Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Gun Control      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 BulldogMedic
Joined: 12/31/2004
Msg: 51
Re: Gun ControlPage 3 of 50    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41)
Uh huh. Whatever. "Exclusive", alright. like the short bus.

I agree with you on the masonic thing, by the way. Not that it changes a single thing. But, I agree. That's like having Snoopy on the dollar. No one could give a rat's ass. (As long as it's not the Queen Mum!)
 woodrow9876
Joined: 12/29/2004
Msg: 52
view profile
History
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 1/14/2005 10:42:44 PM

Canada, on the other hand, doesn't dare to stick up for itself.


Uh, didn't we win a war against you guys a few years back? Sit down or I sit hat trick on all y'all...
 BulldogMedic
Joined: 12/31/2004
Msg: 53
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 1/14/2005 10:45:54 PM
You did? I'm not good at history. So, enlighten me! Which war was this?

BTW, hat rick only excels at the use of "..."

Three word sentence...Four word sentence....
 hat_trick55
Joined: 5/6/2004
Msg: 54
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 1/14/2005 10:54:55 PM
sweet jesus your slow today......ill say it for ya one more time cheeseburg....its the queen, not here mom......ya ya ya, whats the diff......none i suppose...but the great seal...featuring that all seeing eye of horus speaks volumes.....i know you dont care....like they say though, the eyes see only what the mind can comprehend.......NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM.....you really ready for that stuff cheeseburg......
 woodrow9876
Joined: 12/29/2004
Msg: 55
view profile
History
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 1/14/2005 10:55:02 PM
1812.

It's okay, we haven't heard a peep out of you buggers since... so it's all good on our end.
 hat_trick55
Joined: 5/6/2004
Msg: 56
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 1/14/2005 11:01:23 PM
sorry if you dont like the abbreviations in the structure of the sentence itself, or my frequent use of ....'s, its just that its a bit quicker. Also I would contest that you get the just of what it is im trying to convey to you. BTW, hat rick only excels at the use of "..." how old are you cheeseburg???.....I wouldd expect my 11 year old nephew to come up with a retort like that
 BulldogMedic
Joined: 12/31/2004
Msg: 57
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 1/14/2005 11:04:54 PM
I agree, it's not as good as "cheeseburg", god only knows what fetish came into play on that one, but I'll keep trying, kiddo. :)
 hat_trick55
Joined: 5/6/2004
Msg: 58
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 1/14/2005 11:08:52 PM
well its like this....when i look at certian people or things....images come to mind.....when i see red car i think of a race...............................when i see g dubya shrub w bush jr. i see a chimp..............when i see your pic i think of cheeseburgers.........you strike me as a big fan of processed foods, thats all.........no offence
 woodrow9876
Joined: 12/29/2004
Msg: 59
view profile
History
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 1/14/2005 11:10:21 PM
Okay, hat_trick...you know the drill...jersey over the head, take the five minute major...beers on me after the game...
 hat_trick55
Joined: 5/6/2004
Msg: 60
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 1/14/2005 11:13:17 PM
oh, and it was you made a reference to God and a sexual connotation with food all in the same sentence!!!! your a conservative through and through LMFAO


ill take the 5 for that, sure!...hey cheeseburg, when im done, wood and i will buy you a beer too...hate to see ya drinkin that american PISS
 woodrow9876
Joined: 12/29/2004
Msg: 61
view profile
History
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 1/14/2005 11:18:32 PM
What goes on the ice...stays on the ice.

Beers all around.
 hat_trick55
Joined: 5/6/2004
Msg: 62
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 1/14/2005 11:24:08 PM
agreed wood....................wouldnt it be fun to have a POF hockey game...now i know america is leaps and bounds better then we are....at everything!.....or so ive been told....but there is one thing that we rule at!....the mans game.......hockey!!!....thats ice hockey for any confused yanks......i only wish i could afford it, i would set it up...procedes go to the people of iraq................you in cheeseburg?
 woodrow9876
Joined: 12/29/2004
Msg: 63
view profile
History
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 1/14/2005 11:41:33 PM
Oh, yeah, that would be HUGE, guy...game like this, you gotta want to be playing on defence... Big hits, heads down...
 hat_trick55
Joined: 5/6/2004
Msg: 64
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 1/14/2005 11:46:59 PM
I play D man!!!! right side......ill have to get out my scott stevens tapes and play some rage lol
 woodrow9876
Joined: 12/29/2004
Msg: 65
view profile
History
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 1/15/2005 12:02:20 AM
Fookin A!!!! Leftie here, usually on the wing, but I'll play on your d-line :D

Man, you gotta be a rugby player...

