Only cowards need guns

Posted in the Weird Forum

Comments (Page 162)

Showing posts 3,221 - 3,240 of7,306
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Level 4

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3380
Feb 12, 2013
 
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
apples oranges.
firearms = suicides where there would otherwise be none.
Clean the brains off the wall of a friend and get back to me.
I didnít think it were possible to be as ignorant as you. Iíve clearly shown substantially higher suicide rates in nations with nearly no firearms in the hands of civilians.

Despite that you firmly believe if we donít have firearms we wouldnít have the suicides we have today. How do you manage that conclusion? Someone intent on ending their life will find a way with or without firearms.

Do you ever get out of your trailer to explore the world first hand or do you simply watch it on television. You surely have no real life experience.

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3381
Feb 12, 2013
 
eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
I didnít say they took lives, now did I? The point is, does the government have the right to require you to use them? Itís your life, your decision.
This is your difficulty. You view result as justification to government intrusion rather than leave the consequences of bad decision to the people. In the case of seatbelts youíre not completely sure where that should be.
I ask the baited questions to force you to carefully reconsider the positions youíve taken on government intrusion.
Now apply this to the smoking in a restaurant on private property. If the owner wants to be inviting to smokers and non-smokers he/she will have to make accommodations for both. If the owner chooses to shun the non-smokers by allowing smoking through the entire establishment that too should be his/her decision.
At the same time, if the restaurant is leasing the building then the owner of the building should be able to deny smoking on his property. Itís not the role of government to control a legal action on private property.
What you do in the privacy of your own home is your business. As for a public place or business, it's a little different. Like I said, if you would choose to allow smoking in your restaurant, I wouldn't imagine your business would be around for very long in today's environment. Banning smoking in public places is, IMHO, a good idea. Does it infringe on your rights? It depends, I guess - are you open to the public? I mean if you want to kill yourself, why take the long, drawn out method of Mesothelioma? The Golden Gate Bridge welcomes temporary visitors each and everyday.

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3382
Feb 12, 2013
 
*wouldn't be around

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3383
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
How often does that happen? I remember when most cars didnít have seatbelts. We didnít have dead children lying all over the place.
Ahhhhh...but we also didn't have a few other things either:

1. A population of drivers of less than 50,000,000 as opposed to 190,625,023 licensed drivers in the United States in 2000.
2. A system of roads that didn't support high sustained freeway speeds as they do today.
3. Cars that didn't handle like the vehicles of today.

Automobile death rates of today are no where near the death rates that they were back in 1966.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.s._traffi...

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Level 4

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3384
Feb 12, 2013
 
milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>
What you do in the privacy of your own home is your business. As for a public place or business, it's a little different. Like I said, if you would choose to allow smoking in your restaurant, I wouldn't imagine your business would be around for very long in today's environment. Banning smoking in public places is, IMHO, a good idea. Does it infringe on your rights? It depends, I guess - are you open to the public? I mean if you want to kill yourself, why take the long, drawn out method of Mesothelioma? The Golden Gate Bridge welcomes temporary visitors each and everyday.
The problem is most business are *NOT* public places. Theyíre private property open to the public.

The exceptions would be businesses operating in or on government owned property.

I wouldnít allow smoking if I owned a restaurant. I find it a distasteful vile habit. But, I do recognize the rights of individuals.

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Level 4

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3385
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahhhhh...but we also didn't have a few other things either:
1. A population of drivers of less than 50,000,000 as opposed to 190,625,023 licensed drivers in the United States in 2000.
2. A system of roads that didn't support high sustained freeway speeds as they do today.
3. Cars that didn't handle like the vehicles of today.
Automobile death rates of today are no where near the death rates that they were back in 1966.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.s._traffi...
Do you believe as population grows we must diminish the rights of individuals to accommodate the population?

On the highways, theyíre far safer today. Youíre much less likely to be involved in a crash today than years ago. You must go with fatalities per million miles travelled and crashes per 100,000 to obtain accurate information comparing the time periods.

Cars are much safer today than before. With or without wearing the belt.

You still discount the right of the individual to make poor choices.

“Why call 911? 1911 is faster”

Level 4

Since: Feb 08

Wesley Chapel, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3386
Feb 12, 2013
 
milwaukee69 wrote:
*wouldn't be around
I knew what you meant and didnít intend to be critical of the typo. We all make those. I did a couple of dandy errors posting from my iPhone yesterday. Completely misread one post.

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3387
Feb 12, 2013
 
eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is most business are *NOT* public places. Theyíre private property open to the public.
The exceptions would be businesses operating in or on government owned property.
I wouldnít allow smoking if I owned a restaurant. I find it a distasteful vile habit. But, I do recognize the rights of individuals.
Oh I beg to differ - most businesses, heck that seems way to low, are open to the public. It's kind of a prerequisite for making money I think. Ever since they proved that second hand smoke is just as much dangerous as smoking itself, smoking has reduced in this country - I mean it is the main reason for smoking bans. When your freedom or habit starts to endanger the lives of other "non-participating" people, I would hope someone would step in. Whether it's the government or the voters - it's the right thing to do.

I'd like to get a smoker's opinion piece on this - we are, afterall, "non participants."

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3388
Feb 12, 2013
 
eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
I knew what you meant and didnít intend to be critical of the typo. We all make those. I did a couple of dandy errors posting from my iPhone yesterday. Completely misread one post.
Yeah, but it's always after pushing the post button that you notice those things, lol.
Force Majeure

Sweden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3389
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
The point is, does the government have the right to require you to use them? Itís your life, your decision.
Your decision? I suppose you think it's infraction of the rights of airline pilots who are refused a pilots license just because they have epilepsy?
eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>This is your difficulty. You view result as justification to government intrusion rather than leave the consequences of bad decision to the people.
Your difficulty is that you can't see past your nose and you don't want to learn how to see any further than that either. If your control of an automobile is impared then you are a risk to your passengers and to all others in traffic.
eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
How often does that happen?
Children through the windscreen? It doesn't happen now that seat belts are mandatory. Strange coincidence, huh?

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3390
Feb 12, 2013
 
eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you believe as population grows we must diminish the rights of individuals to accommodate the population?
On the highways, theyíre far safer today. Youíre much less likely to be involved in a crash today than years ago. You must go with fatalities per million miles travelled and crashes per 100,000 to obtain accurate information comparing the time periods.
Cars are much safer today than before. With or without wearing the belt.
You still discount the right of the individual to make poor choices.
You also must take into account that the stopping power of today's anti-lock brake systems are far superior to that of the old Kelsey-Hayes braking systems of the 1960's. Wearing a seatbelt nowadays keeps your behind well planted during hard braking. Seat belts are just one thing that has improved safety - proof? Just try to buy a car nowadays without them, airbags, anti-lock brakes, etc. They don't sell "farmer's specials" anymore.

Actually, you are 50% less likely to die of a serious automobile crash wearing seatbelts than if you don't. And lastly, I wouldn't drive my two-year old grandson anywhere without firmly and correctly buckling him in to his car seat.

I guess it is personal choice - and I choose to be here tomorrow.

“If it ain't broke don't fix it”

Level 9

Since: Jul 09

Portsmouth, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3391
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Shakalaka wrote:
<quoted text>
Anyone capable of reading with an iota of comprehension will not find in my text "white people are the only ones with guns" God DaMN man!
I said... white folk are setting a fine example for others to come out shooting because white folk are the ones shooting up theaters, schools, shopping centers and churches. I'm not a racist...I just don't like white people and for that very reason. You can't read worth a shit.(smooches)
Speaing of can't read worth a sh#t, you obviously don't know how to read a newspaper if all you see in the news is white "folk" shooting up places.

Level 5

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3392
Feb 12, 2013
 
au contraire wrote:
2008, Obama
Nothing you say is true, Dumbo.

And everything you say is off topic and cross posted DUMBOSPAM.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3393
Feb 12, 2013
 
milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>There's 2 minutes of my life I'll never get back again.

You never did read the whole story of the shooting, did you? Had the partition and the security line not been there, more people would have been shot. The two women he did shoot and kill were shot outside the gun free zone of the courthouse.

Most teachers are in a union nowadays - in order to arm them it must pass the rank and file first. Regardless of whether or not they are given the go ahead to carry firearms, it would have to be ratified first.

You have not proven it would've been any better had it not been a gun free zone. The guy killed his ex-wife as a result of a bitter custody battle - the gun free zone never played a part in this shooting.

http://news.yahoo.com/del-police-continue-pro...
From your own link:
"While this shooting is notable for the fact that it took place inside a state courthouse, there are some aspects of this incident that are, unfortunately, all too common," Markell said in a statement.
So, I'm the one that didn't read the whole story of the shooting huh?
It's not just the courtroom that is gun free smart guy. The entire courthouse, and any government building is a gun free zone for civilians.

