100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Liberals prefer Women be Unarmed and Raped | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Who exactly is saying they want women to be raped? the liberals... didn't you read the headline? and it didn't say "wanted", it said prefer... there is a difference Clearly I'm asking for a specific example. Give me the name and specific quote of the person you're accusing of wanting (or preferring) women to be raped. oh quit, you know what exactly what he's saying... liberals want gun control, and you know that... by saying you can't have a gun, they prefer you get raped rather than have a gun to defend yourself... you can try the who, what, where questioning, but it won't work... equating a desire for better gun control to a desire for no guns is like equating a desire for a balanced diet, to a desire to starve there is plenty of common sense middle ground to be covered equating a desire for better gun control to a desire for no guns is like equating a desire for a balanced diet, to a desire to starve there is plenty of common sense middle ground to be covered REPOSTED FOR COMPREHENSION And that particular occurrence shows again that Guncontrol is detrimental! The Right to Life,but no Right to defend it? Those rotten Politicians ought to be ashamed of themselves! But what do they have to worry about? Bodyguards and Concealed Carry,while they forbid the same to the Citizens! Sick Vermin! No better than the other Predators!  gun control is not detrimental, it is an attempt to give a damn throwing the hands up with an anyone who wants one should have one mentality seems more detrimental a philosophy in this fast driven materialistic western culture, to me again, believing in using common sense about the types of weapons we produce and in whose hands we ALLOW them to be in is a far cry from believing women should be unarmed and raped,, and I say this as a two time survivor of sexual assault myself (of course people will always break laws and do whats not allowed, but at least starting with it not being allowed gives some legal standing to prosecute without a bunch of red tape and loopholes) how many women dont have that right exactly does not having a gun in certain areas prevent one from 'defending' themself,,,? why dont we fashion a bomb for everyone too, so they can 'defend' theself? defending oneself does not start or stop with whether one owns or carries a gun A gun ban didn't seem to mater to the rapist mentioned in OP... in chicago, the gun violence went up after they made the strictest gun laws in the country... and if you watched the video that leigh posted, that womans parents would still be alive if Texas wasn't so dumb back then... correction, 'may' still be alive... your right, but she seemed to think that she would have hit him... |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Leigh2154
on
Sat 03/09/13 11:18 AM
|
|
Who exactly is saying they want women to be raped? the liberals... didn't you read the headline? and it didn't say "wanted", it said prefer... there is a difference Clearly I'm asking for a specific example. Give me the name and specific quote of the person you're accusing of wanting (or preferring) women to be raped. oh quit, you know what exactly what he's saying... liberals want gun control, and you know that... by saying you can't have a gun, they prefer you get raped rather than have a gun to defend yourself... you can try the who, what, where questioning, but it won't work... equating a desire for better gun control to a desire for no guns is like equating a desire for a balanced diet, to a desire to starve there is plenty of common sense middle ground to be covered equating a desire for better gun control to a desire for no guns is like equating a desire for a balanced diet, to a desire to starve there is plenty of common sense middle ground to be covered REPOSTED FOR COMPREHENSION And that particular occurrence shows again that Guncontrol is detrimental! The Right to Life,but no Right to defend it? Those rotten Politicians ought to be ashamed of themselves! But what do they have to worry about? Bodyguards and Concealed Carry,while they forbid the same to the Citizens! Sick Vermin! No better than the other Predators! gun control is not detrimental, it is an attempt to give a damn throwing the hands up with an anyone who wants one should have one mentality seems more detrimental a philosophy in this fast driven materialistic western culture, to me again, believing in using common sense about the types of weapons we produce and in whose hands we ALLOW them to be in is a far cry from believing women should be unarmed and raped,, and I say this as a two time survivor of sexual assault myself (of course people will always break laws and do whats not allowed, but at least starting with it not being allowed gives some legal standing to prosecute without a bunch of red tape and loopholes) how many women dont have that right exactly does not having a gun in certain areas prevent one from 'defending' themself,,,? why dont we fashion a bomb for everyone too, so they can 'defend' theself? defending oneself does not start or stop with whether one owns or carries a gun A gun ban didn't seem to mater to the rapist mentioned in OP... in chicago, the gun violence went up after they made the strictest gun laws in the country... and if you watched the video that leigh posted, that womans parents would still be alive if Texas wasn't so dumb back then... correction, 'may' still be alive... your right, but she seemed to think that she would have hit him... The whole point of that video is that the woman speaking is basing her position on "her" personal experience with a horrific act of gun violence...This, and this alone, is what gives her position or view on gun control legislation credibility!.......Supposition, agenda, partisan game playing all do nothing to solve the problem and everything to enhance it.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No matter how one look's a the loss of life or an infringement upon there personal well being it is tragic experience. I beleive we all sympathy's for anyone whose had a criminal act committed against them, family, or friend. When one is fearful of their well being one want's a means to protect them-self. This has alway's been part of human exsistance.
