put on your big boy pants and realize this is about guns, and what we can do to prevent the further slaughter of citizens by them. That's it, no other topic, no matter how long you hold your breath or stamp your feet.Can I get that Y/N? Are you alright with and/or willing to accept kids will die so you can have those freedoms?
I hope you see why such wordplay is silliness, including when you do the same with guns.
and this is about guns, that's it, no matter how many other strawmen you prop up in front of it. Your pathetic attempts are tiresome and boring and completely unsurprising.
How about universal background checks and you have to register each and every gun you own? You can keep all your precious toys but need to be responsible for their whereabouts. We've tried nothing for decades now, and it's only getting worse, time to try something.
put on your big boy pants and realize this is about guns, and what we can do to prevent the further slaughter of citizens by them. That's it, no other topic, no matter how long you hold your breath or stamp your feet.
Guns and regulations to help keep them in check. Go make another thread if you want to discuss other things.
This is at best ignorance, at worst an absolute lie. Do I need to bring up the various bans and limits that have been put in place? I am not making a strawman "what-if" situation. I'm drawing a comparison. And no matter how hard you try to pretend otherwise, guns kill us far less than other things that you aren't arguing against near the level you are with guns.
No, I refuse to look at guns in a vacuum, doing so creates an unrealistic look. Tomorrow I will be here to remind you that 7-8x as many victims have died from tobacco compared to the Vegas massacre, since the shooting. And there won't be any threads on it by you anti-2A'ers. There won't be any outcry. You work on emotion, not logic. Maybe if those victims got a big scary news headline plastered on your screen you'd care. But you don't care about saving lives, you care about limiting my rights because you don't like guns. Nothing more.
Also, once again, do you accept that children will die because we have freedoms and rights like freedom of speech, alcohol, tobacco, cars, skateboards, etc.? Y/N?
You made me answer this, wonder why you can't do the same...
This is at best ignorance, at worst an absolute lie. Do I need to bring up the various bans and limits that have been put in place? I am not making a strawman "what-if" situation. I'm drawing a comparison. And no matter how hard you try to pretend otherwise, guns kill us far less than other things that you aren't arguing against near the level you are with guns.
No, I refuse to look at guns in a vacuum, doing so creates an unrealistic look. Tomorrow I will be here to remind you that 7-8x as many victims have died from tobacco compared to the Vegas massacre, since the shooting. And there won't be any threads on it by you anti-2A'ers. There won't be any outcry. You work on emotion, not logic. Maybe if those victims got a big scary news headline plastered on your screen you'd care. But you don't care about saving lives, you care about limiting my rights because you don't like guns. Nothing more.
Also, once again, do you accept that children will die because we have freedoms and rights like freedom of speech, alcohol, tobacco, cars, skateboards, etc.? Y/N?
You made me answer this, wonder why you can't do the same...
Shit, my bad, the first word in his forum name is "Slow" so maybe...Just post another thread about those concerns who knows maybe you'll get some agreement
I say we ban all new gun manufacturering and selling in the US (outside of military/law needs). The government buys back all registered guns, failure to turn over means prison or death if you try and fight them. All guns that are unregistered or illegal will eventually turn up over time and be confiscated. Anyone caught with a gun will face prison time. TADA....
/s
I dont have the answer buy something should be done.
I used to be an optimist. The optimist in me has been slowly but surely bludgeoned to death. I am now a cynic and a pessimist. The 2016 presidential election and the continuing terror have done me in. Now this. It just drives a nail into the heart of the optimist in me, whose heartbeat is so faint I'm not sure it's alive.
However, I disagree with the second sentence I quoted here, "there is no solution." Concerning these mass shootings, I have a solution and I've been stating it for a number of years. I used to get shot down, just mauled for expressing it, but nowadays I think my ideas are taking root in the populace, in some quarters.
You should not be allowed to own a gun. All guns should be government property. You should not be allowed to get your hands on one unless you are:
Vetted, trained and monitored law enforcement or military.
If you are a hunter, you should only be able to check out guns. When doing so, you should have a permit, an itinerary and be buddied by at least one other vetted, trained and monitored hunter.
The NRA is your enemy, whether you know it or not.
[/B]
Guns have historically protected Americans from white supremacists, just as gun control has historically protected white supremacists from the Americans they terrorize.
One month after the Confederate surrender in 1865, Frederick Douglass urged federal action to stop state and local infringement of the right to arms. Until this was accomplished, Douglass argued, “the work of the abolitionists is not finished.”
Indeed, it was not. As the Special Report of the Paris Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867 found, freedmen in some southern states “were forbidden to own or bear firearms, and thus were rendered defenseless against assault.” Thus, white supremacists could continue to control freedmen through threat of violence.
