independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Thu 13th Dec 2018 5:21am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > Another mass shooting in Florida, part 2
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 16 of 17 « First<891011121314151617>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #450 posted 03/08/18 10:29am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

Prefer justice.

there is no justice without a piece!

Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #451 posted 03/08/18 10:37am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

I do not like the 3-day thing... I mean it is okay... but I do not see it as have any positive impact. it will be a hassle and is just as likely cost someone their life than it is to save a life.


21 to buy again i am okay but I am not sure it is a valid or necessary move


taking guns if a cop deems one mentally unfit or otherwise a threat... again maybe it is better explained in the bill but that sounds DANGEROUS. I know people that have legally open carried have been harassed and threated and even killed by bad cops... this will let bad cops just decide to take legally possessed guns.

Ban bump stocks: okay? so now they will print them so what? again it is like the clinton bans it is okay and even the NRA has issues with them... so ban them... just do not get all mad when people make their own. And again I hope the text of the bill is clear or at least more clear than the article...

[Edited 3/8/18 10:38am]

Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #452 posted 03/08/18 10:40am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

3 day?

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #453 posted 03/08/18 6:41pm

PennyPurple

avatar

They need to make at least 10 days.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #454 posted 03/08/18 6:43pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

PennyPurple said:

They need to make at least 10 days.

why?

Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #455 posted 03/08/18 7:06pm

PennyPurple

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

PennyPurple said:

They need to make at least 10 days.

why?

Cool down time.


And why not?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #456 posted 03/09/18 3:53am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

PennyPurple said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

why?

Cool down time.


And why not?

it is very rare that anyone buys a gun from a legal dealer in a fit of anger.

what is less rare is someone is threatened and needs a gun ASAP.

Even less rare someone needs one night away for some work or wants one leisure activity


Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #457 posted 03/09/18 8:12am

PennyPurple

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

PennyPurple said:

Cool down time.


And why not?

it is very rare that anyone buys a gun from a legal dealer in a fit of anger.

what is less rare is someone is threatened and needs a gun ASAP.

Even less rare someone needs one night away for some work or wants one leisure activity


Then they wouldn't mind waiting 10 days.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #458 posted 03/09/18 8:38am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

PennyPurple said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

it is very rare that anyone buys a gun from a legal dealer in a fit of anger.

what is less rare is someone is threatened and needs a gun ASAP.

Even less rare someone needs one night away for some work or wants one leisure activity


Then they wouldn't mind waiting 10 days.

says you... why are you suggesting you can dictate who should or should not mind what?

should all other rights come with a 10 day wait? Birth control? marriage? voter registration (where I live there is a 30-day wait)

Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #459 posted 03/09/18 9:14am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

His head is fried.

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #460 posted 03/11/18 6:46pm

PennyPurple

avatar

Dan Rather

...and there you have it. The Trump gun "control" proposals are unveiled, and they're about as weak as a twice-used teabag. President Backtrack has done his usual dance. Promise big. Talk tough. And then do the bidding of those who have underwritten and normalized his path to power.

Shame. Shame on the President who refuses once again to lead. Shame on all those who act like this is acceptable. Shame on the elected officials who will not listen to the vast majority of the American people who believe that we can have a Second Amendment and not have weapons of war sold with less oversight than cold medicine.

There are no easy answers to mass shootings or gun violence. But there are no easy answers to terrorism either. Do we throw up our hands and say we can't do anything? Is that the American way?

This is cynicism being stoked for partisan political gain. But I think those who are following the playbook from the past are in for a surprise. Our children are watching. And so are many of their parents and grandparents. They don't buy the peddling of false equivalence.

At some point, rationality must break through. And it will be heard... in the streets and at the ballot box.

Did we really expect Trump to do something about the problem?

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #461 posted 03/12/18 4:44am

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

"'Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.'' - Thomas Jefferson
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #462 posted 03/12/18 5:34am

13cjk13

PennyPurple said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

why?

Cool down time.


And why not?

When you feel like massacring children, you shouldn't have to wait, obviously.

"Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost".
-Thomas Jefferson
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #463 posted 03/12/18 5:44am

benni

avatar

13cjk13 said:

PennyPurple said:

Cool down time.


And why not?

When you feel like massacring children, you shouldn't have to wait, obviously.