The Second Admendment I believe originally was created for Militia purposes. Looking through history and the first development of guns (Cannon was the first 1400 cenury) its' purpose was for military use. Looking back in history again at the development of iron (The Iron Age) the purpose of iron was for tools, and armaments. At this time business men were largely fighting and their armament was often the riches and most beautiful. Wealthy individuals' were the only one's who could afford these items'. Looking back just before the development of the U.S. Constitution the U.S. was defending itself from the Indians' and French which at that time the U.S. had NO organized military. This made it difficult to defend the nation, so a small Militia group was organized of 80 individual's the expanded to around 500. Originally Article 1 Section 2 of the U.S Constitution had nothing to do with the rigth's to bare arms. It was deveolped for the House of Representatives of several State's and needed to be elected. It stated the AGE one must be to be a Member, Taxes, How many Representatives for 30,000 individuals' and limited the number of Representatives for some States. Article 2 only had one section 1 which preserved the power President of the U.S. and the Militia of the U.S. It was only later the issue of the Second Admendment came into interpretation of the "right to bare arm"; which is an open statement for interpretation by many. To argue this point ONE'S RIGHT TO BARE ARMS' could mean that anyone who has obtained a GUN are by the U.S. Government Rights to be drafted into Military Services without question, since the first part of the Second Admendment states; "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State..."; the key words' are "...MILITIA AND FREE STATE..." and the later pare "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." that as long as you bare arms you are part of the U.S. Government Armed Forces. If you bare arms and argue that individuals have the right to bare arms, but your against a military conflict it could then be interpreted that you are an enemy of the U.S. State and Government. The arguement now is are these individuals' under the juridiction of Military Law if they oppose military action by the U.S. Government. Most guns are developed for military use's and have been throughout history. Gun manufactures' want this debate because it keep's them in business and allow's revenue for further development of armaments' (THIS IS A FACT). The true questions' should people be discussing are physiology "...The science that deals with the normal functioning of living organisms and their parts....". What causes criminal activity and how to prevent it from occuring, what cause fear in and individual to develope or continue after a tramatic experience etc. I can state that part of the problem is fear in society to disclose criminal activity out of being ostacized or attached for disclosure of criminal activity. Guns have a purpose in society if used correctly to defend a State belief or hunting and gathering. Do people honesty need to walk around in fear of being shot intentionally, accidentally, or being a victim of any other crime? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No matter how one look's a the loss of life or an infringement upon there personal well being it is tragic experience. I beleive we all sympathy's for anyone whose had a criminal act committed against them, family, or friend. When one is fearful of their well being one want's a means to protect them-self. This has alway's been part of human exsistance. The Second Admendment I believe originally was created for Militia purposes. Looking through history and the first development of guns (Cannon was the first 1400 cenury) its' purpose was for military use. Looking back in history again at the development of iron (The Iron Age) the purpose of iron was for tools, and armaments. At this time business men were largely fighting and their armament was often the riches and most beautiful. Wealthy individuals' were the only one's who could afford these items'. Looking back just before the development of the U.S. Constitution the U.S. was defending itself from the Indians' and French which at that time the U.S. had NO organized military. This made it difficult to defend the nation, so a small Militia group was organized of 80 individual's the expanded to around 500. Originally Article 1 Section 2 of the U.S Constitution had nothing to do with the rigth's to bare arms. It was deveolped for the House of Representatives of several State's and needed to be elected. It stated the AGE one must be to be a Member, Taxes, How many Representatives for 30,000 individuals' and limited the number of Representatives for some States. Article 2 only had one section 1 which preserved the power President of the U.S. and the Militia of the U.S. It was only later the issue of the Second Admendment came into interpretation of the "right to bare arm"; which is an open statement for interpretation by many. To argue this point ONE'S RIGHT TO BARE ARMS' could mean that anyone who has obtained a GUN are by the U.S. Government Rights to be drafted into Military Services without question, since the first part of the Second Admendment states; "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State..."; the key words' are "...MILITIA AND FREE STATE..." and the later pare "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." that as long as you bare arms you are part of the U.S. Government Armed Forces. If you bare arms and argue that individuals have the right to bare arms, but your against a military conflict it could then be interpreted that you are an enemy of the U.S. State and Government. The arguement now is are these individuals' under the juridiction of Military Law if they oppose military action by the U.S. Government. Most guns are developed for military use's and have been throughout history. Gun manufactures' want this debate because it keep's them in business and allow's revenue for further development of armaments' (THIS IS A FACT). The true questions' should people be discussing are physiology "...The science that deals with the normal functioning of living organisms and their parts....". What causes criminal activity and how to prevent it from occuring, what cause fear in and individual to develope or continue after a tramatic experience etc. I can state that part of the problem is fear in society to disclose criminal activity out of being ostacized or attached for disclosure of criminal activity. Guns have a purpose in society if used correctly to defend a State belief or hunting and gathering. Do people honesty need to walk around in fear of being shot intentionally, accidentally, or being a victim of any other crime? now we are talking prevention vs retribution decreasing the risks of creating criminals, as opposed to creating environments to avenge and kill them,,,, ,,it would be a great and complicated discussion to have,,,, after all , we are the land of the 'free', so we usually will prefer more freedom and choice to any type of regulation or control,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm all for weapons being strictly regulated...
