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.
Please, name calling in politics knows no political side because it happens on both sides unless you are just being ignorant to your own party.
Umm.... what party am I, in your opinion? I have not mentioned any specific political party affiliation in any of my posts on this forum.
So I have to imagine that you are ASSUMING what my political affiliation is because of the stand I have taken on the Constitutional argument before us.
Hmm.. interesting. You don't have the fact yet you classify me on your opinion and assumptions only.
"I carry because it is withing my rights to do so and I am afraid of nothing."
Afraid of nothing when you're carrying the gun you mean?
Well, to bait your argument, correct. Since it is my right to carry and I carry all the time, I am never afraid.
Now I'm quite sure you're going to go off with the name calling and accusations that without the gun I'd be afraid and yadda, yadda, yadda.
Save your time. I've heard it before. And not to be too blunt with you, but the distraction from the original argument is an oh so typical one. For the lack of a true argument from you (anti-gun) against the reasoning behind reinforcing constitutional rights by exercising the same right (me exercising my right to carry) your type will resort to convincing yourself that I (pro-gun) am afraid of something and that is the only reason I carry a gun.
It is a very short sighted argument and really doesn't garner any gain in the discussion on constitutionality.
This is why the most dangerous cities in the United States aren't here in the Northeast and are all down South. Look at cities like Birmingham, New Orleans, Richmond, Baltimore. Guns aren't good things Mistergus they KILL.
Well, this kind of shoot some of your argument down.
Top 2 most dangerous (highest homicide rates) are Northern cities.
The discussion on Constitutionality is pointless. None of you are Supreme Court Justices, and a few of you don't even seem to know what the Constitution was written to secure. Hint: it's not individual rights.
Umm.... what party am I, in your opinion? I have not mentioned any specific political party affiliation in any of my posts on this forum.
So I have to imagine that you are ASSUMING what my political affiliation is because of the stand I have taken on the Constitutional argument before us.
Hmm.. interesting. You don't have the fact yet you classify me on your opinion and assumptions only.
There was an error in my statement, it should say all parties, not both....but then again, we basically have a two party system with a handful of little parties.
As in my guess on your party, I would assume you fell under the Republican umbrella whether it be Libritarian, Constintutionalist, Tea Party, or whatever...but honestly my response was more towards your assumption that it is only Liberals do "name calling," unless you don't believe your original statement.
Quote:
No. The name calling is not typical New York, it is typical liberal left that can't argue with facts on the issue.
Unless you often times say "it is typical conservative right that can't argue with facts on the issue." If you refer to both sides of politics doing the name calling, then I will consider myself incorrect, but if you think it is only the "libs" that name call, then you are horribly mistaken.
So you are telling me I can kill someone with words? I personally want background checks on people who want to be gun owners because the last thing I wanna see is someone not fit to have a gun using their gun as their form of freedom of speech.
If someone got out of prison tomorrow and wanted to buy a gun on "his way home" would you let him? So when you mention "we the people," we the people would like to make sure that only those who seem fit to carry should be allowed to.
Felons have forfeited the right to own firearms and vote. Some states will restore those rights after a certain time period. And yes WORDS can kill. Have you ever been in a riot?
Felons have forfeited the right to own firearms and vote. Some states will restore those rights after a certain time period. And yes WORDS can kill. Have you ever been in a riot?
GL2
You know the saying, "guns don't kill people, people kill people." So are you saying words can kill people, but guns can't? Words and physical aggression are two different things. If those in a riot are armed with guns, would you still blame the killings on the "words?"
The only way to legally carry a gun as an NYC resident is to do what I did... move to a different state! I looked for all the loopholes, all the test cases and found out that the politicians in this state have made it a mission to prevent anyone who is not connected to carry a gun. Do you want to pay taxes for that? Do you want to walk around knowing that some kid who bought a gun illegally and doesn't give two ****s about NYC's gun laws can put one to the back of your head and take what you own?
The only way to legally carry a gun as an NYC resident is to do what I did... move to a different state! I looked for all the loopholes, all the test cases and found out that the politicians in this state have made it a mission to prevent anyone who is not connected to carry a gun. Do you want to pay taxes for that? Do you want to walk around knowing that some kid who bought a gun illegally and doesn't give two ****s about NYC's gun laws can put one to the back of your head and take what you own?
I didn't... so I voted with my feet.
I guess I am cool with that cause I am moving there next summer...but then again, I would of never bought a gun anyway.
The discussion on Constitutionality is pointless. None of you are Supreme Court Justices, and a few of you don't even seem to know what the Constitution was written to secure. Hint: it's not individual rights.
Funny thing. I thought the argument was in regard to the 2A. The 2A does in fact secure the individuals right. I didn't think we were discussing any other point of the Constitution. But, I could be wrong about the subject of the discussion.
Oh well.
But in any case, discussing the Constitution is never pointless. I'm always willing to learn more facts.
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.
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.
