This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

67% Republicans believe we gamers are one of nations biggest threats

#131TheBlueStigPosted 2/9/2013 10:51:39 PM
CyricsServant posted...
TheBlueStig posted...
Here's a 3rd time for you, since you need things spelled out for you like you're a child.... The legal line on what civilians can and cannot own has already been drawn, it happened a long time ago, it does NOT need to be changed and I have no problem with it.


What an ass backwards way of saying "no." Alright TheBlueStig, now that you've stated civilians shouldn't own nuclear arms, how about you explain WHY. Is it because perhaps . . . you think they're too dangerous to be in civilian hands? Are you admitting some weapons shouldn't be owned by civilians because of their capacity to cause harm? If you are, then the question changes from "should civilians have access to all forms of weaponry" to "where should the line be drawn?"

Asked and Answered.

Changing the wording of the question does NOT change the answer, DEAL WITH IT.


Too bad you can't go back and edit what you originally wrote; anyone can plainly see you dodged the question the first two times. I did enjoy how you tried to wriggle out of it though. Are you aspiring to become a politician? :)

I answered the same question the same way 4 f***ing times, it's not my fault that you're trying to channel your inner Piers Morgan and ignore the answers you don't like.


And I hope you take your own advice if the law changes . . . You know, instead of opening fire on police officers and members of our military. You're allowed to move instead of killing people, you know.

Military members already bowed out of the Katrina gun grab, and most of the smart cops know better than to go up against people willing to fight for their rights that have more firepower than them.

If the order was given for American troops to open fire on their own people, do you really think that 1) they would follow it without question without any dissension at all, and 2) the person who gave that order would be out of a job and in jail?

There's already enough uproar over the 16 page whitepaper document detailing Obummer's plan to assassinate American civilians with drone strikes in non-combat zones in foreign countries, something that would constitute an Act of War depending on which country's airspace got violated and attacked. Do you really think if that same order were given on American Soil that it would be followed and his career would stay intact??? That stupid f*** would be in Gitmo so fast his head would spin....twice.

There's also no less than 8 states that openly refuse to support any gun ban at all, and are starting legislation to back it. If they succeed in their legislation more states will follow. Law enforcement officers nationwide are currently sounding off AGAINST any kind of gun ban because they know flat out it will just make things worse for them and for all civilians.
---
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin
#132all_that_juice(Topic Creator)Posted 2/9/2013 11:10:34 PM
TheBlueStig posted...
There's already enough uproar over the... plan to assassinate American civilians with drone strikes in non-combat zones in foreign countries, something that would constitute an Act of War depending on which country's airspace got violated and attacked.


Yeah Americans consorting WITH THE TALIBAN AND AL QUAEDA! Why would you not want them to get drone struck? Better to strike them while they're in the midst of hatching their evil plans than wait until they put their plans in motion. What would you rather wait until they carry out their mass murders before killing them? Besides it's been going on for years in Pakistan and Yemen and they haven't declared war on us yet. You know why? Because they can use all the help they can get fighting terrorists and pretty much accepted the strikes as a necessary evil. Hey, it's not perfect, but at least we're actually bombing the terrorists this time rather than bombing a completely unrelated country.
---
isn't hearing technically a dimension? so this should be called the 4DS. - I_Always_Die
#133WinternovaPosted 2/9/2013 11:11:18 PM
TheBlueStig posted...
There's also no less than 8 states that openly refuse to support any gun ban at all, and are starting legislation to back it. If they succeed in their legislation more states will follow.


And each and every one of those pieces of legislation could easily be null and void due to the Supremacy clause.
---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMKUUUvjjzo
Fan of: Steelers(6-time Champions), Red Wings(11-time Champions)
#134TheBlueStigPosted 2/9/2013 11:28:07 PM
all_that_juice posted...
TheBlueStig posted...
There's already enough uproar over the... plan to assassinate American civilians with drone strikes in non-combat zones in foreign countries, something that would constitute an Act of War depending on which country's airspace got violated and attacked.


