What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

USA Shootings (6 Viewers)

KCitons said:
I think the type of weapons is irrelevant. It's the principle of the Amendment. They didn't want a tyrannical government to have absolute power over the citizens. Which is why I question if the states should have their own militaries, if combined, would be able to defend against the Federal army.
Click to expand...
If it's not relevant, why would the judgements stop at a certain type of weapon protected under the 2nd but not others?

 
KarmaPolice said:
Isn't it also debatable if they could have had home protection in mind?  With the weapons they had, I am guessing that wouldn't have been on their minds with the 2nd.  I mean, how long did it take to load one of those things?
Click to expand...
same amount of time it took the Feg Govt army men to reload

they were the most powerful guns on earth - and our founding fathers wanted them in the hands of citizens

 
Stealthycat said:
sigh

semi-auto rifles are used in how many of the 11-12,000 murders in the USA every year

please ... do we all still not understand those numbers ?
Click to expand...
I am not debating the numbers.  Yes, we know the % of those weapons used in the crimes and the % of the overall number of guns used in crimes.  

We've been through this enough times.  I think all in here think your "they aren't dangerous because we have X number of them and few deaths" posts to be completely missing the point.  (Maybe not all, because KC seems to be wanting to get on that side too for some reason).  

 
Stealthycat said:
same amount of time it took the Feg Govt army men to reload

they were the most powerful guns on earth - and our founding fathers wanted them in the hands of citizens
Click to expand...
So you believe their intent was for the citizens to keep pace with the weaponry of the Fed Govt no matter what, and that is what should be allowed under the 2nd?  

 
KarmaPolice said:
I am not debating the numbers.  Yes, we know the % of those weapons used in the crimes and the % of the overall number of guns used in crimes.  

We've been through this enough times.  I think all in here think your "they aren't dangerous because we have X number of them and few deaths" posts to be completely missing the point.  (Maybe not all, because KC seems to be wanting to get on that side too for some reason).  
Click to expand...
great so .... we all know that semi-auto rifles are used in like 2% of all violent acts/gun deaths ..... they are literally just like a hunting rifle that many people use except with a few accessories that people find scary .... we know that of what, 15 million of that Ar platform, 20-30 are used every year by wackos wrongly. We know that if they don't use them, they'll just use semi-auto handguns with high cap magazines and literally no reduction in violence will happen

now tell me KarmaPolice .... why do people talk talk talk about them ?

media and liberal agenda hype .... that's literally it and it's exceptionally sad to see so much work to be done with violence in the USA and the Democrats literally focus on the least used item in violence. Amazing

 
KarmaPolice said:
So you believe their intent was for the citizens to keep pace with the weaponry of the Fed Govt no matter what, and that is what should be allowed under the 2nd?  
Click to expand...
we can all guess intent ....they'd just fought for their lives and their families lives literally and many died for that cause .... I don't think and I can understand that kind of life and what that liberty meant to them and they wasn't going to easily hand their new Govt absolute control and in fact, they wanted a Govt FOR the people ... not people serving under a GOVT

 
KarmaPolice said:
I am not debating the numbers.  Yes, we know the % of those weapons used in the crimes and the % of the overall number of guns used in crimes.  

We've been through this enough times.  I think all in here think your "they aren't dangerous because we have X number of them and few deaths" posts to be completely missing the point.  (Maybe not all, because KC seems to be wanting to get on that side too for some reason).  
Click to expand...
I stand alone. Perhaps that's why it takes so long for progress. People are still choosing sides. 

 
krista4 said:
Btw, there are many studies showing bear spray is more effective than firearms as a repellent.  As someone who spends more time hiking in bear country than 99+% of people posting here, I can tell you that understanding how to react to a bear and practice bear safety is more important than anything you might carry.  I’ve come across a number of black bears without incident, as do the vast majority of people encountering them, without resort to firearms, bear spray, or anything else.
Click to expand...
Make yourself appear bigger than you are, back away slowly while still facing them. And stay the #### away from their kids. Do I have some of that right? We were in yellowstone and places around there for a few weeks a couple of years ago, and every time we had our kid go to the ranger talk, inevitably it became all about what to do if you run into a bear, so I think they said some of that stuff.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why is talking about cars or DUI deflecting, but talking about bears is not?

Why aren't people that use aliases considered schizophrenic?  (They should be red flagged.)

Why is it, the people that are so afraid of those with guns, are the ones that can't control their own anger enough to avoid being banned on a random message board?

