Democrats/Libs

Home Forums Decaffeinated Coffee Controversial Topics Democrats/Libs

Viewing 40 posts - 101 through 140 (of 140 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1781566

    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    Ben Levi, I am not talking about guns and revolvers used for hunting and personel defense otherwise, we can outlaw cars also , bur assault weapons with magazines that are acquired only for domestic terror.

    #1781617

    Health
    Participant

    RebEli -“bur assault weapons with magazines that are acquired only for domestic terror”

    YOU ARE DEAD WRONG!
    Any terrorist can acquire them on the Black Market, if they outlaw them.
    I know s/o who has an AK for defense.
    So that’s the prob with Liberal Policies – they only want Terrorists to have them, Not Law-abiding citizens!

    #1781917

    Ben Levi
    Participant

    Again Reb Eliezer I think that you are ignoring the central point.

    It is illegal to kill somebody.
    It is really really illegal.
    In some states you get the death penalty for it.

    These people who are doing these mass shooting are breaking the law.

    The fact they are breaking the law does not seem to phase them.

    Now I am sure that you were of the opinion that making it illegal to buy a automatic weapon will make it harder for criminals to get them.

    I am sure you also feel it is hard for criminals to get drugs and the epidemic of drugs in America is solely a magical occurrence by people suddenly displaying symptoms of illegal substances without having ingested them

    #1781982

    jackk
    Participant

    Ben Levi,

    Please explain why only in the USA do we have a problem with people who are mass killing with these assault type weapons and not other countries who also have murderers but have banned these weapons?

    #1782022

    Ben Levi
    Participant

    Jackk
    Do you honestly think that no other country has this problem?
    Yes it’s true in Israel they do not really have this problem you see when people are upset in Israel and the rest of the Mideast they use bombs not guns.
    You think Mexico does not have this problem, how about Africa.
    Come on!
    I found it curious how on the one hand the Dem/Libs say every illegal immigrant has to be aloud in because of the dangers in their home country.
    Yet the USA is the most dangerous place in the world.

    #1782306

    jackk
    Participant

    Ben Levi,
    I realize that you and the NRA want America to be as dangerous and lawless as Mexico and Africa are. That is a seriously ridiculous argument. You are a complete slave to the NRA. So is every Republican – including Trump. That is why one day Trump says we are going to enact law regarding gun control and the next day he backtracks. He got a pep talk from his masters in the NRA in between. If the NRA would go out of business , logical gun laws would be enacted right away.
    Also, If all immigrants bought AR-15’s , all assault rifles would be banned overnight. Republicans are more racist than they are pro-gun.

    I am referring to the countries that actually had mass shootings and enacted laws to prevent them. Australia, New Zealand,Finland.

    No person needs a gun that can devastatingly kill 100 people in 60 seconds.

    All the recent mass shootings, including Poway and the Pittsburgh Synagogue shooting, were done by people who legally had the opportunity to buy Assault Rifle weapons and did. There is no evidence that they would have gone to the black market to buy them.

    #1782102

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Ben Levi

    “Do you honestly think that no other country has this problem?’

    Yes, the Us has the highest rate of mass shootings among developed countries.

    “Yes it’s true in Israel they do not really have this problem you see when people are upset in Israel and the rest of the Mideast they use bombs ”

    So using your “logic” they (and we) should make bombs legal. Boms don’t kill people, people kil people. and of course drugs are already illegal and people abuse drugs anyway

    #1782609

    interjection
    Participant

    “So using your “logic” they (and we) should make bombs legal. Boms don’t kill people, people kil people. and of course drugs are already illegal and people abuse drugs anyway”

    There is no right to make bombs so the argument isn’t comparable.

    The right to own firearms exists. America was founded on her freedoms. If you want to make America less free then there better be a good argument. The fact that main use of these deadly weapons is for sport and they can be used to kill whether or not in self defense is not a good enough reason to take away a right. If those were good enough reasons, then why shouldn’t we ban bowling balls? Bowling balls can also be used as a weapon and their only benefit is for sport.

    #1783021

    Health
    Participant

    Jackk -“I am referring to the countries that actually had mass shootings and enacted laws to prevent them. Australia, New Zealand,Finland.”
    What about Norway? They had the most stringent gun laws and they also had the worst Mass Shooting in the World!

    #1782863

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    interjection

    “There is no right to make bombs so the argument isn’t comparable.”

    a. Says who?
    and b. why not?

    “The right to own firearms exists.”
    you might want to double check your text of the second amendment. It does not say “firearms”

    ” then why shouldn’t we ban bowling balls? ”
    Because bowling balls werent used to kill over 30,000 people last year . IF they were then yes they should be better regulated.

    #1783184

    Ben L
    Participant

    Ubiquitin

    I was not arguing that point of whether or not “bombs” should be legal.

    I was pointing out the simple fact that statistics tell very little more then what those that commissioned them wish.

    Yes. The USA officially has the highest rate of mass shooting in the world.

    That statistic does not take into account that those that are using guns in the USA are using bombs in the Mideast or tucks in France.

    The question is not whether or not guns are more available in the USA then Mexico from a legal perspective.

    The question is whether you are safer in the USA or Mexico.
    And I am not arguing the point whether drugs should be legal or not (Though it is really hard for me to understand how the current Democrat position seems to be regulate Vapeing ’cause of something or the other but make marijuana legal)

    What I am pointing out is that making something “illegal” does not translate into making it disappear or be unavailable to those that wish to attain it.

    #1783207

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    “The question is whether you are safer in the USA or Mexico”

    doesnt it concern you that that is even a question? People love saying how we are “the best country in the world” (number one in mass shootings! whohoo USA USA USA!)
    Is that the benchmark of the best country?

    “Well we are safer than Mexico” Really?

    “What I am pointing out is that making something “illegal” does not translate into making it disappear or be unavailable to those that wish to attain it.”

    Yes but that is a strawman, because nobody ever argued otherwise. ANd in this thread I pointed that out no fewer than 7 times

    #1783344

    Health
    Participant

    Ubiq -“People love saying how we are “the best country in the world” (number one in mass shootings! whohoo USA USA USA!)”

    All I know that people are running here from South America, Illegally.
    WHY? They should sent them right back! It’s for their Good!

    #1783357

    Ben Levi
    Participant

    As a parent I strongly wish there was something we could do about “mass shooting” events.

    And I think there is.

    However the solution I think begins by acknowledging that in the 60’s it was far easier to get a gun and they were openly carried by many “cowboy shoot em up” books and videos were prevalent, schools did not have metal detectors.

    Yet mass shootings did not occur.

    So how about we study that.

    Why did that change?

    #1783355

    Ben Levi
    Participant

    First off it generally does not bother me to ask questions.

    However in this case i am not the one asking it.

    It’s Dems/Libs who bring up totally irrelevant statistics who force the pint to be made that those stats tell nothing of the actual story.

    #1783730

    doomsday
    Participant

    Not that long ago, governments confiscated guns and then slaughtered 100 million of its citizens in
    soviet union, communist china, germany, turkey, cambodia, cuba, north korea, etc.
    Purpose of 2nd amendment is to protect us against Tyranny.
    In 1980s china brutally killed peaceful protestors in tianneman square. Looks like it might happen again
    in hong kong.
    That’s what happens when you let government confiscate guns.

    #1783703

    charliehall
    Participant

    Ben Levi,

    The US is far from the most dangerous country in the world. Here are some homicide rates from 2016, per 100,000 people.