Your existing model has proven to be a failure. Peace loving people are most at risk and are the soft targets. I haven't heard of one instance where a law abiding armed citizen put an early end to demented mass killings. The more tragic, the more news about it. Yes, I support gun control... But first, put a gag order on ANY tragic events regarding mass shootings... Ya'll are attention Horz and copycat shootings must end. Side Note: I was recently in Vegas... The night before I got there, 2 gangsters were shooting at each other on the strip... A rapper in a Maserati lost control and plowed into a "propane powered cab" killing the driver, a tourist as well as the Rapper himself... 2 days later I was one of the first onsite to a hostage taking... I also witnessed a gangland shooting in Soho NYC 10 yrs ago, I was so close, I could have ended the whole thing with 4-5 shots. Ya'll have lost the right to bear arms and you've lost your frikken minds IMO. Here, the mob is back... They're cleaning the streets of Haitian/Jamaican gangs running a muck for the last decade while the Godfather festered in a US jail. Goodfellas who keep a closed lid on the riff raff. People who the riff raff are terrified of. Finally we may get some peace on the streets. PEACE! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No matter how one look's a the loss of life or an infringement upon there personal well being it is tragic experience. I beleive we all sympathy's for anyone whose had a criminal act committed against them, family, or friend. When one is fearful of their well being one want's a means to protect them-self. This has alway's been part of human exsistance. The Second Admendment I believe originally was created for Militia purposes. Looking through history and the first development of guns (Cannon was the first 1400 cenury) its' purpose was for military use. Looking back in history again at the development of iron (The Iron Age) the purpose of iron was for tools, and armaments. At this time business men were largely fighting and their armament was often the riches and most beautiful. Wealthy individuals' were the only one's who could afford these items'. Looking back just before the development of the U.S. Constitution the U.S. was defending itself from the Indians' and French which at that time the U.S. had NO organized military. This made it difficult to defend the nation, so a small Militia group was organized of 80 individual's the expanded to around 500. Originally Article 1 Section 2 of the U.S Constitution had nothing to do with the rigth's to bare arms. It was deveolped for the House of Representatives of several State's and needed to be elected. It stated the AGE one must be to be a Member, Taxes, How many Representatives for 30,000 individuals' and limited the number of Representatives for some States. Article 2 only had one section 1 which preserved the power President of the U.S. and the Militia of the U.S. It was only later the issue of the Second Admendment came into interpretation of the "right to bare arm"; which is an open statement for interpretation by many. To argue this point ONE'S RIGHT TO BARE ARMS' could mean that anyone who has obtained a GUN are by the U.S. Government Rights to be drafted into Military Services without question, since the first part of the Second Admendment states; "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State..."; the key words' are "...MILITIA AND FREE STATE..." and the later pare "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." that as long as you bare arms you are part of the U.S. Government Armed Forces. If you bare arms and argue that individuals have the right to bare arms, but your against a military conflict it could then be interpreted that you are an enemy of the U.S. State and Government. The arguement now is are these individuals' under the juridiction of Military Law if they oppose military action by the U.S. Government. Most guns are developed for military use's and have been throughout history. Gun manufactures' want this debate because it keep's them in business and allow's revenue for further development of armaments' (THIS IS A FACT). The true questions' should people be discussing are physiology "...The science that deals with the normal functioning of living organisms and their parts....". What causes criminal activity and how to prevent it from occuring, what cause fear in and individual to develope or continue after a tramatic experience etc. I can state that part of the problem is fear in society to disclose criminal activity out of being ostacized or attached for disclosure of criminal activity. Guns have a purpose in society if used correctly to defend a State belief or hunting and gathering. Do people honesty need to walk around in fear of being shot intentionally, accidentally, or being a victim of any other crime? now we are talking prevention vs retribution decreasing the risks of creating criminals, as opposed to creating environments to avenge and kill them,,,, ,,it would be a great and complicated discussion to have,,,, after all , we are the land of the 'free', so we usually will prefer more freedom and choice to any type of regulation or control,,, seems to me that they would be creating more criminals by banning guns... then only the criminals would have them... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No matter how one look's a the loss of life or an infringement upon there personal well being it is tragic experience. I beleive we all sympathy's for anyone whose had a criminal act committed against them, family, or friend. When one is fearful of their well being one want's a means to protect them-self. This has alway's been part of human exsistance. The Second Admendment I believe originally was created for Militia purposes. Looking through history and the first development of guns (Cannon was the first 1400 cenury) its' purpose was for military use. Looking back in history again at the development of iron (The Iron Age) the purpose of iron was for tools, and armaments. At this time business men were largely fighting and their armament was often the riches and most beautiful. Wealthy individuals' were the only one's who could afford these items'. Looking back just before the development of the U.S. Constitution the U.S. was defending itself from the Indians' and French which at that time the U.S. had NO organized military. This made it difficult to defend the nation, so a small Militia