toldailytopic: Are there any types of new gun control or firearms restrictions you wo

drbrumley

Well-known member
Well again, if that were the case, we wouldn't be in the fix we're in now. A well-armed citizenry hasn't fazed Washington in the least for decades. What does that tell you?

Having a gun is no guarantee of freedom. It takes more than that. They don't need to come get our guns.

I am gonna disagree but I can understand where you are coming from. We are in this mess because of the public. If the public actually cared, then being well-armed would mean a great deal and every President would be very leary of us. A gun is more of an attention getter than your lousy vote....which reminds me of this great part by George Carlin.......

That is one thing you might've noticed I don't complain about: Politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. But where do the people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from american parents and american families, american homes, american schools, american churches, american businesses and american universities. and they're elected by american citizens. This is the best we can do, folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out! If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, if you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you are gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders. The term limits ain't goinna do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So maybe, maybe, maybe it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here. Like... the public. Yeah. The public sucks! There's a nice campaign slogan for somebody. "The public sucks, screw hope!". Screw hope. Because if it's really just the fault of these politicians then where are all the other bright people of conscience? Where are all the bright, honest, inteligent americans ready to step in and save the Nation and lead the way? We don't have people like that in this country; everybody's at the mall, scratching his butt, picking his nose, taking his credit card out of his fanny pack and buying a pair of sneakers with lights in them​
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
You are right, you need bullets in the gun and a trained person to operate it.

If you want to have a serious discussion, let me know. If you want to keep going on like a ten-year-old discussing his favorite toys, you'll have to find someone else.
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
I am gonna disagree but I can understand where you are coming from. We are in this mess because of the public.

Kinda sounds like you're agreeing with me whether you want to admit it or not, doc.:chuckle:

If the public actually cared, then being well-armed would mean a great deal and every President would be very leary of us.

Screw the president, doc! It wouldn't get to that level. A county sheriff would know not to push around his people. The lowest bureaucrat with the slightest bit of power wouldn't cross the line and antagonize a citizen. And not because everyone was packing. They wouldn't kill us with a thousand cuts because we wouldn't tolerate it. But we have. We do. We continue to. And so they cut.
 

Delmar

Patron Saint of SMACK
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
So if someone brandishes a hammer during a liquor store holdup we should kill them. Yeah. That makes perfect sense.:yawn:

You are aware that a hammer is a deadly weapon right? If the guy is on the other side of the counter brandishing a hammer you point your gun at him and call 9-11. If he crosses the counter and tries to swing it at your head, yes, of course, you kill him!

I can see why Vaquero45 didn't feel the need to explain all that, though.
 

Vaquero45

New member
Hall of Fame
You are aware that a hammer is a deadly weapon right? If the guy is on the other side of the counter brandishing a hammer you point your gun at him and call 9-11. If he crosses the counter and tries to swing it at your head, yes, of course, you kill him!

I can see why Vaquero45 didn't feel the need to explain all that, though.

I think threatening violence with a weapon in a robbery should be a major biggie. I might change my answer to life in prison. (thats what Ted Nugent wants :) )

Granite didnt make any point or ask a question, we are in a tiff right now and he just wanted to take a shot, so I did too. sorry for my end, to the thread.
 
Last edited:

IMJerusha

New member
The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for February 8th, 2013 06:00 AM


toldailytopic: Are there any types of new gun control or firearms restrictions you would support?






Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

NO...thank you!
 

Vaquero45

New member
Hall of Fame
I am gonna disagree but I can understand where you are coming from. We are in this mess because of the public. If the public actually cared, then being well-armed would mean a great deal and every President would be very leary of us. A gun is more of an attention getter than your lousy vote....which reminds me of this great part by George Carlin.......

That is one thing you might've noticed I don't complain about: Politicians. Everybody complains about politicians. Everybody says they suck. But where do the people think these politicians come from? They don't fall out of the sky. They don't pass through a membrane from another reality. They come from american parents and american families, american homes, american schools, american churches, american businesses and american universities. and they're elected by american citizens. This is the best we can do, folks. This is what we have to offer. It's what our system produces: Garbage in, garbage out! If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, if you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you are gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders. The term limits ain't goinna do any good; you're just going to end up with a brand new bunch of selfish, ignorant Americans. So maybe, maybe, maybe it's not the politicians who suck. Maybe something else sucks around here. Like... the public. Yeah. The public sucks! There's a nice campaign slogan for somebody. "The public sucks, screw hope!". Screw hope. Because if it's really just the fault of these politicians then where are all the other bright people of conscience? Where are all the bright, honest, inteligent americans ready to step in and save the Nation and lead the way? We don't have people like that in this country; everybody's at the mall, scratching his butt, picking his nose, taking his credit card out of his fanny pack and buying a pair of sneakers with lights in them​

:first:

It's a bit rough, but I like it. :)
 

Ktoyou

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
I think threatening violence with a weapon in a robbery should be a major biggie. ....

Oh it is. any robbery requires it and why robbery is worse then burglary, in most cases, as is the intent of otherwise, using force.
 

Nick M

Black Rifles Matter
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
More than that, if you're not a citizen, then you should not be here, have a driver's license, or own any kind of property, land, business or otherwise in the USA.

If they get a working visa, and file their tax returns to show they are gainfully employed, they can have a driver license.
 

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
You are aware that a hammer is a deadly weapon right? If the guy is on the other side of the counter brandishing a hammer you point your gun at him and call 9-11. If he crosses the counter and tries to swing it at your head, yes, of course, you kill him!

I can see why Vaquero45 didn't feel the need to explain all that, though.

You're talking about self-defense.

Vaquero45 is talking about punishment.

:up:
This,
and I want people who use a gun or any other deadly weapon in a crime executed, regardless of if they actually used it.
 

This Charming Manc

Well-known member
You seemed to miss the point of the argument, so let me repeat.

1) In the UK we do not have the constitutional protection of the bill of rights
2) We do not have the power of gun ownership to keep the government in order

We do however have most of the same freedoms an american citizen does.

If our liberies are not as secure as yours (a point worth discussion) I would attribute that to not having a bill of rights rather than not having guns.

As far as the EU not taking powers form the UK ask our euroseceptic, conservative MP's about that.

Not strange at all. You have been living in a free sovereign state that has not been subjegated by another power originally designed to serve some specific needs of a federation of free sovereign states.

In other words, the EU has not started taking the freedoms away from citizens of England.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame

toldailytopic: Are there any types of new gun control or firearms restrictions you would support?

Yes.

I would support a law fording all law abiding citizens of a proper age be trained in the proper usage and safety precautions of all firearms; and then all be made to bear arms.

:D

I didn't release the US had stopped punishing criminals?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States
Not the intent of his comment; it goes deeper.

Or maybe that can see a very simple logic you are blind to

less guns = less shootings , more guns = more shootings.
Like in Chicago?

Strange I don't have the right to bear arms, but I seem to have most if not all of the other freedoms in your bill of rights.

Seems like you can have one without the other after all.
Not what he said; his comment was about the power to keep those freedoms, not whether or not one has them without the right to bear arms.

I think threatening violence with a weapon in a robbery should be a major biggie. I might change my answer to life in prison. (thats what Ted Nugent wants :) )

Granite didnt make any point or ask a question, we are in a tiff right now and he just wanted to take a shot, so I did too. sorry for my end, to the thread.
No reason to apologize; as Knight said sometimes that is all you can say to a moron like Granite.
 

This Charming Manc

Well-known member
Yes.

Not the intent of his comment; it goes deeper.

So does the answer, you execute and imprison a much higher percentage of your population than most comparable states in the world. You punish more than most yet you still have a considerable fear of crime in your country.

I doub't more of the same is the answer.

Like in Chicago?

I have never suggested peace meal gun control with porous borders, id agree with you its an exercise in futility. It doesn't mean proper gun control wont work.

Not what he said; his comment was about the power to keep those freedoms, not whether or not one has them without the right to bear arms.

Well the experience of much of the rest of the free world is those powers have been kept without the need for the right personal gun ownership.

I know your constitution has a linkage in it, but I don't thing its absolute and it is 200 years out of date.

Your bill of rights is a great document but its not the word of God and it is only good not infallible.
 

Lighthouse

The Dark Knight
Gold Subscriber
Hall of Fame
So does the answer, you execute and imprison a much higher percentage of your population than most comparable states in the world. You punish more than most yet you still have a considerable fear of crime in your country.

I doub't more of the same is the answer.
Swift and proper punishment made public [so the public can see what will happen if they ever commit said crime] is the answer. It won't eliminate crime, but it will diminish it greatly.

I have never suggested peace meal gun control with porous borders, id agree with you its an exercise in futility. It doesn't mean proper gun control wont work.
:yawn:

P.S.
It's "piecemeal." [FYE]

Well the experience of much of the rest of the free world is those powers have been kept without the need for the right personal gun ownership.
And what would you do if your government ever tried to take them away?

I know your constitution has a linkage in it, but I don't thing its absolute and it is 200 years out of date.
Let's not talk about the problems with the Constitution.

Your bill of rights is a great document but its not the word of God and it is only good not infallible.
The only problem I see with the Bill of Rights is that liberals don't know how to read it.
 

This Charming Manc

Well-known member
Swift and proper punishment made public [so the public can see what will happen if they ever commit said crime] is the answer. It won't eliminate crime, but it will diminish it greatly.

The claim or tyrants and oppresses throughout the centuries

Due process is pain in the backside at time, but it ensures justice for the innocent too.
 

genuineoriginal

New member
You seemed to miss the point of the argument, so let me repeat.

1) In the UK we do not have the constitutional protection of the bill of rights
2) We do not have the power of gun ownership to keep the government in order

We do however have most of the same freedoms an american citizen does.
You have a bill of rights that protects the rights of Englishmen.
Bill of Rights 1689
  • no royal interference with the law. Though the sovereign remains the fount of justice, he or she cannot unilaterally establish new courts or act as a judge.
  • no taxation by Royal Prerogative. The agreement of the parliament became necessary for the implementation of any new taxes
  • freedom to petition the monarch without fear of retribution
  • no standing army may be maintained during a time of peace without the consent of parliament.
  • no royal interference in the freedom of the people to have arms for their own defence as suitable to their class and as allowed by law (simultaneously restoring rights previously taken from Protestants by James II)
  • no royal interference in the election of members of parliament
  • the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament
  • "grants and promises of fines or forfeitures" before conviction are void
  • no excessive bail or "cruel and unusual" punishments may be imposed

The citizens of the American colonies did not enjoy the same rights as the citizens of the Isle of Great Britain under the government of England under King George III. They were not given the protection of the Bill of Rights that the Englishmen had.

The citizens of the American colonies petititioned the crown many times for redress of greivances. The refusal of the crown to redress the greivances of the American colonies led to the American colonies declaring independence. The Declaration of Independence specifically mentions the lack of some the protections found in the British Bill of Rights as reasons for the declaring independence.

Declaration of Independence
. . . The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness of his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

. . .

The American revolution would not have been possible if the citizens of the American colonies were not able to muster up arms against the crown. It is for that reason the framers of the American Bill of Rights worked to include the right to bear arms so the individual states would be able to use their individual militia to keep the federal government in check.


GetAttachment1.aspx.jpg
 
Last edited:

genuineoriginal

New member
Yes.

I would support a law forcing all law abiding citizens of a proper age be trained in the proper usage and safety precautions of all firearms; and then all be made to bear arms.

:D
:thumb:
We should make sure that our citizens are trained in controlling their guns before making them carry those guns.
That is good gun control legislation.

20091130092045369_1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Top