Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

New York City: Immediately surrender your rifle and/or shotgun

132 replies to this topic
sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#91

Posted 12 December 2013 - 03:04 PM Edited by sivispacem, 12 December 2013 - 03:05 PM.


I stopped reading that after the first sentence where you all but claimed that the US was more politically free than Europe. Look at basically every democracy index in existence and marvel at the US languishing behind the UK, Western and particularly Northern Europe. Comparing the UK, a country by most independent measures more politically free than the US, to the oppression of North Korea merely because the right to bear arms isn't respected really does demonstrate how utterly pig-ignorant you are.

 
The United States is a Republic.
 
That's nit-picking.
 
On the topic of gun control, I'd be fine with a Constitutional amendment regarding the issue, but people seem to think just passing laws is an okay way to tackle the topic. It's not. The Constitution has an amendment process, use it.
Being a republic does not preclude the US from being democratic. I've never understood why people think it does. Germany is a federal republic, as is Switzerland. France is a republic, as are Malta, Ireland, Cyprus, Estonia And Slovenia. All of these nations are representative liberal democracies and therefore referred to as "democratic".

Can someone explain to me why some people-almost universally Americans of a Libertarian leaning I must say- seem to believe that the US being a republic precludes it being democratic?

theadmiral
  • theadmiral

    Founder And Opening Batsman: Vinewood Cricket Club

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2013
  • Trinidad-and-Tobago

#92

Posted 12 December 2013 - 03:04 PM Edited by theadmiral, 12 December 2013 - 03:04 PM.

 

So you think it's perfectly fine for a guy with that type of record to still have a gun. This is what is wrong with America. You fire it through your neighbors roof, you shoot it willy nilly down in Texas, you shoot out peoples tires with your gun, and you still have people defending your right to have one. As a gun owner with some sense of pride, i'd think you'd have more respect for firearms than this.

 

I'm speaking as an American, not a gun owner. I would've thought you'd have respect for our justice system. The man was never found guilty prior to the shooting. He was never prosecuted. You do not take the rights/freedoms of a man or woman away because they are arrested, you take them away when they're found guilty. 

 

You need to look further than Wikipedia, Vlynor. He has a criminal record. You can't conduct these discussions based off of Wikipedia.


WhatsStrength
  • WhatsStrength

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2012
  • United-States

#93

Posted 12 December 2013 - 03:06 PM

1stum+just+going+to+safeway.jpg

  • universetwisters and Mr. House like this

Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#94

Posted 12 December 2013 - 03:13 PM Edited by Vlynor, 12 December 2013 - 03:13 PM.

 

 

So you think it's perfectly fine for a guy with that type of record to still have a gun. This is what is wrong with America. You fire it through your neighbors roof, you shoot it willy nilly down in Texas, you shoot out peoples tires with your gun, and you still have people defending your right to have one. As a gun owner with some sense of pride, i'd think you'd have more respect for firearms than this.

 

I'm speaking as an American, not a gun owner. I would've thought you'd have respect for our justice system. The man was never found guilty prior to the shooting. He was never prosecuted. You do not take the rights/freedoms of a man or woman away because they are arrested, you take them away when they're found guilty. 

 

You need to look further than Wikipedia, Vlynor. He has a criminal record. You can't conduct these discussions based off of Wikipedia.

 

 

He was never found guilty for firearm offenses. Again, being arrested is not enough reason to reduce someone's freedoms and rights.


theadmiral
  • theadmiral

    Founder And Opening Batsman: Vinewood Cricket Club

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2013
  • Trinidad-and-Tobago

#95

Posted 12 December 2013 - 03:14 PM Edited by theadmiral, 12 December 2013 - 03:14 PM.

 

 

 

He was never found guilty for firearm offenses. Again, being arrested is not enough reason to reduce someone's freedoms and rights.

 

You are getting close. Keep searching and your internet Wikipedia expert argument acumen will increase. Focus on the seattle case and keep in mind your words that he was never prosecuted. Keep looking.


