We Remember The Magic Café We Remember
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Anti Gun...check this out.. (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8 [Next]
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On 2011-05-27 11:12, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
@acesover

It was shown a long time ago that your original post was predicated on outright falsehoods. Are you at least going to acknowledge that this whole discussion began with lies?

John



Why the heck do yo say my original post was a lie? I only posted a link. I am not sure what you mean. Honestly when being called a liar I woudl like some sort of explanation.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
Magnus Eisengrim
View Profile
Inner circle
Sulla placed heads on
1064 Posts

Profile of Magnus Eisengrim
Quote:
On 2011-05-27 19:27, acesover wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-27 11:12, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
@acesover

It was shown a long time ago that your original post was predicated on outright falsehoods. Are you at least going to acknowledge that this whole discussion began with lies?

John



Why the heck do yo say my original post was a lie? I only posted a link. I am not sure what you mean. Honestly when being called a liar I woudl like some sort of explanation.


I assume that you will take responsibility for your link. Did you post it because you thought its content was true? If so, then you need to account for that.

Did you post it because you thought it contained false information? That would require some explanation.

Did you post it because you are indifferent to the truth of its claims? In which case, I'll just bow out now.

So I guess the question is this: why did you post the link? And now that it is clear that it contains falsehoods, does that change how you feel about posting it?

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
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On 2011-05-27 16:18, gdw wrote:
Acesover, actually, that was completely unintentional. I merely quoted the wrong post. To provide actual clarity an context, here is what it should have looked like:

Quote:
On 2011-05-27 09:25, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-27 09:13, acesover wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-26 22:58, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-26 22:54, ed rhodes wrote:
Yes, even having served their time there are still things that are and should be denied.


So, when an armed invader breaks into their house, it's essentially "**** you" to the home owner?

Gotta love how "loosely" some play with the idea of something NOT being infringed.


Have you ever heard the term "repeat offenders". They are probably the biggest portion of all crimes commited.

Do you think child molesters after serving their time should run a day care center?

I am pro gun all the way...but there are some people who should not have fire arms.


No, but who would let such a person watch their kids? Also, what does running a daycare have to do with a person's right to defend themselves?

Gun ownership is not a right in america, but now a privilege. Hell, I'd say all constitutional rights are now treated like privileges now.


There was no intent to be clever, or obfuscate by leaving anything out. I would think that you, at least, would have been able to put it to gether to get the proper context, as I was responding to what you said.

Just in case it's still unclear to anyone:

I was not ignoring anything, but rather responding directly to your "clarification."

"question you ask about letting someone like that watch your children is irrelevant and you know it."

YOU were the one who brought up a child molester running a day care. No, they do not have a right to watch anyone's children, in fact NO ONE does, which is exactly why the issue of whether or not you would ALLOW them to is relevant.

No one HAS to sell a felon a gun either, the question is whether or not they have the right to own one, and to defend themselves and their home.

"I laugh at the term rehabilitated in one of your posts. All of the prople let out of prison are supposed to be rehabilitated...what a joke. Most end up back in a short time. So as usual you are just stirring the pot trying to muddy the waters. "

There was a reason I put the word in quotations. Your accusation about trying to stir the pot, and muddy the waters falls flat, as I was, at least I thought, also making a comment on the idea that prison "rehabilitates" (see, I did it again with the quotes) people.

My point was that, within the context of the same system that is taking away their "right" to own guns, they have served their "punishment," the purpose of which is, if they are released, to have "rehabilitated" them. To not "allow" them to own guns says as much about the idea of it being a "right" as it does the efficacy of, and their confidence in their own, "judicial" system.

Notice the use of quotation marks again? I'm using them when I think the term is being used loosely, or laughably, among other things.
Hope that clarifies things for you.


I don't evenknow where to begin to repond to your nonsense. Why in your opinion are some rehabilted and some not after serving time? Child molesters are not but other felons are? I say in most cases most are not. As I said before most crimes are committed by repeat offenders who are in you opinion rehabiliated so I guess we should arm them legally. What in the name of God are you smoking?

Child molesters should run a day care center no more than a convicted felon should have the right to pocess and arm himseslf with a firearm after committing a felony in which someone was caused bodly harm or if drugs were involved and or rape in other words a felony. You may think differently. However you live in Canada so in my opinion and probably some others here it does not matter what you think about our laws here in the U.S. You are such a busy body. Should call you "Miss gdw Busybody". Putting your nose where it does not belong. Police your own country or is it perfect?