    US 5.4
    Mexico 19.3
    Guatemala 27.3
    El Salvador 83.1
    Belize 37.6
    Honduras 56.5
    Nicaragua 7.4
    Costa Rica 11.9
    Panama 10.0
    Columbia 25. 5
    Venezuela 56.3
    Jamaica 47.0
    Bahamas 28.4
    Brazil 29.7
    South Africa 34
    Central African Republic 19.8
    Philippines 11.0
    Afghanistan 6.6
    Mongolia 5.7
    Russia 11.0

    OTOH most of the rest of the free world has much lower homicide rates:

    Canada 1.7
    United Kingdom 1.2
    Ireland 0.8
    France 1.4
    Germany 1.2
    Spain 0.6
    Italy 0.7
    India 3.2
    Pakistan 4.0
    China 0.6
    Korea 0.7
    Japan 0.3

    Most homicides are not from mass shootings.

    And in many of these countries, including the US, suicides are far more common than homicides.

    #1783727

    doomsday
    Participant

    Doesn’t anybody know recent history? In 20th century these countries confiscated guns – and then slaughtered 100 million of their citizens: germany, soviet union, turkey, cuba, cambodia, north korea.

    Purpose of 2nd amendment is to protect us from tyrannical government.

    And with government trying to take-over yeshivas, attempted to “regulate” mbp bris milah, there is plenty to fear.
    Democrats are Socialists and Socialists are Tyrants.

    #1783751

    Ben L
    Participant

    Charlie,
    Are you trying to prove my point?

    #1783786

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Dooms

    Oh my the tyranny in New Zealand, Australia, the UK etc all countries with stricter 100’s of millions killed.

    “Purpose of 2nd amendment is to protect us from tyrannical government.”

    Ive been asking these questions over and over hopefully you can answer:

    1) how does this work.? I view the government as tyranical, I pay way to much taxes, when the IRS shows up to confiscate my property do you support my right to defend my property from what I view as a tyranical government. in other words how does this work exactly?

    2) Do you support my right to own weapons that can actually be usd agaisnt the government such as jets, tanks automatic weapons etc. I’m worried that my semi-automatic just won’e cut it. Keep in mind the second amendment speaks of “arms” not “guns” or “firearms” so do I have a right to own a nucleur warhead, whci we would need to actually fight off the tyranical government?
    Thanks

    #1783796

    Quayboardwarrior
    Participant

    Doomsday-
    Good luck fighting a government with a 700 billion dollar defense budget, using Walmart guns….

    That argument is long irrelevant.

    #1783854

    jackk
    Participant

    Ubiquintin.

    Regarding how would the second amendment protect us from a tyrannical government ?
    It would never protect citizens from a tyrannical government unless the whole country rose up against the government.
    America already fought a Civil War and the southern states were not able to overthrow the government or even install their own government.

    The likelihood of this happening is 0 since the whole country rising up against the government with arms would be the last straw.

    #1783905

    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    What does winning have to do with the right to be ready to fight?

    #1783961

    Reb Eliezer
    Participant

    As I mentined before, it is ironic, the second amendment was originaly instituted to protect oneself, now it is used to desroy.

    #1783967

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    rebyid

    “What does winning have to do with the right to be ready to fight?”

    Who said anything about the right to be able to fight?

    dooms said
    “Purpose of 2nd amendment is to protect us from tyrannical government.”

    An AR 15 won’t protect you from a black hawk helicopter.
    So if the purpose is to protect us from a tyranical government, does it grant me the right to own black hawks of my own?
    And if not, why not?

    #1783973

    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    How does having nuclear weapons protect from other countries having nuclear weapons?

    #1783974

    Health
    Participant

    Ubiq -“1) how does this work.? I view the government as tyranical, I pay way to much taxes, when the IRS shows up to confiscate my property do you support my right to defend my property from what I view as a tyranical government”

    You gotta start reading the news, besides YWN.
    Ever hear of Cliven Bundy? He basically won against the US government!

    #1784023

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    “Ever hear of Cliven Bundy? ”

    sure did! 🙂

    “He basically won against the US government!”
    lets go through this example since you brought it up.
    how did he win?

    Rebyid
    “How does having nuclear weapons protect from other countries having nuclear weapons?”
    I think you sat on your keyboard again . I have no idea what you are trying to say, are you sure you posted on the right thread?

