|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 17, 2017 18:55:11 GMT
Guns save lives, it's just a fact. Oh, they’re facts, are they? Why didn’t you say so! Thank you Lucy! This has been very illuminating. From “You’re a Good Man, Charlie Brown”, Little Known Facts LUCY Do you see this tree? it is a Fur tree. It's called a Fur tree because it gives us fur, For coats, It also gives us wool in the wintertime. LINUS I never knew that before, Lucy. That's very interesting. LUCY This is an elm tree. It's very little. But it will grow up into a giant tree, An oak. You can tell how old it is by counting its leaves. LINUS Gosh, Lucy, that's amazing. CHARLIE BROWN Now wait a minute, Lucy. I don't mean to interfere, but- LUCY And way up there, Those fluffy little white things, Those are clouds, They make the wind blow. And way down there, Those tiny little black things, Those are bugs, They make the grass grow. LINUS Is that so? LUCY That's right. They run around all day long, tugging and tugging at each tiny seedling until it grows into a great tall blade of grass. LINUS Boy, that's amazing! CHARLIE BROWN Oh, good grief. LUCY And this thing here. It's called a hydrant. They grow all over, And no one seems to know Just how A little thing like that Gives so much water. Ahem. I do enjoy a Whack-A-Mole when I take my daughter to the arcade, but it usually pays out some tickets at the end. The only thing I get here is higher blood pressure. It’s pointless to engage you. It takes me ten minutes to rebut these garbage talking points and it takes you five seconds to copy/paste them. You're not here to engage, or to do us a public service by offering an alternative point of view to our echo chamber. Also, Other than suicide's I don't know anyone personally who has been killed by a projectile fired from a gun. Ummm…so…those just don’t count? so nothing from you to dispute the facts. Good to know
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 17, 2017 19:14:14 GMT
This gun debate brings to mind a plan that could actually work and fits as a steady compromise. Treat gun licenses like drivers licenses. Grade them like you would grade a drivers license (motorcycle, large truck, etc) and make the higher grades more difficult to get. Take a written exam, if you pass you get a permit, require a certain number of hours of training with a professional at a gun range, take a formal exam, if you pass you get your license. Involve heavy mental wellness tests into the process of getting a gun permit. Leave military grade firearms out of the market: if you want to shoot a military grade weapon, join the military and do some good while you shoot. Add a grandfather clause in so people currently owning military grade weapons can either keep them or turn them in for fair market value. If someone goes to a gun show, they need an already valid permit/license to buy a gun and by law have an area set up at the front of the venue to be able to take the permit and mental exams and a training area so they can started on the training in a safe and professional environment. It makes sense. It makes dangerous weapons (because that's what they are anyway you cut it) difficult to get, but doesn't infringe on any 2nd Amendment rights (which were written very vague and without foreknowledge of what military grade weaponry's power would be). It ain't gonna make everyone happy but it'll work. I'll rest my case there. Also, going off of yesterday's press conference, Trump is a halfwit and I eagerly await to follow the inevitable impeachment trial very, very, very closely. sorry. The founding fathers didn't think we needed an exam. And as the dmv will tell you. It's a privilege to operate a car, not a right.
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 17, 2017 19:17:25 GMT
This gun debate brings to mind a plan that could actually work and fits as a steady compromise. Treat gun licenses like drivers licenses. Grade them like you would grade a drivers license (motorcycle, large truck, etc) and make the higher grades more difficult to get. Take a written exam, if you pass you get a permit, require a certain number of hours of training with a professional at a gun range, take a formal exam, if you pass you get your license. Involve heavy mental wellness tests into the process of getting a gun permit. Leave military grade firearms out of the market: if you want to shoot a military grade weapon, join the military and do some good while you shoot. Add a grandfather clause in so people currently owning military grade weapons can either keep them or turn them in for fair market value. If someone goes to a gun show, they need an already valid permit/license to buy a gun and by law have an area set up at the front of the venue to be able to take the permit and mental exams and a training area so they can started on the training in a safe and professional environment. It makes sense. It makes dangerous weapons (because that's what they are anyway you cut it) difficult to get, but doesn't infringe on any 2nd Amendment rights (which were written very vague and without foreknowledge of what military grade weaponry's power would be). It ain't gonna make everyone happy but it'll work. I'll rest my case there. Also, going off of yesterday's press conference, Trump is a halfwit and I eagerly await to follow the inevitable impeachment trial very, very, very closely. That is the kind of reasonable compromise that I can support. Unfortuanetly, it is in the NRA's interests to let any idiot own a gun. any American above 18 without a criminal record. Thus I assume every American on here has that right.
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 17, 2017 19:22:39 GMT
This gun debate brings to mind a plan that could actually work and fits as a steady compromise. Treat gun licenses like drivers licenses. Grade them like you would grade a drivers license (motorcycle, large truck, etc) and make the higher grades more difficult to get. Take a written exam, if you pass you get a permit, require a certain number of hours of training with a professional at a gun range, take a formal exam, if you pass you get your license. Involve heavy mental wellness tests into the process of getting a gun permit. Leave military grade firearms out of the market: if you want to shoot a military grade weapon, join the military and do some good while you shoot. Add a grandfather clause in so people currently owning military grade weapons can either keep them or turn them in for fair market value. If someone goes to a gun show, they need an already valid permit/license to buy a gun and by law have an area set up at the front of the venue to be able to take the permit and mental exams and a training area so they can started on the training in a safe and professional environment. It makes sense. It makes dangerous weapons (because that's what they are anyway you cut it) difficult to get, but doesn't infringe on any 2nd Amendment rights (which were written very vague and without foreknowledge of what military grade weaponry's power would be). It ain't gonna make everyone happy but it'll work. I'll rest my case there. Also, going off of yesterday's press conference, Trump is a halfwit and I eagerly await to follow the inevitable impeachment trial very, very, very closely. Vaguely similar to UK system. Here to own a gun you need to apply for a licence and obtain a secure cabinet to keep it in. Oddly enough we haven't had a massacre since 2010, and the one before that was 1996. You only just got he's a halfwit from yesterday? It's just bizarre how Trump handles the press. Trump is brilliant. He has chalkboard everywhere talkin bout fake news and the media. While illegal immigrants are being arrested and deported. Watch my right hand, while you never see what my left is doing. Misdirection at its finest.
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 17, 2017 19:25:59 GMT
Vaguely similar to UK system. Here to own a gun you need to apply for a licence and obtain a secure cabinet to keep it in. Oddly enough we haven't had a massacre since 2010, and the one before that was 1996. You only just got he's a halfwit from yesterday? It's just bizarre how Trump handles the press. I was a Bernie Boy from Day 1. I was just glad to get be all, end all confirmation of the fact. Bernie could have beat Trump. I saw more Hillary for prison signs than I did Trump, Pence signs. People didn't vote for Trump as much as they voted against Billary
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 17, 2017 19:27:18 GMT
I voted for him in the primaries, but I was still happy to support Hillary during the general election. I was a very reluctant Hillary supporter. I stand by the opinion that had Bernie won the primaries, we'd be saying President Sanders rather than President Trump and be talking about more important things than fake news that's actually just facts that people don't like. you and I agree on your opinion.