Mr. House
  • Mr. House

    I'm not good with people, but at least I'm not a racist

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#96

Posted 12 December 2013 - 03:16 PM

1stum+just+going+to+safeway.jpg

hahahahahahaha

 

 

 

 

So you think it's perfectly fine for a guy with that type of record to still have a gun. This is what is wrong with America. You fire it through your neighbors roof, you shoot it willy nilly down in Texas, you shoot out peoples tires with your gun, and you still have people defending your right to have one. As a gun owner with some sense of pride, i'd think you'd have more respect for firearms than this.

 

I'm speaking as an American, not a gun owner. I would've thought you'd have respect for our justice system. The man was never found guilty prior to the shooting. He was never prosecuted. You do not take the rights/freedoms of a man or woman away because they are arrested, you take them away when they're found guilty. 

 

You need to look further than Wikipedia, Vlynor. He has a criminal record. You can't conduct these discussions based off of Wikipedia.

 

 

He was never found guilty for firearm offenses. Again, being arrested is not enough reason to reduce someone's freedoms and rights.

 

I don't know why you linked that article, because the writing of it suggests that the police f*cked up by not prosecuting him. Sure you win this argument with theadmiral, but you're sort of throwing the weight of your argument out of the window.


 

 

I stopped reading that after the first sentence where you all but claimed that the US was more politically free than Europe. Look at basically every democracy index in existence and marvel at the US languishing behind the UK, Western and particularly Northern Europe. Comparing the UK, a country by most independent measures more politically free than the US, to the oppression of North Korea merely because the right to bear arms isn't respected really does demonstrate how utterly pig-ignorant you are.

 
The United States is a Republic.
 
That's nit-picking.
 
On the topic of gun control, I'd be fine with a Constitutional amendment regarding the issue, but people seem to think just passing laws is an okay way to tackle the topic. It's not. The Constitution has an amendment process, use it.
Being a republic does not preclude the US from being democratic. I've never understood why people think it does. Germany is a federal republic, as is Switzerland. France is a republic, as are Malta, Ireland, Cyprus, Estonia And Slovenia. All of these nations are representative liberal democracies and therefore referred to as "democratic".

Can someone explain to me why some people-almost universally Americans of a Libertarian leaning I must say- seem to believe that the US being a republic precludes it being democratic?

 

Bad political education? Bad education on the meanings of words?

 

Bad, just bad.


Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#97

Posted 12 December 2013 - 03:20 PM

 

 

I stopped reading that after the first sentence where you all but claimed that the US was more politically free than Europe. Look at basically every democracy index in existence and marvel at the US languishing behind the UK, Western and particularly Northern Europe. Comparing the UK, a country by most independent measures more politically free than the US, to the oppression of North Korea merely because the right to bear arms isn't respected really does demonstrate how utterly pig-ignorant you are.

 
The United States is a Republic.
 
That's nit-picking.
 
On the topic of gun control, I'd be fine with a Constitutional amendment regarding the issue, but people seem to think just passing laws is an okay way to tackle the topic. It's not. The Constitution has an amendment process, use it.
Being a republic does not preclude the US from being democratic. I've never understood why people think it does. Germany is a federal republic, as is Switzerland. France is a republic, as are Malta, Ireland, Cyprus, Estonia And Slovenia. All of these nations are representative liberal democracies and therefore referred to as "democratic".

Can someone explain to me why some people-almost universally Americans of a Libertarian leaning I must say- seem to believe that the US being a republic precludes it being democratic?

 

The purpose of a Republic is to protect the rights of the minority. The U.S. has democratic principles (i.e. the universal right to vote in representatives) but the country was created with the idea that the rights of the minority were not to be voted on by a 51-49 majority, hence the Bill of Rights and state Constitutions. It's constantly brought up by Libertarians to reinforce the fact that majorities aren't supposed to be able to limit the rights of the minority by popular vote.

 

 

 

 

 

He was never found guilty for firearm offenses. Again, being arrested is not enough reason to reduce someone's freedoms and rights.

