created by: MoonDancing | Jan 11, 2013

Weird

89 votes

Are shootings getting more publicity than usual

Click on an option to vote

  • Yes, it's getting sick
  • because the world is SICKER
  • because it sells...
  • for an agenda
  • do watch the news because of it

Comments (Page 39)

Showing posts 761 - 780 of838
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“....VETS”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

WELCOME HOME

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#769
Jan 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

REDNECK HIPPIE wrote:
Murder, drugs, prostitution, child abuse and pedophilia are banned, look how good that has worked.
Alcohol WAS banned, look at how that turned out.
that doesn't make sense ?????

manufacture/selling of alcohol was was declared illegal , not the consumption ... but do remember this the amendment was repealed .......Twenty-first Amendment

“"Always Thinking"”

Level 8

Since: Nov 12

Greensburg, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#770
Jan 22, 2013
 
REDNECK HIPPIE 'i' sympathize with you, they just don't get the point of what you were saying.
People do wrong 'all-the-time' has nothing to do with material things..all rules, regulations, laws,
amendments, are made to be broken---just ask Obama?

From immigration to 'gay' rights:::

“....VETS”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

WELCOME HOME

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#771
Jan 22, 2013
 
once again doesn't those who don't agree with your POV have the same right as you claim

“ASPIRE 2 INSPIRE B4 U EXPIRE”

Level 8

Since: Jul 08

USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#772
Jan 22, 2013
 
milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd be careful when comparing a Constitutional right with pedophilia, murder and child abuse. Neither are rights. Child abuse and murder has never been a right - on the contrary, it has always been a crime - albeit a sometimes overlooked crime. The same for pedophilia. Banning all firearms is not the answer - but without trying it no one can make the assertation that it would never work.
I was merely pointing out that banning things has never ever resulted in them not being available or used.Banning guns will NOT result in less guns, or less gun violence. Just look at Chicago as an example.Most restrictive gun laws in the land and an extremely high incident of gun violence and death from gun use.

“ASPIRE 2 INSPIRE B4 U EXPIRE”

Level 8

Since: Jul 08

USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#773
Jan 22, 2013
 
Hoosier Hillbilly wrote:
M69 there's some method to her madness +'i' like her MOTTO:“ASPIRE 2 INSPIRE B4 U EXPIRE”
Regardless of what laws are passed (even if they're inforced)[LOL], people that have 'weird desires' will find ways to fill them. Unfortunately that too is a part of "OUR" freedom!
If he hadn't have had the Bush rifle he might have bombed the entire school-terrorist do that you know?
HH, I don't know if you were trying to be funny, or mean, but I am NOT female. I am all male AND heterosexual.

“ASPIRE 2 INSPIRE B4 U EXPIRE”

Level 8

Since: Jul 08

USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#774
Jan 22, 2013
 
tallyho wrote:
<quoted text>
that doesn't make sense ?????
manufacture/selling of alcohol was was declared illegal , not the consumption ... but do remember this the amendment was repealed .......Twenty-first Amendment
ok, so let me be absolutely precise in my language, so as not to upset the judge.

18th Amendment
Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

and YES I was aware that it was repealed, that was the point. They tried to ban alcoholic beverages and look at what a dismal failure it was.
Education, enforcement of existing laws, and treatment for those with mental illnesses is the answer. NOT taking guns from law abiding citizens and leaving them vulnerable to the predators of any society.

“ASPIRE 2 INSPIRE B4 U EXPIRE”

Level 8

Since: Jul 08

USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#775
Jan 22, 2013
 
tallyho wrote:
once again doesn't those who don't agree with your POV have the same right as you claim
Absolutely, unlike you, I don't get all judgmental and critical of those with an opposing viewpoint. Unlike you, I don't sink to calling people derogatory names as a first resort.
I actually welcome opposing viewpoints, I might learn something new, and I have been known to change my perspective when confronted by information that makes sense to me.

“....VETS”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

WELCOME HOME

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#776
Jan 22, 2013
 
REDNECK HIPPIE wrote:
<quoted text>
ok, so let me be absolutely precise in my language, so as not to upset the judge.
18th Amendment
Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.
and YES I was aware that it was repealed, that was the point. They tried to ban alcoholic beverages and look at what a dismal failure it was.
Education, enforcement of existing laws, and treatment for those with mental illnesses is the answer. NOT taking guns from law abiding citizens and leaving them vulnerable to the predators of any society.
it wasn't illegal to consume .... the letter of the law prevails

to transport... to sell... to manufacture... do you see to consume ... basic law .. i really don't mind your statement cowboy , but please

you really should realize that constitutional law was my minor in college .... so

“....VETS”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

WELCOME HOME

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#777
Jan 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

REDNECK HIPPIE wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely, unlike you, I don't get all judgmental and critical of those with an opposing viewpoint. Unlike you, I don't sink to calling people derogatory names as a first resort.
I actually welcome opposing viewpoints, I might learn something new, and I have been known to change my perspective when confronted by information that makes sense to me.
bull shit I just did and you bring up the 18th , now point out consumption

“ASPIRE 2 INSPIRE B4 U EXPIRE”

Level 8

Since: Jul 08

USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#778
Jan 22, 2013
 
tallyho wrote:
<quoted text>
it wasn't illegal to consume .... the letter of the law prevails
to transport... to sell... to manufacture... do you see to consume ... basic law .. i really don't mind your statement cowboy , but please
you really should realize that constitutional law was my minor in college .... so
ok judgy, where did I say CONSUME. Try to stick to the overall theme, next you will attack my position because I mispelled a word or did not use proper punctuation.
You know the point I was making and have yet to refute the actual point. And I really don't care what you claim on the internet to be your specialty, it does not give you any more right to an opinion or to denigrate a person because they have an opposing opinion.

“ASPIRE 2 INSPIRE B4 U EXPIRE”

Level 8

Since: Jul 08

USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#779
Jan 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

tallyho wrote:
<quoted text>
bull shit I just did and you bring up the 18th , now point out consumption
No, YOU brought up the 18th, I merely posted the actual verbiage of the Amendment. NOWHERE did I lay claim to the word CONSUME. You are just being your usual arrogant self. You think that you and only you have the right answers and the right to an opinion, because you supposedly have a degree in something and supposedly was a professional legal scholar. You are being obtuse and deflecting from the content of my original post in an effort to belittle me and not actually have to format a reply to the overall content of the original post. I may not have your supposed education or legal experience, but I do have the right to my own opinion and the right to express it here, regardless of what you think of it.

“....VETS”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

WELCOME HOME

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#780
Jan 22, 2013
 
REDNECK HIPPIE wrote:
<quoted text>
ok judgy, where did I say CONSUME. Try to stick to the overall theme, next you will attack my position because I mispelled a word or did not use proper punctuation.
You know the point I was making and have yet to refute the actual point. And I really don't care what you claim on the internet to be your specialty, it does not give you any more right to an opinion or to denigrate a person because they have an opposing opinion.
Alcohol WAS banned, look at how that turned out.

“....VETS”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

WELCOME HOME

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#781
Jan 22, 2013
 
REDNECK HIPPIE wrote:
<quoted text>
No, YOU brought up the 18th, I merely posted the actual verbiage of the Amendment. NOWHERE did I lay claim to the word CONSUME. You are just being your usual arrogant self. You think that you and only you have the right answers and the right to an opinion, because you supposedly have a degree in something and supposedly was a professional legal scholar. You are being obtuse and deflecting from the content of my original post in an effort to belittle me and not actually have to format a reply to the overall content of the original post. I may not have your supposed education or legal experience, but I do have the right to my own opinion and the right to express it here, regardless of what you think of it.
I said manufacture/selling of alcohol was was declared illegal , not the consumption ... but do remember this the amendment was repealed .......Twenty-first Amendment

you recognize 21st...??? in digits

“ASPIRE 2 INSPIRE B4 U EXPIRE”

Level 8

Since: Jul 08

USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#782
Jan 22, 2013
 
tallyho wrote:
<quoted text>
Alcohol WAS banned, look at how that turned out.
I then clarified it for you, since you pointed out that consumption was not banned. So, just to be clear I posted the EXACT verbiage from the Amendment and you still insisted on being obtuse and not addressing the actual point i was making.
So once again, I will say that the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Is that precise enough for you judge.
Look how that turned out, more crime, more wasted tax money, more bureaucracy and an eventual overturning of the Amendment.
We have banned the manufacture, sale, distribution and consumption (is that precise enough) of a multitude of substances and look how that turned out. More crime, more wasted tax money, more bureaucracy and no appreciable dent in the drug trade. The war on drugs is a joke.
We have banned prostitution (except in limited locals) and look at how that turned out. More crime, more wasted tax money, more bureaucracy and the trafficking in human flesh still is going strong.
So the banning of guns or even the limiting of types of guns will not really solve the issue of violence perpetrated by criminals with guns.

That was my original post, so lets see if you can remain on topic and not nitpick the verbiage.

“ASPIRE 2 INSPIRE B4 U EXPIRE”

Level 8

Since: Jul 08

USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#783
Jan 22, 2013
 
tallyho wrote:
<quoted text>
I said manufacture/selling of alcohol was was declared illegal , not the consumption ... but do remember this the amendment was repealed .......Twenty-first Amendment
you recognize 21st...??? in digits
YES, YES, YES, that was my point, or did it just sail right over your head. They banned all but the CONSUMPTION (is that precise enough) of alcoholic beverages and it worked so well to stem the flow of alcoholic beverages, that they had to issue another Amendment to repeal the 18th. So look how well that worked out and the almighty government wants to ban certain guns or all guns from the public, in the interest of public safety. Based on past experience with banning certain things from the general public, I don't think that it will have a positive effect on the use of guns by criminals and predators against the general public.

