Kimble2013 said: »
this is why no one *** likes you.
Politicians/Media Refuse "proudly Gun Free" Sign
|
Politicians/Media refuse "proudly gun free" sign
I do protest. I like him.
[+]
Actually, they do flee as well. Its called "Fight-or-flight response"
Kimble2013 said: » ahh, they can own them, but not be allowed to drive/operate them. Perfect sense! On their private property, sure. as for planes: if they have a pilot's license, don't have a problem with it. Leviathan.Behemothx said: » Jetackuu said: » Seriously, if you can't go to bed at night without being that paranoid you got issues. And last I checked genious, the US isn't planet earth - there are tons of places on earth where people don't think like that. And there's also tons of places in the US where people don't have to be that paranoid. It's not being paranoid: it's realizing the world is full of crazy *** or people with complete disregard for the lives/wellbeing of others. Last I checked the US is on planet earth, and it's just one place of many that have very disturbed individuals. At least here we have the right to defend ourselves.
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Ragnarok.Blurrski said: » Youre all officially more HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE than him now >.>.. Myself included I guess. If you dont entertain someones need for attention, they go elsewhere for it. Just stating facts and insinuating suggestion. I wont be feeding him anymore, personally. Its not the content of the discussion that bothers me, its particularly just him. edit: for the record, I dont literally think youre all HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE. Was just an immature final veiled insult at him, and everyone else participating in an argument with him, myself included. Valefor.Omnys said: » [ Obama touting gun control, and teasing gun bans, just undid a law limiting president's SS detail to 10 years post-term. He's telling you you don't need guns, but he'll keep armed security. Private gun ownership and armed security in sensitive locations / environments are completely separate entities. Jetackuu said: » Bahamut.Baconwrap said: » Jetackuu said: » we're a republic, our laws stem forth from the people, by the grace of the people, not to restrict them. No they do not. Laws stem forth from nature. Laws are interpreted from nature by political scientists, based on those interpretations they make laws that are best for the people. in the United States, they do. Quote: to which the laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them.
[+]
Fenrir.Sylow said: » You're not putting 2 and 2 together. What you're doing is the equivalent of adding 2 and "apples." The Bill of Rights did not establish any rights for minorities because it was understood at the time that minorities did not have rights. Jetackuu said: » Kimble2013 said: » ahh, they can own them, but not be allowed to drive/operate them. Perfect sense! On their private property, sure. as for planes: if they have a pilot's license, don't have a problem with it. Leviathan.Behemothx said: » Jetackuu said: » Seriously, if you can't go to bed at night without being that paranoid you got issues. And last I checked genious, the US isn't planet earth - there are tons of places on earth where people don't think like that. And there's also tons of places in the US where people don't have to be that paranoid. It's not being paranoid: it's realizing the world is full of crazy *** or people with complete disregard for the lives/wellbeing of others. Last I checked the US is on planet earth, and it's just one place of many that have very disturbed individuals. At least here we have the right to defend ourselves. Well, driving/flying is not a right, so really, you don't have the right to fly/drive them. Fenrir.Sylow said: » Valefor.Omnys said: » [ Obama touting gun control, and teasing gun bans, just undid a law limiting president's SS detail to 10 years post-term. He's telling you you don't need guns, but he'll keep armed security. Private gun ownership and armed security in sensitive locations / environments are completely separate entities.
[+]
Fenrir.Sylow said: » Fenrir.Sylow said: » You're not putting 2 and 2 together. What you're doing is the equivalent of adding 2 and "apples." The Bill of Rights did not establish any rights for minorities because it was understood at the time that minorities did not have rights.[/quote] a republic is established to protect the minority from the will of the majority. I never said "minorities" if I did, or if that's what you inferred I apologize, as that is not what I meant. Valefor.Omnys said: » You don't get it do you? You could live in the best neighborhood. Your neighbors good be Gates and Buffet and if someone breaks into your house, you should still take the threat seriously, and into your own hands. If hiding works, that's great, but what if he finds you, freaks out, and hurts someone you love? That is what some people do when they panic, they don't flee, they shoot, or lunge. Yeah, Cabrini Green saw more violence than 1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, but a criminal is a criminal. Obama touting gun control, and teasing gun bans, just undid a law limiting president's SS detail to 10 years post-term. He's telling you you don't need guns, but he'll keep armed security. Cerberus.Pleebo said: » He advocated a non-confrontational method to protecting a household which, depending on your situation, may be the more reasonable route to take. Isn't this entire debate boiled down to protecting one's self? Calling him an idiot for that seems uncalled for. Trouble is, gun owners, most of them, don't feel the need to try to force every good citizen to own a gun. We think it would be a good idea, for their protection, but the right to bear arms extends also to a right not to bear arms. It's the people like I was replying to, however, that want to impose their ideals on everyone else. They think taking guns from honest people takes guns from everyone. It doesn't. Guns are too available for this to work the way liberals want it to. His non-confrontational method for protection was effectively hide/call cops/wait and see. THat's not protecting anything, that's covering your eyes, plugging your ears, and hoping the bad men go away. I hope they do for his sake but I'll feel bad when I read about him in the
[+]
A republic is not established to protect the minority from the will of the majority. If this is the case, you need to cite specific language from reputable sources that establish this intention.
Jetackuu said: » a republic is established to protect the minority from the will of the majority. I never said "minorities" if I did, or if that's what you inferred I apologize, as that is not what I meant. Quote: The moral duties which exist between individual and individual in a state of nature, accompany them into a state of society . their Maker not having released them from those duties on their forming themselves into a nation -Thomas Jefferson The government's duties are to natural law not the minority. Kimble2013 said: » Well, driving/flying is not a right, so really, you don't have the right to fly/drive them. technically you're right, but who's going to know what you do on your own property? if somebody had the money for these things, they'd certainly have the money to conceal them, or have an island they can fly their jet on. then again if they flew under radar they could do it in a lot of places and most people would never notice, as long as they stay away from populated areas. Kind of like how a lot of people on private land drive without licenses/under driving age. Bahamut.Baconwrap said: » Jetackuu said: » a republic is established to protect the minority from the will of the majority. I never said "minorities" if I did, or if that's what you inferred I apologize, as that is not what I meant. Quote: The moral duties which exist between individual and individual in a state of nature, accompany them into a state of society . their Maker not having released them from those duties on their forming themselves into a nation -Thomas Jefferson The government's duties are to natural law not the minority.
[+]
Fenrir.Sylow said: » A republic is not established to protect the minority from the will of the majority. If this is the case, you need to cite specific language from reputable sources that establish this intention. Not really as all you need to do is look at history. Jetackuu said: » Fenrir.Sylow said: » A republic is not established to protect the minority from the will of the majority. If this is the case, you need to cite specific language from reputable sources that establish this intention. Not really as all you need to do is look at history. You must have been the star of the debate team. Jetackuu said: » the government's duties is to the people. Quote: When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. He does what he does best, makes a claim but then provides no real sources to back up his claim, instead giving extremely vague ones.
If it's so obvious, he should have no problem providing a source.
Fenrir.Sylow said: » If it's so obvious, he should have no problem providing a source. But the source is there! You are just to stupid to see it obviously. Bahamut.Baconwrap said: » Jetackuu said: » the government's duties is to the people. Quote: When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. our constitution/government still derives it's authority from the people, there's no getting around that. Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Arguing hypotheticals is futile. I could argue what if the intruder is better armed and trained then you or you're put in a situation where you're more likely to harm those you're trying to protect than the assailant. Condemning those who would choose to protect themselves without guns is, to me, just as silly as condemning those who would choose to use a gun. Actually, that's one of the reasons I wish people would take the offensive about criminals. I'm not a fighter, I'm not. I'm not fast, I won't kick your ***. I don't even lift. If I come in a confrontation with a burglar, if I give them time to make a choice, and they choose to hurt me, I probably won't react fast enough. It's a fact that I accept. It has to do with some nerve problems but whatever. Criminals, often, don't choose dangerous targets. They choose little old ladies and single moms. There's a reason (well, several) that noone tries to steal Lucy Liu's handbag and noone tries to mug the rich old glorious Chuck Norris. The best thing you can do is not be within arm's length of your assailant. No matter how good they are, they're not going to dodge a bullet, even if it's an intentionally non-lethal shot.
[+]
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: » Jetackuu said: » the government's duties is to the people. Quote: When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. read the declaration of independence.... second paragraph... "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" Fumiku said: » deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed Natural law is a HUGE concept in constitutional law. Particularly to the founding fathers. How do you think the burglar got his gun?... if gun flaw is better controlled, there will be less people with guns. There by less psychos with guns, but theres always a way to get a gun ofcourse. But it wont be held by a kid in school or a father getting up at night shooting at anything that moves because he was woken up by a sound in the middle of the night.
Also.. a burglar dont break in to someones home to kill... But if that person was there to kill you, they would have a gun too for sure, and a plan and more importantly the will to kill you. So youre screwed either way :) Cerberus.Devious said: » How do you think the burglar got his gun?... if gun flaw is better controlled, there will be less people with guns. There by less psychos with guns, but theres always a way to get a gun ofcourse. But it wont be held by a kid in school or a father getting up at night shooting at anything that moves because he was woken up by a sound in the middle of the night. Also.. a burglar dont break in to someones home to kill... But if that person was there to kill you, they would have a gun too for sure, and a plan and more importantly the will to kill you. So youre screwed either way :) |
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.