100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: We need to ban cars! This is tragic! | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
If people weren't allowed to buy these death machines things like this wouldn't happen! http://news.yahoo.com/1-dead-least-30-hurt-ny-traffic-pileup-230650492.html there is a difference between 'accidents' and homicide,,, apples and oranges And there has never been a vehicular homicide? Seems there are many cases where people have used their cars as weapons, drove them into crowds. Seems Tim McVey used a truck in his bombing escapade, and cartels use machine guns mounted on cars. Maybe Obozo will marry your apples and oranges together or exec order a new mandate allowing for them to join. You wanna blame guns that have no mind of their own, but not cars that are used for the same purpose. That's lib thinking for ya! Anyone who drinks and gets behind the wheel of a car is no better than any kid with a semi-auto. There's your apples and oranges....in a nice pulpy mash! never? no that is an other extreme that blurs the conversation no law has ever eliminated any action,,,,thats not its intent but when comparing vehicles, please do compare mass killings with mass killings accidents with accidents and homicides with homicides instead of comparing vehicle deaths, which are mostly accidental while people are using their vehicle for its MANUFACTURED and harmless purpose with gun homicides, which are INTENTIONAL by people using the gun as it was intended and manufactured to be used,,, and the mode of transportation one uses has nothing to do with homicide,,shoes were made to walk in, but the shoe someone wears when they stalk and kill someone has nothing to do with it being a homicide or with that person being dead,,, Texting, talking on your phone, putting on makeup, not being mindful of other drivers, or drinking when driving and causing an "accident" should be criminal intent as much as any object that can be used to exact harm on another. Many of the activities you mentioned are illegal in a number of areas. Whether someone says that all guns should be outlawed or all guns should be legal, they're probably wrong. Just like any issue, if you suggest that one extreme or the other is the 'right' or 'only' way then you're probably not a rational person. It seems that most people without an agenda feel that there isn't a need for certain types of firearms. No member of the general public really needs an automatic weapon. I'm not sure if they're legal to hunt with and, even if they are, that doesn't mean you can't use a far less dangerous weapon. 'Gun Control' does not mean the elimination of guns. Furthermore, you keep bringing up other activities seemingly to suggest that, because they're legal, that all guns should be as well. There are a great many restrictions on the production, sale and consumption of alcohol. Just as there should be for any product available to consumers. Especially those that are potentially harmful. Also, you talk about how this country was built with the aid of guns. It was also built with the aid of slavery and horrendous treatment of the Native Americans. Just because those things played a role doesn't mean they should be celebrated or available without proper oversight. Anyways, enjoy Fox News and have fun twisting this into whatever way best fits your argument. Faux Noise  You go there to see what's happening and laugh at their spin, then elsewhere for the truth to the story.
The 2nd amendment was put in place to defend the citizens right to bear arms should the need ever come to oppose gov't tyranny! In that context, every citizen has the right to own and bear any weapon the gov't or its forces may have. They do work for us you know, not the other way around as they would have you to believe! Our rights are more constitutionally protected than their limited ones! They are doing their best to change that balance, remove our rights and restrict our liberties....DAILY! Killing women and children, bombing nations we are not at war with, even killing and indefinately detaining US citizens without representation or trial.... NOT the acts of a very responsible person or persons! But they have these weapons! They also supply them to Mexican drug cartels, terrorists, and foreign dictators (who we later end up facing our own weapons to oust when they quit going along with them) but we can't own them? They take away our rights to possess these weapons and what is to keep them from targeting us next (which is already in place with drones and cameras watching our every move, body scanners, RFID tags in all we buy or possess, trackers in our phones, cars, and ID/bank cards, warrantless searches and arrest!) Watch the movies "1984", "THX 1138", "Minority Report" and any number of others....we're there! It's not about hunting or sport, though either are as good a reason as another, but about defending ourselves from tyranny and oppression! Under the Patriot Act they have declared the US a battlefield....how many foreign troops have you seen on our soil (that they haven't invited)? Why are they using those troops and our civilians and cities to train them in "crowd control"? Why does FEMA need billions of rounds of hollow point ammo? They can't even get food, water, shelter or gasoline to troubled areas after a disaster! We are at war, but our enemy is not who they would have us believe it is! Do you have actual facts to back up any of your claims? Putting an exclamation point behind someone or using a Tom Cruise movie as an example doesn't make something a fact. Feel free to google any of it! Another movie with a famous actor, Jack Nickelson, stated "The truth? You can't handle the truth!"... which is the case with far too many people... so they don't bother looking. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
its not easy nor is it likely guns will be 'banned' it is more likely and easier for them to require licensing that is regulated,,, just like cars,,, And that will keep guns out ofthe hands of criminals how? no more than rape laws keeps rapists from finding victims,,, but as stated a hundred times, laws arent designed with the illusion that they will eradicate crimes completely |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If people weren't allowed to buy these death machines things like this wouldn't happen! http://news.yahoo.com/1-dead-least-30-hurt-ny-traffic-pileup-230650492.html there is a difference between 'accidents' and homicide,,, apples and oranges And there has never been a vehicular homicide? Seems there are many cases where people have used their cars as weapons, drove them into crowds. Seems Tim McVey used a truck in his bombing escapade, and cartels use machine guns mounted on cars. Maybe Obozo will marry your apples and oranges together or exec order a new mandate allowing for them to join. You wanna blame guns that have no mind of their own, but not cars that are used for the same purpose. That's lib thinking for ya! Anyone who drinks or has an attitude problem, and gets behind the wheel of a car is no better than any kid with a psychosis and a semi-auto. There's your apples and oranges....in a nice pulpy mash! Remind me again how many DC denisons have been "suspected" for DUI? (They're above the laws they enact so it's always a medical condition that requires rehab) the DC snipers were sniping people from their cars also... another reason to ban cars... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If people weren't allowed to buy these death machines things like this wouldn't happen! http://news.yahoo.com/1-dead-least-30-hurt-ny-traffic-pileup-230650492.html there is a difference between 'accidents' and homicide,,, apples and oranges huh... and they outlawed automatic weapons to the general public when bush was in office... and it seems that the general public can still get these very easily, i might add... outlaw guns, and then only the outlaws have guns... doesn't make much sense to me, does it to you? And there has never been a vehicular homicide? Seems there are many cases where people have used their cars as weapons, drove them into crowds. Seems Tim McVey used a truck in his bombing escapade, and cartels use machine guns mounted on cars. Maybe Obozo will marry your apples and oranges together or exec order a new mandate allowing for them to join. You wanna blame guns that have no mind of their own, but not cars that are used for the same purpose. That's lib thinking for ya! Anyone who drinks and gets behind the wheel of a car is no better than any kid with a semi-auto. There's your apples and oranges....in a nice pulpy mash! never? no that is an other extreme that blurs the conversation no law has ever eliminated any action,,,,thats not its intent but when comparing vehicles, please do compare mass killings with mass killings accidents with accidents and homicides with homicides instead of comparing vehicle deaths, which are mostly accidental while people are using their vehicle for its MANUFACTURED and harmless purpose with gun homicides, which are INTENTIONAL by people using the gun as it was intended and manufactured to be used,,, and the mode of transportation one uses has nothing to do with homicide,,shoes were made to walk in, but the shoe someone wears when they stalk and kill someone has nothing to do with it being a homicide or with that person being dead,,, Texting, talking on your phone, putting on makeup, not being mindful of other drivers, or drinking when driving and causing an "accident" should be criminal intent as much as any object that can be used to exact harm on another. Many of the activities you mentioned are illegal in a number of areas. Whether someone says that all guns should be outlawed or all guns should be legal, they're probably wrong. Just like any issue, if you suggest that one extreme or the other is the 'right' or 'only' way then you're probably not a rational person. It seems that most people without an agenda feel that there isn't a need for certain types of firearms. No member of the general public really needs an automatic weapon. I'm not sure if they're legal to hunt with and, even if they are, that doesn't mean you can't use a far less dangerous weapon. 'Gun Control' does not mean the elimination of guns. Furthermore, you keep bringing up other activities seemingly to suggest that, because they're legal, that all guns should be as well. There are a great many restrictions on the production, sale and consumption of alcohol. Just as there should be for any product available to consumers. Especially those that are potentially harmful. Also, you talk about how this country was built with the aid of guns. It was also built with the aid of slavery and horrendous treatment of the Native Americans. Just because those things played a role doesn't mean they should be celebrated or available without proper oversight. Anyways, enjoy Fox News and have fun twisting this into whatever way best fits your argument. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
navygirl
on
Sat 12/22/12 11:42 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting comparing guns to cars. I just don't know what to say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting comparing guns to cars. I just don't know what to say.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
mightymoe
on
Sun 12/23/12 08:37 AM
|
|
Interesting comparing guns to cars. I just don't know what to say.
cars and persciption drugs kill way more people than guns do... as a matter of fact, perscription drugs kill more people than heroin and cocain combined, but i don't see anyone jumping on the bandwagon to end the prscription problem either.... and just about all the recent shooters were all on some sort of preciption meds... so banning guns will solve all the problems you think? side note... how many people do you know that has been shot? how many people do you that have been in a car wreck? how many people do you know that are on perscription meds? with me, it's 0, 18, everyone i know... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting comparing guns to cars. I just don't know what to say.
cars and persciption drugs kill way more people than guns do... as a matter of fact, perscription drugs kill more people than heroin and cocain combined, but i don't see anyone jumping on the bandwagon to end the prscription problem either.... and just about all the recent shooters were all on some sort of preciption meds... so banning guns will solve all the problems you think? side note... how many people do you know that has been shot? how many people do you that have been in a car wreck? how many people do you know that are on perscription meds? with me, it's 0, 18, everyone i know... I don't doubt that car accidents are responsible for a lot of deaths but the trend seems to be changing. Fact is we need vehicles to get around and especially our emergency personnel. I don't see the need of a gun but I would never tell anyone that they shouldn't have one as that is your personal choice. I am just glad that we do have gun restrictions here but I don't agree with the law of someone sueing you if they get injured while attacking you. That seems just insane to me. I found this article which is dated December 21, 2012. I don't know if there is any real truth to it; but it made for a good read. Car accidents have been the leading cause of non-medical deaths in the US for decades, but new data shows that the number of firearm fatalities will soon exceed traffic deaths for the first time. While motor-vehicle deaths have been declining over the years, gun fatalities have steadily increased, according to data from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention. Motor-vehicle deaths reached a low point in 2010 and have decreased by 22 percent from 2005 to 2010, while shooting deaths have been gradually rising since the late 1990’s. Based on the data, shooting deaths will likely rise to 33,000 in 2015 and surpass the number of traffic fatalities, which are predicted to be around 32,000 that year, Bloomberg News reports. The news comes at a time when Americans are engaging in a nationwide debate about gun control after 20-year-old Adam Lanza massacred 26 people with an assault rifle at an Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. If current trends continue, gun-related deaths will only continue to increase. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Sun 12/23/12 03:56 PM
|
|
Interesting comparing guns to cars. I just don't know what to say.