Yeah Americans consorting WITH THE TALIBAN AND AL QUAEDA! Why would you not want them to get drone struck? Better to strike them while they're in the midst of hatching their evil plans than wait until they put their plans in motion. What would you rather wait until they carry out their mass murders before killing them? Besides it's been going on for years in Pakistan and Yemen and they haven't declared war on us yet. You know why? Because they can use all the help they can get fighting terrorists and pretty much accepted the strikes as a necessary evil. Hey, it's not perfect, but at least we're actually bombing the terrorists this time rather than bombing a completely unrelated country.


What part of Due Process do you not understand? Arrest them and put them on trial, but a drone strike has the potential to kill them and anyone else within a 100 yard radius. And that's only IF they get the right target in the first place, Military Intelligence is an Oxymoron after all.
---
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin
#135TheBlueStigPosted 2/9/2013 11:29:42 PM
Winternova posted...
TheBlueStig posted...
There's also no less than 8 states that openly refuse to support any gun ban at all, and are starting legislation to back it. If they succeed in their legislation more states will follow.


And each and every one of those pieces of legislation could easily be null and void due to the Supremacy clause.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Firearms_freedom_legislation_and_federal_gun_laws_nullification

27 states now, with more jumping on as time passes.
---
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin
#136WinternovaPosted 2/9/2013 11:41:08 PM
TheBlueStig posted...
Winternova posted...
TheBlueStig posted...
There's also no less than 8 states that openly refuse to support any gun ban at all, and are starting legislation to back it. If they succeed in their legislation more states will follow.


And each and every one of those pieces of legislation could easily be null and void due to the Supremacy clause.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Firearms_freedom_legislation_and_federal_gun_laws_nullification

27 states now, with more jumping on as time passes.


There are more ways to get jurisdiction than just the Commerce Clause. Hell, firearms' inclusion in the Bill of Rights could be interpreted as granting Congress jurisdiction, because if Congress had no jurisdiction over firearms it wouldn't need to be included in the federal Constitution.

Additionally, the Second Amendment states that it is necessary for a well-regulated Militia, and Article I, Section 8 states Congress has the power "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia".

There's a quality argument for the Federal Government's power to regulate firearms, which would render the 10th Amendment ineffective in protecting the states' legislation from the Supremacy clause.

TheBlueStig posted...
What part of Due Process do you not understand? Arrest them and put them on trial, but a drone strike has the potential to kill them and anyone else within a 100 yard radius. And that's only IF they get the right target in the first place, Military Intelligence is an Oxymoron after all.


Article I, Section 8. Congress has the power "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water"

It could be argued that Letters of Marque and Reprisal could be granted against terrorists on foreign soil.
---
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMKUUUvjjzo
Fan of: Steelers(6-time Champions), Red Wings(11-time Champions)
#137HappyHappyJoyJoyPosted 2/10/2013 12:00:26 AM(edited)
TheBlueStig posted...
As far as "ease of killing" with other items goes, cars kill more than guns every year...


Cars see VASTLY more use than guns do because of their utility so of course there will be more deaths.

By your logic more people die slipping in the shower than in al-Qaeda attacks, thus terrorist attacks aren't really that dangerous... so al-Qaeda mustn't have been a real problem and we should have gone to war with Moen instead...

Seriously, the whole "ZOMG cars kill moar people! Banz teh cars!" argument is beyond dumb, yet every schmuck just has to try and use it...

SparkItUp posted...
Actually, our laws do affect those internationally...Our laws define how we as a nation define ourselves as a society. How we are as a nation is how we act abroad...how we act abroad affects those outside of our nation.


Also, because of lax gun laws in the States many guns end up being illegally shipped to other countries. So YES American gun laws DO effect those outside of America.

In fact, when Canada was planning to decriminalize marijuana it was American interference that killed the idea, because they were worried about it being smuggled Stateside.

So yeah, BlueStig's "it ain't yer problem" argument is total bull s***.

Stig needs to be less crazy.
---
http://i378.photobucket.com/albums/oo230/Notveryhappy/FoxNewsBrianWilson.jpg
#138gjc2007Posted 2/10/2013 12:36:33 AM
From: Xeroxicide | #004
The title of this post is incorrect. According to the poll, 67% of Republicans think that violent video games are a bigger safety threat than guns. That really doesn't say much about how what they think of violent video games; in fact, it says more about how they view guns.