You ask if I think a child molester should run a day care center after serving his time. No definitely not. But reading your posts it seems as if you do. Also if said child molestor had a gun while commiting the crime according to you he should be able to pocess a firearm to defend his home and property also. Maybe this is how it works north of the border.

______________________________________________________________________________________________

This next post of yours is typical gdw and is classic and is as follows:
Acesover posted:
I am pro gun all the way...but there are some people who should not have fire arms.
[/quote]

gdw posted in response:
No, but who would let such a person watch their kids? Also, what does running a daycare have to do with a person's right to defend themselves?

Used as a comparison that both individuals have served their time and are rehabiliated in your opinion it follows that you believe the child molester can run a day care center because he served his time. Sort of flawed thinking on your part. Now see how you can twist and muddy up the water again.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
More guns, less crime. All of the pundits have been perplexed over the past week because of the news that despite the economic tailspin, serious crime is down in all but a few jurisdictions, with notable exceptions such as New York City. How can that be? I don't know for sure, but one reason may be that there are more guns in private hands than there were 10 years ago. The overwhelming majority of US States have adopted laws which require county sheriffs to issue concealed carry permits to any law abiding citizen, and in all of those States, unless I am mistaken, crime is down. There are 300 million guns in private hands in the United States, and about 9 billion rounds of ammunition were bought each year by private citizens recently. That has got to be a deterrent. When the bad guys aren't sure of a helpless victim, they have to think twice.

W.
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On 2011-05-27 19:40, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-27 19:27, acesover wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-27 11:12, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
@acesover

It was shown a long time ago that your original post was predicated on outright falsehoods. Are you at least going to acknowledge that this whole discussion began with lies?

John



Why the heck do yo say my original post was a lie? I only posted a link. I am not sure what you mean. Honestly when being called a liar I woudl like some sort of explanation.


I assume that you will take responsibility for your link. Did you post it because you thought its content was true? If so, then you need to account for that.

Did you post it because you thought it contained false information? That would require some explanation.

Did you post it because you are indifferent to the truth of its claims? In which case, I'll just bow out now.

So I guess the question is this: why did you post the link? And now that it is clear that it contains falsehoods, does that change how you feel about posting it?

John


I really have to be honest here. I am not sure what is not true in the original post. Did he shoot someone or not? I honestly do not know. From what I am to understand he is anti gun and I am not sure what gun control for those that are anti gun means. I am sure the phrases "gun control" and "anti gun" have the same meaning to many. I assumed (bad thing)he does not endorse the right to own firearms as many feel the constsitution allows and would like tighter regulations on owning firearms. In my opinion ther are enough laws regulating firearms however they are not enforced as they should be. It just semed ironic that someone who had these opinions had a firearm in his home and knew how to use it yet does not advocate the same for others.

I may be wrong in my assumptions as I did not research the post that I found but rather just posted a link to it to show what I consider his hipocracy. Many politicans campaign on ideals that they do no endorse but believe will get them elected.

Again I am not sure what is a lie in the article I posted. If it is wrong I apologize but I did not write it but rther only found it and posted it. To be honest that is one of the reasons I seldom use information on the net but rather just voice my own opinion. By doing differently this time it seemes like it bit me in the read end if what I posted is nothing but a lie.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
Andrew Zuber
View Profile
Inner circle
Los Angeles, CA
2662 Posts

Profile of Andrew Zuber
It amazes me how alone I seem to be in our country when it comes to this issue. I think ALL guns should be abolished, PERIOD. No exceptions. Yes, people would still have illegal firearms, and I guess we can go on living our lives in fear, hoping that we can shoot them before they shoot us, but I find that incredibly sad. I think guns provide zero (yes, ZERO) positivity in our culture. Realistically, I know they won't ever be banned, and if they were I know it would still cause chaos because people would still have them, just like they still break other laws. I just find it sad that they were ever invented in the first place.
"I'm sorry - if you were right, I would agree with you." -Robin Williams, Awakenings
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Acesover, your post was all over the place, made no sense, and you claim I asked you the question you first asked me.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
Dannydoyle
View Profile
Eternal Order
20661 Posts