 
Stealthycat said:
you want guns/violence/regulations/deaths to be equated to driving/cars/regulations/wrecks/deaths

to accomplish that, you need 15-20% or more of gun owners to not follow laws/rules/regulations - like auto drivers. You need 1 million arrested every year for breaking firearm laws, like drivers break DUI laws. You need to accept 35,000 deaths instead of 11-12,000 which are the murders people commit using guns and hundreds of thousands of gun injuries like we have auto injuries

I don't think you want that at all 

i think what you really might want is drivers to be as responsible as legal law abiding gun owners - like when millions of hunters spend tens of millions of hours in the woods every year .... and rare is there an incident/accident. 

Can you imagine if drivers were that safe ?
Click to expand...
You are making a false equivalency and a leap in logic.  I'm starting to wonder if you are having this discussion in good faith.  I'll make one last attempt, I guess:  Just because guns are regulated in a similar fashion to cars doesn't mean consequences of those regulations will be similar to cars.  You are doing weird things with the statistics which don't have a basis in reality, and you either don't realize you are doing it or you are intentionally doing it.  Just have a real conversation, man. 

 
KarmaPolice said:
Isn't it also debatable if they could have had home protection in mind?  With the weapons they had, I am guessing that wouldn't have been on their minds with the 2nd.  I mean, how long did it take to load one of those things?
Click to expand...
Interesting.  I agree that the framers probably weren't thinking in term of home protection (although seeing as something like 70% of our jobs were agrarian 200 years ago, I wouldn't be surprised if the framers thought of firearms as a basic part of home ownership). But I still think the "check on governmental power" easily could have been a thing.  

 
KarmaPolice said:
Isn't it also debatable if they could have had home protection in mind?  With the weapons they had, I am guessing that wouldn't have been on their minds with the 2nd.  I mean, how long did it take to load one of those things?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't think so. Home protection at that time was non existent. They used guns for two things. Hunting and shooting the British Army. Knowing that they used the same arms to earn their freedom, makes me think that that is what they had in mind when they wrote it. 

 
Stealthycat said:
same amount of time it took the Feg Govt army men to reload

they were the most powerful guns on earth - and our founding fathers wanted them in the hands of citizens
Click to expand...
Nobody but you argues this.   Both Supreme Court decisions in Heller and Miller, which go through a painstaking analysis of the drafting of the second amendment, show that you are wrong.

Once again, you are just making things up.

 
the rover said:
Nobody but you argues this.   Both Supreme Court decisions in Heller and Miller, which go through a painstaking analysis of the drafting of the second amendment, show that you are wrong.

Once again, you are just making things up.
Click to expand...
Lots of people interpret it this way. 

The Supreme Court doesn't define everyone's opinion. Lot's of people feel differently about abortion, regardless of SCOTUS ruling. 

 
Sweet J said:
Interesting.  I agree that the framers probably weren't thinking in term of home protection (although seeing as something like 70% of our jobs were agrarian 200 years ago, I wouldn't be surprised if the framers thought of firearms as a basic part of home ownership). But I still think the "check on governmental power" easily could have been a thing.  
Click to expand...
As Justice Stevens pointed out in his dissent, the framers were probably thinking about the issue, since some states included hunting and home protection in their statements of the right to bear arms.   The framers decided not to include these in the second amendment.   It was the majority's reading and interpretation that essentially eliminated half of the amendment and disregarded the "well-regulated militia" purpose.

Stevens also stated that the amendment was notable for the "omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense" which was present in the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont.
Click to expand...

 
McJose said:
Since 2010 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America#2010s

Check again
Click to expand...
uh ... what are you looking at ??

Mark Uptain, 37, male14-Sep-18Teton Wilderness, Wyoming

Brad Treat, 38, male29-Jun-16Flathead National Forest, Montana

Lance Crosby, 63, male07-Aug-15Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming

Adam Thomas Stewart, 31, male04-Sep-14Bridger-Teton National Forest, Wyoming

John Wallace, 59, male24-Aug-11Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming

Brian Matayoshi, 57, male06-Jul-11Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sweet J said:
Just because guns are regulated in a similar fashion to cars doesn't mean consequences of those regulations will be similar to cars.
Click to expand...
good gawd

you are the one that wanted guns regulated like cars .... and with that comes EVERYTHING 

you cannot cherry pick only the good parts .... you know that, I know that ..... and now that I pointed out just how poorly our licensing/mandatory insurance/responsibility IS with drivers/driving I think you realize quickly you DO NOT want gun owners behaving that way. 

right ?