Congress demolished these racist laws. The Freedmen’s Bureau Bill of 1865, Civil Rights Act of 1866, and Civil Rights Act of 1870 each guaranteed all persons equal rights of self-defense. Most importantly, the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, made the Second Amendment applicable to the states.
Kansas Senator Samuel Pomeroy extolled the three “indispensable” “safeguards of liberty under our form of government," the sanctity of the home, the right to vote, and “the right to bear arms.” So “if the cabin door of the freedman is broken open and the intruder enter…then should a well-loaded musket be in the hand of the occupant to send the polluted wretch to another world.”
Because of the 14th Amendment, gun control laws now had to be racially neutral. But states quickly learned to draft neutrally-worded laws for discriminatory application. Tennessee and Arkansas prohibited handguns that freedmen could afford, while allowing expensive “Army & Navy” handguns, which ex-Confederate officers already owned.
The South Carolina law against concealed carry put blacks in chain gangs, but whites only paid a small fine, if anything. In the early 20th century, such laws began to spread beyond the ex-Confederacy. An Ohio Supreme Court Justice acknowledged that such statutes reflected “a decisive purpose to entirely disarm the Negro.”
When lynching increased in the 1880s, the vice-president of the National Colored Press Association, John R. Mitchell, Jr., encouraged blacks to buy Winchesters to protect their families from “the two-legged animals … growling around your home in the dead of night.”
Ida B. Wells, the leading journalist opposing lynching, agreed. In the nationally-circulated pamphlet Southern Horrors, Wells documented cases in Kentucky and Florida, “where the men armed themselves” and fended off lynch mobs. “The lesson this teaches,” Wells wrote, “is that a Winchester rifle should have a place of honor in every black home, and it should be used for that protection which the law refuses to give.”
After the thwarted lynching in Florida, the state legislature enacted a law requiring a license to possess “a pistol, Winchester rifle or other repeating rifle.” A Florida Supreme Court Justice later explained: “the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers” and “was never intended to apply to the white population and in practice has never been so applied.”
While lynching began to decline in the early twentieth century, race riots increased. According to historian John Dittmer, blacks fought “back successfully when the mobs invaded their neighborhoods” during the Atlanta riots in 1906. When police stood idle as 23 blacks were killed during riots resulting from a black man swimming into “white” water near Chicago, blacks used rifles to kill 15 attackers.
During the Tulsa Race Riot in 1921, whites (with government approval) burned down a square mile of the prosperous district nicknamed “Black Wall Street,” killing 200 blacks. There would have been more devastation had blacks not fought back, killing 50 of their attackers.
Firearms made possible the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Charles Cobb’s excellent book, "This Nonviolent Stuff’ll Get You Killed: How Guns Made the Civil Rights Movement Possible" describes how pacifist community organizers from the North learned to accept the armed protection of their black, rural communities.
The Deacons for Defense and Justice was an armed community defense organization, founded in 1965. With .38 Special revolvers and M1 carbines, they deterred terrorism in the “Klan country” region of Louisiana and Mississippi. When Dr. King led the “Meredith March against Fear” for voter registration in Mississippi, the Deacons provided armed security.
Condoleezza Rice became a self-described “Second Amendment absolutist,” because of her experiences growing up in Birmingham. She recalled the bombings in the summer of 1963, when her father helped guard the streets at night. Had the civil rights workers’ guns been registered, she argued, they could have been confiscated, rendering the community defenseless.
Similarly, when the Klan targeted North Carolina’s Lumbee Indians in 1958 because of their “race mixing,” the Lumbee drove off the Klan in an armed confrontation, the Battle of Hayes Pond. Klan operations ceased in the region.
Justice Clarence Thomas’s opinion in the 2010 McDonald v. Chicago explicated the history of gun control as race control. Historically, people of color in the United States have often had to depend on themselves for protection. Sometimes the reason is not overt hostility by the government, but instead the incapability of government to secure public safety, as in Chicago today.
Self-defense is an inherent human right. The 14th Amendment is America’s promise that no law-abiding person will be deprived of that right, regardless of color.
Just post another thread about those concerns who knows maybe you'll get some agreement
Last time and I'll type it slow for you.
The
topic
is
guns.
But I don't want to further restrict anything. I'm not looking at it like that. I'm looking at the damage guns cause vs. the damage other things, other things that no one are arguing against in an attempt to save lives, generally speaking. And when I see guns cause far less damage then these other less regulated, more easily available things, I'm not for whittling away my rights further.
