Total posts: 3,383
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
temperatures in cities are warmer than the surrounding areas as I'm sure large parking lots etc this is and has been a measurable thing. Do those things have a global impact? I'm not sure.
I don't believe the earth will end in 10 years, but we can hope.
The global warming/climate change is all prediction. which is nothing new as it's been happening for decades and yet here we still are no worse for wear. Given they have been wrong every single time, but this time is different...well you'll excuse my skepticism.
though I do agree with your point that if this is true we would be in a bad way because people are the way they are. Imo there is little to no hope any drastic change could or would ever be made, they would wait until it's much too late, that's just the nature of the animal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
though the definitions of the terms can be problematic imo, change does not always = negative outcome.
the answer I keep hearing (solution) is doing away with fossil fuel, cars, cows etc. Though how that would really change things is a guess at best. Besides being impractical it would cost trillions of dollars and the biggest offenders wouldn't "clean up their act" (pun intended) We should strive for the cleanest air and water practical and there is more we could so. Izak Walton leagues often do road side and waterway cleanups. Organized cleanups like adopt a road type things don't require government involvement, just community. Anyway the point is, if people really cared and believed you'd see more personal involvement, accountability and responsibility don't you think?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
the likes of Obama, Decaprio, democratic candidates, children giving speeches or organizing rallies, no they are not "intelligent in the field?" But when has being informed or intelligent about a subject hindered anyone?
You have the scientist alarmist and the scientist deniers, which one to believe? There are two sides to every story, somewhere in the middle is the truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
they sure seem to think so since they were on tv preaching their gloom and doom
I ain't scared of no flood (I ain't scared of no ghost, ghostbusters!)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheRealNihilist
the alarmist have purchased multi million dollar beach houses, still travel in private planes, they don't seem concerned, I don't think you should be either.
Created:
-->
@Imabench
I'm not surprised, this is but another symptom of the violent, disrespectful etc etc society that is continuing a downward spiral. The days of common courtesy are all but gone. Opening doors for women is sexist etc, you get the idea. This has been leaking into our "leaders" They are not immune from this deterioration.
I'm glad you are shocked and sad that I am not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I hear North Korea has a lower gun murder rate.
these anti 2a arguments are redundant and have been countered so many times, there's just nothing new.
Remove the murders from these shit hole cities and the rate is actually pretty low.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@billbatard
that's your opinion, not the law I don't believe
we should just enforce immigration laws in the same manner is many other countries do, I'd be happy with that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@billbatard
illegals dont cause crime
lol if something you do is "illegal" is it not a crime? doesn't that make you a......criminal? This is how laws work and definitions are used in the U.S. I can't speak for other countries.
Created:
-->
@bmdrocks21
that should have happened long long ago rather than letting production, manufacturing etc die in our own borders.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
this is what will cause WWIII oh the humanity!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@billbatard
so you are blaming the guns then? they actually will not self animate fyi
there should be some obvious reasons why violence is increased and escalating, I mean I think it's pretty obvious. We are greatly desensitized to many things compared to 30,40,50 years ago when it was a much kinder and gentler time.
America is unique in lots of positive and negative ways, that's just the way it is. Same can be said for any country really.
Wasn't that long ago I read some stats that new gun owners is on the decline while current gun owner are just buying more guns. Don't recall where I saw it but it sounded logical.
anyway, you can't legislate empathy or morality. Nor can you legislate evil away.
consider this, profanity at one time was enough to end an argument, it was shocking, offensive, insulting, now, not so much, it's common and lost any effect or impact it once had. So what's the next logical step? Physical violence, which again doesn't have the effect or impact it once had, next step, murder. We are at the zenith of violence. All that can be done now is increase the numbers (mass murders).
If you look at these things objectively, they are following in a logical and almost predictable order I think.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
it would be easy to measure the likelihood of women dying with guns present. look at a group of women who were attacked when the partner had a gun, then look at a group when there was no gun. what are the death rate differences?
oh I see every encounter like that is the same, same background, history, demographic etc yup sure thing apples and acorns. I'll bet I've seen the study you are talking about, it wasn't well done at all, there are far too many variables. A person who has the will to murder isn't necessarily stopped because they lack a gun and there is no way to prove they didn't murder because they didn't have a gun.
your first sentence is indecipherable.
your constant argument is guns = bad, less guns, more laws = good
pre nics, bans multiple of laws < murders than post nics, bans multiple of additional laws
honestly I don't understand your confusion but I'll try to make it as simple as possible
once upon a time you could mail order a gun and there were NO background checks or many of the thousands of laws we have now. At that time period the murder rate was much lower than today. It was much much easier to get a gun back then and yet the murder rate was much much lower, it's much much more difficult/restrictive to get a gun now a days and yet the murder rate is much much higher, comprehend?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
if there were less murders when there was no background checks, restrictions and you could mail order guns, but now there are multiple times more laws and more murders you say guns are the problem?
women are five times more likely to die in domestic violence if her partner has a gun.
how is this determined? do they ask the murders, hey if you didn't have a gun would you have still killed them? explain the science. explain how anyone would know, but if it weren't for the gun, x wouldn't have been done/killed.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
some people who are denied a gun legally won't get one illegally.
I'm sure that's true, and? how many guns illegally owned and obtained are actually used in a crime?
when they dont have a gun and go off on their wife, she might survive when she otherwise wouldn't.
where domestic violence leads to murder what are the stats of methods used?
of the murders with a firearm, how many of those were obtained legally or attempted to be obtained legally?
of these murderers what criminal history is there, if one at all?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
I think 100% of people who will do anything to get a gun, will.
but let me ask you this do you think criminals first try to get a gun legally, then when denied buy one illegally?
what are the criteria/reasons someone would be denied a gun through a background check? do you know?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
that's is very old school haha, where there is a will, there is a way.
Created:
some inconvenient truths about pandering to anti 2a people
you can now buy a stripped ar lower, it's called the Beto it's being heavily advertised all over the internet and it's not expensive
There's a lot of facebook memes, pictures of the "debate" with a caption that reads something like "All I heard was buy more guns" (or ammo)
then the comments are basically people feeling they need to buy before a coming ban.
This type of reaction cause shortages and increased sales driven by the greatest gun salesman of all time. If you want less guns, stop driving sales?
it's funny to read some of the old posts about the Democrats "aren't coming for your guns" or they don't want to ban guns etc I don't think anyone really believed that b.s. If they did they should really feel stupid now for having done so.
This rhetoric will drive technology as I've said so many times in the past. There are videos of people making a mold of a lower and casting it in a resin. It does work but certain doesn't last as long as aluminum. But then again some suicidal murderer obviously isn't thinking long term. People have also cast lowers from melted down aluminum cans. Talk about a way to recycle lol
D.I.Y. has been growing in popularity especially with better 3d printers and cnc machines, quality is increasing and prices are dropping. Resin printers are pretty amazing. So how fast to we want to drive this technology/market? It's going to happen. People are going to print their own gun parts, it's just a matter of time. Do you want it sooner or later?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
the quote was pretty self explanatory and could apply to soooo many instances it's almost prophetic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Imabench
consider biologic or chemical payloads...........with all the ways people have figured out to kill one another you just can't help but be amazed. It wouldn't surprise me anti drone rounds and or specific guns etc will be a new market.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
hmm I dunno, think I'd take my chances with a mass shooter, at least I'd have a chance to defend myself and they would get the murderer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
naw it can happen and easily imo, I mean let's be real for a moment, what can really stop another https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/oklahoma-city-bombing ?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I just don't see the Clintons doing anything relevant. I mean like they can still rig the DNC primaries and stuff, but that's about it.
the families of the suicided "victims" may disagree hahaha
Created:
-->
@Imabench
dam that was a top rate post, respect.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
the Bill of Rights is what? and whom does it apply to? people or government entities?
the Bill of Rights amendments add to the Constitution specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights, clear limitations on the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and explicit declarations that all powers not specifically granted to the U.S. Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people.
why wasn't that part explicitly mentioned any where?if they meant to protect self defense or hunting or any of that, they would have mentioned it.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Scholars, politicians, and the courtssearch through history and the lawto find the meaning of the SecondAmendment. Three issues lead thedebate over guns today. They involvethe origin of the right to bear arms, themeaning of the word “militia,” and themeaning of “people.”Where does the right to bear armscome from? The English Bill of Rights(1689) clearly spoke of an individual’sright to bear arms.