 

You are getting close. Keep searching and your internet Wikipedia expert argument acumen will increase. Focus on the seattle case and keep in mind your words that he was never prosecuted. Keep looking.

 

 

What are you trying to get at? Please, present a firearms conviction.

 

 

 

The shooter had prior firearms convictions and was mentally unstable, yet still was able to buy guns and get into a secure site to do this.
  • Mince likes this

theadmiral
  • theadmiral

    Founder And Opening Batsman: Vinewood Cricket Club

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2013
  • Trinidad-and-Tobago

#98

Posted 12 December 2013 - 03:23 PM Edited by theadmiral, 12 December 2013 - 03:24 PM.

You are right, I said convictionS, I should have limited it to one. But keep looking if you are so inclined.

 

And regardless, the fact that someone like that is allowed to have a gun is utterly ridiculous and I think any right thinking person would agree. There are scores of dead people lined up now because of your (and others) notions that you cannot take this mans gun away after a clear track record of irresponsibility with guns, and admitting to "blacking out, hearing voices, and shooting at things".

 

You are also operating off the police's ineptitude rather than common sense. He admitted guilt in all cases except the shooting through the roof, where he said he was cleaning his gun.


Mr. House
  • Mr. House

    I'm not good with people, but at least I'm not a racist

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#99

Posted 12 December 2013 - 03:24 PM

 

 

 

I stopped reading that after the first sentence where you all but claimed that the US was more politically free than Europe. Look at basically every democracy index in existence and marvel at the US languishing behind the UK, Western and particularly Northern Europe. Comparing the UK, a country by most independent measures more politically free than the US, to the oppression of North Korea merely because the right to bear arms isn't respected really does demonstrate how utterly pig-ignorant you are.

 
The United States is a Republic.
 
That's nit-picking.
 
On the topic of gun control, I'd be fine with a Constitutional amendment regarding the issue, but people seem to think just passing laws is an okay way to tackle the topic. It's not. The Constitution has an amendment process, use it.
Being a republic does not preclude the US from being democratic. I've never understood why people think it does. Germany is a federal republic, as is Switzerland. France is a republic, as are Malta, Ireland, Cyprus, Estonia And Slovenia. All of these nations are representative liberal democracies and therefore referred to as "democratic".

Can someone explain to me why some people-almost universally Americans of a Libertarian leaning I must say- seem to believe that the US being a republic precludes it being democratic?

 

The purpose of a Republic is to protect the rights of the minority. 

 

 

 

What? No, a Republic is a form of elective government without hereditary rule. I really have no idea what the f*ck you're going on about right now.


Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#100

Posted 12 December 2013 - 03:27 PM

You are right, I said convictionS, I should have limited it to one. But keep looking if you are so inclined.

 

And regardless, the fact that someone like that is allowed to have a gun is utterly ridiculous and I think any right thinking person would agree. There are scores of dead people lined up now because of your (and others) notions that you cannot take this mans gun away after a clear track record of irresponsibility with guns, and admitting to "blacking out, hearing voices, and shooting at things".

 

You are also operating off the police's ineptitude rather than common sense.

 

You have yet to present a firearms conviction. I've searched for "Aaron Alexis firearms conviction" and have yet to find anything. If you do I'll gladly drop it and concede to you. 


theadmiral
  • theadmiral

    Founder And Opening Batsman: Vinewood Cricket Club

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2013
  • Trinidad-and-Tobago

#101

Posted 12 December 2013 - 03:28 PM

 

You are right, I said convictionS, I should have limited it to one. But keep looking if you are so inclined.

 

And regardless, the fact that someone like that is allowed to have a gun is utterly ridiculous and I think any right thinking person would agree. There are scores of dead people lined up now because of your (and others) notions that you cannot take this mans gun away after a clear track record of irresponsibility with guns, and admitting to "blacking out, hearing voices, and shooting at things".

 

You are also operating off the police's ineptitude rather than common sense.