Profile of Dannydoyle
Quote:
On 2011-05-27 20:11, Andrew Zuber wrote:
It amazes me how alone I seem to be in our country when it comes to this issue. I think ALL guns should be abolished, PERIOD. No exceptions. Yes, people would still have illegal firearms, and I guess we can go on living our lives in fear, hoping that we can shoot them before they shoot us, but I find that incredibly sad. I think guns provide zero (yes, ZERO) positivity in our culture. Realistically, I know they won't ever be banned, and if they were I know it would still cause chaos because people would still have them, just like they still break other laws. I just find it sad that they were ever invented in the first place.


I can only answer with this may be "throwing out the baby with the bathwater". Umm guns provide ZERO productivity? Ummm how about many people who manufacture them, sell them, oh and operate hunting lodges, and so forth. Your position can't even be defended remotely.

Make it a crime to have guns, and only criminals will have guns. Good plan you have there. Would you like it if we took away the 4th ammendment? How about the 6th? Or for that matter any of the top 10? Why are you so willing to throw away MY RIGHTS just because you don't quite understand?
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus
<BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell
EsnRedshirt
View Profile
Special user
Newark, CA
895 Posts

Profile of EsnRedshirt
Quote:
On 2011-05-27 19:50, Woland wrote:
More guns, less crime.

Please prove your work. Can you back this up with evidence rather than quoting pundits? I am aware that when Australia outlawed firearms, violent crime went up... In the short term. But I do believe it went down substantially in the long term.
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.

* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt.
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On 2011-05-27 20:20, gdw wrote:
Acesover, your post was all over the place, made no sense, and you claim I asked you the question you first asked me.


Simply explaining your flawed thinking that after serving time in prison a person is now ready for society just because they served time and shouldl be allowed to own and pocess a firearm legally. Wake up and smell the roses.

I will repeat for your simple mind and ask the same question about the child molestor as I did in the first place because you indicate that after serving time one is rehabiliated. Do you feel that a child molestor should be allowed to operate a day care center for children after serving his timie as according to you he is rehabiliatetd. The reason for asking and you know full well what I mean is that you say that after serving their time they are rehabiliated, ready for society so they should be able to operate a day care s center for children and pocess firearms.

So by your reasoning a child molestor should be able to be around children because he served his time and paid his dues. WRONG!!!!!!!!!!! Oh I forgot give him a gun also.

Now don't twist it. Just read it and understand the stupidity of your reasoning.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2011-05-27 20:41, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-27 19:50, Woland wrote:
More guns, less crime.

Please prove your work. Can you back this up with evidence rather than quoting pundits? I am aware that when Australia outlawed firearms, violent crime went up... In the short term. But I do believe it went down substantially in the long term.


Can you back that up with evidence? Smile
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On 2011-05-27 21:05, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-27 20:41, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-27 19:50, Woland wrote:
More guns, less crime.

Please prove your work. Can you back this up with evidence rather than quoting pundits? I am aware that when Australia outlawed firearms, violent crime went up... In the short term. But I do believe it went down substantially in the long term.


Can you back that up with evidence? Smile


This may help: http://biggovernment.com/jlott/2010/03/0......s-crime/


I am sure you can find something to contradict this and on and on and on.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
LobowolfXXX
View Profile
Inner circle
La Famiglia
1197 Posts

Profile of LobowolfXXX
Quote:
On 2011-05-27 20:11, Andrew Zuber wrote:
It amazes me how alone I seem to be in our country when it comes to this issue. I think ALL guns should be abolished, PERIOD. No exceptions. Yes, people would still have illegal firearms, and I guess we can go on living our lives in fear, hoping that we can shoot them before they shoot us, but I find that incredibly sad. I think guns provide zero (yes, ZERO) positivity in our culture. Realistically, I know they won't ever be banned, and if they were I know it would still cause chaos because people would still have them, just like they still break other laws. I just find it sad that they were ever invented in the first place.


If it makes you feel any better, you're definitely not alone in our country on this issue. That being said, there are two pretty obvious consequences to abolishing all guns, period -

1) (some) criminals would still have guns (as you point out in your post); and
2) By definition, no law-abiding citizens would have guns.

