The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

When is it gonna end? This is getting too screwed up. Someone has to tell the gun owners they HAVE to lock up their guns. http://www.alternet.org/flo

Rolyo85 said:
That is grammatically incorrect. It most certainly does not give "one possible reason". It gives THE reason: "We need a well regulated militia, so they should have guns". It is the ONLY reason given, not an example.
Click to expand...

That contradicts both the proper use of grammar of the time as well as the debates around the amendment -- e.g., some offered versions listed up to three reasons. They chose to list the paramount reason because they assumed everyone knew the others.

The actual grammar of the Amendment works out as "The people have an inherent right to keep and bear arms, and it's in the state's interest to protect that because it provides security." That doesn't mean there are no other reasons, and it doesn't mean that any reason is needed -- as both sides in the ratification debate agreed.

Rolyo85 said:
Except, the government IS the people. Nowhere in the amendment is there a separation between the people and their government. And the police and army are most certainly NOT a parallel to a noble's private troops, as much as you want to keep painting the government as some "other", as a proto-tyranical force that is just a step away from attacking its own citizens.

Seriously, all this paranoia must be so exhausting...
Click to expand...

The whole militia concept held the distinction and difference between people and government as a self-evident postulate. Human history has repeatedly and consistently shown that position to be wise.
 
White Eagle said:
I know it is a progressive/liberal rag, but it has articles of what we deem necessary in today's world. Now if you would come up with a link on what you deem necessary we would be able to read your conservative rag and decide what is bullshit. I believe it would be yours. The GOP does nothing but lie about all things.
Click to expand...


Just like you feel everything I would post would be bullshit, I know everything you post is likewise bullshit. Thanks for proving my point flawlessly. You do not want a discussion. You want to shout down anyone that disagrees with you.

The left is losing the gun debate and they know it. The more you lie the more you lose.
 
You know, you keep referring to historic context, some mythical analyses and "common sense", yet I see nothing but your opinion here. And sure, you may have provided some sources in some gun argument at some point, but right now all you're doing is repeating your own opinion. So, care to share with us ANYTHING that even remotely supports your argument?
 
Durango95 said:
Just like you feel everything I would post would be bullshit, I know everything you post is likewise bullshit. Thanks for proving my point flawlessly. You do not want a discussion. You want to shout down anyone that disagrees with you.

The left is losing the gun debate and they know it. The more you lie the more you lose.
Click to expand...

1. You haven't posted anything and THAT's bullshit. IGNORING our sources doesn't make them bullshit. Learn the distinction if you're gonna try to communicate with the adults please.

2. The left doesn't need to lie. Numbers, history and the rest of the world are on our side. We just need to wait for the gun neanderthals to die out. Which, as we can see, natural selection is taking care of as much as time.
 
andysayshi said:
You'll excuse us all if we rely on the data we've posted from the Dept Of Justice, the FBI, and the Harvard School Of Medicine, before we take your word for it. :-)
Click to expand...

The only way I would accept any data from the DOJ or FBI is if it were a document printed out years ago prior to the current administration with a notary seal and date on it. I wouldn't even accept a photocopy. You do realize that figures can be easily changed with this thing called a computer.

The Harvard School of Medicine while an esteemed school has a very stark history of liberalism. They would slant any data accordingly.

You believe what you want to believe because it supports your ideology.
 
Haha yay paranoia! Trust nothing! They're all lying in order to take our guns away!

Once you stop believing any statistics that contradicts your wishes, you've abandoned any sort of sane thought and embraced fantasy. We call these people lunatics.
 
Durango95 said:
Just like you feel everything I would post would be bullshit, I know everything you post is likewise bullshit. Thanks for proving my point flawlessly. You do not want a discussion. You want to shout down anyone that disagrees with you.

The left is losing the gun debate and they know it. The more you lie the more you lose.
Click to expand...

You didn't understand the point of my post. If you will post a link or cite, if you will, then we could read and possible understand where you are coming from. However from what I have seen you don't want to post any links. Are you afraid we will actually see what you are trying to say?
 
White Eagle said:
You didn't understand the point of my post. If you will post a link or cite, if you will, then we could read and possible understand where you are coming from. However from what I have seen you don't want to post any links. Are you afraid we will actually see what you are trying to say?
Click to expand...

No, it's just that his views aren't supported by any actual data. Can't post what doesn't exist.
 
Durango95 said:
The only way I would accept any data from the DOJ or FBI is if it were a document printed out years ago prior to the current administration with a notary seal and date on it. I wouldn't even accept a photocopy. You do realize that figures can be easily changed with this thing called a computer.
Click to expand...
This reminds me so much about the parallels about the OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE controversy. No matter what he did, and no matter what it showed, the "birthers" were so blinded by Obamahate that they could not possibly accept the Hawaiian birth certificate, nor for that matter the 1961 birth announcement in the Advertiser and Star-Bulletin newspapers, as valid.

If you want evidence, not even something as removed from original source as a photocopy, why don't you find out where such documents are stored, and make a trip there to physically inspect them (along with an expert who can satisfy you that the documents are authentic)? I guess that's the only way you will consider them to be valid.

However, when the FAKE documents came out - which were doctored to look "real" but included the WRONG official full name for Kenya, among other errors - the birthers were all over those, saying "SEE? I told you so!"

I don't know, but this just seems to familiar to me.
 
frankfrank said:
This reminds me so much about the parallels about the OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE controversy. No matter what he did, and no matter what it showed, the "birthers" were so blinded by Obamahate that they could not possibly accept the Hawaiian birth certificate, nor for that matter the 1961 birth announcement in the Advertiser and Star-Bulletin newspapers, as valid.

If you want evidence, not even something as removed from original source as a photocopy, why don't you find out where such documents are stored, and make a trip there to physically inspect them (along with an expert who can satisfy you that the documents are authentic)? I guess that's the only way you will consider them to be valid.

However, when the FAKE documents came out - which were doctored to look "real" but included the WRONG official full name for Kenya, among other errors - the birthers were all over those, saying "SEE? I told you so!"

I don't know, but this just seems to familiar to me.
Click to expand...

Really the birther thing....whatever.
 
andysayshi said:
I HAVE addressed your points in this thread, perhaps not directly to you, but all the points you make above have been covered. Read my posts above as to why comparing a lethal weapon with an everyday functional tool is not logical. See that, despite the prolific existence of knives in the US, guns kill a lot more people. And also note that, in the case of cars for example, better regulation has been proven to save lives and improve safety.

If guns were treated with the extreme reverence and concern that they should be, with suitably strict regulations for their use and storage, this tragedy may never have occurred. Instead, in the US we see guns marketed as toys to children, and treated as such. Laws are weak or non existent, and seldom enforced. The result is irresponsible owners not choosing or bothering to safely manage lethal weapons in their own homes. In the case of the 2 year old girl's death in Kentucky, not a single law was broken.
Click to expand...

@ Andy: You did notice that I said most commentators in this thread, not all. Any everyday item can be used to commit murder. A firearm is a tool that has everyday function. Denying that is refusing to see anyone else's position other than your own. If you have read my posts, you will see I have no problems with regulation, but there is a large chasm between regulation and banning / removal. I also look at the realistic fact that in the United States there are firearms that do not require being registered. They are still functioning firearms, but who has them and where are they. What do you think the government should do, knock on every door in the country and demand to search every home for firearms that may or may not be there? Can you see how that isn't going to fly? So, what do you do, ask people to voluntarily turn over their firearms? Do you think that the anti government groups are going to do that? Do you think people who are intent upon using a firearm in criminal endeavors are going to voluntarily turn in their weapons?



Rolyo85 said:
Neither of the things you listed are designed explicitly and exclusively to hurt and kill. And as for rattlesnakes and bears... is that seriously your argument for the free gun candy-land that the country is?
Click to expand...

@ Rolyo: I don't know if you have read all of my comments. But a firearm isn't "designed explicitly and exclusively to hurt and kill". To deny that firearms have function is to deny any other position that disagrees with yours. In effect, you are doing the exact same thing you deride Durango about. You are refusing to have a conversation on the topic. You will only entertain your preconceived ideas, and if anyone disagrees with your idea they are wrong. I can tell that you will never consider that there is any middle ground, you are demanding that guns be taken away from everyone regardless of whether they are responsible gun owners or not, and you have no qualms about trampling everyone's constitutional rights to do it. I suppose in the next breath, you get mad that someone wants to limit your constitutional right to marry whomever you choose to marry.
 
mitchymo said:
I disagree. Since, the police are a paid and trained state force, they constitute a perfect example of 'well regulated militia'.
Click to expand...

This is absolutely my understanding of the meaning of "militia". Were the US Government to attempt breaching citizen's liberties too far, the State could call it's police force to defend it' citizens. We have seen events where such threats existed. Kennedy threatened the use of the National guard against state troopers at Ole Miss, for example.


mitchymo said:
And yet in your interpretation, you have ignored 'well regulated'. Something being CONTINUALLY done in the gun debate by pro-gunners.
Click to expand...

There's no debating this. All this postulating over meanings and grammar, yet the gun advocates consistently ignore that the Amendment explicitly mentions regulation.
 
 
Thank you. Now see? That wasn't so hard. You gave us links to your beliefs and I have read through them and can see where you are coming from. It doesn't mean anything to me, of course, because I'm Liberal.
I happy for you to join in on the discussion so that we can see what is going on.

But here is what I have found about your links. Conservative sites will promote conservative issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_for_Policy_Analysis

The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a non-profit American conservative think tank[1] whose goals are to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control.

Townhall.com is a web-based publication and a print magazine, primarily dedicated to conservative United States politics.

Free Republic is a moderated Internet forum for activists, and chat site for self-described conservatives, primarily within the United States.
 
White Eagle said:
Thank you. Now see? That wasn't so hard. You gave us links to your beliefs and I have read through them and can see where you are coming from. It doesn't mean anything to me, of course, because I'm Liberal.
I happy for you to join in on the discussion so that we can see what is going on.

But here is what I have found about your links. Conservative sites will promote conservative issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_for_Policy_Analysis

The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) is a non-profit American conservative think tank[1] whose goals are to develop and promote private alternatives to government regulation and control.

Townhall.com is a web-based publication and a print magazine, primarily dedicated to conservative United States politics.

Free Republic is a moderated Internet forum for activists, and chat site for self-described conservatives, primarily within the United States.
Click to expand...



See that wasn't so hard. You believe what you want to believe because it supports your point of view.

I know what I know because it is correct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top