group was organized of 80 individual's the expanded to around 500. Originally Article 1 Section 2 of the U.S Constitution had nothing to do with the rigth's to bare arms. It was deveolped for the House of Representatives of several State's and needed to be elected. It stated the AGE one must be to be a Member, Taxes, How many Representatives for 30,000 individuals' and limited the number of Representatives for some States. Article 2 only had one section 1 which preserved the power President of the U.S. and the Militia of the U.S. It was only later the issue of the Second Admendment came into interpretation of the "right to bare arm"; which is an open statement for interpretation by many. To argue this point ONE'S RIGHT TO BARE ARMS' could mean that anyone who has obtained a GUN are by the U.S. Government Rights to be drafted into Military Services without question, since the first part of the Second Admendment states; "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State..."; the key words' are "...MILITIA AND FREE STATE..." and the later pare "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." that as long as you bare arms you are part of the U.S. Government Armed Forces. If you bare arms and argue that individuals have the right to bare arms, but your against a military conflict it could then be interpreted that you are an enemy of the U.S. State and Government. The arguement now is are these individuals' under the juridiction of Military Law if they oppose military action by the U.S. Government. Most guns are developed for military use's and have been throughout history. Gun manufactures' want this debate because it keep's them in business and allow's revenue for further development of armaments' (THIS IS A FACT). The true questions' should people be discussing are physiology "...The science that deals with the normal functioning of living organisms and their parts....". What causes criminal activity and how to prevent it from occuring, what cause fear in and individual to develope or continue after a tramatic experience etc. I can state that part of the problem is fear in society to disclose criminal activity out of being ostacized or attached for disclosure of criminal activity. Guns have a purpose in society if used correctly to defend a State belief or hunting and gathering. Do people honesty need to walk around in fear of being shot intentionally, accidentally, or being a victim of any other crime? now we are talking prevention vs retribution decreasing the risks of creating criminals, as opposed to creating environments to avenge and kill them,,,, ,,it would be a great and complicated discussion to have,,,, after all , we are the land of the 'free', so we usually will prefer more freedom and choice to any type of regulation or control,,, seems to me that they would be creating more criminals by banning guns... then only the criminals would have them... yes, which is why noone in the thread yet has supported banning guns |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SpicyExcel
on
Sat 03/09/13 12:36 PM
|
|
No matter how one look's a the loss of life or an infringement upon there personal well being it is tragic experience. I beleive we all sympathy's for anyone whose had a criminal act committed against them, family, or friend. When one is fearful of their well being one want's a means to protect them-self. This has alway's been part of human exsistance. The Second Admendment I believe originally was created for Militia purposes. Looking through history and the first development of guns (Cannon was the first 1400 cenury) its' purpose was for military use. Looking back in history again at the development of iron (The Iron Age) the purpose of iron was for tools, and armaments. At this time business men were largely fighting and their armament was often the riches and most beautiful. Wealthy individuals' were the only one's who could afford these items'. Looking back just before the development of the U.S. Constitution the U.S. was defending itself from the Indians' and French which at that time the U.S. had NO organized military. This made it difficult to defend the nation, so a small Militia group was organized of 80 individual's the expanded to around 500. Originally Article 1 Section 2 of the U.S Constitution had nothing to do with the rigth's to bare arms. It was deveolped for the House of Representatives of several State's and needed to be elected. It stated the AGE one must be to be a Member, Taxes, How many Representatives for 30,000 individuals' and limited the number of Representatives for some States. Article 2 only had one section 1 which preserved the power President of the U.S. and the Militia of the U.S. It was only later the issue of the Second Admendment came into interpretation of the "right to bare arm"; which is an open statement for interpretation by many. To argue this point ONE'S RIGHT TO BARE ARMS' could mean that anyone who has obtained a GUN are by the U.S. Government Rights to be drafted into Military Services without question, since the first part of the Second Admendment states; "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State..."; the key words' are "...MILITIA AND FREE STATE..." and the later pare "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." that as long as you bare arms you are part of the U.S. Government Armed Forces. If you bare arms and argue that individuals have the right to bare arms, but your against a military conflict it could then be interpreted that you are an enemy of the U.S. State and Government. The arguement now is are these individuals' under the juridiction of Military Law if they oppose military action by the U.S. Government. Most guns are developed for military use's and have been throughout history. Gun manufactures' want this debate because it keep's them in business and allow's revenue for further development of armaments' (THIS IS A FACT). The true questions' should people be discussing are physiology "...The science that deals with the normal functioning of living organisms and their parts....". What causes criminal activity and how to prevent it from occuring, what cause fear in and individual to develope or continue after a tramatic experience etc. I can state that part of the problem is fear in society to disclose criminal activity out of being ostacized or attached for disclosure of criminal activity. Guns have a purpose in society if used correctly to defend a State belief or hunting and gathering. Do people honesty need to walk around in fear of being shot intentionally, accidentally, or being a victim of any other crime? seems to me that they would be creating more criminals by banning guns... then only the criminals would have them... I believe you did not understand how the Second Admendment can be interpreted of the Federal Government chose to do so in-order too prevent crime and how the Federal Government is influenced in this market. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who exactly is saying they want women to be raped? the liberals... didn't you read the headline? and it didn't say "wanted", it said prefer... there is a difference Clearly I'm asking for a specific example. Give me the name and specific quote of the person you're accusing of wanting (or preferring) women to be raped. oh quit, you know what exactly what he's saying... liberals want gun control, and you know that... by saying you can't have a gun, they prefer you get raped rather than have a gun to defend yourself... you can try the who, what, where questioning, but it won't work... equating a desire for better gun control to a desire for no guns is like equating a desire for a balanced diet, to a desire to starve there is plenty of common sense middle ground to be covered equating a desire for better gun control to a desire for no guns is like equating a desire for a balanced diet, to a desire to starve there is plenty of common sense middle ground to be covered REPOSTED FOR COMPREHENSION And that particular occurrence shows again that Guncontrol is detrimental! The Right to Life,but no Right to defend it? Those rotten Politicians ought to be ashamed of themselves! But what do they have to worry about? Bodyguards and Concealed Carry,while they forbid the same to the Citizens! Sick Vermin! No better than the other Predators! gun control is not detrimental, it is an attempt to give a damn throwing the hands up with an anyone who wants one should have one mentality seems more detrimental a philosophy in this fast driven materialistic western culture, to me again, believing in using common sense about the types of weapons we produce and in whose hands we ALLOW them to be in is a far cry from believing women should be unarmed and raped,, and I say this as a two time survivor of sexual assault myself (of course people will always break laws and do whats not allowed, but at least starting with it not being allowed gives some legal standing to prosecute without a bunch of red tape and loopholes) how many women dont have that right exactly does not having a gun in certain areas prevent one from 'defending' themself,,,? why dont we fashion a bomb for everyone too, so they can 'defend' theself? defending oneself does not start or stop with whether one owns or carries a gun A gun ban didn't seem to mater to the rapist mentioned in OP... in chicago, the gun violence went up after they made the strictest gun laws in the country... and if you watched the video that leigh posted, that womans parents would still be alive if Texas wasn't so dumb back then... correction, 'may' still be alive... your right, but she seemed to think that she would have hit him... The whole point of that video is that the woman speaking is basing her position on "her" personal experience with a horrific act of gun violence...This, and this alone, is what gives her position or view on gun control legislation credibility!.......Supposition, agenda, partisan game playing all do nothing to solve the problem and everything to enhance it.... Leigh, I agree, which explains how a couple of us became involved in this discussion. using conjecture to support the claim given in the title of this thread is simply absurd. but it seems, if one questions the validity of the headline, they (we) are automatically dismissed as being stupid, dumb, illiterate and a defender of criminal behavior. oh, and being evil because it was assumed, I am anti-gun. ironic, because as it turns out, I actually have a couple of guns. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Sat 03/09/13 12:58 PM
|
|
Mike October 21, 2011 at 10:15 pm
There’s a lesson for the gun-grabbers and banners that, of course, they will not grasp…And that is the utter ultimate futility of their aims for us here in the US…American gun owners currently buy their factory-made arms because they are still relatively inexpensive and readily available here…Now, imagine that has changed due to new, draconian wet-dream gun ban laws…With the variety and access to machine tools and industrial processes at the disposal of American craftsmen, how long would it take for every neighborhood to have an underground arms factory?…The variety of innovation would be stunning! Reply JImbo October 22, 2011 at 11:17 am The grabber and banners are living in their own little utopia. They have no concept of the world outside their doorway. (from another site) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No matter how one look's a the loss of life or an infringement upon there personal well being it is tragic experience. I beleive we all sympathy's for anyone whose had a criminal act committed against them, family, or friend. When one is fearful of their well being one want's a means to protect them-self. This has alway's been part of human exsistance. The Second Admendment I believe originally was created for Militia purposes. Looking through history and the first development of guns (Cannon was the first 1400 cenury) its' purpose was for military use. Looking back in history again at the development of iron (The Iron Age) the purpose of iron was for tools, and armaments. At this time business men were largely fighting and their armament was often the riches and most beautiful. Wealthy individuals' were the only one's who could afford these items'. Looking back just before the development of the U.S. Constitution the U.S. was defending itself from the Indians' and French which at that time the U.S. had NO organized military. This made it difficult to defend the nation, so a small Militia group was organized of 80 individual's the expanded to around 500. Originally Article 1 Section 2 of the U.S Constitution had nothing to do with the rigth's to bare arms. It was deveolped for the House of Representatives of several State's and needed to be elected. It stated the AGE one must be to be a Member, Taxes, How many Representatives for 30,000 individuals' and limited the number of Representatives