Since we can't undo the invention of guns in the first place, it seems (to me) unlikely that the best solution is to create a framework under which criminals would have guns and law abiding citizens would not.
"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."
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2011-05-27 21:04, acesover wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-27 20:20, gdw wrote:
Acesover, your post was all over the place, made no sense, and you claim I asked you the question you first asked me.


Simply explaining your flawed thinking that after serving time in prison a person is now ready for society just because they served time and shouldl be allowed to own and pocess a firearm legally. Wake up and smell the roses.

I will repeat for your simple mind and ask the same question about the child molestor as I did in the first place because you indicate that after serving time one is rehabiliated. Do you feel that a child molestor should be allowed to operate a day care center for children after serving his timie as according to you he is rehabiliatetd. The reason for asking and you know full well what I mean is that you say that after serving their time they are rehabiliated, ready for society so they should be able to operate a day care s center for children and pocess firearms.

So by your reasoning a child molestor should be able to be around children because he served his time and paid his dues. WRONG!!!!!!!!!!! Oh I forgot give him a gun also.

Now don't twist it. Just read it and understand the stupidity of your reasoning.


Now that post was at least coherent, but flawed.

Do I need to repeat my self? I was criticizing the idea that prison rehabilitates prisoners, and the contradictions in the thinking behind the "justice" system, so please stop saying that I said that served time equals rehabilitate. Do I need to spell it out? I was being I-R-O-N-I-C.

So "my" reasoning does not suggest child molesters should be allowed to run a daycare.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
Quote:
On 2011-05-27 21:12, acesover wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-27 21:05, gdw wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-27 20:41, EsnRedshirt wrote:
Quote:
On 2011-05-27 19:50, Woland wrote:
More guns, less crime.

Please prove your work. Can you back this up with evidence rather than quoting pundits? I am aware that when Australia outlawed firearms, violent crime went up... In the short term. But I do believe it went down substantially in the long term.


Can you back that up with evidence? Smile


This may help: http://biggovernment.com/jlott/2010/03/0......s-crime/


I am sure you can find something to contradict this and on and on and on.


Um, aces, I really don't even know how to respond to this.
Or were you meaning to quote Esn, not me?
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
gdw
View Profile
Inner circle
4817 Posts

Profile of gdw
"why do I carry a gun? Because a cop is too heavy to lug around." Lol.

As often, I'm with Penn on this. Everyone should own a gun, but me.
It's amazing, people will criticize you for "biting the hand that feeds you," while they're busy praising the hand that beats them.

"You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one."

I won't forget you Robert.
EsnRedshirt
View Profile
Special user
Newark, CA
895 Posts

Profile of EsnRedshirt
Geeky art has zero credibility.

Oops. On an iPad, stupid autocorrect, that was supposed to be Breitbart has zero credibility. At any rate, I'm now going to assume Woland gets his ideology from old Heinlein novels. I recall Heinlein writing that guns make a polite society in "The Moon IsA Harsh Mistress". He also praised polygamy in that same novel. His later novels went even further downhill. (I won't elaborate unless pressed.)

(Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Heinlein, but would hardly use him as a source to generate a political philosophy.)
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.

* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt.
Woland
View Profile
Special user
680 Posts

Profile of Woland
Quote:
I think guns provide zero (yes, ZERO) positivity in our culture. Realistically, I know they won't ever be banned, and if they were I know it would still cause chaos because people would still have them, just like they still break other laws. I just find it sad that they were ever invented in the first place.


Let me offer a contrarian point of view. Guns provide a LOT of positivity in our lives. And I don't just mean rifles and shotguns that people use for our magnificent shooting sports. I mean handguns, which can also be used to train the hand, the eye, and the mind, but which find their most important utility in augmenting a human being's ability to defend herself.

Samuel P. Colt's development of a practical repeating revolver was a tremendous boon to mankind.

Thanks to Samuel Colt, the crippled and disabled no longer must live in fear of able-bodied thugs. A 5 foot tall 92 pound woman does not have to fear a 240 pound would-be rapist. An elderly couple does not have to fear being alone in their own home. And so forth.

Now there is no way to keep this technology out of the hands of evildoers. There is no way to keep knives, fire, bombs, cars, and airplanes out of the hands of evildoers, either. But that's no reason to disarm the law-abiding citizens and turn them into helpless victims who can be bullied, raped, plundered, and killed whenever an evildoer wants to.

There is no jurisdiction in this country that has seen an increase in violent crime after going from a no-issue or a may-issue situation to a shall-issue situation. Like or not, that's the truth.

The places in this country where you are most at danger of being victimized by a mass shooter, are in "gun free" zones. All of the recent major shooting incidents took place in "gun free" zones. Ban guns altogether, turn the whole country into a "gun free" zone and you'll see the rate of violent crime go way up, as it has gone way up in Great Britain. Have you ever read Conan Doyle? What does Dr Watson almost invariably take with him whenever he goes on an expedition with Mr Holmes? His revolver . . . It was ordinary and usual for doctors, lawyers, and even parsons to carry revolvers in Victorian and Edwardian England . . . there were no "gun control laws" at all. . . and gun crime was almost unknown. Over the course of the 20th century, gun laws in England became stricter and stricter, guns were taken away from most of the people (originally in order to prevent a working-class revolution) and gun crime has now become a major problem . . . To be sure, there are other problems in England contributing to the current mess . . . where you something like 10 or 20 times more likely to be the victim of violent crime in London than you are in even New York . . . but disarmed people are just helpless victims for bullies and criminals . . .

W.
Andrew Zuber
View Profile
Inner circle
Los Angeles, CA
2662 Posts

Profile of Andrew Zuber
Quote:
On 2011-05-27 20:29, Dannydoyle wrote:

I can only answer with this may be "throwing out the baby with the bathwater". Umm guns provide ZERO productivity? Ummm how about many people who manufacture them, sell them, oh and operate hunting lodges, and so forth. Your position can't even be defended remotely.

Make it a crime to have guns, and only criminals will have guns. Good plan you have there. Would you like it if we took away the 4th ammendment? How about the 6th? Or for that matter any of the top 10? Why are you so willing to throw away MY RIGHTS just because you don't quite understand?

Like I said, I recognize that abolishing guns at this stage of the game would have all kinds of issues, but you conveniently glossed over that in favor of "hunting lodges."

Just because I'm an American doesn't mean I have to agree with every single thing in the constitution, and I don't. I think there are plenty of flaws. In fact, so did a lot of other people, hence the amendments to it. I'm not talking about the 4th amendment (protection against unlawful searches) or the 6th amendment (the right to a speedy trial.) I'm referring to the amendment that allows people to carry weapons. I love it when people try and use something unrelated to the issue at hand to try and defend it, but I'll do the same thing - cigarettes are good. In fact, they're great! Look at all the jobs they provide! Tobacco farmers, manufacturers, distributors, etc. And what about all of the health care workers who get paid treating countless cases of lung cancer and other such diseases each year that are created by smoking? We should encourage people to smoke - it will save our economy!

I understand what I see and read and hear about when it comes to guns. I see national tragedies. I see cops getting killed - in fact I saw four of them get killed in a coffee shop here in Washington two years ago. Some idiot walked in and killed four police officers. And I hear the argument over and over again - guns don't kill people, people kill people. Well tools don't build houses, people do. You try building a house with nothing but your bare hands and we'll see how long before it collapses. Yes, people do stupid things, and it's a stupid country that continues to manufacture and sell the tools that those idiots use. Sure, they can find other tools, other ways to kill. Guns sure do make it convenient though, don't they?

I don't care if it provides jobs. Drug dealers and pimps have jobs too. Doesn't make their business right in my book. Why do you want a gun? Is it to protect yourself? Do you like living a life where you need to sleep with a weapon under your pillow to feel safe at night? I sure don't.

I'm not saying let's abolish guns now. We're obviously too far beyond that point. The idiots would still have them and bad things would still happen. I'm saying they never should have been created in the first place.
"I'm sorry - if you were right, I would agree with you." -Robin Williams, Awakenings
EsnRedshirt
View Profile
Special user
Newark, CA
895 Posts

Profile of EsnRedshirt
Woland, by that reasoning, everyone should carry Uzis to defend themselves from criminals with sub-machine guns. Or bazookas. Or maybe small nuclear bombs...

Where does the arms race end?
Self-proclaimed Jack-of-all-trades and google expert*.

* = Take any advice from this person with a grain of salt.
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Anti Gun...check this out.. (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3~4~5~6~7~8 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.32 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 <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL