Was our Freedom Won with a Registered Gun.

[calfoxwc]

 

That is absolutely a slippery slope. Beastiality is abuse of animals, sex with children is below the age of consent, underage porn is the same as well as the child not having the rights to contracts

 

Meth labs and lsd, xxxx it, I don't want the government telling me what I can or can't ingest. I wont do it personally because I know it is stupid.

PB&J

************************

Yes, it is. but i'm confused (like THAT rarely happens... @@)

 

Society has a right and obligation to protect the innocent who are underage. Society sets that age. Society

cannot allow the proliferation of meth labs etc which lends itself to becoming so commonplace that

children's lives are devasted before they ever have a chance to become adults.

 

I should have gone to law school, maybe. I could have been good, I think.

 

************************

How is it at all an abuse? How will it affect you in anything?PB&J

 

************************

Affects children in the wrong ways per the Bible, per society's mores.

************************

All marriage is biologically deviant. The whole point is to try to pass on your genes as many times as you can, and hoard as much food as you can. There is no naturally correct way in nature either. Nature is non-judging, things simply happen. We as humans apply labels of "good" or "bad" to things. And homosexual behaviors occur naturally throughout the animal kingdom.PB&J

************************

All marriage is not. That response is about as meaningful as "OH YEAH?"

 

By biologically deviant I refer to the obvious fact that reproduction is in the very inherent natural order

of all animals and mammals, always between male and female. Don't get confused by

kangaroos or something. It's still male/female.

 

Hoarding food? You are lapsing into diversionary subjects as a psychological defense mechanism, I think.

Yes, in ALL NATURE, even plants. male female. Wait, let me use a diversionary tactic:

 

You ever try to plug in the female end of an extension cord into a female outlet? Try to plug the male

end of an extension cord into the male end of an extension cord?

 

See? It's easy ! LOL.

****************************

 

It bothers others? So what, people don't have a right to not be offended. It bothers me when the guy in the next apartment snores so loud I can hear it. I don't try to tell him he can't sleep. PB&J

 

****************************

 

Yes, society does have a right to protect it's members from offenses that are considered detrimental to the

survival of the society. Snoring is hardly one of those offenses. If loud enough, I suppose the snorer could be

cited under the same noise law as blaring stereos... but a snorer hardly has the ability to snore so loud he/she

is a public nuisance, disturber of the peace...

****************************

I never said we shouldn't protect children, just that they aren't legally able to sign a contract yet and therefore wouldn't be able to be exploited. That is protecting them, it sets an age of consent and the legal system completely xxxxs anybody who messes with them. I also stated that there would be a universal age where someone becomes an adult. I never said give drugs, hookers and booze to six year olds. Just allow ADULTS to have to choice to be able to decide whether or not they should be able to do what they like without the government knocking on the door.PB&J

****************************

But consider, if you want to protect the children in a society, you have to ban those deviant behaviors and chemicals,

like lead, hard drugs, etc. to assure that children are not subject to exposure to those things. Including all abuse,

and the biologically deviant sexual behavior of adults. Two gay people getting together is hardly a matter for society protecting

itself.

The determination to remake society to accept that, and flaunt that choice in front of society and children?

Banned, it should be. That's what I think. If I could just be a Supreme Court judge for a year...

*****************************

 

And I cannot for the life of me see how gay marriage affects anything at all for people outside the marriage, it simply is absurd. Two consenting adults, in a private contract with each other. That isn't so hard. PB&J

*****************************

Here's how I see it. Gay marriage is the official condonement of what most? in society considers to be biologically deviant

defination of marriage. Two people together privately is an unknown, and as such, cannot be controlled.

But the public official condonement of said behavior, with an official equivalence of heterosexual marriage in all it's

natural order normalcy to the opposite, well,

society has a right to protect society's children from the idea that unnatural, biologically deviant behavior is

nornal behavior. To me, that's a crime.

 

[Guest mz.]

Here's how I see it. Gay marriage is the official condonement of what most? in society considers to be biologically deviant

defination of marriage. Two people together privately is an unknown, and as such, cannot be controlled.

But the public official condonement of said behavior, with an official equivalence of heterosexual marriage in all it's

natural order normalcy to the opposite, well,

society has a right to protect society's children from the idea that unnatural, biologically deviant behavior is

nornal behavior. To me, that's a crime.

 

Here's why I'm never, ever having this discussion on this board again. We have FUNDAMENTAL differences that fatally wound this discussion.

 

Sorry.

 

[choco]

society has a right to protect society's children from the idea that unnatural, biologically deviant behavior is

nornal behavior. To me, that's a crime.

and i'll take a guess here that you send your children to church......

 

methinks you dont know how slippery the slope is....

[calfoxwc]

Nope. I don't go to church. I've always said, and will repeat, that religious is one of the worst things

to ever happen to Christianity.

 

Churchs are great places to go worship unless there are people there.

 

Just a few quotes of mine in early years to get my religious friends to nearly spit up their coffee..... LOL

 

Some of them at social events would go to take a drink of coffee or water, etc, and they'd stop and ask

 

me if I was going to say anything first. If I said "no", they'd go ahead and drink it.

 

To argue the issue of gay marriage on the basis of religion is an argument lost with gay marriage proponents,

no matter how good you are. That's why I explained my feelings without including that.

 

I figure what I figure, ...don't owe it to you, you, you, or you to not figure it the way I do.

 

Try plugging in a male end of an extension cord to another male entension cord. I'm right. It

ain't in the natural order of things.

[Guest mz.]

Try plugging in a male end of an extension cord to another male entension cord. I'm right. It

ain't in the natural order of things.

 

That was the dumbest thing I have ever read.

 

[PB&J]

There is no real natural order though. Nature is everything. Indifferent and accepting of everything. The natural order of all living things is to achieve happiness. To get in the way of gay marriage because they can't produce children is just messed up. It doesn't affect you, so you should not try to affect them.

 

 

[calfoxwc]

ROF,LMAO !

[smalls1129]

There is no real natural order though. Nature is everything. Indifferent and accepting of everything. The natural order of all living things is to achieve happiness. To get in the way of gay marriage because they can't produce children is just messed up. It doesn't affect you, so you should not try to affect them.

 

 

I am not jumping into the gay marriage debate. But what I put in bold is not correct. There is a natural order even if we can't completely understand it; and the natural order of all living things is survival, we didn't have the luxury to even begin to worry about happiness til about 1000 years ago. But survival is still the ultimate be all.

[PB&J]

Survival obviously is very important, and passing on genes is too. And for most people that will bring happiness. But there definitely is something innate to trying to be happy. And there sure as hell is no natural order that says homosexuality is bad, because it most definitely happens in many other species too.

 

Once, when Chuang Tzu was fishing in the P'u River, the king of Ch'u sent two officials to go and announce to him: "I would like to trouble you with the administration of my realm."

 

Chuang Tzu held on to the fishing pole and, without turning his head, said, "I have heard that there is a sacred tortoise in Ch'u that has been dead for three thousand years. The king keeps it wrapped in cloth and boxed, and stores it in the ancestral temple. Now would this tortoise rather be dead and have its bones left behind and honored? Or would it rather be alive and dragging its tail in the mud?

 

"It would rather be alive and dragging its tail in the mud," said the two officials.

 

Chuang Tzu said, "Go away! I'll drag my tail in the mud!"

 

I really like this story because it illustrates that perfectly. Who are we to judge what makes other people happy, so long as it doesn't harm anybody else? (Don't try to interpret that into molesting children)

[smalls1129]

Survival obviously is very important, and passing on genes is too. And for most people that will bring happiness. But there definitely is something innate to trying to be happy. And there sure as hell is no natural order that says homosexuality is bad, because it most definitely happens in many other species too.

 

 

 

I really like this story because it illustrates that perfectly. Who are we to judge what makes other people happy, so long as it doesn't harm anybody else? (Don't try to interpret that into molesting children)

 

 

That quote doesn't illustrate an innateness to happiness. At least not to me, if anything it shows that surviving, even amongst shame, is better than being honored in death. And yes it does happen in other species, but not to the extent you're portraying. It isn't like it is the norm in nature as it seems that you're portraying it. And technically natural order would dictate that (in nature) a species made up of nothing but homosexuals would eventually go extinct. Again, not judging anyone's choice, but in nature sex is the only way to reproduce.

[PB&J]

That quote doesn't illustrate an innateness to happiness. At least not to me, if anything it shows that surviving, even amongst shame, is better than being honored in death.

 

You are a little out of context though. It is a Dao text that portrays a critique of the Confucians, who believed happiness was found through interpersonal relationships. The Dao philosophy is to find happiness through acceptance of one's self and where one can live effortlessly. (Wu-Wei) Obviously the turtle would be living effortlessly and happy in the mud, and Chuang Tzu would be happier living away from the confucian structure of the king, "in the mud".

 

This is way off topic though, so to recap: guns should not be banned. And everyone should be able to live their lives happily as long as they do not harm others.

[Chicopee John]

Homo Seksualac Mindja

 

DieHard, I thought you were on vacation.

 

Let's see if I can arrange another 2 weeks.

 

[Mr. T]

Well its funny how this thread turned into a debate over everything under the sun other than 2nd ammendment rights and the Gun Hating lefties who cant wait to take away our rights.

 

Are they scared? Is that why they want to take away our rights. Start out with guns and next the left will be taking away Free Speech, Freedom of the press, Freedom of internet blogging. where will it end?

 

I like what Kenny Rogers has to say in The Gambler.

 

You got to know when to hold em, know when to fold em,

Know when to walk away and know when to run.

 

Sometimes you need to know when to call someones bluff.

 

Gun control news below

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barack Obama fuels gun buying boom with pledge to tighten laws

A pledge by US President Barack Obama to tighten gun control laws

has led to firearms sales soaring across America.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...ghten-laws.html

 

There He Goes: Obama Begins Expected Assault on Gun Rights

 

http://standeyo.com/NEWS/09_USA/090316.ass...gun.rights.html

 

Going Great Guns: Handheld, Semiautomatic Sales Increase

 

http://standeyo.com/NEWS/09_USA/090316.going.great.guns.html

[Guest mz.]

Here's what this debate looks like to me. I hesitate to even call it a debate.

 

Q: Why are some rights more important than other rights?

 

A: Because they're the ones I give a shit about.

[Kosar_For_President]

Here's what this debate looks like to me. I hesitate to even call it a debate.

 

Q: Why are some rights more important than other rights?

 

A: Because they're the ones I give a shit about.

 

Good point. You can't take the good without the bad and that is the facts of life, the fact of life. I still want to bang Tootie.

[calfoxwc]

Why are some rights better than others?

 

Because some rights are FREAKIN SPELLED OUT AND GUARANTEED.

 

So there ya go.

[Mr. T]

Gun Advocates Ready for Battle on Federal Assault Weapons Ban

 

Attorney General Eric Holder is using the drug violence in Mexico to "confuse and mislead" Americans in an attempt to reinstate the expired federal assault weapons ban, gun advocates say.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100da...al-assault-ban/

 

get ready for a gun fight!

[Vegasdogg]

Enlighten me,

What is so misleading about mexicans buying our own guns in Texas and shooting us with them?

Why in the world does anyone need to have an m-16 or an ar-15 or an ak-47 in their home?

When you can guarantee me that bad guys cannot get Uzi's and AK47's then I will agree with you. You can't, so don't even try.

 

[PB&J]

Let me guess,if we give those up,there coming for our pea shooters next, same old tired ass argument.

 

 

Hey now every gun is lethal, including those pea shooters.

 

Here is a good article about assault weapons and how gun control groups are responding to the Alabama shooting spree:

 

The Gunman and the Gun Ban: Does Michael McLendon's rampage demonstrate the need to prohibit "assault weapons"?

[Mr. T]

Enlighten me,

What is so misleading about mexicans buying our own guns in Texas and shooting us with them?

Why in the world does anyone need to have an m-16 or an ar-15 or an ak-47 in their home?

 

Maybe we should send you down to the border and you can attempt to get everyone to join hands and sing Kum -Bay-Ya.

 

otherwise

 

 

Its still an argument worth having.

 

I suppose you are for dismantling our nukes to.

[Mr. T]

[choco]

For the last time I am not against gun ownership in this country, I just believe that it is way to easy to get one and most shouldnt have them in the first place.

then what good does restricting those who obtain these firearms legally?

 

you think criminals go to the Ace hardware store and buy a tracable automatic to go on a killing spree?

 

try thinking about it once.....it wont hurt your brain.

[PB&J]

I don't think that is the best argument, Choco. If someone is going on a killing spree they don't care if they have a tracable gun. They are planning to die.

 

And there is something to the Mexicans being armed by the US, and it is a lot like when people used to give donations to the IRA (the bad IRA) without really knowing what it is. The guns are coming through the US, though mostly through gun shows and illegal channels.

[choco]

sorry....next time i'll use a less ambiguous EXAMPLE...

 

or you could have thought about it and realized i was suggesting criminals dont obtain weapons legally......ya know, context not content.

 

 

geesh....

[PB&J]

I am sure a portion of the weapons are coming from legal channels too, it isn't hard to get a rifle. If you want to stop them, trace them back to the guy who is selling them to the cartels. Don't make them illegal.

[Vegasdogg]

For the last time I am not against gun ownership in this country, I just believe that it is way to easy to get one and most shouldnt have them in the first place.

Says the leftist with all the answers. "The all knowing OZ will now determine who is allowed to have a gun."

 

And you never answered my quesiton: How do you stop the bad guys from getting guns simply by making guns less available to good citizens?

 

It is not a circle of BS. It is an honest question you refused to answer.

[Legacy Fan]

I am sure a portion of the weapons are coming from legal channels too, it isn't hard to get a rifle. If you want to stop them, trace them back to the guy who is selling them to the cartels. Don't make them illegal.

But you can't get a fully auto rifle legally. Which is what they're using.

[Mr. T]

If your spouse ran into the room and said her brother - a state trooper - just called to warn that raids under the new Federal assault weapons/domestic terrorism laws were beginning tonight:

 

1) Would you flee, assuming that you believed yourself to be "a person of interest"?

 

2) Whether your decision was to flee or to stand, what would your spouse and children do?

 

3) What would you and your family use as money and travel documents?

 

4) Would you have an adequate bag or two suitably packed and ready to go for each "fugitive"?

 

5) Would you have all medical necessities addressed for you and your family (e.g., teeth, immunizations, mitigation of any preexisting conditions, adequate supplies of maintenance drugs, etc.)?

 

6) What about three-season (fall/winter/spring) clothing for you and each family member?

 

7) What would you use for transportation?

 

8) What would you use to refuel your transportation?

 

9) Where would you go?

 

10) By what route(s)?

 

11) Upon arrival, where would you stay and for how long?

 

12) What would you use for communications (both receive and transmit)?

 

13) What would you tell your employer?

 

14) What would you tell your neighbors?

 

15) What would you tell your friends and family?

 

16) What would you use to buy what you need while in flight (fuel, food, transport, bribes, etc.)?

 

17) How would you alter your and your family's physical appearances while in flight?

 

18) Who would be your allies trustworthy enough to guard your life and the lives of your family?

 

19) How would you contact your allies?

 

20) What are your three alternate plans for each of the preceding questions?

 

http://westernrifleshooters.blogspot.com/2...-questions.html

 

[calfoxwc]

The ‘America Is Arming Mexico’s Drug Gangs’ Lieby Dan Gifford

“There is an iron river of guns that flows South into Mexico [from the United States] to supply criminal organizations on the border,” says Tom Mangan, senior special agent with Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) in Phoenix. “They are in the market for machine guns, hand grenades, rocket-propelled grenade launchers and Stinger anti-aircraft missiles,” he continues. That’s right. The drug gangs can’t buy that and other military stuff like the 40MM grenades (the silver things in the upper left) and the rifles with launchers shown in the photo below in Mexico, so they drive to the United States and purchase them from American gun dealers at retail. Isn’t that the story you’ve been told? Well, congratulations. America’s First Amendment protected propaganda ministry has punked you on another important issue — this time on behalf of dissembling officials and gun confiscation advocates.

 

 

 

For the benefit of those who may not know, machine guns (not the same thing as the demonized “semi-automatic”), hand grenades, rocket-propelled grenade launchers, Stinger anti-aircraft missiles and other such military items are illegal to possess by US civilians, which means they are not for sale in gun stores. OK, in the interest of extreme accuracy for anyone in need, there are some civilian owned machine-guns in America, but they all have to have been registered with the ATF by 1986 as evidence that a special Treasury tax has been paid and the owner’s residence state has to approve the possession. What’s more, none of these arms has ever been involved in a crime, to my knowledge, and all are considered very pricey collectors items. That means they are not for sale to or in the hands of Mexican drug goons.

 

That raises some questions:

 

If Mexican gangsters are not buying military weapons in the United States, why do people like ATF officials, Attorney General Holder, Secretary of State Clinton, gun prohibitionists like Sarah Brady and multitudes of media talking heads claim they are while calling for an American “assault weapon” ban they say will to keep the Mexican drug gangs from buying what they really aren’t buying here because they can’t?

 

And if Mexican gangsters are not buying their military weapons in America from gun dealers as claimed, where are they buying them?

 

Confused? Well, as Fox News’ pundit Charles Krauthammer explained in one of his 1996 Washington Post columns, the answer to question one is quite simple:

 

Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is symbolic — purely symbolic … In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea … Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation … Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquillity of the kind enjoyed in sister democracies like Canada and Britain … Yes, Sarah Brady is doing God’s work.

 

Krauthammer is able to so clearly state the obvious that most government officials, politicians, gun banners and reporters keep denying because he does not have to lie to voters in order to stay in office or keep donations coming in, as Sarah Brady does. Neither do I. So please note that all the public safety blather about “plastic guns” that can evade metal screener detection, “cop killer bullets” that are specifically made to murder police officers, “Saturday Night Specials” which are unsafe for anyone to possess (except for police — there’s always a police exception) and the other oft repeated gun control paradigms are simply bogus media ready scare phrases that have zero to do with public safety and everything to do with eventually outlawing the private ownership of firearms.

 

Maybe you agree with that goal and maybe you don’t, but that’s the object of “reasonable gun control” advocacy.

 

The answer to the second question is equally obvious. Gun running from the United States into Mexico has been going on since the 1800s. But the stuff bought or stolen here is not the military weaponry we are continually told is arming the gangs there. This paragraph from a Los Angeles Times story managed to get the story right even if nobody else in the media will report it:

 

Most of these [military] weapons are being smuggled from Central American countries or by sea, eluding U.S. and Mexican monitors who are focused on the smuggling of semi-automatic and conventional weapons purchased from dealers in the U.S. border states of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California. . . . The enhanced weaponry represents a wide sampling from the international arms bazaar, with grenades and launchers produced by U.S., South Korean, Israeli, Spanish or former Soviet bloc manufacturers. Many had been sold legally to governments, including Mexico’s, and then were diverted onto the black market. Some may be sold directly to the traffickers by corrupt elements of national armies, authorities and experts say … These groups appear to be taking advantage of a robust global black market and porous borders, especially between Mexico and Guatemala. Some of the weapons are left over from the wars that the United States helped fight in Central America, U.S. officials said.

 

Stratfor, a private intelligence agency, noted more:

 

Grenades used in three recent attacks in Monterey, Mexico, and Pharr, Texas, all originated from the same lot delivered from South Korea.

 

So let’s recap.

 

Attorney General Holder, Secretary of State Clinton, ATF officials and a host of others claim that an “assault weapon ban” against American civilians will keep Mexican drug cartels with gazillions of dollars in their jeans from buying military weapons on the international black market.

 

Hey, makes sense to me.

 

Latte anyone?