PS- Gotta love a gun control debate turning into a hockey game...gimme back my NHL...
 woodrow9876
Joined: 12/29/2004
Msg: 66
view profile
History
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 1/15/2005 5:37:45 AM

Who did you say won woodrow?? Looks like neither side came away with a clear cut victory and the war was with England not Canada. That was because they claimed Canada as their own territory. Check your facts!!!


Sheesh...man. First off, it was said tongue in cheek. Secondly, you're quotiing a source that lists the 'success' of the states as Madison telling the US they won before any battles finished, and then suggests they're winners because the country had a 'good feeling'? Man, if that's how you measure success in war, maybe you really do believe Iraq is a huge victory... But nevermind that big guy, here's the history lesson...

The united states was upset with the British for what amounted to shipping and trade issues. The 'war' went as follows.

June 1812 : Madison gets a declaration of war from congress

Attacks from America at Montreal/Lake Champlain, Niagara, and Detroit all fail...Detroit fails to the point where British take over the motor city.

1813: More attacks from the U.S., notably again in Montreal and Niagara...fail. U.S. does however retake Detroit

1814: British troops sent in great numbers to Canada, essentially putting the U.S. into a very dangerous position. British were successful to the point where they marched on to Washington, apparently, and burned many public buildings. A loss in NY convinced the British to reestablish their lines in Canada.

They signed a peace treaty (ghent) agreeing basically to the same borders/trade agreements that they had before they began the war.

The "new orleans" battle they're talking about was not part of this war...the treaty already signed.

Facts are easy, check your propaganda.
 woodrow9876
Joined: 12/29/2004
Msg: 67
view profile
History
Re: Gun Control
Posted: 1/15/2005 5:59:53 AM
Riiiiiiiiight big guy.

Look...I have this aversion to explaining obvious matters more than once. Needless to say, up here in Canada, we take great pleasure in noting that the only time our two nations had a little tiff, we kinda kicked your asses back to the States. I say that joking (as I did originally here)...but generally speaking when you declare war, invade, get repelled and then sign a treaty with zero gains...it ain't exactly a slam dunk.

Either way, why not go back to arguing the various merits of citizen-owned a***nals? Much more your cup of tea, I think.
 msquared
Joined: 8/31/2004
Msg: 68
view profile
History
Gun Control
Posted: 1/15/2005 11:27:03 AM
You might want to brush up on your history studies, HonestyRules.
 woodrow9876
Joined: 12/29/2004
Msg: 69
view profile
History
Gun Control
Posted: 1/15/2005 11:31:23 AM
While I have absolutely no idea what was just said in the above post, and no particular interest in what 'launguage' (sic) either he's using or referring to, I would like to applaud the previous poster for one thing...


You guys are crazy if you think canada won any war and the fact is that when america had it's civil war the frenchy,s that couldn't fight ran up to canada and made their own country (also no french or canadian would ever talk about is that they killed most if not all the native people of the land, so not just the americans are murderers of native people) then years later the frenchy's tried to come back and take over some of the land in america which they could not do.


That is possibly the most awkward sentence ever constructed in the history of the written word. I'm serious. Ever. I mean you could probably put a grammarian into a coma if you forced them to read that. I tried to copy it out on paper, just for posterity, and half-way through had to stop because I got an uncontrollable urge to shove the pen in my ear, just to stop the pain...

Bravo sir. Bravo. I swear to god, if you actually can speak like that, without prompting or notes...you are sitting on millions my man...hit the comedy circuit immediately.

I mean it...immediately...go on...right now...
 msquared
Joined: 8/31/2004
Msg: 71
view profile
History
Gun Control
Posted: 1/15/2005 11:52:41 AM

why don't you give me a reason why the french adopted the english launguage


The majority of Canadians aren't French. By the way, you might not be aware of this, but your US ancestors might not have won their fight for independance against England without help from France.


Also would you agree that the frenchy's killed the native people or did the native's just fall off the edge of the world.


It was settlers from France, England, and Spain who killed the native people.


Also how come 95 percent of your products are imported to america and if we stopped buying them your country would go in anarchy.


Other countries would buy our stuff. We wouldn't be as well off, but we would hardly be in anarchy. And good luck getting by without our imports, being as a large portion of the food you eat comes from Canada.

Like I said, brush up on your history. Also, this has nothing to do with gun control, so if you want to continue this, please start another thread on it.
 woodrow9876
Joined: 12/29/2004
Msg: 72
view profile
History
Gun Control
Posted: 1/15/2005 12:01:01 PM

... The war of 1812 was fought between the US and the British. ...details snipped out... .... So once again woodrow how did Canada beat anyone when Canadians did not fight and they were not even their own country and had no government at that time. It appears to me that you, like many here in the US, have swallowed some sort of national propaganda instead of finding out the facts for yourself.


Yup..this is the war I was talking about...first off...very good. We've studied it up here as part of our Canadian history curriculum, believe it or not.

Canada, as you kept referring to it in your post, was a British colony...it was shared with France, for a considerable amount of time, but at the time of U.S. failed invasions of 1812 or thereabouts, they were invading 'Upper and Lower Canada". Upper and Lower Canada (what basically is now considered to be Ontario and Quebec) was considered a British colony...a nation.

As to your assertions about Canada's being a country at the time, you're wrong. Keep reading...so far so good...you got many of the basic facts right...just need to keep at it. Reading comprehension is a long, hard road.

Oh, and Honesty, if it helps at all...I have no problem with misplaced commas...it's just that with sentences like the one I pointed out, it's what appears on either side of 'em is entirely incomprehendable.
 woodrow9876
Joined: 12/29/2004
Msg: 73
view profile
History
Gun Control
Posted: 1/15/2005 12:18:54 PM
Honesty, I'm sorry if you think I was calling into question anything other than how you were expressing yourself in those posts. I don't think less of you or anyone else because of how you do your thing here, and it's by no means something I point out with any intention other than 'what the F%ck were you saying?'.

I don't suggest you're anything less than hard working, well intentioned (if misguided) and, unless that photo is 'pre-op'...a man. I don't consider your education (never occured to me to wonder) nor your socio-economic status, and anything I'm saying about a particular thing you've said is limited in scope only to that one thing, and is not a judgement of you beyond that.

Don't go judging me either though...as I resemble nothing of what you described above.
 ASB
Joined: 9/17/2003
Msg: 74
Gun Control
Posted: 1/15/2005 7:13:52 PM
Guns don't kill people. People kill people. I have my gun card and I love it. Keep them locked away from children and learn how to use it, and it's fine. Anything can be abused. It's just a matter of being responsible enough about it.
 MasterBart
Joined: 6/20/2004
Msg: 75
view profile
History
Gun Control
Posted: 1/16/2005 2:54:24 PM
OK, so how is it again that we went from gun control to sushi and mountain oysters (cow testicles, if I'm not mistaken?)?

But back to the subject. I've gone through and dug out some posts in favor of gun control since my last post. Unfortunately, they've all come from the same guy. So, I'm not trying to pick on anyone, it's just that the really good debate has come from the same source every time. Congrats to Woodrow -- your points aren't easy to shoot down, but here's my rebuttals. Regarding message #:


# 117
[1]There seems to be this unquestioned assumption that military hardware is necessary for a citizen to own.
[2]I know there are laws about fully automatic weapons, but so weak that they are laughable and easily over-ridden
[3]The liklihood is much greater that a gun in the home will be used against its owner than it will to defend someone.
[4]The NRA fights desperately against measures such as fingerprinting safety locks and other technologies to ensure a gun is used only by its owner.


[1]Actually, this is not an "unquestioned assumption". Most people are in favor of gun control, at least to some degree, and even those who are against it are thinking of reversing laws against things like full-auto, large magazines ("clips") or short-barrel shotguns, not rocket launchers and stuff.
[2]What are these arguments? Indeed, one does not need an AK-47 to hunt Bambi, and sub-machine guns are overkill for self-/home defense unless you're in the Mafia. The reason they should be legal is, as several have pointed out, protection against others who may have similar weapons, such as the tyrants we call the "authorities". More on that later.
[3]I had to omit your quoted sources to save space. How much more likely? How reliable are the sources for this info? Why do you think this is, and are there alternative measures that can be used to change these stats, other than "gun control"?
[4]I know nothing of the NRA, but I despise all ID technology. I dislike the idea of State-issue "Driver Licences", Social Security #'s, retinal-scan devices in ATM's, facial-recognition technology (especially as used in traffic control... think I'm joking?), voice-recognition technology, and fingerprint technology. Regarding the last one, I don't want my thumbprint on my checks, encoded on the magnetic strip on my "Driver License", and certainly not on a microchip which locks up my gun case.



