|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8 [Next] | ||||||||||
NJJ Inner circle 6437 Posts |
Sniper?
|
|||||||||
MagicSanta Inner circle Northern Nevada 5841 Posts |
I saw a rabbit today and let it live!
|
|||||||||
Dustin Baker Inner circle California 1006 Posts |
Don't be silly Nicholas, snipers leave the bodies where they land.
Good for you MagicSanta. I saw a cat commit suicide.
Think inside the box. . . it's less crowded.
|
|||||||||
MagicSanta Inner circle Northern Nevada 5841 Posts |
I also saw cows and horses and sheep. There were some Black Angus' eating grass and getting plump. I'll be eating them later.
|
|||||||||
Dustin Baker Inner circle California 1006 Posts |
It's a good feeling. . . devouring the flesh of a lesser beast.
Think inside the box. . . it's less crowded.
|
|||||||||
nums Veteran user I have a life, or I would have more than 366 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-09-23 02:50, MagicSanta wrote: that's ok, I have thick skin, acctually NUMS stands for Nothin' Up My Sleeve. Now I have a serious comment, You state that you support the Constitution and the say that at least I am a hunter and not someone who justs buys a gun every couple of months. Now from what I read in the Constitution , not one spot said anything about hunting. While I do believe in some control of firearms but the control needs to stop growing. While I do not believe the avg. person needs a machine gun, And for those of you who do not know they have been prohibited by federal law since the 1930's. The government decieded that getting the machine guns out of the hands everyday americans the murders associated with proabition would stop. They did not, nor will any other peice of gun legislation. There are 200,000 gun control laws on the books and somehow they believe 200,001 will do the trick. Murder is a serious crime and problem however one who commits it is IMHO not going to think " I would love to kill this guy but I am going to get 5 years for using this illegal gun in the commision of a felony. While I know the problem I do not know the answer. I don't think any one does. I do know however that guns are neither the problem or answer. There are places with more guns than the US per capita with both higher and lower murder rates. When less than 4% of guns are used in all the crimes, how does making law abiding citizens get rid of their guns going to help the problem. Law abiding citizen are not the ones going out and commiting crimes. To make a comparison, lets outlaw all cars among the Amish and see if car fatlities in PA. goes up or down. Remeber it was Hiltler who said, and I paraphrase..."when all the guns are gone, germany will be the safest country on earth....for the Germans" Kepp safe Praying for Utopia...prepareing for the worst. NUMS |
|||||||||
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-09-24 07:10, nums wrote: I'd love to see evidence of this. In spite of the NRA's continual repetition of this story, to the best of my knowledge, Hitler never advocated gun control, nor did he ever pass a single piece of legislation restricting civilian use of guns. Of course, this is to the best of my knowledge. I welcome anyone to provide evidence one way or the other. John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
MAKMagic Special user I got banned for one of my 555 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-09-24 01:43, dbaker_creator wrote:
.:Michael Kelley
On the Level, By the Square |
|||||||||
Dustin Baker Inner circle California 1006 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-09-24 10:47, Magnus Eisengrim wrote: From what I've seen, the quote is either fake or has been taken grossely out of context. None the less, the transformations of countries into totalitarian regimes has historically been marked by the removal of guns from civilian hands. Every dictator from Hitler to Stalin, to Musolinni to Mao removed guns from the civilian population. The founders wrote the second amendment so we could both protect the state and protect ourselves from the state. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Translation: Because military forces are necessary for the security of our country, the people of the country will maintain their right to store and posess weapons. The federal government does not have the power to regulate ownership and posession of guns.
Think inside the box. . . it's less crowded.
|
|||||||||
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-09-24 12:05, dbaker_creator wrote: I find this response interesting on a number of counts. First, I simply can't find evidence of the claim that Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini or Mao exploited gun control in their political reigns of terror. The evidence may surface, but I can't find it. (As a side note, there are thousands of web pages that offer the identical sarcasting assessment of the situation. Apparently, honest referencing is not a big issue for these sites.) Second, it doesn't follow that one country's problems will follow similar legislation to other countries. Some countries with lax gun laws have lower crime rates than others. Third, the (amended) American constitution simply does not apply to most of our planet. John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
nums Veteran user I have a life, or I would have more than 366 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-09-24 14:17, Magnus Eisengrim wrote: First lets say Hitler never said it, unarmed Jews were at his armed military's mercy. Second, the 2nd ammendment helps protect the others in the Bill Of rights. You are correct that other countries that have more lax gun laws do not have as high as crime rates as the US. Soooooo tougher ones will not neccesarly lower ours. 3rd. Which is why I directed this to those in the U.S. I know this is a world wide forum and I welcome all comments and in this case accept posts to you would or would not if you could. 4th please explain how banning cars from the Amish would help lower automobile deaths. NUMS |
|||||||||
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-09-24 14:35, nums wrote: I fail to see your analogy. Assuming that 0% of Amish currently drive, banning the cars would not lower automobile deaths. If some of them do drive, and the law is successfully enforced, then the ban would lower deaths. What are we supposed to conclude from this? John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
As I interpret the analogy, the suggestion is that gun control laws only deter law-abiding citizens, and thus would not markedly reduce crime. Someone willing to commit, say, armed robbery, would also be willing to commit "illegally carrying a firearm."