I actually think the 3 day wait period isn't long enough. One reason? A gun increases the likelihood of murder in domestic violence situations by 500%. If a man or woman wants to murder someone due to a crime of passion, in the heat of the moment, enforcing a waiting period gives that person time to cool down, to think through the consequences of what they are contemplating. Without a wait period, that person can just go out, purchase a gun, perform the murder, without having to stop and think about the consequences. A 10 day wait period, at the very least, allows the situation to hopefully resolve itself before it escalates to murder. And it's not just in domestic violence issues, but in school shootings. There are times when a kid, who has felt bullied, picked on, is old enough to purchase a firearm, decides in the heat of the moment that they are going to "show them" and gets a gun and goes to the school with the intent to harm those that have harmed him/her. A wait period would give that kid time to cool down, to think it through, and maybe even to back out of doing something drastic. Without that wait period, the victims aren't given a chance against the emotional fury/pain of the perpetrator.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #464 posted 03/12/18 6:32am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

benni said:

13cjk13 said:

When you feel like massacring children, you shouldn't have to wait, obviously.


I actually think the 3 day wait period isn't long enough. One reason? A gun increases the likelihood of murder in domestic violence situations by 500%. If a man or woman wants to murder someone due to a crime of passion, in the heat of the moment, enforcing a waiting period gives that person time to cool down, to think through the consequences of what they are contemplating. Without a wait period, that person can just go out, purchase a gun, perform the murder, without having to stop and think about the consequences. A 10 day wait period, at the very least, allows the situation to hopefully resolve itself before it escalates to murder. And it's not just in domestic violence issues, but in school shootings. There are times when a kid, who has felt bullied, picked on, is old enough to purchase a firearm, decides in the heat of the moment that they are going to "show them" and gets a gun and goes to the school with the intent to harm those that have harmed him/her. A wait period would give that kid time to cool down, to think it through, and maybe even to back out of doing something drastic. Without that wait period, the victims aren't given a chance against the emotional fury/pain of the perpetrator.

you are not only contradicting yourself *but you'll never see it* and making up something that there is no way to support. The idea that people go out an buy a gun in a fit of rage is a myth. Many more people buy one after being treated or victimized.



Example: man's home/business gets robbed a few times. He Buys a gun... man tries to rob him BOOM! Problem solved....RIGHT? no the cos still take his gun...just in case. So he buys a 2nd gun...get robbed again BOOM! and the cops take his 2nd gun...so he buys a 3rd. (and so far...no more BOOM!)

if he would have been forced to wait 10 days he would have been robbed.



Sure sounds like a person that wants a waiting period is on the side of the criminal.

Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #465 posted 03/12/18 6:35am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

DiminutiveRocker said:

that is a lie.... it is a march AGAINST our Civil rights! It is begging to be controlled.

it is odd how some of the same people that get rightfully mad when a cops shoots an unarmed person in the back...also want to make that happens more often.

Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #466 posted 03/12/18 8:26am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

White noise/word salad.

"My motherfucker's so cool sheep count him."
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #467 posted 03/12/18 11:06am

benni

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

benni said:


I actually think the 3 day wait period isn't long enough. One reason? A gun increases the likelihood of murder in domestic violence situations by 500%. If a man or woman wants to murder someone due to a crime of passion, in the heat of the moment, enforcing a waiting period gives that person time to cool down, to think through the consequences of what they are contemplating. Without a wait period, that person can just go out, purchase a gun, perform the murder, without having to stop and think about the consequences. A 10 day wait period, at the very least, allows the situation to hopefully resolve itself before it escalates to murder. And it's not just in domestic violence issues, but in school shootings. There are times when a kid, who has felt bullied, picked on, is old enough to purchase a firearm, decides in the heat of the moment that they are going to "show them" and gets a gun and goes to the school with the intent to harm those that have harmed him/her. A wait period would give that kid time to cool down, to think it through, and maybe even to back out of doing something drastic. Without that wait period, the victims aren't given a chance against the emotional fury/pain of the perpetrator.

you are not only contradicting yourself *but you'll never see it* and making up something that there is no way to support. The idea that people go out an buy a gun in a fit of rage is a myth. Many more people buy one after being treated or victimized.



Example: man's home/business gets robbed a few times. He Buys a gun... man tries to rob him BOOM! Problem solved....RIGHT? no the cos still take his gun...just in case. So he buys a 2nd gun...get robbed again BOOM! and the cops take his 2nd gun...so he buys a 3rd. (and so far...no more BOOM!)

if he would have been forced to wait 10 days he would have been robbed.



Sure sounds like a person that wants a waiting period is on the side of the criminal.


How am I contradicting myself?