# 120
1. Should the police decide to abuse their power... in such a way that they're coming after you...the police are gonna come out on top. Personally, that makes me feel just a little bit safer at night, but hey, that's just me.

2. [ditto for military]


I'm probably being assinine, because I don't think you really wanted your statement to come out sounding like this. (Yes I did omit the middle of the sentence, but I tried not the change the meaning of it when doing so.) Frankly, I don't like the idea of the police always "coming out on top". I know the sentiment... that we need mature & responsible people to enforce the laws and ensure domestic peace, and that in order for them to do so they must be better armed than the people they're up against. I just happen to adamently oppose this sentiment.

Guns do intimidate people, and always will whether the entire country is disarmed, or if only the police are armed, or if the police are better armed than most, or if everyone is free to carry whatever they please and everyone's armed. There was a guy who'd walk around my college campus wearing jeans, a plaid shirt (everytime!), a .45 revolver in a holster prominently displayed, and wore no badge. Nobody questioned this guy, asked if he was a cop, not even the campus security. I'm sure he was a cop, but who knows? Now, what if that were the standard everywhere? I think most would be criminals would change careers if people were routinely and openly armed.

As for the military: the Constitution of the united States prohibits domestic use of the military for policing functions (although there are movements to subvert this, as most people have no clue as to what's in the Constitution, and most will trust our politicians to override it in any ways "necessary"). So, what happens is that we have militarized police. And I don't feel the least bit safe at night (or in the daytime) knowing that none of my neighbors has anything more powerful than a semi-auto rifle with limited rounds, while a SWAT van cruises the streets. As in a bulletproof van, filled w/ guys wearing body armor and carrying sub-machine guns, plus a host of other civilian-incapacitators.



# 121
[compiled]
(in 1994) 1,356 accidental deaths by gunshot in 1994, 185 involved children under 15 [under 14%]
average annual instances of "DGU's"* = 108,000
*DGU= "Defensive Gun Use"; e.g. someone using a gun to scare off a would-be criminal, without shooting them

There are about 340,000 reported firearms thefts every year... thus, the old credo "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is silly.

A study of 743 gunshot deaths found that 84% of these homicides occurred during altercations in the home. Only 2 of the 743 gunshot deaths occurring in the home involved an intruder killed during an attempted entry, and only 9 of the deaths were determined by police/courts to be justified. In 1993, there were 24,526 people murdered, 13,980 with handguns, yet only 251 justifiable homicides by civilians using handguns.


So in one year, 108,000 people ensure the safety of themself and/or their family just by HAVING a gun, not even using it. This does not include the stats on the number of people who *actively* defend their home with a firearm, just those who threaten to. And this is outweighed by 185 accidental shootings of children? I mean, I feel sorry for those kids, I do, but how many children would have been killed if civilians weren't allowed to have the gun to scare the robber off with?

If there are 340k gun thefts every year, what are the net sales? Do you really think that if guns are no longer available to the average citizen, that criminals will soon be unarmed?

The last clusterf**k of stats has a LOT of potential, but has flaws. 743 homicides is a small study. Also I don't trust the courts to determine what is or is not justified, as the courts are nothing more than a money-making scheme, and their goal is to make everybody guilty, and then make everybody pay.

=================================

SO IF SOMEONE WANTS TO MAKE A RESPONSE TO THIS, ANSWER ME THIS:
IF YOU REMOVE "GUN CONTROL" AS A SOLUTION TO THE "PROBLEMS" WITH GUNS, WHAT KIND OF SOLUTIONS SHOULD WE COME UP WITH? HOW DO WE "EDUCATE" PEOPLE ABOUT GUN SAFETY, AND HOW SHOULD HONEST, DECENT, LAW-ABIDING (ARMED) CITIZENS GO ABOUT ENSURING THAT CHILDREN, RETARDS, AND PSYCHOS DON'T HAVE EASY ACCESS TO GUNS?
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > Gun Control