    #1784041

    Ben L
    Participant

    I think the question here is what is more important.

    If the wish is to simply score a political point or avoid confronting an issue which may have an answer people do not like .
    Then yes
    Ban the guns!

    However if the issue is that we really wish to figure out why there are more and more mass shootings as time progresses then we would examine what changed from a time that there were less shootings.

    If we examine it that way then it really cannot be that “gun control” is the solution since it is way harder to purchase a gun now then it was before the shooting of Brady and the current gun control law started to be implemented.

    So again the question must be asked why now do people think that being “angry” is an excuse to start shooting up the place?

    #1784040

    Health
    Participant

    Ubiq -“how did he win?”

    From the LA Times:
    “Reporting from Las Vegas — It started four years ago, when Cliven Bundy and his sons refused to pay federal grazing fees and stared down government agents in an armed standoff outside their Nevada ranch.
    The Bundys dared the federal government to arrest them. The government did, charging them with a range of felonies.
    On Monday, a federal judge in Las Vegas set them free.
    The decision left federal prosecutors swallowing another defeat at the hands of a family whose defiance has become a rallying cry for Westerners who believe the federal government has no business managing public land. Four times now — in high-profile cases in Nevada and Oregon — the Bundy family and its allies have beaten the federal government in court.
    At least 100 Bundy backers filled the courtroom Monday. Some wore shirts with American flag motifs. Others carried pocket Constitutions in their button-down shirts. More than a few wore cowboy boots.
    Their heroes sat looking up at U.S. District Judge Gloria Navarro. Cliven Bundy, 71, wore a jailhouse jumpsuit. His son Ryan, 44, who led a large group of supporters in prayer before entering the courtroom, removed his cowboy hat. Another son, Ammon, 42, and a militia member, Ryan Payne, barely moved.
    It was their moment.
    Mistrial declared in Nevada rancher’s standoff with federal government
    1/7
    Mistrial declared in Nevada rancher’s standoff with federal government (John Locher / Associated Press)
    Mistrial declared in Nevada rancher’s standoff with federal government
    2/7
    Mistrial declared in Nevada rancher’s standoff with federal government (John Locher / Associated Press)
    Navarro rebuked federal prosecutors — using the words “flagrant” and “reckless” to describe how they withheld evidence from the defense — before saying “that the universal sense of justice has been violated” and dismissing the charges.
    Supporters dabbed their eyes with tissues. Outside in the hall, there were cheers.
    The four defendants were charged with threatening a federal officer, carrying and using a firearm, and engaging in conspiracy. The case had once looked like a slam-dunk to some.
    The images that had made the Bundys heroes to some — armed supporters facing down federal agents as contractors with the U.S. Bureau of Land Management tried to seize cattle — seemed to be compelling evidence.
    Monday’s dismissal was hinted at last month when Navarro ordered a mistrial. But she offered prosecutors a chance to make their case for why she should grant another trial.
    Assistant U.S. Atty. Steven Myhre wrote in his brief that the government had shared 1.5 terabytes of information with defendants and noted that it was “by far the largest review and disclosure operation in this [U.S. attorney’s office] history.”
    Myrhe also argued the government needed to protect some witnesses from leaks that might lead to threats, so it “culled the database with witness protection in mind.”
    “Unprecedented database volume and witness concerns aside, the government never let these obstacles stand in the way of diligently working to fulfill its discovery obligations,” he wrote.
    Navarro didn’t buy it and shredded the government for a “reckless disregard for Constitutional obligations.” She said she was troubled by the prosecution’s tardiness in delivering information about the government’s placing of surveillance cameras and snipers outside the ranch.
    “I’m not used to being free, put it that way,” he said. “I’ve been a political prisoner for right at 700 days today. I come into this courtroom an innocent man and I’m going to leave as an innocent man.”
    He also seemed ready to resume his role as a leader on the issue of local control of federal land. It’s a decades-long fight for Bundy, who first tussled with the Bureau of Land Management in the 1990s by refusing to pay grazing fees for his cattle using federal land.
    “Federal prosecutors clearly bungled this case and let the Bundys get away with breaking the law,” Kieran Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement. “The Bundys rallied a militia to mount an armed insurrection against the government. The failure of this case will only embolden this violent and racist anti-government movement that wants to take over our public lands.”
    Twice last year, Las Vegas juries acquitted or deadlocked on felony charges against Bundy supporters. Then Ammon and Ryan Bundy each beat federal felony charges in a case stemming from a 41-day standoff in 2016 at an Oregon wildlife preserve.”

