I can understand how you might feel. I can't understand your reaction to it.
Then I'm sorry. But that is the difference between me and you. You have to realize that everyone is an individual and has different views. And in this thread, it just so happens that everyone is against me here. Didn't you read the rest of my post?
Actually the NRA is germane to the topic, I was referring to the tech help you were seeking regarding blocked proxy websites.
Oh, I see. Sorry about that.
Unless I missed something here, which is very possible as I'm not keeping track, I believe what Christina was referring to was my admonishment about hijacking this thread for technical support. Unfortunately my post was out of order which made it possible for her to (god only knows why) to assume that I was referring to her vote for the NRA rather than her conversation with Josh. Go Figure.
We were talking about how to get around myspace with a proxy. Sorry if that was 'off topic' but everyone is guilty of this. And I didn't realize you were talking about that in the first place.
It's people that hurt people. Period. Even if we had stricter gun regulation, angry people can still get guns and do this. It's possible to get guns into places that have outlawed them. The problem we have is that a very few people have severe psychological issues, and they're the ones that cause these tragedies. Unfortunately, we have about as good of a chance of eliminating gun crime as we do of preventing these people from commiting heinous crimes (gun based or otherwise). For those of us who are otherwise powerless (and innocent), we need ways to protect ourselves.
You're exactly right. It is, people that hurt people, as you say. I agree completely. But the only thing I was trying to present is the fact that death toll from guns would decrease. I mean, how many times have you heard about accidents where people accidentally shot themselves or accidently shot other people? (I know everyone is going to relate this with a car wreck.) But eliminating cars is just absurd and ridiculous. We simply cannot live without cars. But guns, surely we can.
You're exactly right. It is, people that hurt people, as you say. I agree completely. But the only thing I was trying to present is the fact that death toll from guns would decrease. I mean, how many times have you heard about accidents where people accidentally shot themselves or accidently shot other people? (I know everyone is going to relate this with a car wreck.) But eliminating cars is just absurd and ridiculous. We simply cannot live without cars. But guns, surely we can.
We can live without cars, but nobody wants to give them up. Most cities have some form of public transport which usually provides a half way decent alternative. I've done that for the last 3 months (although I did just buy another car, it's a great convenience). Some people would not be able to get by without cars; farmers, for example, couldn't manage the same productivity without cars.
By the same token, yes, we could largely do without guns. There are some people who still have legitimate reasons to have them though. Again, farmers often use guns to protect their livestock or crops. Even pistols have a use, an example coming to mind being when people go hiking.
Many of the accidents involving guns happen when people don't respect the guns. I know that's a silly phrase ("respect the guns"), but it's true. Usually it comes about when someone takes a gun (often not even theirs) and points it around like a toy, then it goes off. Any responsible person would know better than to point a gun at someone for fun, and would most certainly know as soon at they grabbed a gun whether it was loaded (first think I always check, even if I know it isn't).
It may not be a problem now, but I can definitely see some difficulties in the future..
The Supreme Court does not want to rule on issues like this because it sets a precedent from which there is no return. A good example is Michael Newdow's attempt to have the words Under God and In God We Trust removed from the pledge of allegiance and our currency, if they decide on this it will have serious effects either way it goes. On the one hand it could make this a conflict with our constitution regarding the separation of God and state. On the other hand if it went the other way it could mean the removal of the word God from most every thing in public.
Want a good chuckle? Check out Dumb Laws. Now here are some law that need changing!
The Supreme Court does not want to rule on issues like this because it sets a precedent from which there is no return. A good example is Michael Newdow's attempt to have the words Under God and In God We Trust removed from the pledge of allegiance and our currency, if they decide on this it will have serious effects either way it goes. On the one hand it could make this a conflict with our constitution regarding the separation of God and state. On the other hand if it went the other way it could mean the removal of the word God from most every thing in public.
Want a good chuckle? Check out Dumb Laws. Now here are some law that need changing!
haha omg!
"It is illegal to wear a fake mustache that causes laughter in church."
"Men may not spit in front of the opposite sex."
And those are from the first state on the list! I'm hoping this is just a joke..
[edit] explain to me how this law works:
"When two trains meet each other at a railroad crossing, each shall come to a full stop, and neither shall proceed until the other has gone."
lol sounds to me like the trains would be stuck there forever:?:
Want a good chuckle? Check out Dumb Laws. Now here are some law that need changing!
Those aren't funny, they're just plain dumb. Obviously some of them are true, but it seems that the editors of that page have got some things as screwed as the laws they're trying to promote.
(Florida)
- It is considered an offense to shower naked.
- You are not allowed to break more than three dishes per day, or chip the edges of more than four cups and/or saucers.
(Iowa)
- Kisses may last for no more than five minutes.
- One-armed piano players must perform for free.
(Kansas)
- If two trains meet on the same track, neither shall proceed until the other has passed.
No one would get convicted for breaking the above laws.
Christina is going to hang a hypocrite sign on me for this, but it looks like this thread is winding down anyway...so what the heck.
I had someone point out a similar site for dumb laws a while back, and occasionally I go back and peruse these sites. Because of this I find some of the same laws repeated, if you find the law to be suspicious google it.
The one that gets me is No one may carry an ice cream cone in their back pocket if it is Sunday.
Christina is going to hang a hypocrite sign on me for this, but it looks like this thread is winding down anyway...so what the heck.
I had someone point out a similar site for dumb laws a while back, and occasionally I go back and peruse these sites. Because of this I find some of the same laws repeated, if you find the law to be suspicious google it.
The one that gets me is No one may carry an ice cream cone in their back pocket if it is Sunday.
HYPOCRITE! HYPOCRITE! ;)
lol..
Those aren't funny, they're just plain dumb. Obviously some of them are true, but it seems that the editors of that page have got some things as screwed as the laws they're trying to promote.
No one would get convicted for breaking the above laws.
Do you think the three stooges or most of what passes as sit coms today are funny? I find these to be dumb.
As for the laws being enforced, I have to admit that I have a hard time wrapping my head around some of these, but I'm sure that if I was a little more aware of what was going on back then they would make sense. Some of these laws are still on the books which means that technically they can be enforced.
We can live without cars, but nobody wants to give them up. Most cities have some form of public transport which usually provides a half way decent alternative. I've done that for the last 3 months (although I did just buy another car, it's a great convenience). Some people would not be able to get by without cars; farmers, for example, couldn't manage the same productivity without cars.
I disagree, I don't think this country would survive without vehicles. It has been a key element to knowing the world around us since the 1900s. People in rural areas would not be able to get to work and make a living for themselves and they would be completely seperated from society. Automobiles brought a whole new outlook on life then and, now we surely cannot live without them. One woman in the early 1900s told her husband that she would rather have a Ford Model T than a bathtub with running water. Her excuse: 'you can't ride into town in a bathtub.'
By the same token, yes, we could largely do without guns. There are some people who still have legitimate reasons to have them though. Again, farmers often use guns to protect their livestock or crops. Even pistols have a use, an example coming to mind being when people go hiking.
True. I also agree. I mean, I live in WV I know somewhat about farming. People here also love to hunt... do I disagree with that because they're using guns? Nah... I think it's a good hobbie. But guns should just be given to people who are not going to abuse them. But I guess that's never going to happen.
Many of the accidents involving guns happen when people don't respect the guns. I know that's a silly phrase ("respect the guns"), but it's true. Usually it comes about when someone takes a gun (often not even theirs) and points it around like a toy, then it goes off. Any responsible person would know better than to point a gun at someone for fun, and would most certainly know as soon at they grabbed a gun whether it was loaded (first think I always check, even if I know it isn't).
True, but I think most of the stories I've heard were about children playing around with them and accidentally shooting each other. But that's right, people should know how to handle a gun.
I disagree, I don't think this country would survive without vehicles. It has been a key element to knowing the world around us since the 1900s. People in rural areas would not be able to get to work and make a living for themselves and they would be completely seperated from society. Automobiles brought a whole new outlook on life then and, now we surely cannot live without them. One woman in the early 1900s told her husband that she would rather have a Ford Model T than a bathtub with running water. Her excuse: 'you can't ride into town in a bathtub.'
Would it be hard to live without vehicles? Yes. Would we die without vehicles? No. I mean, vehicles have shaped the American culture and economy, but we would definitely survive without vehicles. Ridding the country of guns will solve nothing. Look at other countries that have decided to make firearms illegal... Australia for instance.. Their crime rate actually increased after they made firearms illegal.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1771842.htm
[edit] I liked this webpage:
http://www.wtv-zone.com/Mary/BEARARMS.HTML
True. I also agree. I mean, I live in WV I know somewhat about farming. People here also love to hunt... do I disagree with that because they're using guns? Nah... I think it's a good hobbie. But guns should just be given to people who are not going to abuse them. But I guess that's never going to happen.
It is too difficult to find these people in the population. As I said earlier, I think if someone has had any mental problems in the past, then they should not be allowed to buy firearms.
Would it be hard to live without vehicles? Yes. Would we die without vehicles? No. I mean, vehicles have shaped the American culture and economy, but we would definitely survive without vehicles. Ridding the country of guns will solve nothing. Look at other countries that have decided to make firearms illegal... Australia for instance.. Their crime rate actually increased after they made firearms illegal.
How would products be shipped across the country without trucks? How would people get to work without cars and schools without buses? Economy would fail.
I already agreed about the guns. People are just going to do what they want anyways. I don't care anymore.
It is too difficult to find these people in the population. As I said earlier, I think if someone has had any mental problems in the past, then they should not be allowed to buy firearms.
Of course they shouldn't. But there is nothing the government is going to do about that.
Mattethington wrote...
"And let's look at DCC's interpretation of the second amendment, which he claims is bolstered by court hearings."