George Mason, author of Virginia’sDeclaration of Rights, said in 1788,“what is the militia? It is the wholepeople, except for a few publicofficers.”Finally, does the Second Amendmentmean “individuals” when it refersto “the people”? In United States v.Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), the SupremeCourt said it does. The term, “‘thepeople’…refers to a class of personswho are part of a national community.”
Whether the Second Amendmentwas meant to protect militias orindividuals is not perfectly clear. But onething is certain: without the right to beararms, the colonists would never havewon the Revolutionary War.
as I have already stated owning and carrying guns was done and a well known practice. I have not seen any calls for confiscation or a law prohibiting owning and carrying until much later after the B.O.R.
Timeline of Gun Control in the United States
from 1791 until......
1934
The first piece of national gun control legislation was passed on June 26, 1934. The National Firearms Act (NFA) — part of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “New Deal for Crime“— was meant to curtail “gangland crimes of that era such as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre.”
The first piece of national gun control legislation was passed on June 26, 1934. The National Firearms Act (NFA) — part of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “New Deal for Crime“— was meant to curtail “gangland crimes of that era such as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre.”
there was no issue or problem with owning and carrying for 143 years and then it was only a reaction to gangland crimes.
this militia argument just doesn't make sense given the lack of laws and inaction for 143 years. again as I said people owned and carried before and after the 2a
as exampled in Amendment X the states and the people are separated so to make a claim that it doesn't apply to individuals is preposterous.
Created:
-->
@Castin
you started by wording it as "you" so naturally it flowed into an assumption that I identify as republican and then the statement you made, it all sounded like an attack, perhaps a bit subtle but never the less.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
nope you don't understand the constitution or bill of rights then, it was never meant to be all inclusive.
Do you agree we have the "right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness"?
you haven't proven all the court rulings and cases were wrong so there's that.
can you find one person successfully charged using a firearm in a legal self defense situation?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
if they can control or limit how you can defend your life, you don't have a right to life. Rights are not granted by government they are recognized.
here's some of the oldest self defense cases with a gun http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/Self-Defense-Cases.htm
The Jury and the English Law of Homicide,1200-1600
self defense 428
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
so is that what your whole argument hinges on is the wording? Since it's obvious people carried I guess that's the only argument you are left with. I'll address it when I have more time but the cases, rulings, precedence and laws even before the ratification of the constitution makes that kind of argument a sad pedantic attempt.
Created:
In the United States, which has an English common law tradition, the concept of a right to keep and bear arms was recognized prior to the creation of a written national constitution.[7] When colonists in the Thirteen Colonies rebelled against British control during the American Revolution they cited the 1689 English Bill of Rights as an example.
The American understanding of the right to keep and bear arms was influenced by the 1689 English Bill of Rights, an Act of Parliament, which also dealt with personal defence by Protestant English subjects.
n United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that the right to arms preexisted the Constitution and in that case and in Presser v. Illinois (1886) recognized that the Second Amendment protected the right from being infringed by Congress.
Bill of Rights 1689
the court rulings go way back but people keep wanting to reinvent the wheel
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
well what I quoted of what is claimed to be their very words....pistols weren't considered guns for starters, Jefferson himself carried pistols in his pockets, perhaps carrying pistols in that manner was so common and readily accepted it needed not to be mentioned?
if your "research" has letters supporting your argument please post them rather than someone's opinions as they are biased, but let's rather look at what was actually said, written on paper, that seems to be the best evidence.
was it common practice for people to carry pistols generally? the fact that Jefferson did would seem to indicate this was a common practice.
Every single mention referred to Virginians as a group, not as individuals.
LOL aren't groups made up of individuals? wow that is really absurd.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
that's true too, so much for being proactive.....
Created:
-->
@Exile
that's nothing new they are jumping on the leftist bandwagon, since you can pick and choose your sex at whatever whim you wish, they are trying to normalize all these disorders, no one should be suprised.
there was the woman in government, i forget, said something about changing age of consent to 10 years old. I'm sure you can find it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
that and they didn't want to spend the money for the upgraded securities.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
-stand your ground laws were not the law. colonists had the duty to retreat if possible.
some states require you to retreat if possible, what's your point?
-public and concealed carry in populated areas was banned
supreme court ruled, I believe, you can ban one or the other but not both.
-some cities prohibited firing guns in the city limit
um ok, that's still a thing, has been....
Thus, in the minds of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, to "bear" agun meant to carry it about in one's hands or on one's person, as for instancea deer hunter would do. "Bearing arms" is not associated with militia dutyonly, for the language above addresses the "bearing of a gun" by any personwhen not "performing military duty."
Further, while the bill would haverestricted the carrying of scatterguns and other long guns for hunting, itwould not have prohibited carrying pistols for self-defense. At that time, "one species of fire-arms, the pistol[,] [was] never called a gun."' 16
Just months before writing the Declaration of Independence, Jeffersonkept a Commonplace Book where he copied his favorite passages from legalwriters. This book "may well be considered as the source-book and repertoryof Jefferson's ideas on government." 20 Among the passages Jefferson copiedword-for-word was Beccaria's denunciation of laws which forbid di portar learmi, which may be translated as to "bear," "carry," or "wear arms."
The wisdom of Beccaria was a source of Jefferson's proposed VirginiaConstitution of 1776 which provided: "No freeman shall ever be debarredthe use of arms." 2 2 An avid hunter and gun collector, Jefferson carried pocketpistols which may be seen today at Monticello.2 3
well you can read the rest.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
trying to pull from memory, but I seem to recall sometime around 1976 Israel had a plane hijacked and after that they reinforced their cockpits and other security measures. We did the same after 9-11. Why we didn't follow suit way back then, well we can speculate.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
I can tell you, the quality of life there is higher than it is here.
that means what? just for you or for everyone?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@A-R-O-S-E
socialism is a hard sell, you have to try and disguise it, with that in mind, listen to what he says again and you'll see what I mean. I can't remember how many trillions he'll spend just on the climate change stuff, but everything else "free" will pile onto that huge debt.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
wrong person :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Christen
I'm starting to think approval ratings don't matter or mean anything
they don't, I disapprove of lots of things he says etc, however, for reasons I've given in other threads etc, he's the best choice (least objectionable) of the choices we are going to have. It's not how I would have things, but this is the hand we are dealt.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
you find that interesting? what or who could prevent another 9-11? you do know planes from other countries have been hijacked right? How about the one where the pilot flew it right into the mountain? Get some help for you TDS
Created:
-->
@Castin
it never was, it was about Trump as they all are.
As I have said many, many times, I didn't vote for him, but I'm certainly glad Hillary didn't win.
I think Republicans don't actually care about the general public
given such a blanket statement obviously there is no room to bother discussing anything related, closed minds are just like that.
Created:
-->
@billbatard
inalienable rights vs government granted is what does or does not make you free imo
I'm not reading 406 pages, so if you'd like explain their criteria and how they determined this ranking I'll read that, but otherwise I'll say b.s. to that link.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Exile
I'm not a minority or protected class. I work and want to keep as much of the money I earn as possible. The constitution must be protected. Who are my choices to vote for?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@billbatard
animals born in captivity don't know they are in a zoo, they don't know what it's like to be free, some think they are happy in a gilded cage, but are they really? If that's the case why is their immigration not on pare or exceeds that of the U.S.? By immigration I mean normal, not because people are fleeing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
it really hits the nail on the head doesn't it. that would explain the harsh penalties for non violent crime and the little to no reform....ever.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@billbatard
and? ask G.P. asked, what's the plan to "fix it"? Is it actually harmful? Can you point to a direct negative effect it is having right now? didn't think so.
Created: