hunting rifles and walk along side InHouston. That's a measure of how far we are from having an oligarchical governement.
House Keeping
Nothing? The Supreme Court is still handing down decisions and the litigants still do abide by the Supreme Court.Quote:
Originally Posted by El Nino
I gave my reasons why I categorize our nation as a constitutional republic. You have chosen not to address them. So I will continue to focus on your claim. You say we live in an oligarchy. If you mean this literally (which I take it you do) and not in some metaphorical sense, then there must literally be a handful of people in absolute command over all aspects of the government and who have no need of convincing or beguiling any part of the legislature, executive branch, judicial branch, military or the public in order to have their way. They simply demand and the rest comply without question. That's oligarchy.
Our form of government is not that of an oligarchy nor is it effectively an oligarchy. Sure powerful industries sometimes get what they want through influence, fair and corrupt. Halliburton for example had a great deal of interest in starting the war in Iraq and they had a great deal of influence through Cheney and Bush. Haliburton was and is in a position to bribe and influence, but it is not in a position to command the government. Can you imagine Cheney taking orders from Haliburton execs? Cheney and Bush aren't oligarchs because oligarch don't have a term of office. Who are the oligarchs? There simply is no oligarchy that can be seen.
You could claim that the oligarchs are well hidden. But that turns your claim into an unprovable conspiracy theory.
You might even claim the oligarchs are well hidden and their methods are so subtle that they don't work through a chain of command like in a real oligarchy but instead they work through influence, bribery and blackmail. But then you don't have real oligarchs any more nor a real oligarchy. You've got a watered down metaphor. You just got powerful players trying their utmost to control the strings of governmental power to benefit their own interests. We've always had players like that. That's why checks and balances are important. That's why we need to be vigilant. But the existence of such players does not constitute an oligarchy. In so far as they might engage in bribery and blackmail, they are criminals. In so far as they don't, they are the people too, albeit often rather selfish ones.
Trish you are a very idealic person. IRL the government is out to protect the interest of a truly privillaged few, old money, white, corporate magnates, at the expense of the masses. Society is a pyramid, always a pyramid and most of us are much closer to the bottom of it.
The only leverage we have is that the mass of us would if pushed too far revolt, perhaps violently.
Knowing you.... as you appear on this board.... you would never agree to this. You are an idealist, and very optimistic.
I look at the world with the eyes of gunnery Sergeant Hartman. you gotta have a warface. You gotta have guts. Life is a battlefield.
A cold cruel place set on destroying us without compunction. That can very well include a friendly neighborhood transphobic police man. If a gun helps one to preserve and persevere then by all means have it.
The pessimist sees the glass half empty.
The optimist sees the glass half full.
The engineer sees a mismatch between the size of the glass & the amount of liquid.
I'm sure there's more of those.
We are the government.
We revolt through the ballot box.
We get a shot at it every 2 years.
If anybody doesn't like the way things are, all they have to do is convince people that they're right. That's the democratic process.
The founders weren't omnicient. The constitution has been amended 27 times. The mechanism for doing so is built in.
We are the government.