Mattethington...you wouldn't be a member of the NRA by any chance?
Sorry, don't mean to back track old issues discussed but DCC your information is wrong. Those aren't my quotes. However, I am in agreeance with the dislike of the NRA;)
Sorry, don't mean to back track old issues discussed but DCC your information is wrong. Those aren't my quotes. However, I am in agreeance with the dislike of the NRA;)
My apologies, I will go back and find the responsible party and readdress this to them. I try not to incorporate long winded quotes in my replies which lends it self to this kind of error.
There was a time when the NRA was an organization who's aim was to protect the rights of the American hunters. They are just off the wall now, I quit supporting them when they started misquoting the second amendment. Both the NRA and our large unions are all for themselves now days.
(and yes I did use the word aim intentionally.)
Mattethington wrote...
"And let's look at DCC's interpretation of the second amendment, which he claims is bolstered by court hearings."My interpretation? That was a quote from a prominent spokesperson! And specifically what was being referred to was the Dick Act of 1903.
http://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/bioterrorism/8Military/milita01.htm
In 1903, Congress attempted to restore the usefulness of the state militias with the Dick Act. This act marked the beginning of the federalization of the militia. The Dick Act also split the militia into two branches: the organized militia, which became known as the National Guard, and the unorganized militia. The act provided federal funds for equipment and training, required drill a specified number of days each year, and gave federal inspectors the right to review state militia practices. Congress continued the federalization of the National Guard through numerous subsequent acts. The result today is that the National Guard is a reserve force of the United States Army under significant federal control.
The NRA went on a campaign a while back to imprint the phrase "the right to bare arms" in the public's mind which has had its desired effects, most of our youths today aren't aware that this is only an excerpt of the entire quotation.
The following two quotes are excerpts from this article.
"Former Chief Justice Warren Burger, appearing on the MacNeil-Lehrer News Hour, December 16, 1991 stated "The Second Amendment has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of frauds, and I repeat the word "fraud" on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."
"In the contentious debate over gun control, opponents of reasonable gun laws regularly argue that even the smallest form of regulation infringes upon Americans' "Second Amendment right" to own guns. This argument is without legal or historical support. In fact, the Second Amendment does not provide an individual with the right to bear arms. As the Supreme Court stated in United States v. Miller, more than 60 years ago, the Second Amendment was designed to "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia and the Amendment "must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939). The federal courts have consistently echoed the view that the Second Amendment guarantees a right to be armed only to persons using the arms in service to an organized state militia. President Nixon's Solicitor General and former dean of Harvard Law School, Erwin Griswold declared, "that the Second Amendment poses no barrier to strong gun laws is perhaps the most well-settled proposition in American Constitutional Law."
The second amendment is one of those issues that has been so heatedly debated that there is enough information to support either side of the argument that it was intended to mean the right for us to bear arms that anyone can goolge the topic and take their pick of sources to support their argument. But the court do still contend that it does not interpret it to mean the right for individual to bear arms.
Just to make my feelings clear here, I own firearms and support the right for others to own firearms. I don't support organizations that will distort truths to shore up their shaky platform.
Mattethington...you wouldn't be a member of the NRA by any chance?
I need to make a correction to this post, it was not Mattethington who I was quoting, it was EnderX.
What is the NRA?
a terrorist group?
haha
The National Rifle Association
Oh i see. I thaugh terrorists because it has a name a bit like the IRA
Oh i see. I thaugh terrorists because it has a name a bit like the IRA
well, apparently most Americans consider them a terrorist organization:P
well, apparently most Americans consider them a terrorist organization:P
Most loud Americans maybe...
The NRA is a necessary evil. I don't like how they do things, but without their lobbying efforts, we'd likely have some ridiculous half-assed gun control laws that wouldn't work at all.
I would like to see them required to report patients who demonstrate the potential of violent acts. This information should be used to make these patients ineligible for the purchase of firearms and ammunition.Unfortunately this will never happen because these doctors will never Oh well, it's three in the morning and I'm just thinking out loud.
that would mean every cop or soldier would be unable to get a gun ?
And on the previous subject of IM, my msn is on my profile.
I don't really have a problem with the nra..
Nor do I. While they're a partial-lobbyist organization, at least they have a basis in what they lobby for, though.
What I mean by this is that they're more or less defending the Second Amendment, whereas other lobbyist groups persuade for a variety of things.
Heck, the NRA isn't as bad as PETA....
The NRA were pretty gay. Like I've said this whole thread, watch Bowling For Columbine. Michael Moore actually confronts the president of the NRA about why he went to the town of Columbine the same week as the shooting.... and if you'll watch, he's very hesitant to answer questions and doesn't really have a logical explanation for anything. He's very rude. I mean I know people love guns, but that guy is obsessed.
What exactly is PETA?
Its not that group i dont think but here in the UK animal rights activists waged terror upon the family of the owner of an animal testing place. they dug up his mums grave. thats not cool.
We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.