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
nums Veteran user I have a life, or I would have more than 366 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-09-24 15:06, Magnus Eisengrim wrote: Assuming that 0%"law abiding citizens" don't commit murder or violent crimes then how does taking them from them stop gun related crime. Criminals by their very nature do not care about laws and preventing law abiding citizens from having them will do nothing to stop crime either. Remember the greatest mass murder (one incident) in history was carried out with out one shot fired. I really do wish that we could have world peace and I could leave my car running without it being stolen but history proves otherwise. Again with another question John, IF you decieded to carry handgun would crime increase, decrease or stay the same? If it would decrease or stay the same what is the harm in you carrying? Also when was the last time you heard of a cop in uniform being robbed? Before you say the criminal does not want to go to jail, if that was the case he would have not commited the crime in the first place. NUMS |
|||||||||
Dustin Baker Inner circle California 1006 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-09-24 14:17, Magnus Eisengrim wrote: That's a historically accepted fact based on the testimony of survivors. In shockingly similar fashion, atheists have a hard time finding proof of intelligent design. "(As a side note, there are thousands of web pages that offer the identical sarcasting assessment of the situation. Apparently, honest referencing is not a big issue for these sites.)" - huh? We've already conceaded that the quote is likely fake. There are also thousands of anti-gun sites that reference increased murder rates as proof that we need stricter gun laws - ignoring the fact that the vast majority of those murders didn't involve guns. Apparently, honest referenceing is not a big issue for these sites. "Second, it doesn't follow that one country's problems will follow similar legislation to other countries. Some countries with lax gun laws have lower crime rates than others." 1. "Those who do not learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them." 2. Practically every country faces the problem of weapon control at some point. Example: Japan regulated the legal length of a sword that a non-samuri could carry in order to give their samuri an edge in "urban combat". 3. Your second point about countries with lax control laws is true to a point. Example: Saudi Arabia allows non-restricted conceal and carry of any weapon. Practically everyone in the country carries an AK-47, hence the low crime rate (because if you commit a crime, there are 200 people with automatic weapons waiting to blow you away). The peace is maintained through fear of anihilation (Reagan style). "Third, the (amended) American constitution simply does not apply to most of our planet." I don't recall saying that it did. . . ?
Think inside the box. . . it's less crowded.
|
|||||||||
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-09-24 15:59, nums wrote: This one is easy. I would be guilty of carrying a concealed weapon. Crime goes up by one. John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
Magnus Eisengrim Inner circle Sulla placed heads on 1053 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-09-24 17:15, dbaker_creator wrote: 1. This old line can be used to justify almost anything. 2. I agree. Each country finds its own solution. I doubt that we live in a "one-size-fits-all-countries" planet. 3. Saudi Arabia is hardly the model of civil society I would like to emulate. 4. No, NUMS wrote it in a response to something I said. The amendment and the "founders" mean nothing to many of us here--including me. John
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity.--Yeats |
|||||||||
MagicSanta Inner circle Northern Nevada 5841 Posts |
Hi! Couple things. First off the Amish have a lot of automobile related deaths. That is why they make them put the large red reflective triangle on the wagon because they get hit very often and as you can imagine a car hitting a wood coach doesn't have fair odds.
Second I went to visit my favorite gun smith and dealer today. Showed him this thread.... he brought up one good point based on the statement that ol' NUM uses a .410 to shoot rabbits and squirrels when it isn't safe to use his .22. The point was, and this is pretty close to a quote "this guy has the need so bad to shoot rabbits that he does it when it isn't safe? If it isn't absolutely safe he shouldn't be shooting or even using a sling shot". He also would love to have NUMs as a customer should he want a custom gun. |
|||||||||
MAKMagic Special user I got banned for one of my 555 Posts |
First of all - I think my post with the Free Cat was pretty darn funny and NO ONE SAW IT....what a waste. I've been holding that one in reserve.
SECOND...since the Constitution applying to others on this planet was mentioned, I'd like to take a minute to state how sick I am of people arbitrarily granting the US Constitutional Rights to any and everyone. Most recently - mister Ahmadinejad was let onto Columbia Universities campus today to demonstrate how big a ******bag he really is. Why would they let him on there? Well I CERTAINLY have my own thoughts on that, and most of you out there no my line of thinking in these matters...However my point was in regards to folks calling it Freedom of Speech. He DOESN'T HAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH...not under the US Constitution. The same goes for the rest of it. If your not a citizen, you don't get our rights. IT REALLY grates on me when this is done. People talk of illegal immigrants in this country being protected under the constitution. They are not - and folks REALLY need to stop handing their (our...MY)rights out as if it were candy on Halloween. Thanks for listening...or ignoring. Much love...
.:Michael Kelley
On the Level, By the Square |
|||||||||
LobowolfXXX Inner circle La Famiglia 1196 Posts |
Quote:
On 2007-09-24 19:39, MAKMagic wrote: This is, actually, not true (although laws distinguishing between citizens' rights and non-citizens' rights may be valid). However, for example, non-citizens may not be punished for speech that would be protected if said by a citizen (Bridges v. Wixon) I'd imagine that the ultimate logic is that the First Amendment, for instance, prohibits laws abridging freedom of speech; it doesn't grant the freedom specifically to citizens. Thus, it doesn't really matter if the subject is a citizen or not; the law itself doesn't pass constitutional muster. Whatever the rationale, the reality is that noncitizens (at least those living in the United States) DO have constitutional rights.
"Torture doesn't work" lol
Guess they forgot to tell Bill Buckley. "...as we reason and love, we are able to hope. And hope enables us to resist those things that would enslave us." |
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Can you, do you. You can't, but would. (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8 [Next] |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.1 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |