Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
LostInSpace

Final debate

Recommended Posts

Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Mrxknown:

Anyway I guess I'm watching the rerun on C-Span now.

I don't like the fact that Bush didn't extend the assault weapons ban. I like that Kerry is for it. However I'm mostly incline to Bush for most of his views.

Why do you like the assault weapons ban?

It didn't DO anything.

If you can name me one REAL thing that it accomplished, I will be amazed, NO, I will be completely dumbfounded.

When Kerry said something about hunting last year and the Sheriff looking back at the house, the AK-47, etc, etc.

THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN WAS STILL IN EFFECT!!!

So in other words, it didn't do a fricking thing!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

No I was talking about Kerry totally in that sentence.

I know. just trying to clarify things.

quote:

Activist judges scare me more then just about anything.

Because that is what will bring it all down at once.


Hmm well yes. But when does a society decide when a judge is being activist or applying the law fairly? Hmmmmmm. This is extremely difficult. Society votes for judges. Local judges are elected. Who votes for judges? I don't vote for judges.

quote:

When 79% of the populace says yes, and then 1 activist judge says no, the excrement will hit the fan bigger then big.


I can agree with that.

Following are Tac's

quote:

Then answer me this then: If someone from country X (who is not a US citizen) comes to the US pregnant, stays for the 6 months her visa allows, pops the kid out in US soil and returns to country X where she raises the child until its an adult.Is that child a US citizen? Is that child an 'american'?

The difference in those answers is the issue.

That child IS a US citizen. Is he american? Dunno. That one hurts. It is a strong issue. Shoiuld the parents be granted citizenship just because they popped one out? Ouch. ouch ouch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another reason Kerry is living in dreamland. Concerning the loophole where companies have incentives to export the workforce "we will close that loophole in a nanosecond". Hah, such fancy words he probably doesn't even know how long a nanosecond is let alone think things can get done in any government that fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

"That child IS a US citizen. Is he american? Dunno. That one hurts. It is a strong issue. Shoiuld the parents be granted citizenship just because they popped one out? Ouch. ouch ouch."

Yes, by law anyone born in the US is given citizenship, which is the cause of the issue. Is the child (raised since he was a baby on a foreign country by parents who are not us citizen) an american? No.

Using myself as an example, my mother is a US citizen, but I was born and raised in Colombia. I attended an american school since I was 3 years old (kindergarden,primary, middle and high school all in the same school, all teachers were american/british/canadian..but mostly americans. All classes were in english bar the spanish language and colombian history classes).

I was born in Colombia so I dont get US citizenship. I was raised in Colombia but my education and most of my formative years were in an american enviroment. Am I american? No.

When I moved to the US, we went through a LOT of paperwork to get a greencard. My mother's citizenship helped loads to get us in.. usually a waiting period is from 3 to 5 years, we got it in 6 months. That's because US citizens have priority when they submit forms for their immediate family (spouse and underage children..grandparents or uncles or nephews dont get this benefit). My mother's sister and her family also moved in, my aunt being US citizen too.. but 2 of her 4 children were adults so she could only expedite the paperwork of the minors in the family and for her spouse.

OTH, there are people who like I said, get pregnant in their own countries, fly to the US under their tourist visa, stay until the baby is born, baby gets US citizenship, then fly back to their country. At any time between age 1 and 17 the family can fly into the US under tourist visa, file immigration paperwork, and since the child 'citizen' is a minor, his parents have legal authority to file immigration papers on his behalf..and this culturally non-american child with US citizenship is able to get his parents and siblings a greencard... and an expedited one at that. A kid who likely cant even speak english.

Illegal immigrants do the same thing today, just that they dont pass through customs in the airport . Kerry's plan to give citizenship or residence to illegal immigrant parents who popped a kid in US soil is an empty plan.. it ALREADY happens. He'd just be legalizing the loophole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which would you rather have a criminal get an assault weapon from the store across the street, or for them to pay extra to get it "specially" delivered from outside the state?

I say the harder it makes for people to obtain weapons the better. Imagine if NO ONE (not police) had guns, well then , no one would need guns. If you want to hunt, use a bat or arrow. I don't like weapons at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Mrxknown:

Which would you rather have a criminal get an assault weapon from the store across the street, or for them to pay extra to get it "specially" delivered from outside the state?

I say the harder it makes for people to obtain weapons the better. Imagine if NO ONE (not police) had guns, well then , no one would need guns. If you want to hunt, use a bat or arrow. I don't like weapons at all.

OMG, did you just say that?

Well, Hey, I don't like free speech either, so I think we ought to make an assault speech ban.

If you abuse someone with your speech, you should be licensed and watched, then if you open your yap and abuse someone again, you ought to tossed in jail.

I don't like Free Speech, I think it's dangerous.

So we ought to control it as well.

What do you think?

And the last part, about how if no one was allowed guns, you know something, CRIMINALS would have guns.

That is a fact, look at Australia, You are NOT allowed to own a gun, and Crimes with guns have skyrocketed, and Home invasion robberies have triples.

Yep, banning guns work real good....

Naive, Naive, Naive......

Every state that has a concealed weapons permit law, crime has FALLEN. Wonder why that is?

Sheesh.....

BTW, my statement about free speech above, was taking your position to an extreme.

We have a 1st amendment right to free speech, we also have what is called the 2nd amendment which GUARANTEES our right to keep and own guns.

Don't mess with my 2nd amendment rights, and I won't mess with your 1st amendment rights.

Because without my 2nd amendment right, your 1st amendment rights ain't worth the paper they're written on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Shingen

quote:

Originally posted by Mrxknown:

Which would you rather have a criminal get an assault weapon from the store across the street, or for them to pay extra to get it "specially" delivered from outside the state?

I say the harder it makes for people to obtain weapons the better. Imagine if NO ONE (not police) had guns, well then , no one would need guns. If you want to hunt, use a bat or arrow. I don't like weapons at all.

No offense, but this made me crack up to no end. It was just freakin' funny.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people!

The assault weapons ban DID NOT keep assault weapons off the street, nor did it stop people from converting semi-auto weapons to fully-auto weapons.

All it DID do was push assault weapons underground and MAKE THEM EASIER TO GET! No ID check, no background check, no registrations AT ALL.

Cash money in the hand and you were good to go.

Just like Prohibition didn't stop people from drinking alcohol, that weapons ban didn't stop people from trading in/aquiring assault weapons.

Criminals don't purchase weapons legally..nor will they ever!!

That's life. Such as it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mrxknown, I have to respect your position, and do agree with your logic, that it be a good thing to make it as hard as possible for criminals to get their hands on guns, But to give up our ability to have adequate defensive weapondry, against the those who can and will possess such, is not in our best interest as a people.

In reality, it probably does'nt matter anyway, since, most cases where guns are used...even in self defense....the user is prosecuted for involuntary manslaughter or some such, and imprisoned, and subjugated by such a conviction...anyway!

I have to agree that the law didnt elilminate ALL the weapons availiable, and probably pushed some into some dark corner of the black market.

I do not believe the effect is as radical as portrayed.

Sure, a few more were availiable in such a fashion, but doubtful, enough to make any difference in such an area of illegal trade.

On the same token, allowing them into the hands of the American public, with the attached registration requirements, would not serve to promote any significant amount of crime either.

Though, it may help deter criminal law inforcement officers, from being so quick to push the envelope, with the average American

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Shingen

quote:

Originally posted by street:

I have to agree that the law didnt elilminate ALL the weapons availiable, and probably pushed some into some dark corner of the black market.

I do not believe the effect is as radical as portrayed.

Sure, a few more were availiable in such a fashion, but doubtful, enough to make any difference in such an area of illegal trade.

On the same token, allowing them into the hands of the American public, with the attached registration requirements, would not serve to promote any significant amount of crime either.

Though, it may help deter criminal law inforcement officers, from being so quick to push the envelope, with the average American

I live out here in the back-woods of Oklahoma and I could prolly get any type of weapon I wanted...right here in the back-woods. So, really, what good was the ban?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It makes the terrorist go to oaklahoma, to buy weapons? I dont know that the ban was good.

I do know, it gave our government a JUSTIFIED reason for attacking American citizens in WACO, as there was no other justification presented by the ATF for that attack.

Please re-read my previous post, I was'nt disagreeing with you shin, just expounding on my view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Shingen

Street, freedom is a double-edged sword. You cannot have it both ways.

In order to be free, one MUST accept certain risks. As long as I'm armed, trained and alert, I don't care who else is armed.

If they come at me with violence and death, violence and death will meet them at the door.

I do not fear death, nor do I believe in World Peace. Mainly because this planet could not sustain the human populations that World Peace would propagate.

But this is a different topic, and if you want to discuss it further, start a new thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, ill not start a new thread, mainly because... though an important issue; Population can be controlled with something as insignificant as rubberbands.

No need for an extended debate concerning the ignorance of mankind. We have enough problems with the ignorance of a designated few, to last us many years to come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all I tip my hat to Kerry, another great debate from a guy that was on the ropes three weeks ago. Bush looked to be sedated and the spittle in the corner of his mouth looked really attractive. Wonder if the meds gave him cottonmouth.

As for the assault weapons ban I support it. If the NRA and the rest of the people in power are willing to admit that these things are NOT for hunting, I will reconsider it... along with a process of registering them and the people that have them into some kind of militia database. You people say that we need to be able to purchase these things to protect ourselves from the threats that will be entering this country. I AGREE. However I believe that law enforcement should have ready access to a database that shows your name and your registered assault weapons should they get a call from/about your house. Also, if we are going to say that the American people should be an armed militia then we should have an ORGANIZED militia meaning that you should be properly licensed as IN YOU KNOW HOW TO USE THE THING. Now, I know people will scream about these infringements on our freedoms but the right to bear and keep arms was for the intent of PROTECTING the country. If this is the reasoning for keeping these things then I'm again, all for it. What pisses me off is when idiots need to keep these things so that they can feel like a man.

Nuff said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Takvah:

First of all I tip my hat to Kerry, another great debate from a guy that was on the ropes three weeks ago. Bush looked to be sedated and the spittle in the corner of his mouth looked really attractive. Wonder if the meds gave him cottonmouth.

As for the assault weapons ban I support it. If the NRA and the rest of the people in power are willing to admit that these things are NOT for hunting, I will reconsider it... along with a process of registering them and the people that have them into some kind of militia database. You people say that we need to be able to purchase these things to protect ourselves from the threats that will be entering this country. I AGREE. However I believe that law enforcement should have ready access to a database that shows your name and your registered assault weapons should they get a call from/about your house. Also, if we are going to say that the American people should be an armed militia then we should have an ORGANIZED militia meaning that you should be properly licensed as IN YOU KNOW HOW TO USE THE THING. Now, I know people will scream about these infringements on our freedoms but the right to bear and keep arms was for the intent of PROTECTING the country. If this is the reasoning for keeping these things then I'm again, all for it. What pisses me off is when idiots need to keep these things so that they can feel like a man.

Nuff said.

NO, not enough said.

Does that mean that I get to regulate your first amendment speech rights as well Takvah?

Hmm, would that be OK, would it be alright if I told you that you could talk about politics unless you had taken a class in it, or perhaps were not allowed to have an opinion because 90% of the people didn't agree with you.

So, since you are so willing to regulate my 2nd amendment rights, then I should be allowed to regulate your 1st amendment ones as well.

Hey, it's only fair.

Where does it stop Takvah?

PS: the 2nd amendment has NOTHING to do with hunting.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Well, see this whole idea that a bunch of angry rednecks armed with M16's can overthrow a modern government backed by a trained and well equipped military is out-dated. No militia will ever overthrow a modern military.

Banning weapons wont work either. If weapons arent acquirable legally then they will be acquired illegally..or home-made (really man, THINK about it. If you really,really wanted to have a gun, you can make one yourself in a couple of days and with the most basic tools). Same goes for the ammo.

One thing that has always irked me is why there is so much regulation and control on firearms..yet an almost complete ban on bladed weapons.

Where can I get a permit to carry a concealed sword? Ask that to your local gunshop owner or police officer and enjoy the look on their faces.

Guess its better i be running around with a good ol' glock than a kindjal or a katana in my jacket as far as the gov. is concerned

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

Don't mess with my 2nd amendment rights, and I won't mess with your 1st amendment rights.

Because without my 2nd amendment right, your 1st amendment rights ain't worth the paper they're written on.

I'm just statingmy belief that guns are bad. I never said to throw away the 2nd amendment. I mean I know that somewhere along the line someone would have developed guns and yes if someone wants to kill someone they will. But my belief stays that I just don't like guns. Nor do I enjoy the thought of nuclear weapons and would hate to be the guy that fires such a dangerous (nuke) weapon on a target. However I hope the need for nuclear weapons is decreasing.

Anyway I respect the 2nd amendment as a way to allow people to defend themselves from others that would harm them. It is great to be gurantee(misspelled, tired) everything in the Bill of Rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Guns are not bad.

Guns are a tool, just like a chainsaw, or a drill or any other tool.

There are only BAD people, and there will always be bad people.

THe more you regulate something to keep it out of the hands of bad people, pretty soon the only people that have that item ARE the bad people.

Things are NOT bad, Things are not evil, they can only be used by evil people.

A nuclear weapon is NOT bad, it is a tool that can be used for bad things, like killing millions of people, or used for good, as a deterrant to make sure that bad people don't use them.

A gun is the same way, it can be used for bad things, such as killing robbing and mayhem, or it can be used for good, by being used as a deterrant to keep bad people from doing those bad things. Which is what the 2nd amendment is for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Tac:

Well, see this whole idea that a bunch of angry rednecks armed with M16's can overthrow a modern government backed by a trained and well equipped military is out-dated. No militia will ever overthrow a modern military.

Banning weapons wont work either. If weapons arent acquirable legally then they will be acquired illegally..or home-made (really man, THINK about it. If you really,really wanted to have a gun, you can make one yourself in a couple of days and with the most basic tools). Same goes for the ammo.

One thing that has always irked me is why there is so much regulation and control on firearms..yet an almost complete ban on bladed weapons.

Where can I get a permit to carry a concealed sword? Ask that to your local gunshop owner or police officer and enjoy the look on their faces.

Guess its better i be running around with a good ol' glock than a kindjal or a katana in my jacket as far as the gov. is concerned

I find that bizarre as well, why the blades?

Then again, I carry a knife every day, it's a leatherman, but it's still a knife. I also have a 3 sword set that sits on my mantle, but, I don't pick them up and carry them around downtown.

The fact of the matter is, that the military will never be used against the militia, or the people.

It is illegal, then again, even if they made it legal, there is NO way that the military is going to kill it's own citizens that it is sworn to protect.

If the government goes too far, and the people resist, we will overthrow the government, and can, BUT ONLY if we are allowed to be armed.

That is what the 2nd amendment is for.

California is slowly reaching the point of saturation, either the people will finally all leave, or revolt enmasse.

The level is rising, but the military would never kill it's own citizens, especially if the citizens were right.

That is why the military takes an oath to the constitution, NOT the government, except the commander in chief, and if any order he gives is unconstitutional, then it is an illegal order that not only will not be followed, but MUST not be followed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jaguar-

FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS REGULATED. I cannot wish ill of the President. I cannot shout fire in a crowded theater. I cannot publish wholesale lies about people. The list could go on and on. We are not free to say whatever we like.

You might not like that I would have people that have assault weapons registered as US militia but I have my opinion and that's it. If we are going to LEGITIMIZE the purposes of these weapons and finally come clean on it RATHER THAN continuing to couch it behind all kinds of whacky NRA arguments... GREAT. What the gun companies and lobbies don't have the balls to say is what you said Jaguar, "we fear the government". It is a legitimate argument especially given the guy in the White House. The first instance I have ever had to fear that martial law was a very real possibility, Bush was President.

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×