“ASPIRE 2 INSPIRE B4 U EXPIRE”

Level 8

Since: Jul 08

USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#785
Jan 22, 2013
 
Correctly attributed. Does the author of a piece change the validity of the argument.

March 23, 2007 by Marko Kloos
why the gun is civilization.

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force. The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat–it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed. People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level. The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation…and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#786
Jan 22, 2013
 
QuiteCrazy wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe so. And I am not stomping on their rights to make a living. But if you were a reporter and someone said to you, "M69, this causes a wave effect, in other words potential shooters are craving this attention. Usually shooters are loners, outcasts. The medias attention to one shooter only assured the that if they succeed they will definitely achieve this goal. So M69 if you could possibly stop a potential threat to another elementary or HS or theater but not feeding this beast... would you.. stop?"
Stopping would not sell newspapers.

It's easy to flaw the media for sensationalism; however, who were the first ones to glue themselves to the TV set during 9-1-1, the Kennedy funeral, the Inauguration and other historical events? Raise your hand...

The media are not the bad guys - does it perhaps get out of hand? Sure...but where do you draw the line? One way or another, people are going to get their information from somewhere - and 9 times out of 10 it's sensationalized.

What causes the wave effect is not the media - afterall, it would be really hard for me to immitate a kite without the ability to fly.

In other words, seek the root cause.

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#787
Jan 22, 2013
 
REDNECK HIPPIE wrote:
<quoted text>
I was merely pointing out that banning things has never ever resulted in them not being available or used.Banning guns will NOT result in less guns, or less gun violence. Just look at Chicago as an example.Most restrictive gun laws in the land and an extremely high incident of gun violence and death from gun use.
That is not the issue. No one ever said they were going to ban ALL firearms or guns - putting restrictions on assault weapons would not infringe on your right to own a gun. You're unfairly generalizing your comments to build a one-sided debate. I've already spoken my peace on Chicago - the most mismanaged city in America, with the second largest police force.

As far as banning anything, let's use tobacco, ok? Back in the 70's they took away advertisement rights from tobacco companies - for good reason - lung cancer was the leading cause of death in the US at the time. Lung cancer still remains in the top ten, however it has been overtaken by heart desease and diabetes. Banning assault weapons would not end the violence, but I for one would think my chances are a lot better in a gunfight with my handgun versus another handgun instead of versus an AK. See my point?

I'm not looking to take away your weapons - on the contrary - I actually want you to buy more, a lot more - and I want the governemnt to increase the taxes on any ammunition or guns by 300-500%. Then and only then will we be able to afford to pay for armed guards in my grandson's school the NRA so proudly suggested.

“"Always Thinking"”

Level 8

Since: Nov 12

Greensburg, IN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#788
Jan 22, 2013
 
If the government wanted to ban whats killing more people than anything else on earth they should make all retail restaurants and groceries serve and sell food good for you, but then that's impossible as long as government subsidizes farmers and they keep pushing all the chemicals down livestock and changing the chemical structure on our vegetables.

“....VETS”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

WELCOME HOME

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#789
Jan 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

REDNECK HIPPIE wrote:
<quoted text>
I then clarified it for you, since you pointed out that consumption was not banned. So, just to be clear I posted the EXACT verbiage from the Amendment and you still insisted on being obtuse and not addressing the actual point i was making.
So once again, I will say that the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Is that precise enough for you judge.
Look how that turned out, more crime, more wasted tax money, more bureaucracy and an eventual overturning of the Amendment.
We have banned the manufacture, sale, distribution and consumption (is that precise enough) of a multitude of substances and look how that turned out. More crime, more wasted tax money, more bureaucracy and no appreciable dent in the drug trade. The war on drugs is a joke.
We have banned prostitution (except in limited locals) and look at how that turned out. More crime, more wasted tax money, more bureaucracy and the trafficking in human flesh still is going strong.
So the banning of guns or even the limiting of types of guns will not really solve the issue of violence perpetrated by criminals with guns.
That was my original post, so lets see if you can remain on topic and not nitpick the verbiage.
but I wasn't talking about the other garbage you use to justify your pov on guns .... I careless i addressed the consumption ... so what is the prob , say thanks and move on .... naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah not your style you wish to drag this thread out as long as you can ..hey GOOD LUCK

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 761 - 780 of838
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

106 Users are viewing the Weird Forum right now

Search the Weird Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Why does Laura Beth keep signing her posts as ~... (May '10) 10 min Beth S 186
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 16 min wondering 111,744
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 23 min wichita-rick 140,349
For Dear FlowerChild (Dec '07) 37 min Will Dockery 23,693
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 58 min Trouser Cough 53,711
What are you wearing today? (Nov '09) 1 hr SUG here 11,628
Word Association (Jun '10) 1 hr curiouslu 25,799
Should Topx sue Trolls 1 hr _Word Woman_ 14
What is the meaning of life? 2 hr cjt12 29
How to become Unbannable 4 hr SLACK 71
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 5 hr last_call 14,113
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••