This is what I was thinking..

That poll is loaded beyond belief.
---
Why used games don't hurt the industry and why content passes are bull****: http://umthumbs.gametrailers.com/users/noobiablos/gamepad/?
#139CyricsServantPosted 2/10/2013 4:40:28 AM(edited)
TheBlueStig posted...
Changing the wording of the question does NOT change the answer, DEAL WITH IT.


Ah, but it's a different conversation now. Though it was like pulling teeth, you've finally admitted that even you don't believe the 2nd Amendment is limitless in scope. You've admitted that certain weapons should be prohibited (conceivably because of their capacity to do harm or cause mayhem, though you haven't gone into specifics). You've admitted that a line SHOULD be drawn. Well, that's the issue they're addressing right now in Washington. Without exceeding the limits of their authority, where should the line be drawn? Whether or not you agree with where that line is ultimately drawn won't necessarily make it unconstitutional.

I answered the same question the same way 4 f***ing times, it's not my fault that you're trying to channel your inner Piers Morgan and ignore the answers you don't like.


In your first answer you merely stated that "the legal line . . . has already been drawn" which in no way answers whether or not you agree with it. For example, I can think of a number of laws I'd like to see repealed that are constitutional. Just because I might acknowledge they're valid and legally enforceable doesn't mean I'm obligated to agree with them, or to believe they're necessary. In your second answer you repeated yourself, then mentioned additional weapons shouldn't be prohibited because the homicide rate is so low. That does not (at least not explicitly) address whether or not you think existing prohibitions should be lifted. Both times you dodged. It wasn't until your third response that you admitted you were "fine" with existing prohibitions. I'm glad you finally answered, but don't act like you gave me a simple "yes" or "no" answer the first two times. You didn't.

If the order was given for American troops to open fire on their own people, do you really think that 1) they would follow it without question without any dissension at all, and 2) the person who gave that order would be out of a job and in jail?


To answer question one, no I don't. But I also think that scenario is highly unrealistic and I don't believe there are many (if any) politicians proposing we forcibly confiscate guns from law abiding gun owners. That just seems like a persecution fantasy certain far right members of society have dreamed up, and as far as I can tell it has little or no basis in reality.

I asked you what you would if someone came knocking on you door asking to collect your guns only because you've repeatedly suggested people who are unhappy with the current laws should move, so I was interested in seeing your response. Amusingly, it seems like you wouldn't take your own advice.
#140SparkItUpPosted 2/10/2013 7:02:55 AM(edited)
TheBlueStig posted...
all_that_juice posted...
TheBlueStig posted...
There's already enough uproar over the... plan to assassinate American civilians with drone strikes in non-combat zones in foreign countries, something that would constitute an Act of War depending on which country's airspace got violated and attacked.


Yeah Americans consorting WITH THE TALIBAN AND AL QUAEDA! Why would you not want them to get drone struck? Better to strike them while they're in the midst of hatching their evil plans than wait until they put their plans in motion. What would you rather wait until they carry out their mass murders before killing them? Besides it's been going on for years in Pakistan and Yemen and they haven't declared war on us yet. You know why? Because they can use all the help they can get fighting terrorists and pretty much accepted the strikes as a necessary evil. Hey, it's not perfect, but at least we're actually bombing the terrorists this time rather than bombing a completely unrelated country.


What part of Due Process do you not understand? Arrest them and put them on trial, but a drone strike has the potential to kill them and anyone else within a 100 yard radius. And that's only IF they get the right target in the first place, Military Intelligence is an Oxymoron after all.


wow I actually agree with Stig on something...think this may be one of the few liberal ideals he holds. Stig you should also mention the fact that we do "double tap" attacks when first responders respond to the scene.

My biggest issue with the targeting of Americans however with drones is, that if there is so much proof that they are a terrorist, why can't they go to a court to have a death warrant issued. Also, we need to stop killing children just because they are related to a terrorist.
---
http://youtu.be/_JyETEkNXSY
Not only the best football player alive...the absolute sexiest.