You make this too easy!

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3394
Feb 12, 2013
 
milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>What you do in the privacy of your own home is your business. As for a public place or business, it's a little different. Like I said, if you would choose to allow smoking in your restaurant, I wouldn't imagine your business would be around for very long in today's environment. Banning smoking in public places is, IMHO, a good idea. Does it infringe on your rights? It depends, I guess - are you open to the public? I mean if you want to kill yourself, why take the long, drawn out method of Mesothelioma? The Golden Gate Bridge welcomes temporary visitors each and everyday.
If someone allows smoking in their business, and people choose not to patronize that business, that can force the business owner to disallow smoking. That is the way it should be. Government should not be making that decision for the business owner.

Tell barefoot2626 your theory about the Golden Gate Bridge. If there's no gun involved, I don't think you're going to convince him/her/it.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3395
Feb 12, 2013
 
milwaukee69 wrote:
<quoted text>Oh I beg to differ - most businesses, heck that seems way to low, are open to the public. It's kind of a prerequisite for making money I think. Ever since they proved that second hand smoke is just as much dangerous as smoking itself, smoking has reduced in this country - I mean it is the main reason for smoking bans. When your freedom or habit starts to endanger the lives of other "non-participating" people, I would hope someone would step in. Whether it's the government or the voters - it's the right thing to do.

I'd like to get a smoker's opinion piece on this - we are, afterall, "non participants."
Being open to the public, and being public property are two completely different things.

The public is welcome not to expose themselves to second hand smoke by taking their business elsewhere.

I don't go to businesses that allow smoking. I don't go to businesses that post as a gun free zone. I don't buy products made in China if a made in USA alternative is available. See how that works?
Crazy Jae

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3396
Feb 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Only cowards need sex!

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3397
Feb 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dr-Sniper wrote:
<quoted text>
If someone allows smoking in their business, and people choose not to patronize that business, that can force the business owner to disallow smoking. That is the way it should be. Government should not be making that decision for the business owner.
Tell barefoot2626 your theory about the Golden Gate Bridge. If there's no gun involved, I don't think you're going to convince him/her/it.
It's unfortunate that you live in the wrong country - I hear Afghanastan allows smoking in all public places. You should give it try. But of course second hand smoke wouldn't be the only thing you and your camel would have to worry about.

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3398
Feb 13, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Dr-Sniper wrote:
<quoted text>See how that works?
As a matter of fact I do - you're an idiot.

“I know where you are,”

Level 8

Since: Jun 08

Right here under my thumb

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3399
Feb 13, 2013
 
eternal cynic wrote:
<quoted text>
I didnít say they took lives, now did I? The point is, does the government have the right to require you to use them? Itís your life, your decision.
This is your difficulty. You view result as justification to government intrusion rather than leave the consequences of bad decision to the people. In the case of seatbelts youíre not completely sure where that should be.
I ask the baited questions to force you to carefully reconsider the positions youíve taken on government intrusion.
Now apply this to the smoking in a restaurant on private property. If the owner wants to be inviting to smokers and non-smokers he/she will have to make accommodations for both. If the owner chooses to shun the non-smokers by allowing smoking through the entire establishment that too should be his/her decision.
At the same time, if the restaurant is leasing the building then the owner of the building should be able to deny smoking on his property. Itís not the role of government to control a legal action on private property.
But see the same people that complain the government shouldn't get involved with personal choices are the same individuals that complain about the high cost of health care and automobile insurance. You can't have it both ways. When you are in your car and driving down the highway, you are not on private property - you are on a federal highway.

Lastly - it's not the government that sets up smoking bans - it's the voters - you, me, everyone.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 3,221 - 3,240 of7,306
|
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.

220 Users are viewing the Weird Forum right now

Search the Weird Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
LOVE and OTHER BRUISES (Apr '12) 2 min Ozzie 1,251
+=Keep 1 Drop 1=+ 3 STACK (Mar '13) 11 min pizzed 6,785
Marine Biologist: 6th-Grader Stole My Idea 11 min Instigator 1
FREE hot dogs on National Hot Dog Day 13 min nickbo13 3
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 14 min Portland Pizza Roll 14,840
what are you eatin'? (Mar '13) 22 min Instigator 2,376
Word goes to the Movies (Nov '08) 25 min Ozzie 13,988
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Ozzie 141,208
The Night Owl Saloon (Jun '11) 3 hr Maverick 808 15,586
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 3 hr Big dawg 34,930
•••
•••