Cheesey
  • Cheesey
  • Preferred Member Topic Starter
4 years ago
So, Barfarn, according to your line of thinking, if a gun is stolen from a law abiding citizen, that citizen should have to pay for it.
Ok, then by that line of thinking. Do you own a car? If some punk steals it and kills someone while driving YOUR stolen car, YOU should have to pay for it?
There are drunk drivers killing people every day. So I guess we should outlaw cars.
People have killed people with knives, baseball bats and many other things. I guess we should outlaw those too.
You have the typical liberal taught thinking. Blame the instrument instead of the criminal.
We have “the right to keep and bear arms”. That is a right as an American.
There will always be guns. No law will remove all of them. It will only remove them from good people, not from the crooks. Why can’t you understand that? It’s pretty easy to understand.
We already have thousands of laws in the books reguarding robbing places, murder, drive bys, and so on. Do those laws work? Nope. Why? Because there are evil people. No “law” will ever stop them. The ONLY way to stop them is through fitting punishment. There are crimes committed which a criminal should NEVER get paroled from, yet they get back out on the streets and commit even worse crimes. Prison is a revolving door. Until we stop that, no one is safe.
Guns are NOT the problem. Families without dads, no punishment for young offenders, or at best a slap on the wrist, and no serious consequences for their actions. THAT is the problem.
If you are not taught morals and respect for others at home when you are young, what do you expect from these people?
It’s no longer “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”, it’s “ME FIRST, and who the hell cares about you”. That is the problem in this country today.


UserPostedImage
KRK
  • KRK
  • Veteran Member
4 years ago
Barfarn: I always enjoy reading your arguments, even though I disagree with many of your positions. You put alot of thought into your positions and I appreciate it.

I disagree with anything that is mandatory, because when the government get involved with mandatory things, they invariably add strings which screw things up.

My basic disagreement in your position is that the Constitution clearly states that every citizen shall have the right to bear arms.

It is clear from the one of the framers of our constitution, the second amendment contemplated:[list]
  • All citizens would/could be armed
  • They would be armed a manner and to a level to intimidate the federal government of overreach (i.e. to use armed force against a government which chose to abrogate citizens’ rights)
  • Nowhere in the discussion is being armed for home defense, self-defense or hunting [/list]
  • Those politicians who would confiscate weapons or force buybacks are violating our constitutional rights…and if successful, tyranny will follow, as it has (or will happen) every other country where citizens are disarmed.Federalist 46 James Madison aka Publius wrote on Tuesday, January 29, 1788

    To the People of the State of New York:

    RESUMING the subject of the last paper, I proceed to inquire whether the federal government or the State governments will have the advantage with regard to the predilection and support of the people. Notwithstanding the different modes in which they are appointed, we must consider both of them as substantially dependent on the great body of the citizens of the United States. I assume this position here as it respects the first, reserving the proofs for another place. The federal and State governments are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers, and designed for different purposes. The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments, not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other. Truth, no less than decency, requires that the event in every case should be supposed to depend on the sentiments and sanction of their common constituents...

    Were it admitted, however, that the Federal government may feel an equal disposition with the State governments to extend its power beyond the due limits, the latter would still have the advantage in the means of defeating such encroachments. If an act of a particular State, though unfriendly to the national government, be generally popular in that State and should not too grossly violate the oaths of the State officers, it is executed immediately and, of course, by means on the spot and depending on the State alone. The opposition of the federal government, or the interposition of federal officers, would but inflame the zeal of all parties on the side of the State, and the evil could not be prevented or repaired, if at all, without the employment of means which must always be resorted to with reluctance and difficulty....

    The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens (krk insertion...that roughly all male population) with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. ...

    PUBLIUS

    μολων λαβε, KRK
    In Luce tua Videmus Lucem KRK
    dhazer
    4 years ago
    Criminals for gun control 


    Don't remember how to link a video


    Just Imagine this for the next 6-9 years. What a ride it will be 🙂 (PS, Zero should charge for this)
    UserPostedImage
    isocleas2
    4 years ago
    I love Barfan sometimes, this was turning into a NRA meeting and then he busts through the wall like the koolaid man.

    As someone who thinks we need alot more gun control I think you're seeing stores stepping in to regulate because government is inept at doing so. The vast majority of Americans (including gun owning republicans) want to see some common sense legislation, everyone can get behind background checks that keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them. Close loopholes in private seller sales etc. So when government won't do their job and govern you leave it to private companies to regulate and they have few options besides ban them all.

    I too would like to see responsible gun owners have their guns on them in stores. However if you cant determine who the good actors are from the bad then everyone gets treated the same.
    Cheesey
    • Cheesey
    • Preferred Member Topic Starter
    4 years ago
    We don’t need more gun control. We need CRIMINAL control.
    We have hundreds of gun laws already. Making more useless laws only affects law abiding citizens.
    They already don’t obey the laws. Do you really think making more laws (that they will ignore) will make any difference?
    I don’t understand why that’s so difficult for people to comprehend.
    More gun control laws are just useless feel good things. It makes people feel good, feel like they did something to combat crime, but accomplished nothing.
    We need to build more prisons, and seriously punish those that commit violent crimes.
    Until they get serious on this, nothing will get better.
    UserPostedImage
    isocleas2
    4 years ago
    The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world, and your idea is to lock up even more people. Tough on crime, weak on facts arguments won't work.

    Plenty of countries have gun control laws that work perfectly fine. You want an example? Check out Australia, they have plenty of guns even after regulation. Infact gun owning enthusiasts are buying and registering more guns than ever before. You know what they have less of? Mass shootings. Something we lead the world in and its not even close (and increasing).

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-44105129 
    Cheesey
    • Cheesey
    • Preferred Member Topic Starter
    4 years ago

    The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world, and your idea is to lock up even more people. Tough on crime, weak on facts arguments won't work.

    Plenty of countries have gun control laws that work perfectly fine. You want an example? Check out Australia, they have plenty of guns even after regulation. Infact gun owning enthusiasts are buying and registering more guns than ever before. You know what they have less of? Mass shootings. Something we lead the world in and its not even close (and increasing).

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-44105129 

    Originally Posted by: isocleas2 


    Really? Because I saw on tv where Australia took away guns from law abiding citizens, and the crooks were still armed.
    So we have the highest incarceration. Why? Because we have too many criminals. So what are we supposed to do? What we HAVE been doing for too long? Letting dangerous criminals back on the street? How has that worked out? I’d rather they keep building prisons and putting the animals behind bars where they’d belong and where they aren’t allowed to make more victims.
    Doesn’t that make more sense?
    I see on the news where felons, who aren’t supposed to have guns are shooting people. Bad guys that want to use a gun can always have access to them.
    Mass shootings are done by evil self centered people. We had more guns in this country 50 years ago. Teenagers would go to school, have their guns in their cars and go out hunting after class. Now we have schools with “no guns” , and yet we have mass shootings.
    Again, it has more to do with how kids are raised, not the guns. Kids are taught they have “rights” and not responsibilities. It’s more “how DARE you DIS me!” Then they shoot a bunch of people.
    A guy gets fired from his job, and figures he has a valid reason to kill people. Where does this line of thinking come from?
    This country has turned their collective backs on God. That means there are no absolutes. Whatever feels good to YOU is all that matters.
    When it’s been made legal to kill unborn children, what can you expect the country to do? It goes downhill.
    I was bullied really bad in school, yet I never even considered taking one of my Dad’s guns and killing my tormentors. I don’t even remember anyone else doing that.
    Guns are not the problem. Bad people, that’s what we have to go after.

    UserPostedImage
    earthquake
    4 years ago
    Honestly, if you can't handle a trip to the drug store without a firearm, you probably need therapy.

    In any case, the statistics on this are very clear on this, the "good guy with a gun" theory is complete and utter bullshit. The "good guy" is far more likely to be unable to operate their firearm is a stressful situation, injure themselves, or injure an innocent bystander. It's obvious why Walgreens wants you to keep it at home.
    blank
    Barfarn
    4 years ago
    Cheesy address the issue don’t deflect or use false equivalence. It is guys like you that create the greatest supply of guns to bad guys. You need to come to grips with this. If you lose a gun or do something that allows one to fall into someone’s hands do you think you should be free of responsibility?

    If you are careless with whom you allow to drive your car there can be both civil and criminal liability. Though when people start taking cars and killing; then more drastic measures must be instituted.

    There needs to be a deterrent for the “good people” with guns that let criminals gain access to them. A true conservative believes you play, you pay. This concept should not be ignored when it’s not convenient for you. That’s the me first stuff you rail about. Your "more laws don’t work" argument is destroyed; because my proposed laws will alter behavior of all like you.

    FACT: removing guns will lower the crime rate [some wont commit crimes with only a knife or a bat] and lower the amount damage inflicted when crimes occur. A criminal is a bad thing; a criminal with a gun is a real bad thing; a criminal with body armor and assault weapons is a really really really bad thing. How can you not see the difference?

    Personally, I think possessing guns is an important privilege just like flying or driving; but if any of these become too dangerous for society, something needs to be done.

    KRK [And Cheesey too] I think you’re a good man and intelligent. But, gotta give you the [Facepalm] sorry! You’re bogged down under MOUNTAINS of propaganda!!!!

    First, gun rights are not in the Constitution; they’re in the Bill of Rights [I know you know this]. But, the BOR was not created until FOUR YEARS AFTER the Federalist papers were written.

    Second, The Federalist Papers do not contain the true thoughts of the writers…THIS WAS PROPAGANDA designed to combat the Anti-Federalist papers to induce states to ratify the Constitution and to encourage those already ratified not to “unratify.” You highlighted, “ultimate authority resides in the people alone…;” Madison is an effing LIAR. The Koch Bros spent gazillions to promote the Federalist papers. Any media outlet you engage that speaks of the Federalist Papers as anything other than toilet paper must be ignored. Its like quoting Goebbels’s diary to support the virtues of the Third Reich.

    Third, Madison was a total piece of shit. Another shattered BS indoctrinated myth of my youth. This asshole in the later years of his life doctored some of his letters and actually forged Jefferson’s handwriting to try to buoy his legacy. Madison bragged that he makes $257/yr off a Negro and only needs to spend $12-13 for their upkeep. If this exploitative 5'4" little prick is a founding father, I’ll say I’m adopted.

    Fourth, the best source of figuring out what these guys were thinking is the floor debates. Most of these notes were kept by Madison; but now a new book by Mary Sarah Bilder argues that Madison doctored the Convention notes too. READ THAT BOOK!!! So what the hell; we simply cant trust ANYTHING we were taught.

    Here’s Madison’s initial proposal for what became the 2nd Amendment: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

    Madison is saying if you dont want to carry a gun; you cant be compelled to be in a militia. It is impossible to argue that the right to possess weapons is not contingent on being in the militia.

    All gun loving propaganda ignores the militia clause from Amendment #2 to get it to say what they want it to say. But, the reality is that it is there. Gun ownership is simply not nor has ever been a Constitutional right and the legacy of Scalia and the other 4 goofs that rendered Heller is forever tarnished.
    Zero2Cool
    4 years ago

    Cheesy address the issue don’t deflect or use false equivalence. It is guys like you that create the greatest supply of guns to bad guys.

    Originally Posted by: Barfarn 



    What the hell? Why can't you make your point without this targeting bullshit? It's guys like you?

    Focus on the topic, not one another. This isn't rocket science. It's called not being a douche.
    UserPostedImage
    Users browsing this topic
      Fan Shout
      dfosterf (14h) : Maybe
      Mucky Tundra (15h) : Yes
      Zero2Cool (16h) : No.
      Mucky Tundra (18h) : End of a Degu-era
      dhazer (18h) : Steelers sign Patterson because of new kickoff rule interesting
      Zero2Cool (21h) : Former #Packers TE Josiah Deguara is signing a 1-year deal with the Jaguars, per source.
      Zero2Cool (22h) : They do not do it for "content sake".
      dfosterf (28-Mar) : For the record, I enjoy Beast and Mucky drafts
      Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Haha
      Mucky Tundra (27-Mar) : No time for talking! Back to work beast!
      beast (27-Mar) : You saw only 4,201 of my mocks? 🥺 I think that means you missed more than half of them 😢
      dfosterf (27-Mar) : Does anyone know what Lambeau field improvements got put on hold? My guess would be for the 2025 draft
      Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : It's like listen, you made 4,201 mocks, no shit.
      Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Cuz during the draft "I had them mocked there!" as if it's amazing.
      Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : They're fun to do once in awhile. It's people who think they are "content" that annoy me.
      dfosterf (27-Mar) : Against tbd
      dfosterf (27-Mar) : Answer to your question is yes, it's a Thursday, will be the Chiefs aga
      dfosterf (27-Mar) : Luckily for all concerned, I don't post them. I did one, but that was like 25 mocks ago
      Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : NFL 2024 gonna start Sept 5th isn't it???
      Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Ugh... kids these days!
      dfosterf (27-Mar) : I'm gonna go do some more mock draft hell instead 🤪
      Zero2Cool (27-Mar) : Did we do one of those prediction threads yet for 2024 season?
      dfosterf (27-Mar) : In my city, they are playing the nimby game, in order to keep some railroad tracks vs. 2 professional sports teams and a concert venue.
      dfosterf (27-Mar) : And/Or a city council, of which I haven't seen a good one in a very long time
      dfosterf (27-Mar) : That sounds like a Mayor, not a city.
      buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers halt scheduled 80mil upgrade of stadium until lease agreement talks are restarted
      Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : City of Green Bay puts Packers' Lambeau Field lease talks on hold
      buckeyepackfan (26-Mar) : Packers 1 of 3 teams to vote no on new kickoff rule.
      Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Packers sign another Kicker
      dfosterf (26-Mar) : Lengthy explanation at PFF if you click the link
      dfosterf (26-Mar) : Kickoff rules officially changed.ngthy explan
      Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : lol
      Cheesey (26-Mar) : 2009? No thanks! One open heart surgery is enough!
      dfosterf (26-Mar) : Good for you!
      Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Yes. That's the one.
      dfosterf (26-Mar) : Is that "Lady Dugan" per chance?
      dfosterf (26-Mar) : Crystal?
      dfosterf (26-Mar) : Please refresh my memory
      Zero2Cool (26-Mar) : Alan posts. Crystal back in my life. It's 2009 all over again! Lol
      Mucky Tundra (26-Mar) : BAH GAWD! THAT'S CHEESEYS MUSIC!
      Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Gutekunst said early stages of Jordan Love contract being discussed.
      Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Shouldn't be penalized cuz official screwed up
      Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Yeah, challenge until you are incorrect twice.
      Zero2Cool (25-Mar) : Fining them is the goal, per the people who made the rule anyway.
      dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still waiting on the kickoff rule changes. Did hear yesterday that the touchback proposal will now be the 30 yard line, not the 35
      dfosterf (25-Mar) : Probably speed of game issues with your proposal
      dfosterf (25-Mar) : Hopefully the refs don't get in the habit of throwing flags on this
      beast (25-Mar) : I think when it comes to Challenges should get two strikes, so unlimited challenges as long as they keep winning them, but 2 wrong then done
      dfosterf (25-Mar) : Still subject to the fines etc
      dfosterf (25-Mar) : Yes, I should have been more specific. Also, they are now saying it would be a 15 yard penalty. That makes more sense .
      Please sign in to use Fan Shout
      2023 Packers Schedule
      Sunday, Sep 10 @ 3:25 PM
      Bears
      Sunday, Sep 17 @ 12:00 PM
      Falcons
      Sunday, Sep 24 @ 12:00 PM
      SAINTS
      Thursday, Sep 28 @ 7:15 PM
      LIONS
      Monday, Oct 9 @ 7:15 PM
      Raiders
      Sunday, Oct 22 @ 3:25 PM
      Broncos
      Sunday, Oct 29 @ 12:00 PM
      VIKINGS
      Sunday, Nov 5 @ 12:00 PM
      RAMS
      Sunday, Nov 12 @ 12:00 PM
      Steelers
      Sunday, Nov 19 @ 12:00 PM
      CHARGERS
      Thursday, Nov 23 @ 11:30 AM
      Lions
      Sunday, Dec 3 @ 7:20 PM
      CHIEFS
      Monday, Dec 11 @ 7:15 PM
      Giants
      Sunday, Dec 17 @ 12:00 PM
      BUCCANEERS
      Sunday, Dec 24 @ 12:00 PM
      Panthers
      Sunday, Dec 31 @ 7:20 PM
      Vikings
      Sunday, Jan 7 @ 3:25 PM
      BEARS
      Sunday, Jan 14 @ 3:30 PM
      Cowboys
      Saturday, Jan 20 @ 7:15 PM
      49ers
      Recent Topics
      1h / Around The NFL / Martha Careful

      14h / Green Bay Packers Talk / buckeyepackfan

      28-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / dfosterf

      28-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

      27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Mucky Tundra

      27-Mar / Random Babble / Zero2Cool

      27-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

      26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

      26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

      26-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / bboystyle

      25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

      25-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / Zero2Cool

      24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

      24-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

      22-Mar / Green Bay Packers Talk / beast

      Headlines
      Copyright © 2006 - 2024 PackersHome.com™. All Rights Reserved.