 

You have yet to present a firearms conviction. I've searched for "Aaron Alexis firearms conviction" and have yet to find anything. If you do I'll gladly drop it and concede to you. 

 

Its not about concession or winning an argument. But i'm not going to spoon feed you. I'll give you a hint, people can be found guilty and convicted and then not show a conviction. Your entire argument on everything has been based off of you googling and wikipediaing things.


Mr. House
  • Mr. House

    I'm not good with people, but at least I'm not a racist

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#102

Posted 12 December 2013 - 03:33 PM

 

 

You are right, I said convictionS, I should have limited it to one. But keep looking if you are so inclined.

 

And regardless, the fact that someone like that is allowed to have a gun is utterly ridiculous and I think any right thinking person would agree. There are scores of dead people lined up now because of your (and others) notions that you cannot take this mans gun away after a clear track record of irresponsibility with guns, and admitting to "blacking out, hearing voices, and shooting at things".

 

You are also operating off the police's ineptitude rather than common sense.

 

You have yet to present a firearms conviction. I've searched for "Aaron Alexis firearms conviction" and have yet to find anything. If you do I'll gladly drop it and concede to you. 

 

Its not about concession or winning an argument. But i'm not going to spoon feed you. I'll give you a hint, people can be found guilty and convicted and then not show a conviction. Your entire argument on everything has been based off of you googling and wikipediaing things.

 

To be fair, if you're going to claim a fact and are asked to provide said fact in a source, you really should provide a source, rather than acting like some maniacal Internet riddler.


theadmiral
  • theadmiral

    Founder And Opening Batsman: Vinewood Cricket Club

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 26 Sep 2013
  • Trinidad-and-Tobago

#103

Posted 12 December 2013 - 03:34 PM

 

To be fair, if you're going to claim a fact and are asked to provide said fact in a source, you really should provide a source, rather than acting like some maniacal Internet riddler.

 

I am the maniacal internet riddler.

  • Frank Brown and Mr. House like this

Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#104

Posted 12 December 2013 - 03:35 PM

 

 

You are right, I said convictionS, I should have limited it to one. But keep looking if you are so inclined.

 

And regardless, the fact that someone like that is allowed to have a gun is utterly ridiculous and I think any right thinking person would agree. There are scores of dead people lined up now because of your (and others) notions that you cannot take this mans gun away after a clear track record of irresponsibility with guns, and admitting to "blacking out, hearing voices, and shooting at things".

 

You are also operating off the police's ineptitude rather than common sense.

 

You have yet to present a firearms conviction. I've searched for "Aaron Alexis firearms conviction" and have yet to find anything. If you do I'll gladly drop it and concede to you. 

 

Its not about concession or winning an argument. But i'm not going to spoon feed you. I'll give you a hint, people can be found guilty and convicted and then not show a conviction. Your entire argument on everything has been based off of you googling and wikipediaing things.

 

 

I'm only asking for you to prove what you've said. Why must I search for something you claim? I've already looked. Do you know something that I wouldn't be able to find by doing a simple search?

 

What? No, a Republic is a form of elective government without hereditary rule. I really have no idea what the f*ck you're going on about right now.

 

 

I apologize. I meant to say a Constitutional Republic vs. a Democracy. We have a Constitution and a Republican form of government in order to prevent a simple majority vote on minority rights. Me leaving out the word "Constitutional" is misleading and I'm sorry for that.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#105

Posted 12 December 2013 - 04:16 PM Edited by sivispacem, 12 December 2013 - 04:21 PM.


 

 

I stopped reading that after the first sentence where you all but claimed that the US was more politically free than Europe. Look at basically every democracy index in existence and marvel at the US languishing behind the UK, Western and particularly Northern Europe. Comparing the UK, a country by most independent measures more politically free than the US, to the oppression of North Korea merely because the right to bear arms isn't respected really does demonstrate how utterly pig-ignorant you are.

 
The United States is a Republic.
 