    #1784037

    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    Do you really think that any side would win in a nuclear war?

    #1784068

    ☕️coffee addict
    Participant

    Ry23

    Yes, the one that’s first

    #1784067

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Health

    “On Monday, a federal judge in Las Vegas set them free.”

    Sooooo they didnt win with guns. got it.

    don’t worry I knew that but wanted you to actually read the story as it serves to prove the opposite of what you were trying to prove.
    Their guns didnt help them, they were arrested taken to jail (“….stared down government agents in an armed standoff outside their Nevada ranch. The Bundys dared the federal government to arrest them. The government did, “)
    The court helped them (luckily it wasnt the secret supreme court I hear those judges are terrible )

    RY
    No why, do you?

    #1784079

    Amil Zola
    Participant

    ubiquitin, Just as an FYI Ammon, Clivan’s son was just denied a firearms purchase. He wanted an AR. He didn’t pass a federal background check.

    #1784072

    👑RebYidd23
    Participant

    Sometimes the point isn’t winning, it’s ensuring that if there’s a fight, everyone loses.

    #1784655

    Health
    Participant

    Ubiq -“Sooooo they didnt win with guns. got it.
    Their guns didnt help them, they were arrested taken to jail (“….stared down government agents in an armed standoff outside their Nevada ranch. The Bundys dared the federal government to arrest them. The government did,
    The court helped them”

    The guns helped them. They only went to jail prior to court date(s).
    Not one court found them guilty.
    GOT IT?!?

    #1784736

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    “The guns helped them. They only went to jail prior to court date(s).
    Not one court found them guilty.
    GOT IT?!”

    I got it, but your thinking is muddled.

    I’ll walk you through it, stick with me.

    1- Dooms said “Purpose of 2nd amendment is to protect us against Tyranny.”
    2- I pointed out that this wasn’t true since an individual (or even group) can’t sstand a chance against the US government with their guns.
    3- You said “Ever hear of Cliven Bundy? He basically won against the US government!”
    4- To which You and I pointed out that he didnt win wit h his guns he won through the court, as you put it “Not one court found them guilty.”

    In fact he LOST his armed attempt, since, as you said “went to jail prior to court date”
    His gun didnt help hi win at all, Te courts did

    So how is this an example of using a gun to protect yourself against tyranny. The court protected him Not his gun.

    Where did I lose you?

    #1784750

    Health
    Participant

    Ubiq -“His gun didnt help hi win at all, Te courts did”

    If they didn’t have the stand off, no court would have sided with them. Believe it or not,
    Courts are influenced by Public Opinion!

    #1784763

    ubiquitin
    Participant

    Health

    Even if that were true (trhough I’d argue the opposite since most people oppose taking the law into your own hands, so it seems doubtful that the court said “well you put up arms so we better rule in his favor), it certainly can’t be used to PROVE that armed uprisings work

    #1784909

    Health
    Participant

    Ubiq -“certainly can’t be used to PROVE that armed uprisings work”

    I’m not advocating that people should follow this example. But in this case it worked – From Above:
    “Twice last year, Las Vegas juries acquitted or deadlocked on felony charges against Bundy supporters. Then Ammon and Ryan Bundy each beat federal felony charges in a case stemming from a 41-day standoff in 2016 at an Oregon wildlife preserve.”

Viewing 40 posts - 101 through 140 (of 140 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.


Trending