Gun Debate

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

with all due respect; i can make a gun in an hour. it will be single shot but i can do it. the FBI has an entire room full of homemade guns that have been confiscated. imagine the number they haven't gotten.

not many cos who the fuck knows how, let alone would bother? and would said gun have been able to kill 30 people in a matter of minutes in virginia? you cant whip that kind of equipment up in a kitchen.

mammasan

I just heard on the radio that this kid was commintted, by order of the state, to an institution for psychological evaluation back in 2005. If this is true than someone dropped the ball because the state of Virginia requires that the information be available when conducting a background check for a fire arm purchase. Either the information about his institutionalization was never entered into the system or the gun shop didn't think it was an issue.

Quint

onelongsong wrote:

it is people control that is needed..

And don't you think better regulation or registration is a form of people control?

onelongsong wrote:

today; we have 1 million invaders crossing the mexican border each year alone. we have invaders crossing the canadian border and people invading our shores by boat. our government with spy planes and armed border guards is helpless in protecting us. our cities are run by gangs and the police are helpless. drug cartels remove billions from the american economy making our poor; poorer.

Isn't the real problem here that your country is in fact very rich and in the eyes of a lot of other people unwilling at the least to share this wealth? If the problem is that your cities are being run by gangs, isn't that also because these gangs have relatively easy access to fire-arms? If drug cartels remove so much from your economy, why not legalize it? After all, it's still anyones own choice to use or not...

onelongsong

soulsinging wrote:

how can you claim to be an attorney and advocate and yet consistently misspell concealed?

because i type too fast and don't proof-read here. since spelling isn't an issue but content is; i simply don't worry about it.

Ahnimus

onelongsong wrote:

because i type too fast and don't proof-read here. since spelling isn't an issue but content is; i simply don't worry about it.

I thought you were a scientist, now your an attorney too?

Songburst

inmytree wrote:

nicely spun...

let see...a car's main purpose is transportation...a gun's main purpose is to kill...

since you bring up cars...I'm pretty sure one has to take a test to obtain a license to drive a car, they pay yearly to keep that car registered, the car is inspected once a year, one has to pay insurance on that said car....

how about doing the same for guns...?

That right there is the best rebuttal to the ever-popular guns-to-cars comparision that I have come across. It would be great if people were forced to insure themselves if they are a legal owner of a handgun. Even better -- if you go to buy a gun, the guy behind the cash register just gets it over with and shoots you dead -- one less brain dead fuck in society to deal with.

onelongsong

Quint wrote:

And don't you think better regulation or registration is a form of people control?

if you think making more laws for people to ignore does any good; look at past legislation.

Quint wrote:

Isn't the real problem here that your country is in fact very rich and in the eyes of a lot of other people unwilling at the least to share this wealth? If the problem is that your cities are being run by gangs, isn't that also because these gangs have relatively easy access to fire-arms? If drug cartels remove so much from your economy, why not legalize it? After all, it's still anyones own choice to use or not...

now that's what pisses me off. my mothers grandfather immigrated here because he heard america is so wealthy the streets are paved in gold. we have more poor and starving than most nations. america can't afford to pay back the retirees that gave money to the government (social security) to be returned to them when they retire. america cannot afford to offer it's people socialized medicine. our national debt is in the billions because poland is the only country to pay back money it has borrowed. we have shared the wealth by not invading countries that refuse to pay their debt. so much that we cannot care for our own people.

i'm all for legalization. in fact; i'll smoke to that.

onelongsong

Ahnimus wrote:

I thought you were a scientist, now your an attorney too?

i actually had 3 majors and fronted a band for many years. i am currently doing research in the nutritional field. my IQ is 2 points short of genius.
i fail to see how this is relevant to the debate though.

onelongsong

soulsinging wrote:

not many cos who the fuck knows how, let alone would bother? and would said gun have been able to kill 30 people in a matter of minutes in virginia? you cant whip that kind of equipment up in a kitchen.

if i wanted to kill 30 people i'd use a pipe bomb or two.

onelongsong

Songburst wrote:

That right there is the best rebuttal to the ever-popular guns-to-cars comparision that I have come across. It would be great if people were forced to insure themselves if they are a legal owner of a handgun. Even better -- if you go to buy a gun, the guy behind the cash register just gets it over with and shoots you dead -- one less brain dead fuck in society to deal with.