That's nit-picking.
 
On the topic of gun control, I'd be fine with a Constitutional amendment regarding the issue, but people seem to think just passing laws is an okay way to tackle the topic. It's not. The Constitution has an amendment process, use it.
Being a republic does not preclude the US from being democratic. I've never understood why people think it does. Germany is a federal republic, as is Switzerland. France is a republic, as are Malta, Ireland, Cyprus, Estonia And Slovenia. All of these nations are representative liberal democracies and therefore referred to as "democratic".

Can someone explain to me why some people-almost universally Americans of a Libertarian leaning I must say- seem to believe that the US being a republic precludes it being democratic?
 
The purpose of a Republic is to protect the rights of the minority. The U.S. has democratic principles (i.e. the universal right to vote in representatives) but the country was created with the idea that the rights of the minority were not to be voted on by a 51-49 majority, hence the Bill of Rights and state Constitutions. It's constantly brought up by Libertarians to reinforce the fact that majorities aren't supposed to be able to limit the rights of the minority by popular vote.
A reasonable point,or it would be if democracy had anything to do with proportionality of political representation in respect to lawmaking. It's almost as if you're implying that other nations don't have constitutions of entitlement to fundamental individual and collective rights that supersede law. I understand why federal systems exist and the historical basis for the US one but pretending that the US isn't a representative democracy because they have a codified constitution is just a bit silly, frankly.

It doesn't even have anything to do with the fact the US is a constitutional republic, purely because that's an artificial boundary created by Americans so that they can somehow differentiate their federal representative democracy with a codified constitution from all the other ones exactly the same. There's no actual technical distinction between the US and France in that case- both have a codified constitution granting inalienable and a republic. Are you going to tell the French they can't be considered democratic because of it?

Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#106

Posted 12 December 2013 - 04:38 PM

 

 

 

 

I stopped reading that after the first sentence where you all but claimed that the US was more politically free than Europe. Look at basically every democracy index in existence and marvel at the US languishing behind the UK, Western and particularly Northern Europe. Comparing the UK, a country by most independent measures more politically free than the US, to the oppression of North Korea merely because the right to bear arms isn't respected really does demonstrate how utterly pig-ignorant you are.

 
The United States is a Republic.
 
That's nit-picking.
 
On the topic of gun control, I'd be fine with a Constitutional amendment regarding the issue, but people seem to think just passing laws is an okay way to tackle the topic. It's not. The Constitution has an amendment process, use it.
Being a republic does not preclude the US from being democratic. I've never understood why people think it does. Germany is a federal republic, as is Switzerland. France is a republic, as are Malta, Ireland, Cyprus, Estonia And Slovenia. All of these nations are representative liberal democracies and therefore referred to as "democratic".

Can someone explain to me why some people-almost universally Americans of a Libertarian leaning I must say- seem to believe that the US being a republic precludes it being democratic?
 
The purpose of a Republic is to protect the rights of the minority. The U.S. has democratic principles (i.e. the universal right to vote in representatives) but the country was created with the idea that the rights of the minority were not to be voted on by a 51-49 majority, hence the Bill of Rights and state Constitutions. It's constantly brought up by Libertarians to reinforce the fact that majorities aren't supposed to be able to limit the rights of the minority by popular vote.
A reasonable point,or it would be if democracy had anything to do with proportionality of political representation in respect to lawmaking. It's almost as if you're implying that other nations don't have constitutions of entitlement to fundamental individual and collective rights that supersede law. I understand why federal systems exist and the historical basis for the US one but pretending that the US isn't a representative democracy because they have a codified constitution is just a bit silly, frankly.

It doesn't even have anything to do with the fact the US is a constitutional republic, purely because that's an artificial boundary created by Americans so that they can somehow differentiate their federal representative democracy with a codified constitution from all the other ones exactly the same. There's no actual technical distinction between the US and France in that case- both have a codified constitution granting inalienable and a republic. Are you going to tell the French they can't be considered democratic because of it?