|
|
|
Post by fingersmash on Feb 17, 2017 19:54:44 GMT
This gun debate brings to mind a plan that could actually work and fits as a steady compromise. Treat gun licenses like drivers licenses. Grade them like you would grade a drivers license (motorcycle, large truck, etc) and make the higher grades more difficult to get. Take a written exam, if you pass you get a permit, require a certain number of hours of training with a professional at a gun range, take a formal exam, if you pass you get your license. Involve heavy mental wellness tests into the process of getting a gun permit. Leave military grade firearms out of the market: if you want to shoot a military grade weapon, join the military and do some good while you shoot. Add a grandfather clause in so people currently owning military grade weapons can either keep them or turn them in for fair market value. If someone goes to a gun show, they need an already valid permit/license to buy a gun and by law have an area set up at the front of the venue to be able to take the permit and mental exams and a training area so they can started on the training in a safe and professional environment. It makes sense. It makes dangerous weapons (because that's what they are anyway you cut it) difficult to get, but doesn't infringe on any 2nd Amendment rights (which were written very vague and without foreknowledge of what military grade weaponry's power would be). It ain't gonna make everyone happy but it'll work. I'll rest my case there. Also, going off of yesterday's press conference, Trump is a halfwit and I eagerly await to follow the inevitable impeachment trial very, very, very closely. sorry. The founding fathers didn't think we needed an exam. And as the dmv will tell you. It's a privilege to operate a car, not a right. The Founding Father also didn't know that firearms technology would progress to the point where it is today and that such powerful weapons would essentially be free flowing. Expensive, yes, but free flowing to those that can afford it. And I never said to take away guns. I never said that guns would be flat out banned. I only said stronger gun control. The current gun culture of the United States is so throughly screwed up that a mass shooting is almost everyday news. How else do you expect to stop that?
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 17, 2017 20:23:36 GMT
sorry. The founding fathers didn't think we needed an exam. And as the dmv will tell you. It's a privilege to operate a car, not a right. The Founding Father also didn't know that firearms technology would progress to the point where it is today and that such powerful weapons would essentially be free flowing. Expensive, yes, but free flowing to those that can afford it. And I never said to take away guns. I never said that guns would be flat out banned. I only said stronger gun control. The current gun culture of the United States is so throughly screwed up that a mass shooting is almost everyday news. How else do you expect to stop that?
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 17, 2017 20:32:35 GMT
sorry. The founding fathers didn't think we needed an exam. And as the dmv will tell you. It's a privilege to operate a car, not a right. The Founding Father also didn't know that firearms technology would progress to the point where it is today and that such powerful weapons would essentially be free flowing. Expensive, yes, but free flowing to those that can afford it. And I never said to take away guns. I never said that guns would be flat out banned. I only said stronger gun control. The current gun culture of the United States is so throughly screwed up that a mass shooting is almost everyday news. How else do you expect to stop that? I have lots of ideas on how to stop them, but they are considered extreme by many on these boards. I don't expect the founding fathers did foresee the guns around today. But restricting the ways to obtain them is not something I consider would work. It just makes it harder for law abiding citizens to obtain then. If they want to start with actually prosecuting dealers who sell guns illegally, I'd have no problem with that. Putting a dealer who sold a criminal a gun under the table should be locked up for life, imo. Instead, he gets his wrist slapped. A fine and probation. And told now don't you do that anymore. That's a joke
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 17, 2017 20:36:53 GMT
sorry. The founding fathers didn't think we needed an exam. And as the dmv will tell you. It's a privilege to operate a car, not a right. The Founding Father also didn't know that firearms technology would progress to the point where it is today and that such powerful weapons would essentially be free flowing. Expensive, yes, but free flowing to those that can afford it. And I never said to take away guns. I never said that guns would be flat out banned. I only said stronger gun control. The current gun culture of the United States is so throughly screwed up that a mass shooting is almost everyday news. How else do you expect to stop that? I did like the idea Obama had bout fingerprint technology and only the owner of the gun being able to fire it. But the cost is very excessive right now. I won't spend over a couple of hundred for a gun, and there will always be older models around.
|
|
|
Post by Audio Watchdog on Feb 17, 2017 20:51:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 17, 2017 22:06:36 GMT
I'll bet lobbyists had absolutely nothing to do with that...Sarcasm.
A myriad of possibilities are likely. It's not like the lawmakers can write a simple law.
