U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-16-2009, 02:09 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,574,557 times
Reputation: 35869

Advertisements

Federal rules regarding citizenship are less clearly defined than those regarding any person who falls under the jurisciction of the US government. It is the latter who are protected by the Bill of Rights. No part of the Bill differentiates between a citizen and a person. The Bill of Righs does not define who has rights. It defines who is constrained from denying the self-evident God-given rights of a person. And that is the government, constrained from denying the rights of any person under its jurisdiction, even if that person is in Guantanamo Bay or in the brig of a naval vessel in the Red Sea.

 
Old 05-16-2009, 03:21 PM
 
805 posts, read 1,743,184 times
Reputation: 381
jtur88, do you not have anything else to do other than argue here, apparently just for the sake of argument?
 
Old 05-16-2009, 03:41 PM
 
Location: NW Nevada
13,340 posts, read 10,909,247 times
Reputation: 12290
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Maybe they associate your sport with what they see on line from "gun nuts" and have no wish to be in the same room with them. The NRA and their radical spawn would be well-advised to tone down the rhetoric.
At the risk of playing tit for tat here, many groups on the left end of things could take it down a thousand or so as well. NOW, the Rainbow coalition, Center to Prevent Gun Violence, the Brady Foundation and oh so many others. Labels and rhetoric are not just coming from the NRA GOA etc. Terms like 'gun nut' set my teeth to grinding, and tend to make me wish to respond in kind with uncomplimentary terms of my own.
 
Old 05-16-2009, 03:59 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,574,557 times
Reputation: 35869
You're right, I don't like the anti-gun nuts any better. But threads on these forums about guns always seem to be dominated by a few people who post links from the gun sites, as if that was adding any additional oomph to their argument. One gets the feeling that gun nuts (and prolife nuts and lowtax nuts and antiwelfare nuts and personalresponsibility nuts and torturetherahgeads nuts and castratepedophile nuts) are swarming over all the forum sites, looking for places to insert their cut/paste twocents. The one thing that binds them all together is none of them ever offer their own thought-out ideas, they just paste up stuff from their favorite websites, and then insult anyone ad hominem who disagrees that they have found the universal truth. If it weren't for people like me, who have nothing better to do than amuse ourselves trying to shame them, all forums would just be mouthpieces for them. I didn't mean to go on this long. But you do know that there are causes that have organized efforts to dominate the worldwide web with their dogma.
 
Old 05-16-2009, 04:55 PM
 
Location: Mesa, Az
21,148 posts, read 36,628,664 times
Reputation: 3785
To whom it may concern: there are way too many guns in circulation already so banning them is neither realistic nor feasible.

Besides: if the law abiding citizenry gave up their firepower; will the criminals do the same?

I think not.
 
Old 05-16-2009, 06:15 PM
 
Location: In a house
5,230 posts, read 7,322,321 times
Reputation: 2558
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
You're right, I don't like the anti-gun nuts any better. But threads on these forums about guns always seem to be dominated by a few people who post links from the gun sites, as if that was adding any additional oomph to their argument. One gets the feeling that gun nuts (and prolife nuts and lowtax nuts and antiwelfare nuts and personalresponsibility nuts and torturetherahgeads nuts and castratepedophile nuts) are swarming over all the forum sites, looking for places to insert their cut/paste twocents. The one thing that binds them all together is none of them ever offer their own thought-out ideas, they just paste up stuff from their favorite websites, and then insult anyone ad hominem who disagrees that they have found the universal truth. If it weren't for people like me, who have nothing better to do than amuse ourselves trying to shame them, all forums would just be mouthpieces for them. I didn't mean to go on this long. But you do know that there are causes that have organized efforts to dominate the worldwide web with their dogma.

You dislike yourself? I can see why. In one post you say its an inalienable right, in the next you say what the democrats want is ok because they dont say outloud they want to ban all guns. If its a right they cannot ban any guns just as they cannot ban any religion or words.
You need to go looking to hear anything from the NRA, I need only watch TV or read a paper or magazine to get swamped with liberal dogma.
The fact you ignore is that the NRA & the rest of the "gun nuts" wouldn't say boo if they were left alone.

You shame no one but those who respect you. Whether you ignore it or not.
 
Old 05-16-2009, 07:48 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,066,557 times
Reputation: 3717
Thumbs up Hoplophobia re-defined.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Jeez, watching all the Michael Moore movies would take almost as long as reading all of Rifleman's postings and following all his links.
Difference is, I'm not delusional, a pathological liar, nor hoplophobic like the treasonous Michael Moore. With me, you just get the truth, reffed to links you requested but then can't quite fathom or tolerate.

Case in point: I noticed in your Wiki cut & paste you ignored this key commentary:

"a patient that has no opinion on law or public policy per se but becomes terrified upon noticing a policeman's sidearm, or a photograph of a rifle or knife, may be a hoplophobe."

Since anyone can edit Wiki (I've even done it, and, amazingly, gotten away with it!), I'll change this a bit, having spent some quality time on this forum with some of the hoplophobes here:

"A person, perhaps even a citizen of America who otherwise enjoys the values and freedoms inherent in our Constitution, but who has not formed any meaningful or rational opinions on firearms ownership other than that they are somehow extraneous to a modern civil society, yet still becomes irrationally angered or vociferously anti-gun despite the facts against his or her position, is a hopeless hoplophobe"


I know; it's longer, but in this case, far more accurate.

BTW; you should be so lucky to be as erudite and experienced as the late Col. Cooper, who would have dealt with your Mr. Moore in a most impressive way.

I also note, in regards to Jeff's original definition, you also forgot to note, when you dismissed it and his lack of medical credentials:

"In spite of the political origins and connotation of the term, it has clinical usage, and a patient may be diagnosed with this phobia."

BTW guys; I had a lot of fun today, despite perhaps getting a bit too much sun on my otherwise quite white neck, shootin' up the irreplaceable resources with my two Colt SAAs, Win. 92 (both chambered in the irrepressible .45LC) & a Model '97 Winchester pump shotgun.

Had a great lunch with the rest of the hoplophiles, enjoyed some fun competition and came away with a much better perspective, especially that the world is not really in danger of the mentally crippled and purposefully beligerent.
 
Old 05-16-2009, 08:49 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,574,557 times
Reputation: 35869
I left a lot out. I like to keep my posts less than about 50 lines or so.

I'm glad you now agree with my original post from a long time ago---the world is not really in danger. Not even in danger of having its guns taken away by Michael Moore. So lighten up.
 
Old 05-16-2009, 10:28 PM
 
2,542 posts, read 3,529,650 times
Reputation: 993
The rights guaranteed to us as citizens, whether it be speech or gun ownership, is like the "10 Commandments", you don't get to "pick and choose" which ones you like or dislike!!
 
Old 05-17-2009, 01:18 AM
 
Location: The Netherlands
8,567 posts, read 14,520,600 times
Reputation: 1573
A gun fetishist posting here that American citizen will never give up their right to own a gun is the same as a Muslim terrorist shouting that Allah is the Supreme Being.
They both only shout their opinion, but want the world to believe this as an indisputable fact.
I mean what, 50 years ago, it was regarded impossible for a black American to become the president of the US.
Yet now you have 1.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 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 - Top