 

 

You're right. America and France are both democracies. 


El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#107

Posted 12 December 2013 - 11:36 PM

rehashing the same line over and over again that shows nothing and linking the same webpage over and over again?

 

Have you been in a shell for the last year or have you heard of Edward Snowden and what his whistleblowing proved? That's just one to mention.

ok. I tried to hold off, but here it comes.

you're being an idiot.

 

I've done my research. the reason I keep telling you to do yours is because you're the one who clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. Edward Snowden revealed that the US sometimes oversteps its legal boundaries in the pursuit of criminal justice. surprise surprise. we already know this. this is NOT a revelation and it does NOT prove that the entire country is somehow without rights or somehow under the threat of becoming an oppressive dictatorship. it just means that the US is like any other country in that it's leaders are susceptible to the same corruptions as any man.

 

Snowden's revelation is that the US are hypocrites because we claim we're not overstepping our jurisdiction.

the revelation is NOT the fact that we're overstepping. it's because we blatantly lied about it.

 

one has little to do with the other.

but let's go further.

 

In Europe, i'm not totally sure - Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the Netherlands (Europe) are all more free than the United States though .

I think the UK has probably slipped into some of the same habits as the US lately. France, Denmark, Ireland are all good also.

none of the countries you mentioned are "more free" than the US.

their Civil Liberties are at least as strong as ours. they don't extend any further. you also haven't even defined what "more free" means by comparison.

 

tell me what "more free" means and give me examples.

DO... SOME... RESEARCH. don't just speak out of your butt hole :santa:

 

but let's go further.

 

 

We are living in a new USA, one where the NSA is recording every conversation you have

this is not true.

the NSA does not have the physical capacity, let alone the manpower, to listen to "every conversation" that anyone has.

 

We are living in a USA where tech companies biggest worry right now is coding their systems so the government cannot spy on their users.

this is not true.

most tech companies do not have "users." those that do are not worried about the government "spying" on their users because Federal courts already have the power to subpoena telecommunications records if they want them. the government does not have to "spy" on tech users since they already have the legal authority to ping their information in a criminal case.

 

do some research.

We Americans need to accept that our government is mildly better than China's at this point.

this is SO NOT true.

this is just ignorant, stupid, fear-mongering.

 

you really don't know much of anything, do you?


Mv6
  • Mv6

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2011

#108

Posted 13 December 2013 - 12:22 AM


Any limits on guns are unconstitutional btw, even taxes. Any barrier in the way of getting a gun.

What kind of stupid argument is that? Constitution is not the word of god. It's a piece of paper. Do you realize that the US didn't abolish slavery until 13th amendment? That's one entire constitution and 12 amendments and slavery was still legal. How many amendments and laws do you think it takes to put limits on weapons?


I was going to respond but then I read the piece of paper part.

Please educate yourself or do some research.

The Yokel
  • The Yokel

    Wise old Yardie

  • Members
  • Joined: 30 Mar 2007
  • Jamaica

#109

Posted 13 December 2013 - 12:31 AM

 

 

Any limits on guns are unconstitutional btw, even taxes. Any barrier in the way of getting a gun.

What kind of stupid argument is that? Constitution is not the word of god. It's a piece of paper. Do you realize that the US didn't abolish slavery until 13th amendment? That's one entire constitution and 12 amendments and slavery was still legal. How many amendments and laws do you think it takes to put limits on weapons?
I was going to respond but then I read the piece of paper part.

Please educate yourself or do some research.

But you did respond. With a useless post. So why don't you just finish what you started if you're so smart?


Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#110

Posted 13 December 2013 - 12:38 AM Edited by Vlynor, 13 December 2013 - 12:40 AM.

 

 

 

Any limits on guns are unconstitutional btw, even taxes. Any barrier in the way of getting a gun.

What kind of stupid argument is that? Constitution is not the word of god. It's a piece of paper. Do you realize that the US didn't abolish slavery until 13th amendment? That's one entire constitution and 12 amendments and slavery was still legal. How many amendments and laws do you think it takes to put limits on weapons?
I was going to respond but then I read the piece of paper part.