You shall not steal or your hand shall be cut off. You shall not kill or you will be killed. You shall not rape or you will be castrated. Simplistic, yes. Barbaric, yes. Effective, oh hell yes!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2017 22:23:41 GMT
What statistics do you have to support your claim that the death sentence is an effective deterrent of criminal behavior? A quick Google search brings up this, which would seem to undermine your conclusion. "A recent study by Professor Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock of the University of Colorado found that 88% of the nation’s leading criminologists do not believe the death penalty is an effective deterrent to crime. The study, Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates? The Views of Leading Criminologists, published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Crimonology, concluded, “There is overwhelming consensus among America’s top criminologists that the empirical research conducted on the deterrence question fails to support the threat or use of the death penalty.” A previous study in 1996 had come to similar conclusions." Source: www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/study-88-criminologists-do-not-believe-death-penalty-effective-deterrentI also find your suggestion for dealing with theft quite amusing. The amputation of limbs following theft convictions is a feature of the same (extremist, it's important to state) Islamic law that so many seem to consider 'un-American'. Doesn't it bother you that you share such an ideology with extremist Islamic terrorist groups?
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 17, 2017 22:31:08 GMT
What statistics do you have to support your claim that the death sentence is an effective deterrent of criminal behavior? A quick Google search brings up this, which would seem to undermine your conclusion. "A recent study by Professor Michael Radelet and Traci Lacock of the University of Colorado found that 88% of the nation’s leading criminologists do not believe the death penalty is an effective deterrent to crime. The study, Do Executions Lower Homicide Rates? The Views of Leading Criminologists, published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Crimonology, concluded, “There is overwhelming consensus among America’s top criminologists that the empirical research conducted on the deterrence question fails to support the threat or use of the death penalty.” A previous study in 1996 had come to similar conclusions." Source: www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/study-88-criminologists-do-not-believe-death-penalty-effective-deterrentIn that post, I didn't mention the death penalty. The current system does not work. That much is obvious. As a deterrent, the gas chamber and electric chair after you sit on death row for 20 years, and probably never get there anyway is in no means a deterrent. A fast track automatic appeals process in which the convicted has a year to wait, then gets to go to the gallows for everyone who wants to watch, to get to watch, and yes, there would be news coverage of it, would make an effective deterrent. Lets try that out and have a study then.
|
|
|
Post by Audio Watchdog on Feb 17, 2017 22:32:43 GMT
Don't need statistics or facts or reason when you feel truth in your gut.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2017 22:34:51 GMT
You shall not kill or you will be killed. I don't know, that sounds a lot like the death penalty to me...
|
|
|
Post by Audio Watchdog on Feb 17, 2017 22:39:23 GMT
And the obsession with the public broadcast of executions continues. And how much different would the broadcast of executions in this country be to the beheadings that ISIS is so fond of sending out into the world? Remember the good old days when we just had fun around this forum talking about Doctor Who, movies, music, books, comic books, TV shows and other various form of audio entertainment? Then someone came along asking if they could speak their mind, which was really code for don't argue with me because I'm right and everyone else is wrong and now we have what we have. Isn't it all just great?
|
|
|
Post by Audio Watchdog on Feb 17, 2017 22:40:32 GMT
rynu, love the profile picture.
|
|
|
Post by ulyssessarcher on Feb 17, 2017 22:40:42 GMT
Just because I share some of the same views with Islam, doesn't bother me in the slightest.
They believe what they believe, and have every right to it. Period. As ive said in the past, if Trump wants to try to curtain any religious freedom, there are millions who would have no problem standing against him, including me. Everyone can make up their own minds what things are important to them, religious freedom, and the right to bear arms are in my top 5, with religious freedom topping the list, and I would be willing to die, defending either of those 2 things.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 17, 2017 22:43:00 GMT
With all due respect, I asked if you were concerned that you shared views with Islamic extremists rather than with Islam as a whole.
|
|