for some States. Article 2 only had one section 1 which preserved the power President of the U.S. and the Militia of the U.S. It was only later the issue of the Second Admendment came into interpretation of the "right to bare arm"; which is an open statement for interpretation by many. To argue this point ONE'S RIGHT TO BARE ARMS' could mean that anyone who has obtained a GUN are by the U.S. Government Rights to be drafted into Military Services without question, since the first part of the Second Admendment states; "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State..."; the key words' are "...MILITIA AND FREE STATE..." and the later pare "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." that as long as you bare arms you are part of the U.S. Government Armed Forces. If you bare arms and argue that individuals have the right to bare arms, but your against a military conflict it could then be interpreted that you are an enemy of the U.S. State and Government. The arguement now is are these individuals' under the juridiction of Military Law if they oppose military action by the U.S. Government. Most guns are developed for military use's and have been throughout history. Gun manufactures' want this debate because it keep's them in business and allow's revenue for further development of armaments' (THIS IS A FACT). The true questions' should people be discussing are physiology "...The science that deals with the normal functioning of living organisms and their parts....". What causes criminal activity and how to prevent it from occuring, what cause fear in and individual to develope or continue after a tramatic experience etc. I can state that part of the problem is fear in society to disclose criminal activity out of being ostacized or attached for disclosure of criminal activity. Guns have a purpose in society if used correctly to defend a State belief or hunting and gathering. Do people honesty need to walk around in fear of being shot intentionally, accidentally, or being a victim of any other crime? seems to me that they would be creating more criminals by banning guns... then only the criminals would have them... I believe you did not understand how the Second Admendment can be interpreted of the Federal Government chose to do so in-order too prevent crime and how the Federal Government is influenced in this market. you can't prevent crime... it's going to happen.. do you think if everyone in the US had a pistol on their side, would there be more or less crime? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Leigh2154
on
Sat 03/09/13 01:39 PM
|
|
Leigh, I agree, which explains how a couple of us became involved in this discussion. using conjecture to support the claim given in the title of this thread is simply absurd. but it seems, if one questions the validity of the headline, they (we) are automatically dismissed as being stupid, dumb, illiterate and a defender of criminal behavior. oh, and being evil because it was assumed, I am anti-gun. ironic, because as it turns out, I actually have a couple of guns. Hello my poetic peer!!  ...First let me say this...The use of conjecture speaks for itself...No need to get into a pizzing contest with anyone who uses it or supports it because that's when and how the real point gets pushed to the back of the line...That's also when the possibility of intelligent discussion or debate goes flying out the window...I don't think either side has to defend their position on gun control legislation because they are entitled to feel anyway they want...Conjecture is a waste of time for everything except opening up the discussion,,,,,,I could care less when someone uses an inflammatory thread title as a HOOK or a wind up...If I want to contribute something, I'm going do my best to contribute something that hopefully will give both sides food for thought and maybe open up a path to some productive discussion.......I don't like big government because I have witnessed and understand the effects...I don't believe the gun legislation changes that Obama announced over a year ago will prevent or lessen crime and murder or make our children safer...They will only cost the taxpayers more money, increase the national debt, and make law abiding citizens like yourself more vulnerable.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 03/09/13 01:45 PM
|
|
I'm all for weapons being strictly regulated... Your existing model has proven to be a failure. Peace loving people are most at risk and are the soft targets. I haven't heard of one instance where a law abiding armed citizen put an early end to demented mass killings. The more tragic, the more news about it. Yes, I support gun control... But first, put a gag order on ANY tragic events regarding mass shootings... Ya'll are attention Horz and copycat shootings must end. Side Note: I was recently in Vegas... The night before I got there, 2 gangsters were shooting at each other on the strip... A rapper in a Maserati lost control and plowed into a "propane powered cab" killing the driver, a tourist as well as the Rapper himself... 2 days later I was one of the first onsite to a hostage taking... I also witnessed a gangland shooting in Soho NYC 10 yrs ago, I was so close, I could have ended the whole thing with 4-5 shots. Ya'll have lost the right to bear arms and you've lost your frikken minds IMO. Here, the mob is back... They're cleaning the streets of Haitian/Jamaican gangs running a muck for the last decade while the Godfather festered in a US jail. Goodfellas who keep a closed lid on the riff raff. People who the riff raff are terrified of. Finally we may get some peace on the streets. PEACE! You said: "I haven't heard of one instance where a law abiding armed citizen put an early end to demented mass killings. The more tragic, the more news about it." Of course you haven't heard about it. Its not news. News is only when people get killed.  You said: "Ya'll have lost the right to bear arms and you've lost your frikken minds IMO." No "we all" have not lost the right to bear arms. If we let legislators take away our right to protect ourselves, and give up our liberty, then do you really think we will be safer? Criminals CAN STILL GET GUNS. Those who give up their liberty for alleged "safety" don't deserve either. Yes there are a lot of bad and crazy guys out there, but taking away guns from the people who have a right to protect themselves will not solve the problem. People are crazy because they are on drugs. Meth lab operators should be given the death penalty or locked away for life. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SpicyExcel