8 times more people are killed with cars each year than with guns. maybe the car dealer should run over anyone wanting to buy a car and get it over with then and there.

prism

in Virginia at most places they'll sell a gun to any imbecile that comes through the door. background checks take time, they gots guns to sell!


we cain't be bothered to do some stupid background check, Cletus! gets their money and give' em the gun and the ammo.

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

if i wanted to kill 30 people i'd use a pipe bomb or two.

don't worry dude, i don't question your knowledge of terrorist tactics. im just saying, most people don't share your enthusiasm for learning many different ways of killing other people.

soulsinging

onelongsong wrote:

because i type too fast and don't proof-read here. since spelling isn't an issue but content is; i simply don't worry about it.

you can't use that excuse because you consistently spell it a particular way. it's not a typo. by the way, whatever happened to all that case law about being unable to amend the constitution you were going to provide? i while i admire your willingness to openly be a pussy and run away and ignore the challenge, i was still hoping id get some real answers, seeing as how you're such an impressive and unbeatable attorney and everything.

onelongsong

soulsinging wrote:

you can't use that excuse because you consistently spell it a particular way. it's not a typo. by the way, whatever happened to all that case law about being unable to amend the constitution you were going to provide? i while i admire your willingness to openly be a pussy and run away and ignore the challenge, i was still hoping id get some real answers, seeing as how you're such an impressive and unbeatable attorney and everything.

in 228 years; not one of the first 10 amendments have been changed so how can there be case law? in a normal session of congress; an average of 200 amendments are presented. i did present several posts but as i said; your inability to understand them is not my concern.

if i had the time to research it; i believe amendments ratified before 1808 cannot be changed; but don't hold me to that.

onelongsong

soulsinging wrote:

don't worry dude, i don't question your knowledge of terrorist tactics. im just saying, most people don't share your enthusiasm for learning many different ways of killing other people.

but the point remains that if someone wanted to kill; they don't need a gun. a simple trip to the hardware store will do it. you can get everything you need to make gunpowder there too. remember oklahoma city?

redrock

onelongsong wrote:

i actually had 3 majors and fronted a band for many years. i am currently doing research in the nutritional field. my IQ is 2 points short of genius.
i fail to see how this is relevant to the debate though.

I guess it's because we're all astonished at the pomp and rubbish that comes out of your posts....

BTW.. I beat you by one point :D:D

Good night....

UKDave

redrock wrote:

I guess it's because we're all astonished at the pomp and rubbish that comes out of your posts....

BTW.. I beat you by one point :D:D

Good night....

Jeez Rita you still on this? been out, played footie, had an indian and lots of beer and you're still on this........?

redrock

nope... just came back a few minutes ago... just couldn't resist....
Stopped getting involved this pm as everything is just being rehashed over and over again.. But with onelongsong.... sorry... . Note I didn't even respond to the hitler and WWII posts or the ones about america being invaded so many times (by the french and british as well - the bastards), that now they all need their little guns to protect themselves from future invaders... gotta laugh dave...

I didn't have lots of beer.... :(

UKDave

redrock wrote:

nope... just came back a few minutes ago... just couldn't resist....
Stopped getting involved this pm as everything is just being rehashed over and over again.. But with onelongsong.... sorry... . Note I didn't even respond to the hitler and WWII posts or the ones about america being invaded so many times (by the french and british as well - the bastards), that now they all need their little guns to protect themselves from future invaders... gotta laugh dave...

I didn't have lots of beer.... :(

Not read back on all that....

isn't that what an organised army is for? it has no relevance to gun ownership in the general public...

yeah like who the fuck is gonna invade America???

I have had lots of beer and now have hiccups

Time for bed...

hippiemom

onelongsong wrote:

in 228 years; not one of the first 10 amendments have been changed so how can there be case law? in a normal session of congress; an average of 200 amendments are presented. i did present several posts but as i said; your inability to understand them is not my concern.

if i had the time to research it; i believe amendments ratified before 1808 cannot be changed; but don't hold me to that.

What Article V has to say about 1808 is this:

"... no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article ..."

So the 1st and 4th clauses of the 9th section of Article I couldn't be amended before 1808. The whole Constitution is fair game now, including those clauses. The reason the first 10 amendments haven't been changed is because there's been no will among the people to do so, which no one is disputing. What we're disputing is your assertion that it can't be done. It can, if the people want to do it.