If you do not feel people will die from freedoms then I don't know what to tell you. You are holding guns to a different standard. Guns, in moderation can help relieve stress and relax you. See how I bypassed the damage guns do as you did with alcohol while not addressing what I asked at all? If you are willing to trade your freedoms to save lives, then I expect to see your posts from now on to have a tone of banning free speech, alcohol, tobacco, guns, and cars.
The items in bold above are not guns and each of them has lead to dead children. Are you willing to let kids die to continue to have these rights and freedoms? Y/N
There should be restrictions on all those things, though they are all very different (and some already have substantial restrictions). Guns and cars are the two where it seems to me that more restrictions are needed.
No, you're weakly attempting to steer the conversation away from guns, so while you don't want dead children, they're an acceptable loss. You have said that. I did not. I left that intentionally open for you o answer however you'd like.But look at what I'm replying too, that isn't the issue. He is holding guns to a unique standard that logically should apply to other freedoms that have the potential to harm us, but Sheik refuses to do so because that would unravel his intellectually dishonest attack on guns.
Trying to frame it as I want dead children because I support the 2A. I don't want dead children more than anyone else, but I am not giving up my rights either. It is like saying I want dead children because I feel alcohol should be legal. He is really going low here.
Guns ARE unique in that list. Their primary purpose is to injure/kill. Can you say that about those other things you listed (cars/alcohol/smoking/etc)?But look at what I'm replying too, that isn't the issue. He is holding guns to a unique standard that logically should apply to other freedoms that have the potential to harm us, but Sheik refuses to do so because that would unravel his intellectually dishonest attack on guns.
Trying to frame it as I want dead children because I support the 2A. I don't want dead children more than anyone else, but I am not giving up my rights either. It is like saying I want dead children because I feel alcohol should be legal. He is really going low here.
CHIPMAN: Well, because of this system, which is all relying on manual records, it's not like CSI on TV. Someone at the ATF National Tracing Center has to call the manufacturer of that gun. They have records of when they sold it to a wholesaler. ATF then calls the wholesaler. The wholesaler has records. And then ATF calls the dealer from which the wholesaler sold the gun. And then that dealer goes to this record that we talked about earlier, which is kept on paper form in their business records.
And these are you friends that will come out and round up all your guns and decide when and if you can have a gun, as long as you aren't a minority of course, all should be well, maybe.
The second amendment according to white liberal America, where only trained and regulated agents of the government should be armed.
Be careful what you wish for, because you may get it.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...igin-of-gun-control-laws#bottom-story-socials
The racist origin of gun control laws
250,000 preventable deaths per year.Just like guns, as a society we consider alcohol related deaths acceptable losses.
Hi strawman!250,000 preventable deaths per year.
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-...ertificates-undercount-toll-of-medical-errors
"Based on an analysis of prior research, the Johns Hopkins study estimates that more than 250,000 Americans die each year from medical errors. On the CDC's official list, that would rank just behind heart disease and cancer, which each took about 600,000 lives in 2014, and in front of respiratory disease, which caused about 150,000 deaths."
250,000 preventable deaths per year.
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-...ertificates-undercount-toll-of-medical-errors
"Based on an analysis of prior research, the Johns Hopkins study estimates that more than 250,000 Americans die each year from medical errors. On the CDC's official list, that would rank just behind heart disease and cancer, which each took about 600,000 lives in 2014, and in front of respiratory disease, which caused about 150,000 deaths."
Guns ARE unique in that list. Their primary purpose is to injure/kill. Can you say that about those other things you listed (cars/alcohol/smoking/etc)?
What he suggested, a registry list for example or background check, would be perfectly appropriate IMO for guns, as again, their PRIMARY PURPOSE is to injure/kill.
You get some straw! and you get some straw! Straw for you and for you, straw for everyone! /Oprah voice.Tobacco isn't designed to kill per se, but it does kill something like 14x as many people as guns in absolute numbers and thousands more innocents from 2nd hand smoke than guns. Sounds like guns are reasonably safe, if they are designed to kill and kills such a significantly lower number of people. The bottom line is this, do you think burying your loved one that died from 2nd hand smoke or a drunk driver is somehow easier and matters less than burying your loved one that got shot?
Also, if guns are designed to kill, that's their sole purpose, tonight when some 80 million plus gun owners go to bed tonight without killing anyone, are they using their guns wrongly?
You get some straw! and you get some straw! Straw for you and for you, straw for everyone! /Oprah voice.
Why does perspective bother you so much?
Also, are you willing to accept dead children for the freedom to have alcohol, cars, tobacco, skateboards, etc.? Still haven't gotten a straight answer from you.