 
Gr00vus said:
Make yourself appear bigger than you are, back away slowly while still facing them. And stay the #### away from their kids. Do I have some of that right?
Click to expand...
that might matter, maybe not .... depends on the bear, situation, if they're conditioned to humans etc etc

you have zero chance against a grizzly if they want to kill you short of you killing them first - period, end of story. Bear spray will deter, IMO it will never stop a determined grizzly. Shooting a determined grizzly in the brain will stop it. If you have time. they're that dangerous IMO

 
the rover said:
Nobody but you argues this.   Both Supreme Court decisions in Heller and Miller, which go through a painstaking analysis of the drafting of the second amendment, show that you are wrong
Click to expand...
ok in the time of the founding of this nation, which guns/weapons were banned from the civilians at that time that the Govt military allowed

go - list them

 
Stealthycat said:
good gawd

you are the one that wanted guns regulated like cars .... and with that comes EVERYTHING 

you cannot cherry pick only the good parts .... you know that, I know that ..... and now that I pointed out just how poorly our licensing/mandatory insurance/responsibility IS with drivers/driving I think you realize quickly you DO NOT want gun owners behaving that way. 

right ?
Click to expand...
Right.  So if we regulate guns like cars, then 35,000 people will get run over by guns every year?  That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

I just went back and checked your original post.  Here it is:

what are the numbers .... 35,000 dead every year, 12-20% drive with no insurance, CA had so many drivers without licenses they allowed illegally here people to get license ..... we have uninsured motorist insurance because of the millions who drive against all rules and laws

you want guns regulated that way huh ?
Click to expand...
35,000 die in car accidents every year.  Somehow regulating guns will mean that 35,000 people will die due to guns every year?  Please just try and talk like an honest to god normal person. 

 
Stealthycat said:
uh ... what are you looking at ??

Mark Uptain, 37, male14-Sep-18Teton Wilderness, Wyoming

Brad Treat, 38, male29-Jun-16Flathead National Forest, Montana

Lance Crosby, 63, male07-Aug-15Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming

Adam Thomas Stewart, 31, male04-Sep-14Bridger-Teton National Forest, Wyoming

John Wallace, 59, male24-Aug-11Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming

Brian Matayoshi, 57, male06-Jul-11Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming
Click to expand...
How many of those were Grizzlies?

Edit:  my bad.  I was looking in the wrong spot.  Carry on.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stealthycat said:
ok in the time of the founding of this nation, which guns/weapons were banned from the civilians at that time that the Govt military allowed

go - list them
Click to expand...
The question is not which guns were banned.   You seem obsessed with talking about gun bans, even though that isn't the topic.

The question is which guns were protected by the second amendment, and why.   The question specifically asked was whether the founders intended to protect guns for purposes of hunting and home protection.  Although those purposes were expressly stated in certain states' declarations of rights, those purposes were omitted from the second amendment ( since they had these declaration of rights when they wrote they debated and wrote the second amendment, Justice Stevens and Justice Breyer both argue that this omission was intentional, since that is how we interpret laws in our country).     The only guns protected were "for the purposes of a well-regulated militia" which, according to the Supreme Court in Miller, included commonly owned guns.  Miller, for example, held that a sawed off shotgun would not have been commonly owned for the purposes of a militia, and therefore not protected by the second amendment.   

Since only certain firearms were protected by the second amendment, the National Firearms Act was later adopted to specifically ban certain weapons, and applied toward the regulation of others--generally weapons reserved for the military that would not be "commonly owned" by citizens.   This is why assault weapons bans have been upheld in multiple states--even though certain platforms may be popular, they are military-style weapons converted to civilian use, and therefore not protected.

It is obvious from all of your arguments that you have never read the Supreme Court's decisions on gun regulation in this country, which is why you constantly get it wrong.   If you would do something other than parrot propaganda it would help to take you more seriously.   

 
Sweet J said:
Right.  So if we regulate guns like cars, then 35,000 people will get run over by guns every year?  That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

I just went back and checked your original post.  Here it is:
Click to expand...
wow 

let me try again ..... licensing of car, mandatory insurance of cars and having/using cars as a responsibility by citizens equals 12-20% or more unlicensed/uninsured, results in 35,000 deaths, hundreds of thousands of injuries, billions in damages .... everyone obeying stop signs and speed limits ....

and you want guns to be like that - that's what you suggested not me

you want my opinion ?  drivers should be like legal, law abiding gun owners .... rare instances of misues or accidents .... man can you imagine how safe the roads would be ?

 
the rover said:
The question is not which guns were banned.   You seem obsessed with talking about gun bans, even though that isn't the topic.
Click to expand...
so you agree, civilians had as much firepower as the Federal Govt - the founding fathers MADE IT LIKE THAT

it absolutely was what I said 

 
McJose said:
How many of those were Grizzlies?