Please educate yourself or do some research.

But you did respond. With a useless post. So why don't you just finish what you started if you're so smart?

 

 

Well, the purpose of the Constitution is to protect rights of citizens (specifically the Bill of Rights). and lay down basic laws in America. If you don't like it, that's fine and that's your right, but calling it a "piece of paper" and implying that just because it is a piece paper it has no meaning is ignorant


Raavi
  • Raavi

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • Antarctica
  • Best Moderator 2014
    Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#111

Posted 13 December 2013 - 12:51 AM

 

 

 

 

Any limits on guns are unconstitutional btw, even taxes. Any barrier in the way of getting a gun.

What kind of stupid argument is that? Constitution is not the word of god. It's a piece of paper. Do you realize that the US didn't abolish slavery until 13th amendment? That's one entire constitution and 12 amendments and slavery was still legal. How many amendments and laws do you think it takes to put limits on weapons?
I was going to respond but then I read the piece of paper part.

Please educate yourself or do some research.

But you did respond. With a useless post. So why don't you just finish what you started if you're so smart?

 

 

Well, the purpose of the Constitution is to protect rights of citizens (specifically the Bill of Rights). and lay down basic laws in America. If you don't like it, that's fine and that's your right, but calling it a "piece of paper" and implying that just because it is a piece paper it has no meaning is ignorant

 

 

I'd like to take it a step further, and say that the US constitution, or at least part of is obsolete. Little wonder considering it was drafted in 1787 . It goes without saying that it is in desperate need of revision and amending, especially the second amendment. 


Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#112

Posted 13 December 2013 - 12:52 AM

 

 

 

 

 

Any limits on guns are unconstitutional btw, even taxes. Any barrier in the way of getting a gun.

What kind of stupid argument is that? Constitution is not the word of god. It's a piece of paper. Do you realize that the US didn't abolish slavery until 13th amendment? That's one entire constitution and 12 amendments and slavery was still legal. How many amendments and laws do you think it takes to put limits on weapons?
I was going to respond but then I read the piece of paper part.

Please educate yourself or do some research.

But you did respond. With a useless post. So why don't you just finish what you started if you're so smart?

 

 

Well, the purpose of the Constitution is to protect rights of citizens (specifically the Bill of Rights). and lay down basic laws in America. If you don't like it, that's fine and that's your right, but calling it a "piece of paper" and implying that just because it is a piece paper it has no meaning is ignorant

 

 

I'd like to take it a step further, and say that the US constitution, or at least part of is obsolete. Little wonder considering it was drafted in 1787 . It goes without saying that it is in desperate need of revision and amending, especially the second amendment. 

 

 

I don't disagree that it may need amending, but we do have a process for it and any changes to it should be done through that process and not bypassed by federal and state law.


Mv6
  • Mv6

    Mark Chump

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2011

#113

Posted 13 December 2013 - 02:09 AM


 

 

Any limits on guns are unconstitutional btw, even taxes. Any barrier in the way of getting a gun.

What kind of stupid argument is that? Constitution is not the word of god. It's a piece of paper. Do you realize that the US didn't abolish slavery until 13th amendment? That's one entire constitution and 12 amendments and slavery was still legal. How many amendments and laws do you think it takes to put limits on weapons?
I was going to respond but then I read the piece of paper part.

Please educate yourself or do some research.
But you did respond. With a useless post. So why don't you just finish what you started if you're so smart?

I'm sorry I should have clarified. What I mean is I wanted to engage in a debate with you but I don't see how I can do that when you imply that the constitution is a piece if paper.

The bill of rights, are what the American government absolutely cannot infringe. These are...hmm I do I say this natural rights.

I never claimed to be a smart man or well versed in the constitution but to ignore it and label it as meaningless as a piece of paper is stupid.

I'm sorry. I'm not insulting you but I am referring to the comparison of a nations guideline to a piece of paper.

