1 2 5 6 7 8 10 12 13
Topic: 2nd Ammendment, NRA and Obama-care are one
willowdraga's photo
Tue 02/05/13 01:26 PM
Funches, You may expect too much sometimes....

I have enjoyed reading your thread.

AndyBgood's photo
Tue 02/05/13 01:42 PM


The oppressed have a LONG history of becoming the oppressors! And yet here YOU are still clinging to the past. Some of us are trying to look ahead and not get stuck in the mire of such fallacious belief!


cool AndyBgood...perhaps that is an indication that you will no longer "google cut and paste" quotes from Thomas Jefferson...or "google cut and paste" useless stuff about The Roman Army, or "google cut and paste" black and white photos from the 1940s showing The Civil Defense Neighborhood Watch Militia that didn't excercise their 2nd amendment rights and choose not to carry guns

remember...as you stated...look ahead


Cut and paste? PLEASE! I can't cut and paste from a college text book unless it is online! but it is easy enough to find a lot online isn't it? Gee, and I manage to back up my claims and this is all you can offer?



Hello kitty will now make Sushi from strange Pumpkin that wash up on shores of Fukashima!

And YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID!

Too bad your intelligence has gotten to your head! It made your ego bloat up.

Looks like Willowdraga likes you though... Love might be in the air for you!

willowdraga's photo
Tue 02/05/13 01:57 PM
Funches is great and has a good mind on his shoulders....you bet.

AndyBgood's photo
Tue 02/05/13 02:18 PM

Funches is great and has a good mind on his shoulders....you bet.


Your point being?

no photo
Tue 02/05/13 02:48 PM



The oppressed have a LONG history of becoming the oppressors! And yet here YOU are still clinging to the past. Some of us are trying to look ahead and not get stuck in the mire of such fallacious belief!


cool AndyBgood...perhaps that is an indication that you will no longer "google cut and paste" quotes from Thomas Jefferson...or "google cut and paste" useless stuff about The Roman Army, or "google cut and paste" black and white photos from the 1940s showing The Civil Defense Neighborhood Watch Militia that didn't excercise their 2nd amendment rights and choose not to carry guns

remember...as you stated...look ahead


Cut and paste? PLEASE! I can't cut and paste from a college text book unless it is online!


wouldn't the fact that I mention that you "google cut and paste" is referring to doing it online?...."google" should have been the hint


but it is easy enough to find a lot online isn't it? Gee, and I manage to back up my claims and this is all you can offer?


to "google cut and paste" is not backing up your claims...but it may be an indication that you can't think for yourself or perhaps incapable of placing what you read into your own thoughts, also the author that you "google cut and paste" from can't be asked any questions......that's why I choose not to "google cut and paste" or hide behind them

AndyBgood's photo
Tue 02/05/13 05:51 PM




The oppressed have a LONG history of becoming the oppressors! And yet here YOU are still clinging to the past. Some of us are trying to look ahead and not get stuck in the mire of such fallacious belief!


cool AndyBgood...perhaps that is an indication that you will no longer "google cut and paste" quotes from Thomas Jefferson...or "google cut and paste" useless stuff about The Roman Army, or "google cut and paste" black and white photos from the 1940s showing The Civil Defense Neighborhood Watch Militia that didn't excercise their 2nd amendment rights and choose not to carry guns

remember...as you stated...look ahead


Cut and paste? PLEASE! I can't cut and paste from a college text book unless it is online!


wouldn't the fact that I mention that you "google cut and paste" is referring to doing it online?...."google" should have been the hint


but it is easy enough to find a lot online isn't it? Gee, and I manage to back up my claims and this is all you can offer?


to "google cut and paste" is not backing up your claims...but it may be an indication that you can't think for yourself or perhaps incapable of placing what you read into your own thoughts, also the author that you "google cut and paste" from can't be asked any questions......that's why I choose not to "google cut and paste" or hide behind them


No but presenting information to back what I am saying is not just "Cutting and pasting." It is trying to SHOW you what information I am getting. And if what I present is not fact then I usually qualify it as opinion or hypothesis. But faxs iz faxs, (note the play phonetically on the word IS and Facts! Then again the humor may be too high brow for you! If you HAVE a sense of humor). History is fact but it is likewise written and twisted by the winners. But here we go again with a BIG man trying to boost his ego in a place he has no ammunition at all. You think too much of the wrong things. And I am accused of thinking too much of the wrong things. I scare you so much you got to attack me like this? Pretty weak my man... U Loosing respect here...



I love Google Images!

And Smileys!





BLAM! LARGER THAN LIFE HERE!

no photo
Tue 02/05/13 06:20 PM





The oppressed have a LONG history of becoming the oppressors! And yet here YOU are still clinging to the past. Some of us are trying to look ahead and not get stuck in the mire of such fallacious belief!


cool AndyBgood...perhaps that is an indication that you will no longer "google cut and paste" quotes from Thomas Jefferson...or "google cut and paste" useless stuff about The Roman Army, or "google cut and paste" black and white photos from the 1940s showing The Civil Defense Neighborhood Watch Militia that didn't excercise their 2nd amendment rights and choose not to carry guns

remember...as you stated...look ahead


Cut and paste? PLEASE! I can't cut and paste from a college text book unless it is online!


wouldn't the fact that I mention that you "google cut and paste" is referring to doing it online?...."google" should have been the hint


but it is easy enough to find a lot online isn't it? Gee, and I manage to back up my claims and this is all you can offer?


to "google cut and paste" is not backing up your claims...but it may be an indication that you can't think for yourself or perhaps incapable of placing what you read into your own thoughts, also the author that you "google cut and paste" from can't be asked any questions......that's why I choose not to "google cut and paste" or hide behind them


No but presenting information to back what I am saying is not just "Cutting and pasting." It is trying to SHOW you what information I am getting.


if you can't come up with your own thoughts and therefore have to "google cut and paste" no problem I understand, under ObamaCare that can be taken care of...for Free...won't even have to spend any of your ammo allowance

And if what I present is not fact then I usually qualify it as opinion or hypothesis. But faxs iz faxs, (note the play phonetically on the word IS and Facts!


wow AndyBgood....first time you didn't try to blame it on spell check


Then again the humor may be too high brow for you! If you HAVE a sense of humor). History is fact but it is likewise written and twisted by the winners. But here we go again with a BIG man trying to boost his ego in a place he has no ammunition at all. You think too much of the wrong things. And I am accused of thinking too much of the wrong things. I scare you so much you got to attack me like this? Pretty weak my man... U Loosing respect here...


loosing respect from who?...I bet everyone on that list "google cut and paste" their thoughts from other websites

I just figure it would be more fun debating forum people instead of debating google clones ....but alas I guess it's better than doing crossword puzzles


AndyBgood's photo
Tue 02/05/13 08:12 PM






The oppressed have a LONG history of becoming the oppressors! And yet here YOU are still clinging to the past. Some of us are trying to look ahead and not get stuck in the mire of such fallacious belief!


cool AndyBgood...perhaps that is an indication that you will no longer "google cut and paste" quotes from Thomas Jefferson...or "google cut and paste" useless stuff about The Roman Army, or "google cut and paste" black and white photos from the 1940s showing The Civil Defense Neighborhood Watch Militia that didn't excercise their 2nd amendment rights and choose not to carry guns

remember...as you stated...look ahead


Cut and paste? PLEASE! I can't cut and paste from a college text book unless it is online!


wouldn't the fact that I mention that you "google cut and paste" is referring to doing it online?...."google" should have been the hint


but it is easy enough to find a lot online isn't it? Gee, and I manage to back up my claims and this is all you can offer?


to "google cut and paste" is not backing up your claims...but it may be an indication that you can't think for yourself or perhaps incapable of placing what you read into your own thoughts, also the author that you "google cut and paste" from can't be asked any questions......that's why I choose not to "google cut and paste" or hide behind them


No but presenting information to back what I am saying is not just "Cutting and pasting." It is trying to SHOW you what information I am getting.


if you can't come up with your own thoughts and therefore have to "google cut and paste" no problem I understand, under ObamaCare that can be taken care of...for Free...won't even have to spend any of your ammo allowance

And if what I present is not fact then I usually qualify it as opinion or hypothesis. But faxs iz faxs, (note the play phonetically on the word IS and Facts!


wow AndyBgood....first time you didn't try to blame it on spell check


Then again the humor may be too high brow for you! If you HAVE a sense of humor). History is fact but it is likewise written and twisted by the winners. But here we go again with a BIG man trying to boost his ego in a place he has no ammunition at all. You think too much of the wrong things. And I am accused of thinking too much of the wrong things. I scare you so much you got to attack me like this? Pretty weak my man... U Loosing respect here...


loosing respect from who?...I bet everyone on that list "google cut and paste" their thoughts from other websites

I just figure it would be more fun debating forum people instead of debating google clones ....but alas I guess it's better than doing crossword puzzles





Sarcastic humor...




So you ain't scared of Google Images too are you? Convenience is a bYTCH now, ain't it? Google is fast and convenient but if it makes you happy I can go to Lycos or ASKJEEVES or some OTHER search engine...

Player hating on Google now...



Peace out now...

no photo
Wed 02/06/13 05:41 AM

So you ain't scared of Google Images too are you? Convenience is a bYTCH now, ain't it? Google is fast and convenient but if it makes you happy I can go to Lycos or ASKJEEVES or some OTHER search engine...


my point was...why run to anything, try thinking for yourself instead of being manipulated by The Internet God

you're in here paranoid that the government is going to take away your guns, or how the government is going to control you....the fact that you can only express yourself with "google cut and paste" is and indication the government has already assimulated you into it's ranks

the government don't need to take away your guns...they just need you to google

Drivinmenutz's photo
Wed 02/06/13 07:45 AM




Those who turn swords into Plowshares will plow for those who do not!
-Thomas Jefferson


to bad Thomas Jefferson didn't give his slaves that option

you're here praising Thomos Jefferson who was to his slaves part of a tyrannical government that use guns to deny others their Rights ...

but yet at the same time you're here cursing those in today's government that you believe is trying to do the same thing to you that Thomas Jefferson done to his slaves

sort of ironic


Indeed, the Irony is apparent. However the words he speaks are no less true... He was quite wise, and America has matured since then, recognizing the error in it's ways. President Lincoln was responsible for a movement that ultimately freed the slaves. He was a large supporter of Jefferson. Also ironic...


if you speak for the rights of one group of people while in the same breath denying the same for another group,... that is not being wise, that is being clueless

if Lincoln was truly a supporter of Jefferson he would have opted to have sex and make babies with slaves not Free them


No, that is being hypocritical, which, no historian would disagree in this. However you will notice that slave ownership was a social norm at the time. Jefferson actually wrote a couple emancipations towards freeing slaves, but these were highly criticized by the locals, whom he was trying to win over. I would say he prioritized by first severing the ties to a far-off power and preaching freedom. Lincoln understood the ultimate goal, and fortunately didn't shun Jefferson's teachings just because the man was one of many who still owned slaves.

We should all be wise enough to take the good (which was Thomas Jefferson's teachings on equality and freedom) and look past (while still acknowledging) the negative aspects of character. It is a critical thinking fallacy, after all, to focus on attacking an individual's character when only a certain principle was brought into question.

Drivinmenutz's photo
Wed 02/06/13 08:00 AM










We will get back to the nuke and law enforcement arguments.

Right now I would like to focus on the assumption that gun control has a direct correlation to gun violence...


"Drivinmenutz"...that would be a useless argument ....because it's obvious that before there were guns..there were no gun violence ....

and it's obvious that if you take away all the guns there would be no gun violence

but since the 2nd amendment gives the citizens the right to bear arms and commit gun violence... therefore you have to place in laws and restrictions the same that you would do with anything else that presents a clear and present danger to society and it's citizens

one such restriction is that children are not allowed to bring guns to school....

now all you have to do is say that you don't believe that such a law have any direct effect on curbing gun violence

please say you don't believe...please


Yes, before guns there was no "gun" violence as the technology wasn't invented yet. Yes, if you take ALL the guns away "gun" violence will most likely cease as well...

So how would one take all the guns away?


the 2nd amendment forbids taking guns....but it doesn't forbid placing laws with the intent to protect society from their irresponsible usage


I guess that depends on the law being issued...

So how would these new laws "protect society from the irresponsible"?


"Drivemenutz"...I've already presented a question to you that you didn't answer ...but anyway ...let's try that question again

THE QUESTION;
one such restriction is that children are not allowed to bring guns to school....do you believe such a law would curb gun violence?




Unfortunately it just isn't that simple. But i suppose i will "bite the bullet" on this one.

It was interesting to me that I couldn't seem to find any laws that were passed on this issue until 1990. Admittedly I only searched the topic for about 15 minutes so i may have to revisit the issue.

Anyhow the law passed in 1990 allowed for the declaration of "gun free" zones. Another passed in 1994 prohibited "juveniles" from possessing and/or selling handguns. Perhaps there were school "rules" established prohibiting weapons.

All the information i seem to come up with shows that school homicides (couldn't seem to single-out "gun" homicides from the rest) directly coincided with the rest of the country which fell dramatically starting in 1993. As a matter of fact it continued to call until about mid 2012. (Interestingly it still remains less then 50% of what it was in the 90's)

So to answer your question, i believe that such a law would do little to curb gun violence in schools or anywhere. It would appear that people were already following this "rule", as parents can all agree that letting your 8 year old take off to school with a loaded gun is wrong. Perhaps this was the point you were trying to make?


"Drivinmenutz"..perhaps if I make the question simplier....

1:you either believe that children without restrictions should exercise their 2nd amendment right to bear arms at school

or

2: you believe that restriction should be put in place that take away children 2nd amendment right to bear arms at school


whichever one you pick...explain why you believe it would or wouldn't curb gun violence




This question cannot be answered with completely honest opinion, as it has been oversimplified (there are more moving parts than allowed to address.)

But hey, i will play along as i believe you ultimately have a point.

Option 2. Because children have not yet fully matured. Also, many have not yet received the proper instruction on how to handle a firearm. This could lead to accidental shootings. This is why we have gun safes and don't leave loaded guns lying around when 5-year-olds are running around.

This what you were looking for?



now that you have choose option two.....is that perhaps an indication that you believe that taking away the children's 2nd amendment right to bear arms at school would also curb gun violence?


I believe this straw man has been beaten to death. I gave reasons and answered questions, both on the honest level, and the level in which you seemed to have trapped me. If what you are saying is that some, certain restrictions can/should be allowed to preserve the safety of the masses then I would agree.

Truth of the matter is that question is way too oversimplified to be applied to the argument. Children do not have the same rights as adults, nor have they ever. If this were the case children would be deciding on which medical treatments he/she receives, or be allowed to live on his/her own at any age. They would be allowed to purchase anything adults can including alcohol and cigarettes. Parents would be prosecuted for illegal detaining when trying to ground their child. And oh yeah, children would be allowed to vote.

The scenario in question is merely an example of guardianship, NOT individual rights. Parents make rules and put restrictions on children so they can be introduced, and tested, one by one, therefore teaching said child responsibility. This is why prior to any laws being made, rules against weapons in class were enforced.

Unfortunately these factors render this example completely null and void.


no photo
Wed 02/06/13 08:12 AM





Those who turn swords into Plowshares will plow for those who do not!
-Thomas Jefferson


to bad Thomas Jefferson didn't give his slaves that option

you're here praising Thomos Jefferson who was to his slaves part of a tyrannical government that use guns to deny others their Rights ...

but yet at the same time you're here cursing those in today's government that you believe is trying to do the same thing to you that Thomas Jefferson done to his slaves

sort of ironic


Indeed, the Irony is apparent. However the words he speaks are no less true... He was quite wise, and America has matured since then, recognizing the error in it's ways. President Lincoln was responsible for a movement that ultimately freed the slaves. He was a large supporter of Jefferson. Also ironic...


if you speak for the rights of one group of people while in the same breath denying the same for another group,... that is not being wise, that is being clueless

if Lincoln was truly a supporter of Jefferson he would have opted to have sex and make babies with slaves not Free them


No, that is being hypocritical, which, no historian would disagree in this. However you will notice that slave ownership was a social norm at the time. Jefferson actually wrote a couple emancipations towards freeing slaves, but these were highly criticized by the locals, whom he was trying to win over. I would say he prioritized by first severing the ties to a far-off power and preaching freedom. Lincoln understood the ultimate goal, and fortunately didn't shun Jefferson's teachings just because the man was one of many who still owned slaves.

We should all be wise enough to take the good (which was Thomas Jefferson's teachings on equality and freedom) and look past (while still acknowledging) the negative aspects of character. It is a critical thinking fallacy, after all, to focus on attacking an individual's character when only a certain principle was brought into question.


sorry but Jefferson preaching about equality while owning and making babies with slaves makes him a hypocrite....

it's the same as politicians of today preaching against illegals aliens while at the same time employing them as housemaids etc and using them as slave labor.

so if you are willing to look pass the hyprocrisy of Jefferson, then you should have no complaints about anything any politician or the government does today

Drivinmenutz's photo
Wed 02/06/13 08:14 AM






Those who turn swords into Plowshares will plow for those who do not!
-Thomas Jefferson


to bad Thomas Jefferson didn't give his slaves that option

you're here praising Thomos Jefferson who was to his slaves part of a tyrannical government that use guns to deny others their Rights ...

but yet at the same time you're here cursing those in today's government that you believe is trying to do the same thing to you that Thomas Jefferson done to his slaves

sort of ironic


Indeed, the Irony is apparent. However the words he speaks are no less true... He was quite wise, and America has matured since then, recognizing the error in it's ways. President Lincoln was responsible for a movement that ultimately freed the slaves. He was a large supporter of Jefferson. Also ironic...


if you speak for the rights of one group of people while in the same breath denying the same for another group,... that is not being wise, that is being clueless

if Lincoln was truly a supporter of Jefferson he would have opted to have sex and make babies with slaves not Free them


No, that is being hypocritical, which, no historian would disagree in this. However you will notice that slave ownership was a social norm at the time. Jefferson actually wrote a couple emancipations towards freeing slaves, but these were highly criticized by the locals, whom he was trying to win over. I would say he prioritized by first severing the ties to a far-off power and preaching freedom. Lincoln understood the ultimate goal, and fortunately didn't shun Jefferson's teachings just because the man was one of many who still owned slaves.

We should all be wise enough to take the good (which was Thomas Jefferson's teachings on equality and freedom) and look past (while still acknowledging) the negative aspects of character. It is a critical thinking fallacy, after all, to focus on attacking an individual's character when only a certain principle was brought into question.


sorry but Jefferson preaching about equality while owning and making babies with slaves makes him a hypocrite....

it's the same as politicians of today preaching against illegals aliens while at the same time employing them as housemaids etc and using them as slave labor.

so if you are willing to look pass the hyprocrisy of Jefferson, then you should have no complaints about anything any politician or the government does today



Unfortunately this mindset involves little logic. Because someone did something you disagree with does not mean that everything he/she says is untrue.

AndyBgood's photo
Wed 02/06/13 08:15 AM


So you ain't scared of Google Images too are you? Convenience is a bYTCH now, ain't it? Google is fast and convenient but if it makes you happy I can go to Lycos or ASKJEEVES or some OTHER search engine...


my point was...why run to anything, try thinking for yourself instead of being manipulated by The Internet God

you're in here paranoid that the government is going to take away your guns, or how the government is going to control you....the fact that you can only express yourself with "google cut and paste" is and indication the government has already assimulated you into it's ranks

the government don't need to take away your guns...they just need you to google



Finally a civil answer, sort of.

I do think for myself. College text books are dripping with mistakes too. I do think for myself. Why do you think I hate Banking so much. it is an evil scam and the Federal Reserve is part of it. Obama likewise is a huge scam. But I do see this as part of the gradual erosion of ALL our rights.

What I fear is this is turned into a shooting war. US Americans against our own Military becasue NWO has blinded our military leaders with promises of power in the NWO. Well, for our Generals in command think of it this way. What we have now we are all supposed to be equals. Under NWO you are just their Number one BOY and that means you are the Number One SLAVE.

The internet is about information but even that can be corrupted and censored. Ya know everything I have been taught so far is turning out to be a lie. So please tell me again how I am a servant to other's thinking?

no photo
Wed 02/06/13 08:21 AM











We will get back to the nuke and law enforcement arguments.

Right now I would like to focus on the assumption that gun control has a direct correlation to gun violence...


"Drivinmenutz"...that would be a useless argument ....because it's obvious that before there were guns..there were no gun violence ....

and it's obvious that if you take away all the guns there would be no gun violence

but since the 2nd amendment gives the citizens the right to bear arms and commit gun violence... therefore you have to place in laws and restrictions the same that you would do with anything else that presents a clear and present danger to society and it's citizens

one such restriction is that children are not allowed to bring guns to school....

now all you have to do is say that you don't believe that such a law have any direct effect on curbing gun violence

please say you don't believe...please


Yes, before guns there was no "gun" violence as the technology wasn't invented yet. Yes, if you take ALL the guns away "gun" violence will most likely cease as well...

So how would one take all the guns away?


the 2nd amendment forbids taking guns....but it doesn't forbid placing laws with the intent to protect society from their irresponsible usage


I guess that depends on the law being issued...

So how would these new laws "protect society from the irresponsible"?


"Drivemenutz"...I've already presented a question to you that you didn't answer ...but anyway ...let's try that question again

THE QUESTION;
one such restriction is that children are not allowed to bring guns to school....do you believe such a law would curb gun violence?




Unfortunately it just isn't that simple. But i suppose i will "bite the bullet" on this one.

It was interesting to me that I couldn't seem to find any laws that were passed on this issue until 1990. Admittedly I only searched the topic for about 15 minutes so i may have to revisit the issue.

Anyhow the law passed in 1990 allowed for the declaration of "gun free" zones. Another passed in 1994 prohibited "juveniles" from possessing and/or selling handguns. Perhaps there were school "rules" established prohibiting weapons.

All the information i seem to come up with shows that school homicides (couldn't seem to single-out "gun" homicides from the rest) directly coincided with the rest of the country which fell dramatically starting in 1993. As a matter of fact it continued to call until about mid 2012. (Interestingly it still remains less then 50% of what it was in the 90's)

So to answer your question, i believe that such a law would do little to curb gun violence in schools or anywhere. It would appear that people were already following this "rule", as parents can all agree that letting your 8 year old take off to school with a loaded gun is wrong. Perhaps this was the point you were trying to make?


"Drivinmenutz"..perhaps if I make the question simplier....

1:you either believe that children without restrictions should exercise their 2nd amendment right to bear arms at school

or

2: you believe that restriction should be put in place that take away children 2nd amendment right to bear arms at school


whichever one you pick...explain why you believe it would or wouldn't curb gun violence




This question cannot be answered with completely honest opinion, as it has been oversimplified (there are more moving parts than allowed to address.)

But hey, i will play along as i believe you ultimately have a point.

Option 2. Because children have not yet fully matured. Also, many have not yet received the proper instruction on how to handle a firearm. This could lead to accidental shootings. This is why we have gun safes and don't leave loaded guns lying around when 5-year-olds are running around.

This what you were looking for?



now that you have choose option two.....is that perhaps an indication that you believe that taking away the children's 2nd amendment right to bear arms at school would also curb gun violence?


I believe this straw man has been beaten to death. I gave reasons and answered questions, both on the honest level, and the level in which you seemed to have trapped me. If what you are saying is that some, certain restrictions can/should be allowed to preserve the safety of the masses then I would agree.

Truth of the matter is that question is way too oversimplified to be applied to the argument. Children do not have the same rights as adults, nor have they ever. If this were the case children would be deciding on which medical treatments he/she receives, or be allowed to live on his/her own at any age. They would be allowed to purchase anything adults can including alcohol and cigarettes. Parents would be prosecuted for illegal detaining when trying to ground their child. And oh yeah, children would be allowed to vote.

The scenario in question is merely an example of guardianship, NOT individual rights. Parents make rules and put restrictions on children so they can be introduced, and tested, one by one, therefore teaching said child responsibility. This is why prior to any laws being made, rules against weapons in class were enforced.

Unfortunately these factors render this example completely null and void.




I'm still trying to figure out how you yourself know what "all parents" agree on...especially when "all parents" can't even agree that they are "all parents"

which is why I had to phrase the question in such a way to assure that I would get your own persoanl opinion and not a "google cut and paste" version

when given 2 questions you chose option 2....which means that you are for gun restriction...with the belief that it will curb gun violence

no photo
Wed 02/06/13 08:24 AM







Those who turn swords into Plowshares will plow for those who do not!
-Thomas Jefferson


to bad Thomas Jefferson didn't give his slaves that option

you're here praising Thomos Jefferson who was to his slaves part of a tyrannical government that use guns to deny others their Rights ...

but yet at the same time you're here cursing those in today's government that you believe is trying to do the same thing to you that Thomas Jefferson done to his slaves

sort of ironic


Indeed, the Irony is apparent. However the words he speaks are no less true... He was quite wise, and America has matured since then, recognizing the error in it's ways. President Lincoln was responsible for a movement that ultimately freed the slaves. He was a large supporter of Jefferson. Also ironic...


if you speak for the rights of one group of people while in the same breath denying the same for another group,... that is not being wise, that is being clueless

if Lincoln was truly a supporter of Jefferson he would have opted to have sex and make babies with slaves not Free them


No, that is being hypocritical, which, no historian would disagree in this. However you will notice that slave ownership was a social norm at the time. Jefferson actually wrote a couple emancipations towards freeing slaves, but these were highly criticized by the locals, whom he was trying to win over. I would say he prioritized by first severing the ties to a far-off power and preaching freedom. Lincoln understood the ultimate goal, and fortunately didn't shun Jefferson's teachings just because the man was one of many who still owned slaves.

We should all be wise enough to take the good (which was Thomas Jefferson's teachings on equality and freedom) and look past (while still acknowledging) the negative aspects of character. It is a critical thinking fallacy, after all, to focus on attacking an individual's character when only a certain principle was brought into question.


sorry but Jefferson preaching about equality while owning and making babies with slaves makes him a hypocrite....

it's the same as politicians of today preaching against illegals aliens while at the same time employing them as housemaids etc and using them as slave labor.

so if you are willing to look pass the hyprocrisy of Jefferson, then you should have no complaints about anything any politician or the government does today



Unfortunately this mindset involves little logic. Because someone did something you disagree with does not mean that everything he/she says is untrue.


that Jefferson preach equality and freedom while spawning slave babies is not a disagreement...it's hyprocrisy

no photo
Wed 02/06/13 08:33 AM



So you ain't scared of Google Images too are you? Convenience is a bYTCH now, ain't it? Google is fast and convenient but if it makes you happy I can go to Lycos or ASKJEEVES or some OTHER search engine...


my point was...why run to anything, try thinking for yourself instead of being manipulated by The Internet God

you're in here paranoid that the government is going to take away your guns, or how the government is going to control you....the fact that you can only express yourself with "google cut and paste" is and indication the government has already assimulated you into it's ranks

the government don't need to take away your guns...they just need you to google



Finally a civil answer, sort of.

I do think for myself. College text books are dripping with mistakes too. I do think for myself. Why do you think I hate Banking so much. it is an evil scam and the Federal Reserve is part of it. Obama likewise is a huge scam. But I do see this as part of the gradual erosion of ALL our rights.

What I fear is this is turned into a shooting war. US Americans against our own Military becasue NWO has blinded our military leaders with promises of power in the NWO. Well, for our Generals in command think of it this way. What we have now we are all supposed to be equals. Under NWO you are just their Number one BOY and that means you are the Number One SLAVE.

The internet is about information but even that can be corrupted and censored. Ya know everything I have been taught so far is turning out to be a lie. So please tell me again how I am a servant to other's thinking?


AndyBgood...you "google cut and paste" the thoughts of others from other websites but yet don't understand how that makes you their servant?.......er......ok....

Drivinmenutz's photo
Wed 02/06/13 09:09 AM












We will get back to the nuke and law enforcement arguments.

Right now I would like to focus on the assumption that gun control has a direct correlation to gun violence...


"Drivinmenutz"...that would be a useless argument ....because it's obvious that before there were guns..there were no gun violence ....

and it's obvious that if you take away all the guns there would be no gun violence

but since the 2nd amendment gives the citizens the right to bear arms and commit gun violence... therefore you have to place in laws and restrictions the same that you would do with anything else that presents a clear and present danger to society and it's citizens

one such restriction is that children are not allowed to bring guns to school....

now all you have to do is say that you don't believe that such a law have any direct effect on curbing gun violence

please say you don't believe...please


Yes, before guns there was no "gun" violence as the technology wasn't invented yet. Yes, if you take ALL the guns away "gun" violence will most likely cease as well...

So how would one take all the guns away?


the 2nd amendment forbids taking guns....but it doesn't forbid placing laws with the intent to protect society from their irresponsible usage


I guess that depends on the law being issued...

So how would these new laws "protect society from the irresponsible"?


"Drivemenutz"...I've already presented a question to you that you didn't answer ...but anyway ...let's try that question again

THE QUESTION;
one such restriction is that children are not allowed to bring guns to school....do you believe such a law would curb gun violence?




Unfortunately it just isn't that simple. But i suppose i will "bite the bullet" on this one.

It was interesting to me that I couldn't seem to find any laws that were passed on this issue until 1990. Admittedly I only searched the topic for about 15 minutes so i may have to revisit the issue.

Anyhow the law passed in 1990 allowed for the declaration of "gun free" zones. Another passed in 1994 prohibited "juveniles" from possessing and/or selling handguns. Perhaps there were school "rules" established prohibiting weapons.

All the information i seem to come up with shows that school homicides (couldn't seem to single-out "gun" homicides from the rest) directly coincided with the rest of the country which fell dramatically starting in 1993. As a matter of fact it continued to call until about mid 2012. (Interestingly it still remains less then 50% of what it was in the 90's)

So to answer your question, i believe that such a law would do little to curb gun violence in schools or anywhere. It would appear that people were already following this "rule", as parents can all agree that letting your 8 year old take off to school with a loaded gun is wrong. Perhaps this was the point you were trying to make?


"Drivinmenutz"..perhaps if I make the question simplier....

1:you either believe that children without restrictions should exercise their 2nd amendment right to bear arms at school

or

2: you believe that restriction should be put in place that take away children 2nd amendment right to bear arms at school


whichever one you pick...explain why you believe it would or wouldn't curb gun violence




This question cannot be answered with completely honest opinion, as it has been oversimplified (there are more moving parts than allowed to address.)

But hey, i will play along as i believe you ultimately have a point.

Option 2. Because children have not yet fully matured. Also, many have not yet received the proper instruction on how to handle a firearm. This could lead to accidental shootings. This is why we have gun safes and don't leave loaded guns lying around when 5-year-olds are running around.

This what you were looking for?



now that you have choose option two.....is that perhaps an indication that you believe that taking away the children's 2nd amendment right to bear arms at school would also curb gun violence?


I believe this straw man has been beaten to death. I gave reasons and answered questions, both on the honest level, and the level in which you seemed to have trapped me. If what you are saying is that some, certain restrictions can/should be allowed to preserve the safety of the masses then I would agree.

Truth of the matter is that question is way too oversimplified to be applied to the argument. Children do not have the same rights as adults, nor have they ever. If this were the case children would be deciding on which medical treatments he/she receives, or be allowed to live on his/her own at any age. They would be allowed to purchase anything adults can including alcohol and cigarettes. Parents would be prosecuted for illegal detaining when trying to ground their child. And oh yeah, children would be allowed to vote.

The scenario in question is merely an example of guardianship, NOT individual rights. Parents make rules and put restrictions on children so they can be introduced, and tested, one by one, therefore teaching said child responsibility. This is why prior to any laws being made, rules against weapons in class were enforced.

Unfortunately these factors render this example completely null and void.




I'm still trying to figure out how you yourself know what "all parents" agree on...especially when "all parents" can't even agree that they are "all parents"

which is why I had to phrase the question in such a way to assure that I would get your own persoanl opinion and not a "google cut and paste" version

when given 2 questions you chose option 2....which means that you are for gun restriction...with the belief that it will curb gun violence


I believe that the overwhelming majority of parents agree not to let their kids tote around loaded firearms everywhere they go. If they did not agree on this said rule, then perhaps it was the kids themselves just decided it was not a good idea to stash a gun in his/her backpack. Either way, it apparently worked the same with laws as it did without laws.

Again the issue i had is in the phrase "gun violence", for it technically isn't what i would be afraid of in a school with armed kids. It would be accidents and misuse. Perhaps there would be more violence if kids had guns. I don't really know.

Again, I do find it difficult to give my opinion on such matters without first educating myself on it. After looking over the information at hand i can then proceed to formulate a cause/effect hypothesis thereby giving an " educated opinion". An uneducated opinion would fall under the category of "knee jerk reaction" would it not?

It appears we had a temporary breakdown in our communication nonetheless.


no photo
Wed 02/06/13 10:04 AM













We will get back to the nuke and law enforcement arguments.

Right now I would like to focus on the assumption that gun control has a direct correlation to gun violence...


"Drivinmenutz"...that would be a useless argument ....because it's obvious that before there were guns..there were no gun violence ....

and it's obvious that if you take away all the guns there would be no gun violence

but since the 2nd amendment gives the citizens the right to bear arms and commit gun violence... therefore you have to place in laws and restrictions the same that you would do with anything else that presents a clear and present danger to society and it's citizens

one such restriction is that children are not allowed to bring guns to school....

now all you have to do is say that you don't believe that such a law have any direct effect on curbing gun violence

please say you don't believe...please


Yes, before guns there was no "gun" violence as the technology wasn't invented yet. Yes, if you take ALL the guns away "gun" violence will most likely cease as well...

So how would one take all the guns away?


the 2nd amendment forbids taking guns....but it doesn't forbid placing laws with the intent to protect society from their irresponsible usage


I guess that depends on the law being issued...

So how would these new laws "protect society from the irresponsible"?


"Drivemenutz"...I've already presented a question to you that you didn't answer ...but anyway ...let's try that question again

THE QUESTION;
one such restriction is that children are not allowed to bring guns to school....do you believe such a law would curb gun violence?




Unfortunately it just isn't that simple. But i suppose i will "bite the bullet" on this one.

It was interesting to me that I couldn't seem to find any laws that were passed on this issue until 1990. Admittedly I only searched the topic for about 15 minutes so i may have to revisit the issue.

Anyhow the law passed in 1990 allowed for the declaration of "gun free" zones. Another passed in 1994 prohibited "juveniles" from possessing and/or selling handguns. Perhaps there were school "rules" established prohibiting weapons.

All the information i seem to come up with shows that school homicides (couldn't seem to single-out "gun" homicides from the rest) directly coincided with the rest of the country which fell dramatically starting in 1993. As a matter of fact it continued to call until about mid 2012. (Interestingly it still remains less then 50% of what it was in the 90's)

So to answer your question, i believe that such a law would do little to curb gun violence in schools or anywhere. It would appear that people were already following this "rule", as parents can all agree that letting your 8 year old take off to school with a loaded gun is wrong. Perhaps this was the point you were trying to make?


"Drivinmenutz"..perhaps if I make the question simplier....

1:you either believe that children without restrictions should exercise their 2nd amendment right to bear arms at school

or

2: you believe that restriction should be put in place that take away children 2nd amendment right to bear arms at school


whichever one you pick...explain why you believe it would or wouldn't curb gun violence




This question cannot be answered with completely honest opinion, as it has been oversimplified (there are more moving parts than allowed to address.)

But hey, i will play along as i believe you ultimately have a point.

Option 2. Because children have not yet fully matured. Also, many have not yet received the proper instruction on how to handle a firearm. This could lead to accidental shootings. This is why we have gun safes and don't leave loaded guns lying around when 5-year-olds are running around.

This what you were looking for?



now that you have choose option two.....is that perhaps an indication that you believe that taking away the children's 2nd amendment right to bear arms at school would also curb gun violence?


I believe this straw man has been beaten to death. I gave reasons and answered questions, both on the honest level, and the level in which you seemed to have trapped me. If what you are saying is that some, certain restrictions can/should be allowed to preserve the safety of the masses then I would agree.

Truth of the matter is that question is way too oversimplified to be applied to the argument. Children do not have the same rights as adults, nor have they ever. If this were the case children would be deciding on which medical treatments he/she receives, or be allowed to live on his/her own at any age. They would be allowed to purchase anything adults can including alcohol and cigarettes. Parents would be prosecuted for illegal detaining when trying to ground their child. And oh yeah, children would be allowed to vote.

The scenario in question is merely an example of guardianship, NOT individual rights. Parents make rules and put restrictions on children so they can be introduced, and tested, one by one, therefore teaching said child responsibility. This is why prior to any laws being made, rules against weapons in class were enforced.

Unfortunately these factors render this example completely null and void.




I'm still trying to figure out how you yourself know what "all parents" agree on...especially when "all parents" can't even agree that they are "all parents"

which is why I had to phrase the question in such a way to assure that I would get your own persoanl opinion and not a "google cut and paste" version

when given 2 questions you chose option 2....which means that you are for gun restriction...with the belief that it will curb gun violence


I believe that the overwhelming majority of parents agree not to let their kids tote around loaded firearms everywhere they go. If they did not agree on this said rule, then perhaps it was the kids themselves just decided it was not a good idea to stash a gun in his/her backpack. Either way, it apparently worked the same with laws as it did without laws.

Again the issue i had is in the phrase "gun violence", for it technically isn't what i would be afraid of in a school with armed kids. It would be accidents and misuse. Perhaps there would be more violence if kids had guns. I don't really know.

Again, I do find it difficult to give my opinion on such matters without first educating myself on it. After looking over the information at hand i can then proceed to formulate a cause/effect hypothesis thereby giving an " educated opinion". An uneducated opinion would fall under the category of "knee jerk reaction" would it not?

It appears we had a temporary breakdown in our communication nonetheless.


"the overwhelming majority of parents"??? ...wouldn't just the term "majority" been sufficent ..I guess if you add "overwhelming" it magically becomes true

first you claim that kids weren't mature enough to exercise their 2nd amendment right to carry guns to school, now you claim that perhaps children made the decision themselves not to carry loaded guns to school...see how you are jumping back and forth

but anyway I didn't ask you what you believe what the "overwhelming majority" of parents believe or what the kids believed...I wanted to know what you "believed"

you first choose option 2.....so are you going to stick with option two or not

OPTION 2:
do you believe that restrictions should be put in place that take away children 2nd amendment right to bear arms at school as a way to curb gun violence?

AndyBgood's photo
Wed 02/06/13 10:35 AM








Those who turn swords into Plowshares will plow for those who do not!
-Thomas Jefferson


to bad Thomas Jefferson didn't give his slaves that option

you're here praising Thomos Jefferson who was to his slaves part of a tyrannical government that use guns to deny others their Rights ...

but yet at the same time you're here cursing those in today's government that you believe is trying to do the same thing to you that Thomas Jefferson done to his slaves

sort of ironic


Indeed, the Irony is apparent. However the words he speaks are no less true... He was quite wise, and America has matured since then, recognizing the error in it's ways. President Lincoln was responsible for a movement that ultimately freed the slaves. He was a large supporter of Jefferson. Also ironic...


if you speak for the rights of one group of people while in the same breath denying the same for another group,... that is not being wise, that is being clueless

if Lincoln was truly a supporter of Jefferson he would have opted to have sex and make babies with slaves not Free them


No, that is being hypocritical, which, no historian would disagree in this. However you will notice that slave ownership was a social norm at the time. Jefferson actually wrote a couple emancipations towards freeing slaves, but these were highly criticized by the locals, whom he was trying to win over. I would say he prioritized by first severing the ties to a far-off power and preaching freedom. Lincoln understood the ultimate goal, and fortunately didn't shun Jefferson's teachings just because the man was one of many who still owned slaves.

We should all be wise enough to take the good (which was Thomas Jefferson's teachings on equality and freedom) and look past (while still acknowledging) the negative aspects of character. It is a critical thinking fallacy, after all, to focus on attacking an individual's character when only a certain principle was brought into question.


sorry but Jefferson preaching about equality while owning and making babies with slaves makes him a hypocrite....

it's the same as politicians of today preaching against illegals aliens while at the same time employing them as housemaids etc and using them as slave labor.

so if you are willing to look pass the hyprocrisy of Jefferson, then you should have no complaints about anything any politician or the government does today



Unfortunately this mindset involves little logic. Because someone did something you disagree with does not mean that everything he/she says is untrue.


that Jefferson preach equality and freedom while spawning slave babies is not a disagreement...it's hyprocrisy



Slavery was legal in SOME states BEFORE they joined the Union eg. PRE Revolutionary War of America. But it was already illegal in other states before the Colonies became the United States of America.

Now Virginia was a Southern state during the Civil War. Guess what. For as wrong as it was it was legal back then. And who really made the most profit from it? The shippers. Why? They made money back and forth transporting slaves and getting cotton and sugar in return. But where did the accumulated wealth of this go?

EUROPE to the big three of the day, Spain, England, and France!

The truth delivered by a Hypocrite is still the truth. Now I know this may require some thinking here but didn't the South LOOSE the Civil War but got a lot of appeasements in return which led to a lot of this Socialism we have gobbling up so much money besides the corruption and hand outs to foreign nations? The welfare state a lot of the South wound up becoming worked to the detriment of all of us. Now the South is gradually weaning themselves off of the teat but with the economy collapsing their growth may become stagnation again.

So what do we do with massive overpopulation and no growth?

WAR!

HUH!

GOOD GOD YALL...

WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR?

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING???????

Sadly the powers that be don't wish to see things that way. They see war as a utilitarian thing. We got a real big one coming. I can FEEL IT. N Korea may be the jerks who set off a renewal of the shooting version of the Korean War and this time I bet Kim Jong Un plans on using nukes. All this time the Bankers and the UN puppets play "let's negotiate" when the first bomb goes pop. The reality is we all face something that could EASILY escape the Bankers manipulation. And what will be left over for mankind? With a world poisoned by radiation at all turns? They had better have a space ship becasue going underground is not an answer.


There is a nasty game being played here and all of us are being suckered.

Gun control is just a piece of the puzzle.

1 2 5 6 7 8 10 12 13