Edit:  my bad.  I was looking in the wrong spot.  Carry on.
Click to expand...
that's ok - we got it right now :)

I hunt a lot, lived out west, I read bowhunting/hunting sites ..... grizzlies have been conditioned that when they hear a rifle, go to that direction :(    I hope there is a lower 48 season for them soon. Grizzly is the sole reason I do not hunt WY or MT 

 
Sweet J said:
Right.  So if we regulate guns like cars, then 35,000 people will get run over by guns every year?  That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

I just went back and checked your original post.  Here it is:

35,000 die in car accidents every year.  Somehow regulating guns will mean that 35,000 people will die due to guns every year?  Please just try and talk like an honest to god normal person. 
Click to expand...
I thought it was closer to 85k each year. 

 
Stealthycat said:
so you agree, civilians had as much firepower as the Federal Govt - the founding fathers MADE IT LIKE THAT

it absolutely was what I said 
Click to expand...
No, not at all.  Citizens, for example, did not commonly own cannons, so there was no reason to ban them.   But they are most certainly not protected by the second amendment.   Your argument is ignorant and disingenuous, and addressed in the rest of my post, which you ignored.

Until you stop parroting talking points and lying, it is impossible to take you seriously.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
the rover said:
No, not at all.  Citizens, for example, did not commonly own cannons, so there was no reason to ban them.   But they are most certainly not protected by the second amendment.   Your argument is ignorant and disingenuous, and addressed in the rest of my post, which you ignored.

Until you stop parroting talking points and lying, it is impossible to take you seriously.
Click to expand...
they might not have commonly owned -0 but they could have even so, you cannot "bear" a cannon really can you ?

you are ignoring historical facts -fish because it undermines everything you regurgitate from Brady Campaign

Fact is today, you side wants a political agenda pushed through when people's emotions are high after a tragedy, asking for bans on guns that are rarely used in violence all the while ignoring the violence itself.

Its literally like banning a certain kind of car to stop drunk driving ... your side ignores the core problem, over and over and over and over 

 
Stealthycat said:
wow 

let me try again ..... licensing of car, mandatory insurance of cars and having/using cars as a responsibility by citizens equals 12-20% or more unlicensed/uninsured, results in 35,000 deaths, hundreds of thousands of injuries, billions in damages .... everyone obeying stop signs and speed limits ....

and you want guns to be like that - that's what you suggested not me

you want my opinion ?  drivers should be like legal, law abiding gun owners .... rare instances of misues or accidents .... man can you imagine how safe the roads would be ?
Click to expand...
Do you know how numbers work? 

 
Here's something you may not know - if we regulated dog ownership like car ownership, it would result in 35,000 people each each getting mauled to death by dogs.  Fact. 

 
Stealthycat said:
they might not have commonly owned -0 but they could have even so, you cannot "bear" a cannon really can you ?

you are ignoring historical facts -fish because it undermines everything you regurgitate from Brady Campaign

Fact is today, you side wants a political agenda pushed through when people's emotions are high after a tragedy, asking for bans on guns that are rarely used in violence all the while ignoring the violence itself.

Its literally like banning a certain kind of car to stop drunk driving ... your side ignores the core problem, over and over and over and over 
Click to expand...
Again, our Supreme Court was thorough in going into the facts behind the drafting of the second amendment.  I summarized it for you, since you refuse to read the relevant opinions or acknowledge those facts.  Your theory is just wrong.  Bringing up drunk driving or cars again just shows that you have no way to defend your ignorance, other than with more deflection. 

Nearly every day, you lie and say I want to ban guns.   I have clearly stated my position on gun regulations.   Have I ever advocated for a gun ban of any kind?  Please stop lying, particularly about what other people are saying.    

 
Last edited by a moderator:
the rover said:
Again, our Supreme Court was thorough in going into the facts behind the drafting of the second amendment.  I summarized it for you, since you refuse to read the relevant opinions or acknowledge those facts.  Your theory is just wrong.  Bringing up drunk driving or cars again just shows that you have no way to defend your ignorance, other than with more deflection. 

Nearly every day, you lie and say I want to ban guns.   I have clearly stated my position on gun regulations.   Have I ever advocated for a gun ban of any kind?  Please stop lying, particularly about what other people are saying.    
Click to expand...
In all fairness, it's difficult to tell who's who. 

"Program, get your programs. Can't tell the players without a program"

 
KCitons said:
Lots of people interpret it this way. 

The Supreme Court doesn't define everyone's opinion. Lot's of people feel differently about abortion, regardless of SCOTUS ruling. 
Click to expand...
Sometimes it's good to refer to people who are at the top of their field and do this for a living and weigh heavily what they say.  

