No! I said that the right to bear arms was just as important as any other right. This is an issue on which I agree with you. What I don't like are the hypocrites on both sides who use the constitution when it is convenient for their case and disregard it when it is not. For example, those who want to give terror prisoners the right to a fair and speedy trial because it is promised to citizens in the constitution, while saying that we should give up our constitutional right to bear arms.
Ahh, sorry, Rosco, I just read it too fast (and didn't comprehend it all!). I like posts which only use words from books like "See Spot Run". Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Baron Max
It's ok, I'm still at work and it's kind of busy so maybe what I was trying to say came out unclear. I do understand why you would assume I disagreed with you though; most of the time I do. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Oh, Rosco, that's not nice!!! Ye're fuckin' around on the Internet when ye're supposed to be working? Ye're being paid to work, yet you fuck off? C'mon, man, that ain't the way it's supposed to be done. How would YOU like to be the company owner and all your employees fucked off on the Internet? Baron Max
Um, that's not the point of that study. Population doesn't have much to do with any of it. The point of the study is to show how many violent crimes are commited without the use of a gun, the amount of violent crimes that happened before guns were outlawed and how many happened after they were outlawed. It also shows how guns do not reduce crime, merely increase it. Guns help people more defensively than they due offensively as most crimes aren't committed using a gun so the defender has better odds vs their attacker. If banning guns reduces crime, why is there still a high amount of crime, but also an increase in it? Not to mention violent crimes increased due to a lack of adequate defense by the victims! Guns aren't the problem, it's the people. It doesn't matter if the criminal has to use a gun, baseball bat, pencil, or his pinky finger, he'll use it and will usually always outmatch the victim in those physical cases. Get rid of guns and the offender will be able to outmatch the other. Without guns, what is there? Physical combat. A big burly person will usually always outmatch a smaller person. Now give that smaller person a guy, or hey, give em both a gun, and now the odds are even. Guns for civilians, just as nukes for countries, even the odds immensely and practically bring everything to a stand-still. The study also shows how there is still a huge chunk of violent crimes commited with a gun despite them being banned because laws do not prevent criminals from breaking them but rather only evokes punishment AFTER the fact. Yeah, that really helps a lot for all the poor victims. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! - N
I'm not disputing what the study is trying to prove. It just happens to show statistically insignificant data. So what; homocide rates climbed a little in the UK. For every murder there is in the UK, there are 10 in the US. And UK has stricter gun control laws than the US.
Hey that's not fair. If they didn't want me to surf the net at work the cash register would not have a keyboard, a mouse, or firefox on it. Besides, I get paid on comission. When there are sales to be made of course I am making them; it's in my own interest. When there are not, I am reading sciforums or playing the bass. And that doesn't seem to bother the owners as long as the merchandise gets sold. I am sorry for not talking about guns in this post and I will try not to do it again. I just don't like the idea of somebody talking smack about me in public and I don't get a chance to defend myself. I guess if you had a good imagination you could turn that into a metaphor about guns. If you want to talk about my job send me a private message, but right now I have to get ready for work.
We don't want you to protect our rights. Especially when protecting our rights means being forced to take over your rights.
Huh??? Do you always talk like that in some attempt to confuse others as to the meanings of what you talk about? Can't you just say, like "The bear shit in the woods" instead of making it into a major puzzle of words and meanings? I know that almost all of the members here are intellectual giants, but ocassionally, just ocassionally, mind you, someone like me with an very low IQ might be interested in reading what you have to say. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Baron Max
Lest We Forget! 1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject. 2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone. 3. Gun Lock: The original point and 'click' interface. 4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control. 5. If guns are outlawed, (then only the outlaws will have guns) can we use swords? 6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words. 7. Free Men do not ask permission to bear arms. 8. If you don't know your rights you don't have any. 9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither. 10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights reserved. 11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand? 12. The Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore the others. 13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday. 14. Guns only have two enemies: rust and liberals. 15. Know guns, know peace and safety. No guns, no peace nor safety. 16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive. 17. 911 - government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer. 18. Assault is a behavior, not a device. 19. Criminals love gun control -- it makes their jobs easier and safer. 20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson. 21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them. 22. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for. 23. Enforce the "Gun Control Laws" we have; don't make more. 24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves. 25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control. 26. ".. A government of the people, by the people, for the people..." PLEASE PASS THIS 'REFRESHER' ON TO AS MANY FREE CITIZENS AS YOU KNOW!
So the next time there's a big tsunami in Southeast Asian, or a major earthquake in Pakistan, we can keep all of our troops from interfering??? And we can keep our money and doctors and medicines, too? Is that what you mean? Baron Max
how about america worries about AMERICA!!!! wouldnt that be a welcomed change. how many americans really give a shit about some crappy thridworld hellhole they will never go too anyway? and that list is funny as hell,but if you remeber the brady bill,thats was REPUBLICAN gun control.so its not just liberals who want your guns,its anyone in government .
LOL. That's incredibly naive and hypocritical. It's quite obvious to any observer willing to open their eyes that the US is doing exactly as you wish. That you do not agree on what business is theirs makes me glad you aren't in charge of anything. The entire world is the business of every country, der duh.
Go back to the orignal statement. this one was for Baron. He didn't understand a more precise statement. here it was: We don't want you to protect our rights. Especially when protecting our rights means being forced to take over your rights.
Spurious, there's just something wrong with the way that you've used "our" and "your" in that statement. Read the last sentence, then tell me what/who you mean by "our" and who/what you mean by "your". If you cleaned that up some, perhaps it would make more sense? Baron Max
Yeah, Wes, and ye're talking about every human in the world ...EXCEPT many of those who post here at the sciforums! They are NEVER hypocritical!! Baron Max