Conversely, of the 2012 criminal firearm homicides in which a relationship was reported, three out of four victims knew their killers, and more than a third were family members or "intimate acquaintances" — such as spouses, ex-spouses or others involved in a romantic relationship.


I never said that people don't purchase weapons for self-defense, however, the opposite is also true. A man catches his wife cheating on him, has never owned a gun before, but in a fit of anger decides to purchase one to confront his wife's lover. During the confrontation, something he would not have ever considered doing at any other time in his life, he shoots the lover (and / or the wife).

Statistically, women in the US are 16 times more likely to be shot and killed than in any other developed nation. If there are guns in the home, or guns are accessible - such as lax gun laws, a woman is 5 times more likely to be shot and killed in a domestic violence situation. In the US, there are 5.3 million incidents of intimate partner violence each year. And in an average month, 50 women are shot to death by an intimate partner, and many more are injured. Nearly one million women, alive today, in the US have been shot or shot at by an intimate partner.


Most mass shootings in the U.S. are related to domestic or family violence.

  • Everytown’s analysis of mass shootings from 2009 to 2016 shows that in 54 percent of mass shootings, the shooters killed intimate partners or other family members.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #468 posted 03/12/18 2:01pm

DiminutiveRock
er

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

DiminutiveRocker said:

that is a lie.... it is a march AGAINST our Civil rights! It is begging to be controlled.

it is odd how some of the same people that get rightfully mad when a cops shoots an unarmed person in the back...also want to make that happens more often.

Who's civil rights? Those 17 dead children had rights... the greatest was their right to being alive.

"'Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.'' - Thomas Jefferson
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #469 posted 03/12/18 2:16pm

benni

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

DiminutiveRocker said:

that is a lie.... it is a march AGAINST our Civil rights! It is begging to be controlled.

it is odd how some of the same people that get rightfully mad when a cops shoots an unarmed person in the back...also want to make that happens more often.


How in the world is marching for their lives, their RIGHT to life, in any shape, form, or fashion "wanting to make that happen more often" (the person getting shot in the back? In fact, it is a call to prevent any kids from getting shot up in schools vs arming more people and possibly having that happen more often rather than less.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #470 posted 03/14/18 11:48am

RodeoSchro

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

DiminutiveRocker said:

that is a lie.... it is a march AGAINST our Civil rights! It is begging to be controlled.

it is odd how some of the same people that get rightfully mad when a cops shoots an unarmed person in the back...also want to make that happens more often.



So all that jazz in the Declaration of Independence about "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is just hooey, huh?

Our right to life is just worthless, is that it?

Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's paladin
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #471 posted 03/14/18 11:59am

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

RodeoSchro said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

that is a lie.... it is a march AGAINST our Civil rights! It is begging to be controlled.

it is odd how some of the same people that get rightfully mad when a cops shoots an unarmed person in the back...also want to make that happens more often.



So all that jazz in the Declaration of Independence about "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is just hooey, huh?

Our right to life is just worthless, is that it?

for one without google can you (any of you) state what the word "unalienable" (as opposed to "inalienable") means?

And what of 5th and 14th Amendments? you either do not know what "unalienable" means, are not being honest, or forgot about the due process. (and that the DOI is a great guide but not a legal document)

Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #472 posted 03/14/18 12:01pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

DiminutiveRocker said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

that is a lie.... it is a march AGAINST our Civil rights! It is begging to be controlled.

it is odd how some of the same people that get rightfully mad when a cops shoots an unarmed person in the back...also want to make that happens more often.

Who's civil rights? Those 17 dead children had rights... the greatest was their right to being alive.

and that is why their killer will spend the rest of his days in jail.

the right to not get run over by a drunk driver is not used to ban cars or getting drunk.

please try to be consistent.

Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #473 posted 03/14/18 12:09pm

RodeoSchro

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

RodeoSchro said:



So all that jazz in the Declaration of Independence about "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is just hooey, huh?

Our right to life is just worthless, is that it?

for one without google can you (any of you) state what the word "unalienable" (as opposed to "inalienable") means?

And what of 5th and 14th Amendments? you either do not know what "unalienable" means, are not being honest, or forgot about the due process. (and that the DOI is a great guide but not a legal document)



If you can't follow what the Declaration of Independence is saying in its opening clause, then I can't help you. But I'll try any way:

unalienable - not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away or denied http://www.dictionary.com...nalienable

inalienable - not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away or denied http://www.dictionary.com...nalienable

It's obvious the Founding Fathers said that no one has the right to take our life away.

Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's paladin
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #474 posted 03/14/18 12:13pm

benni

avatar

OnlyNDaUsa said:

RodeoSchro said:



So all that jazz in the Declaration of Independence about "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is just hooey, huh?

Our right to life is just worthless, is that it?

for one without google can you (any of you) state what the word "unalienable" (as opposed to "inalienable") means?

And what of 5th and 14th Amendments? you either do not know what "unalienable" means, are not being honest, or forgot about the due process. (and that the DOI is a great guide but not a legal document)


Unalienable and inalienable are essentially the same thing. One is used in reference with the Constitution and the other is usually for everything else. And essentially it means that your rights can't be bought or sold, that you cannot give them up because they are a part of you, define you. The 2nd Amendment about the right to bear arms is NOT an unalienable right. It is not a part of you, does not define you.

The unalienable rights laid down by the Constitution are the rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Notice they do not say you have the unalienable right to be happy, but you have the right to pursue that happiness. Other rights listed in the Constitution are rights the government gives you. And that is where everyone gets all confused regarding their rights as laid down in the Constitution. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are endowed by the Creator, this is the right of all men, women, and children. The other rights are laid down by government and as such can be subject to regulation and control.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #475 posted 03/14/18 12:40pm

RodeoSchro

avatar

i believe our unalienable right to life supercedes some gun nut's alleged right to an assault rifle.

Second Funkiest White Man in America

P&R's paladin
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #476 posted 03/14/18 1:00pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

RodeoSchro said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

for one without google can you (any of you) state what the word "unalienable" (as opposed to "inalienable") means?

And what of 5th and 14th Amendments? you either do not know what "unalienable" means, are not being honest, or forgot about the due process. (and that the DOI is a great guide but not a legal document)



If you can't follow what the Declaration of Independence is saying in its opening clause, then I can't help you. But I'll try any way:

unalienable - not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away or denied http://www.dictionary.com...nalienable

inalienable - not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away or denied http://www.dictionary.com...nalienable

It's obvious the Founding Fathers said that no one has the right to take our life away.

so you did not know and they do not have the same meaning...

AND so you must also be opposed to most laws as most laws limit liberty.

you must oppose all prisons and jails


you must oppose any and all government fines or taxes or fees

no speed limits no laws about travel and no regulations of anything.

Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #477 posted 03/14/18 1:04pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

RodeoSchro said:

i believe our unalienable right to life supercedes some gun nut's alleged right to an assault rifle.

again you do not seem to know what the word Unalinabe means...


but I can use that against you! Ha!


what of the unalienable right liberty? such as the liberty to own guns?


or the unalienable right to property...such as an AR15? oops

or do you pick and choose?

and again what makes a rifle an assault rifle? if we are going to ban them we need to know that they are.... right?


[Edited 3/14/18 13:16pm]

Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #478 posted 03/14/18 1:07pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

benni said:

OnlyNDaUsa said:

for one without google can you (any of you) state what the word "unalienable" (as opposed to "inalienable") means?

And what of 5th and 14th Amendments? you either do not know what "unalienable" means, are not being honest, or forgot about the due process. (and that the DOI is a great guide but not a legal document)


Unalienable and inalienable are essentially the same thing. One is used in reference with the Constitution and the other is usually for everything else. And essentially it means that your rights can't be bought or sold, that you cannot give them up because they are a part of you, define you. The 2nd Amendment about the right to bear arms is NOT an unalienable right. It is not a part of you, does not define you.

The unalienable rights laid down by the Constitution are the rights of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Notice they do not say you have the unalienable right to be happy, but you have the right to pursue that happiness. Other rights listed in the Constitution are rights the government gives you. And that is where everyone gets all confused regarding their rights as laid down in the Constitution. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are endowed by the Creator, this is the right of all men, women, and children. The other rights are laid down by government and as such can be subject to regulation and control.

if you are going to post something maybe at least get the basic facts right.

Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #479 posted 03/14/18 1:15pm

OnlyNDaUsa

avatar

Unalienable: means an individual cannot separate themselves from



inalienable means someone else can not separate a person from

neither word appears in the US constitution

Nor does the word "Happiness"


the 5th amendment mentions life, liberty, and property in regard to Due Process. (and yes I messed up before) But all of those are alienable.

Anyone for banning the AR15 must be on the side of the criminal as once banned only criminals will have them.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 16 of 17 « First<891011121314151617>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > Another mass shooting in Florida, part 2