Mind if I ask where you are from? And how long have you spent researching and studying the constitution.

gtamann123
  • gtamann123

    Bang Bang, Skeet Skeet

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2008
  • United-States

#114

Posted 13 December 2013 - 02:27 AM

My main issue (and a lot of other Americans) is that I can't really see why guns are such a taboo issue to some people. I have been around guns my whole life and never felt my life was in danger. I dont see why furthers restricting access to guns would change anything. The only person your hurting in the long run is the law abiding citizen. If a criminal wants to get a firearm for the purpose of crime they will do it regardless if there are laws in place. So why disarm the common man when it would change nothing?

WhatsStrength
  • WhatsStrength

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2012
  • United-States

#115

Posted 13 December 2013 - 03:27 AM

I've been pondering lately; would a full-on democracy be better than the representative republic we have now? Maybe doing town meetings to vote on issues?


gtamann123
  • gtamann123

    Bang Bang, Skeet Skeet

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2008
  • United-States

#116

Posted 13 December 2013 - 03:29 AM

Not sure on how you could have a town meeting in a nation of 300 million plus

Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#117

Posted 13 December 2013 - 03:36 AM

I've been pondering lately; would a full-on democracy be better than the representative republic we have now? Maybe doing town meetings to vote on issues?

 

Probably not. Modern Americans are too busy to take time out to vote on issues, only a handful of people would actually be able to get out to the polls whenever necessary.  A representative republic allows us to vote in people whose job it is to tackle the issues. 


WhatsStrength
  • WhatsStrength

    Big Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 08 Feb 2012
  • United-States

#118

Posted 13 December 2013 - 03:45 AM

 

I've been pondering lately; would a full-on democracy be better than the representative republic we have now? Maybe doing town meetings to vote on issues?

 

Probably not. Modern Americans are too busy to take time out to vote on issues, only a handful of people would actually be able to get out to the polls whenever necessary.  A representative republic allows us to vote in people whose job it is to tackle the issues. 

 

A mail-in system perhaps? Or even phone calls or texts?


Frank Brown
  • Frank Brown

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#119

Posted 13 December 2013 - 03:49 AM

 

 

I've been pondering lately; would a full-on democracy be better than the representative republic we have now? Maybe doing town meetings to vote on issues?

 

Probably not. Modern Americans are too busy to take time out to vote on issues, only a handful of people would actually be able to get out to the polls whenever necessary.  A representative republic allows us to vote in people whose job it is to tackle the issues. 

 

A mail-in system perhaps? Or even phone calls or texts?

 

 

It seems more practical to have people vote in representatives who are dedicated to political issues. If you vote for a representative who you believe has the right idea on certain issues, that allows them to research, debate, and vote on issues, whereas with direct democracy, everyone would have to stop what they're doing to research each topic individually and most likely would half-ass their voting or not vote at all.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Empty Pleasures and Desperate Measures since 1994

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#120

Posted 13 December 2013 - 09:26 AM

El_diablo, in reference to how and whether Europe/NZ are more "free" than the US, there are a few key areas:

1) Freedom of the press. There's a great deal of political interference in the media. Less so in Europe.
2) More transparent judicial system. The US judicial system is extremely opaque. Miscarriages of justice are disproportionately frequent and legislation concerning drug possession and laws like the 3-strike rule inhibit individual freedoms greatly. Then there's the farce that is the death penalty.
3) Business. Much harder for resident aliens and foreign nationals who are afforded the same rights as citizens during their time in the US to own and operate businesses. Opaque business taxation system and IRS as judge, jury and executioner. No independent ombudsman to address complains regarding business law and taxation.
4) Basic civil liberties. Higher degree of freedom from harassment or persecution based on race, religion, gender, sexuality or disability in Europe. Constitutionally enshrined public oversight for intelligence agencies and law enforcement. Arguably better protections from cruel and unusual punishment, torture, extraordinary rendition and detention without trial.
  • theadmiral likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users