cars and persciption drugs kill way more people than guns do... as a matter of fact, perscription drugs kill more people than heroin and cocain combined, but i don't see anyone jumping on the bandwagon to end the prscription problem either.... and just about all the recent shooters were all on some sort of preciption meds... so banning guns will solve all the problems you think? side note... how many people do you know that has been shot? how many people do you that have been in a car wreck? how many people do you know that are on perscription meds? with me, it's 0, 18, everyone i know... I don't doubt that car accidents are responsible for a lot of deaths but the trend seems to be changing. Fact is we need vehicles to get around and especially our emergency personnel. I don't see the need of a gun but I would never tell anyone that they shouldn't have one as that is your personal choice. I am just glad that we do have gun restrictions here but I don't agree with the law of someone sueing you if they get injured while attacking you. That seems just insane to me. I found this article which is dated December 21, 2012. I don't know if there is any real truth to it; but it made for a good read. Car accidents have been the leading cause of non-medical deaths in the US for decades, but new data shows that the number of firearm fatalities will soon exceed traffic deaths for the first time. While motor-vehicle deaths have been declining over the years, gun fatalities have steadily increased, according to data from the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention. Motor-vehicle deaths reached a low point in 2010 and have decreased by 22 percent from 2005 to 2010, while shooting deaths have been gradually rising since the late 1990’s. Based on the data, shooting deaths will likely rise to 33,000 in 2015 and surpass the number of traffic fatalities, which are predicted to be around 32,000 that year, Bloomberg News reports. The news comes at a time when Americans are engaging in a nationwide debate about gun control after 20-year-old Adam Lanza massacred 26 people with an assault rifle at an Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. If current trends continue, gun-related deaths will only continue to increase. An interesting opinion but for a few points. The gun stats rate a 20+ year margin while only giving 5 yrs of vehicle stats? As you say, unknown how true it is, but I offer this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cf0MO55kMsI&feature=youtu.be It also assumes Adam Lanza is guilty of the crime before all the facts are in. Another point.... quoting Bloomberg..... may as well be Dr Suess. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting comparing guns to cars. I just don't know what to say.
kind of like comparing trapeze accidents with bicycling accidents something used at specific and rare times for a specific thing compared to something used regularly and daily for routine things |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
its not easy nor is it likely guns will be 'banned' it is more likely and easier for them to require licensing that is regulated,,, just like cars,,, And that will keep guns out ofthe hands of criminals how? no more than rape laws keeps rapists from finding victims,,, but as stated a hundred times, laws arent designed with the illusion that they will eradicate crimes completely Then why punish the law abiding citizen? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bloomberg Suggests Police Should Strike Over Gun Control
Originally published @ TheDailyCaller On CNN’s “Piers Morgan Tonight” on Monday, New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg said that law enforcement officers should consider going on strike until new gun control regulations are passed. After all, police officers want to go home to their families. And we’re doing everything we can to make their job more difficult but, more importantly, more dangerous, by leaving guns in the hands of people who shouldn’t have them, and letting people who have those guns buy things like armor-piercing bullets.” The only reason to have an armor-piercing bullet is to go through a bullet-resistant vest. The only people that wear bullet-resistant vest are our police officers. And that’s true across this whole country. So we should — at some point we have to understand this as our children or our grandchildren or us. But for the police officers, it’s much more immediate. Because when you or I hear shots, we run away. They run towards it. I have a better idea. I’m suggesting that Mayor Bloomberg’s ARMED security detail go on strike until he stops being a hypocrite. What’s good for the goose is… ring a bell Mr. Mayor? What makes this almost funny, if bullying the public just to push a political agenda could be funny, is that we all know the police aren’t obligated to protect you. Didn’t know that? Then you might want to read this. And this, or just get this book. One more thing, will someone please tell Piers Morgan to…nevermind, he just became irrelevant. http://www.prescottprepper.com/2012/07/bloomberg-suggests-police-should-strike-over-gun-control/ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2012/12/17/bloomberg-on-unarmed-sandy-hook-principal-i-dont-know-what-a-gun-would-have-done-n1468796
Bloomberg on Unarmed Sandy Hook Principal: "I Don't Know What A Gun Would Have Done" New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who politicized the Sandy Hook tragedy within hours last Friday, just wrapped up a press conference announcing new plans to fight gun violence and to counter the National Rifle Association with his own Super PAC. Bloomberg was asked by a reporter to respond to Rep. Louie Gohmert's comments over the weekend that he wished the principal of the school, who died trying to take down shooter Adam Lanza, had a gun. Bloomberg responded by saying, "There are dumb statements and then there are stupid statements.....I don't know what the gun would have done." With this logic, I'm sure Bloomberg feels the same way about his armed body guards; that the guns they carry to protect him "do nothing." If sane and trained people with guns are capable of "doing nothing," then why do police and security guards carry them? Why do thousands of people a year save their own lives or the lives of others protecting themselves with guns? How did this Dumbass ever become Mayor? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting comparing guns to cars. I just don't know what to say.
kind of like comparing trapeze accidents with bicycling accidents something used at specific and rare times for a specific thing compared to something used regularly and daily for routine things So true. I have an idea though. If people feel the need to own guns; then let them own tranquilizer guns. That way the worse damage one can do is put the person to sleep.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting comparing guns to cars. I just don't know what to say.
kind of like comparing trapeze accidents with bicycling accidents something used at specific and rare times for a specific thing compared to something used regularly and daily for routine things So true. I have an idea though. If people feel the need to own guns; then let them own tranquilizer guns. That way the worse damage one can do is put the person to sleep.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
its not easy nor is it likely guns will be 'banned' it is more likely and easier for them to require licensing that is regulated,,, just like cars,,, And that will keep guns out ofthe hands of criminals how? no more than rape laws keeps rapists from finding victims,,, but as stated a hundred times, laws arent designed with the illusion that they will eradicate crimes completely Then why punish the law abiding citizen? Amen, and also.....the lawmakers would sure like you to THINK their laws will eradicate crime......it's how they get away with their BS. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Mon 12/24/12 01:31 PM
|
|
As I said before....tell 6 million Jews that giving up your right to bear arms is a good idea that will keep you safe from harm!
Clinton and her clown boss are already trying to implement the UN small arms ban behind our backs (with UN approval of course, not our citizens!)... with Sandy Hook the bleeding heart populace will give him the rest of our defenses as well.... just like the Jews did... and 6 million paid the price! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
did the jews ever have a 'right' to bear arms?
and arent they now still able to own guns,,,? and who has said anything about giving up the right to own a gun its like my kid saying Im not letting him have a car cause I wont buy the LAMBORGHINI there are plenty of guns still available even if a few are taken off market,,,,and bullets kill just as well from one as from another,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
did the jews ever have a 'right' to bear arms? and arent they now still able to own guns,,,? and who has said anything about giving up the right to own a gun its like my kid saying Im not letting him have a car cause I wont buy the LAMBORGHINI there are plenty of guns still available even if a few are taken off market,,,,and bullets kill just as well from one as from another,,, "I survived Hitler" A warning from Kitty Werthmann http://blog.beliefnet.com/on_the_front_lines_of_the_culture_wars/2011/04/she-survived-hitler-and-wants-to-warn-america.html#ixzz2Fzr5YTU1 “Next came gun registration. People were getting injured by guns. Hitler said that the real way to catch criminals (we still had a few) was by matching serial numbers on guns. Most citizens were law abiding and dutifully marched to the police station to register their firearms. Not long afterwards, the police said that it was best for everyone to turn in their guns. The authorities already knew who had them, so it was futile not to comply voluntarily. “No more freedom of speech. Anyone who said something against the government was taken away. We knew many people who were arrested, not only Jews, but also priests and ministers who spoke up. “Totalitarianism didn’t come quickly, it took 5 years from 1938 until 1943, to realize full dictatorship in Austria. Had it happened overnight, my countrymen would have fought to the last breath. Instead, we had creeping gradualism. Now, our only weapons were broom handles. The whole idea sounds almost unbelievable that the state, little by little eroded our freedom.” Then there is this .... "The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people." The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. |
|
|
|
|