Some people have the opinion that the Earth is flat.  It doesn't make that opinion valid.  

 
KarmaPolice said:
Sometimes it's good to refer to people who are at the top of their field and do this for a living and weigh heavily what they say.  

Some people have the opinion that the Earth is flat.  It doesn't make that opinion valid.  
Click to expand...
I'm sorry. This comment sounds like you let everyone else form your opinions. Right or wrong, it's okay to think for yourself. Some of the greatest people to ever live went against the stream because they believed in their own opinion.

Using your own words, Christopher Columbus went against those that thought the Earth was flat. He wasn't listening to what others were telling him.

 
Stealthycat said:
great so .... we all know that semi-auto rifles are used in like 2% of all violent acts/gun deaths ..... they are literally just like a hunting rifle that many people use except with a few accessories that people find scary .... we know that of what, 15 million of that Ar platform, 20-30 are used every year by wackos wrongly. We know that if they don't use them, they'll just use semi-auto handguns with high cap magazines and literally no reduction in violence will happen

now tell me KarmaPolice .... why do people talk talk talk about them ?

media and liberal agenda hype .... that's literally it and it's exceptionally sad to see so much work to be done with violence in the USA and the Democrats literally focus on the least used item in violence. Amazing
Click to expand...
There you go switching it to violent acts/gun deaths - you know very well that people who are focused on those are mainly focused on the deadliest of mass shootings, not all gun deaths.  You also know that they can't talk much about banning others that are used in the majority of crimes because of the SC ruling.  

It's amusing that you post about the media agenda and liberal hype, but constantly post stuff from Fox and NRA shills.  

 
KCitons said:
I'm sorry. This comment sounds like you let everyone else form your opinions. Right or wrong, it's okay to think for yourself. Some of the greatest people to ever live went against the stream because they believed in their own opinion.

Using your own words, Christopher Columbus went against those that thought the Earth was flat. He wasn't listening to what others were telling him.
Click to expand...
That was also a time when religion still heavily influenced people's minds. 

It's good that mankind is in the process of putting religion behind us more and more everyday. 

 
Politician Spock said:
That was also a time when religion still heavily influenced people's minds. 

It's good that mankind is in the process of putting religion behind us more and more everyday. 
Click to expand...
From what I recall, Christianity is trending down but Islam is growing.  Not sure about religion as a whole dying out.  You may well be right.  Don’t have time to go down that rabbit hole right now.

 
KCitons said:
I'm sorry. This comment sounds like you let everyone else form your opinions. Right or wrong, it's okay to think for yourself. Some of the greatest people to ever live went against the stream because they believed in their own opinion.

Using your own words, Christopher Columbus went against those that thought the Earth was flat. He wasn't listening to what others were telling him.
Click to expand...
You arent sorry.  I take it from your comment that you are a complete free thinker and dont read or listen to people who have more education on a topic than you do.  

 
KarmaPolice said:
You arent sorry.  I take it from your comment that you are a complete free thinker and dont read or listen to people who have more education on a topic than you do.  
Click to expand...
I am a little. 

I'm not a complete free thinker. I read your post. So, I must read. 

Are you closer to Columbus or the people that said the Earth was flat?

 
KCitons said:
I am a little. 

I'm not a complete free thinker. I read your post. So, I must read. 

Are you closer to Columbus or the people that said the Earth was flat?
Click to expand...
I dont qualify it like that.  Just try my best to absorb as much info as I can with the limited time I have.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
KCitons said:
Using your own words, Christopher Columbus went against those that thought the Earth was flat. He wasn't listening to what others were telling him.
Click to expand...
Hate to break it to you, but by 1492, it was common knowledge the Earth was spherical. What Columbus had wrong was the distance to the India. He believed the Earth to be smaller than scholars of his time.

 
Politician Spock said:
That was also a time when religion still heavily influenced people's minds. 

It's good that mankind is in the process of putting religion behind us more and more everyday. 
Click to expand...
Praise be. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
At Least 181 K-12 Educators/Teachers Charged With Child Sex Crimes In First Half Of 2022 (10/1/22 9:22 PST)
Replies
36
Views
1K
tymarsas
T
GordonGekko
Did UC Berkeley Law School Enable "Jewish Free Zones" & Antisemitism With Pro Israel Speaker Bans? ( 10/2/22 11:12 PST)
Replies
10
Views
582
(HULK)
(HULK)
E
Taking Politics Out of Public Schools
Replies
37
Views
882
MAC_32
MAC_32

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 7 (members: 0, guests: 7)
Top