on
Sat 03/09/13 02:21 PM
|
|
No matter how one look's a the loss of life or an infringement upon there personal well being it is tragic experience. I beleive we all sympathy's for anyone whose had a criminal act committed against them, family, or friend. When one is fearful of their well being one want's a means to protect them-self. This has alway's been part of human exsistance. The Second Admendment I believe originally was created for Militia purposes. Looking through history and the first development of guns (Cannon was the first 1400 cenury) its' purpose was for military use. Looking back in history again at the development of iron (The Iron Age) the purpose of iron was for tools, and armaments. At this time business men were largely fighting and their armament was often the riches and most beautiful. Wealthy individuals' were the only one's who could afford these items'. Looking back just before the development of the U.S. Constitution the U.S. was defending itself from the Indians' and French which at that time the U.S. had NO organized military. This made it difficult to defend the nation, so a small Militia group was organized of 80 individual's the expanded to around 500. Originally Article 1 Section 2 of the U.S Constitution had nothing to do with the rigth's to bare arms. It was deveolped for the House of Representatives of several State's and needed to be elected. It stated the AGE one must be to be a Member, Taxes, How many Representatives for 30,000 individuals' and limited the number of Representatives for some States. Article 2 only had one section 1 which preserved the power President of the U.S. and the Militia of the U.S. It was only later the issue of the Second Admendment came into interpretation of the "right to bare arm"; which is an open statement for interpretation by many. To argue this point ONE'S RIGHT TO BARE ARMS' could mean that anyone who has obtained a GUN are by the U.S. Government Rights to be drafted into Military Services without question, since the first part of the Second Admendment states; "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State..."; the key words' are "...MILITIA AND FREE STATE..." and the later pare "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." that as long as you bare arms you are part of the U.S. Government Armed Forces. If you bare arms and argue that individuals have the right to bare arms, but your against a military conflict it could then be interpreted that you are an enemy of the U.S. State and Government. The arguement now is are these individuals' under the juridiction of Military Law if they oppose military action by the U.S. Government. Most guns are developed for military use's and have been throughout history. Gun manufactures' want this debate because it keep's them in business and allow's revenue for further development of armaments' (THIS IS A FACT). The true questions' should people be discussing are physiology "...The science that deals with the normal functioning of living organisms and their parts....". What causes criminal activity and how to prevent it from occuring, what cause fear in and individual to develope or continue after a tramatic experience etc. I can state that part of the problem is fear in society to disclose criminal activity out of being ostacized or attached for disclosure of criminal activity. Guns have a purpose in society if used correctly to defend a State belief or hunting and gathering. Do people honesty need to walk around in fear of being shot intentionally, accidentally, or being a victim of any other crime? seems to me that they would be creating more criminals by banning guns... then only the criminals would have them... I believe you did not understand how the Second Admendment can be interpreted of the Federal Government chose to do so in-order too prevent crime and how the Federal Government is influenced in this market. you can't prevent crime... it's going to happen.. do you think if everyone in the US had a pistol on their side, would there be more or less crime? Your right crime cannot be prevented entirely there are to many different crimes one can commit. If eveyone had a pistol on their side you would end up with more crime that's inevidable. People have irrational behaviour and fear. They would use the pistol because their angry; not all would responed this way, but some would. The point of any control is to prevent unstable individuals from possessing a gun or a drug addicted having one. It's not to prevent civilized individuals from owning or protecting themselves. This being said it does not stop the Government from impossing the Second Admendment Right during times of defence. Look at the Vietnam War and the draft's that took place. Some criminals before the courts for gun crimes had the option to join the military rather than prison. Other wars are similar. Which part of the population/society go too war in the better part. Read paragraph 3 of my original statement and analyze what it is saying in regards to modern society. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stefan Molyneux
If you are for gun control, then you are not against guns, because the guns will be needed to disarm people. So it’s not that you are anti-gun. You’ll need the police’s guns to take away other people’s guns. So you’re very Pro-Gun, you just believe that only the Government (which is, of course, so reliable, honest, moral and virtuous…) should be allowed to have guns. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralizing gun ownership in the hands of a small, political elite and their minions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No matter how one look's a the loss of life or an infringement upon there personal well being it is tragic experience. I beleive we all sympathy's for anyone whose had a criminal act committed against them, family, or friend. When one is fearful of their well being one want's a means to protect them-self. This has alway's been part of human exsistance. The Second Admendment I believe originally was created for Militia purposes. Looking through history and the first development of guns (Cannon was the first 1400 cenury) its' purpose was for military use. Looking back in history again at the development of iron (The Iron Age) the purpose of iron was for tools, and armaments. At this time business men were largely fighting and their armament was often the riches and most beautiful. Wealthy individuals' were the only one's who could afford these items'. Looking back just before the development of the U.S. Constitution the U.S. was defending itself from the Indians' and French which at that time the U.S. had NO organized military. This made it difficult to defend the nation, so a small Militia group was organized of 80 individual's the expanded to around 500. Originally Article 1 Section 2 of the U.S Constitution had nothing to do with the rigth's to bare arms. It was deveolped for the House of Representatives of several State's and needed to be elected. It stated the AGE one must be to be a Member, Taxes, How many Representatives for 30,000 individuals' and limited the number of Representatives for some States. Article 2 only had one section 1 which preserved the power President of the U.S. and the Militia of the U.S. It was only later the issue of the Second Admendment came into interpretation of the "right to bare arm"; which is an open statement for interpretation by many. To argue this point ONE'S RIGHT TO BARE ARMS' could mean that anyone who has obtained a GUN are by the U.S. Government Rights to be drafted into Military Services without question, since the first part of the Second Admendment states; "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State..."; the key words' are "...MILITIA AND FREE STATE..." and the later pare "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." that as long as you bare arms you are part of the U.S. Government Armed Forces. If you bare arms and argue that individuals have the right to bare arms, but your against a military conflict it could then be interpreted that you are an enemy of the U.S. State and Government. The arguement now is are these individuals' under the juridiction of Military Law if they oppose military action by the U.S. Government. Most guns are developed for military use's and have been throughout history. Gun manufactures' want this debate because it keep's them in business and allow's revenue for further development of armaments' (THIS IS A FACT). The true questions' should people be discussing are physiology "...The science that deals with the normal functioning of living organisms and their parts....". What causes criminal activity and how to prevent it from occuring, what cause fear in and individual to develope or continue after a tramatic experience etc. I can state that part of the problem is fear in society to disclose criminal activity out of being ostacized or attached for disclosure of criminal activity. Guns have a purpose in society if used correctly to defend a State belief or hunting and gathering. Do people honesty need to walk around in fear of being shot intentionally, accidentally, or being a victim of any other crime? seems to me that they would be creating more criminals by banning guns... then only the criminals would have them... I believe you did not understand how the Second Admendment can be interpreted of the Federal Government chose to do so in-order too prevent crime and how the Federal Government is influenced in this market. you can't prevent crime... it's going to happen.. do you think if everyone in the US had a pistol on their side, would there be more or less crime? Your right crime cannot be prevented entirely there are to many different crimes one can commit. If eveyone had a pistol on their side you would end up with more crime that's inevidable. People have irrational behaviour and fear. They would use the pistol because their angry; not all would responed this way, but some would. The point of any control is to prevent unstable individuals from possessing a gun or a drug addited having one. It's not to prevent civilized individuals from owning or protecting themselves. This being said it does not stop the Government from impossing the Second Admendment Right during times of defence. Look at the Vietnam War and the draft's that took place. Some criminals before the courts for gun crimes had the option to join the military rather than prison. Other wars are similar. Which part of the population/society go to war in the better part. Read paragraph 3 of my original statement and analyze what it is saying in regards to modern society. Rights are not bestowed on the Citizen by Government!Government doesn't own those Rights! They are inherent in the Citizen! "To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
mightymoe
on
Sat 03/09/13 02:19 PM
|
|
Your right crime cannot be prevented entirely there are to many different crimes one can commit.
If eveyone had a pistol on their side you would end up with more crime that's inevidable. People have irrational behaviour and fear. They would use the pistol because their angry; not all would responed this way, but some would. The point of any control is to prevent unstable individuals from possessing a gun or a drug addited having one. It's not to prevent civilized individuals from owning or protecting themselves. This being said it does not stop the Government from impossing the Second Admendment Right during times of defence. Look at the Vietnam War and the draft's that took place. Some criminals before the courts for gun crimes had the option to join the military rather than prison. Other wars are similar. Which part of the population/society go to war in the better part. here your not wrong, but not up to date... there has been no draft since then, and they just recently passed a bill to end selective service registration... now they replaced that with promising foreigners citizenship with a service deployment... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I always wonder why youtube removes videos. They removed the one on that page. Saving criminals by disarming citizens. Who are we and what do we believe? We, the members of the International Criminals Union, declare our position that all free and sovereign nations unite to ban the possession of firearms by law-abiding citizens. It is our belief that our profession becomes more dangerous without strong and strict laws to regulate and prevent law-abiding citizens from possessing firearms. When only criminals and police can own a firearm our union's potential for growth will be unsurpassed. The disarming of law-abiding citizens will allow our union to continue forth to the next generation with decreased risks of injury or our murder. |
|
|
|
|
