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 (7 Viewers)

timschochet said:
With regard to Beto, I also keep hearing the media and some politicians use the phrase "mandatory buy backs", and claiming that this is analogous to gun seizures. I'm not in favor of either, but they're not the same. You could have mandatory buy backs, and if somebody fails to do it, they pay a penalty (akin to the Affordable Care Act, for instance.)
Click to expand...
what if I don't give my gun and nobody knows I have it ?

 
KCitons said:
If every candidate supported a mandatory buyback, would you still disregard it as Beto being the one that made the "splash"? I was told it was one (Beto). Now it's two. At what point do you become concerned? I believed the term was "it's not going to happen".

Obama made the splash with healthcare for all, does that mean any of the current plans are pointless?
Click to expand...
Hmm lots of questions. Let's see:

1. I didn't disregard it. What I wrote is that the Democratic Party needs to disregard it. And quick. Right now, public perception is that it's only Beto. Let's keep it that way.

2. I will become concerned when it becomes part of the Democratic platform or is the stated policy of the Democratic nominee.

3. Since Harry Truman, most Democratic Presidents and major candidates have publicly advocated for some kind of public health care system. Lyndon Johnson, George W. Bush (not a Democrat) and Barack Obama have done the most in moving us in that direction. Personally I am opposed to Warren and Sanders' proposals; I prefer Biden's idea of a public option and strengthening Obamacare.

 
Why is it that America is the only western democracy that constitutionally protects the right to own weapons of war?

do you think that is more or less progressive than societies which ban them?

 
timschochet said:
Hmm lots of questions. Let's see:

1. I didn't disregard it. What I wrote is that the Democratic Party needs to disregard it. And quick. Right now, public perception is that it's only Beto. Let's keep it that way.

2. I will become concerned when it becomes part of the Democratic platform or is the stated policy of the Democratic nominee.

3. Since Harry Truman, most Democratic Presidents and major candidates have publicly advocated for some kind of public health care system. Lyndon Johnson, George W. Bush (not a Democrat) and Barack Obama have done the most in moving us in that direction. Personally I am opposed to Warren and Sanders' proposals; I prefer Biden's idea of a public option and strengthening Obamacare.
Click to expand...
It's not that way. I just said that Kamala Harris said it on tv two nights ago. She supports it. 

The other is that polling shows that mandatory gun buybacks are roughly 50/50.

We also saw the crowd response of Beto's comments at the debate. This is teetering at best. It could tip all in at any point if the Dems think that will further their campaign. Why did Kamala do it two days ago, but not last week?

 
zoonation said:
Why is it that America is the only western democracy that constitutionally protects the right to own weapons of war?

do you think that is more or less progressive than societies which ban them?
Click to expand...
because United States is the best country in the world where the people are free (less and less, but still free)

"weapons of war" ... what does that even mean ? guns have ALWAYS been in the United States .... like has been said, only in the last 25 years has this mass shooting thing really happened

and you think guns have changed? 

no - PEOPLE have changed, haven't they ?

 
zoonation said:
Why is it that America is the only western democracy that constitutionally protects the right to own weapons of war?

do you think that is more or less progressive than societies which ban them?
Click to expand...
Weren't muskets weapons of war when the Constitution was written?

 
If guns don’t kill people people kill people (as a few here like to point out), then guns don’t protect people either (contrary to what a few here like to point out).  

 
KCitons said:
It's not that way. I just said that Kamala Harris said it on tv two nights ago. She supports it. 

The other is that polling shows that mandatory gun buybacks are roughly 50/50.

We also saw the crowd response of Beto's comments at the debate. This is teetering at best. It could tip all in at any point if the Dems think that will further their campaign. Why did Kamala do it two days ago, but not last week?
Click to expand...
Yes I am aware that the crowd cheered him on. Again, if it becomes an official policy of the Democratic Party, they will have problems.

 
Stealthycat said:
all I'm asking is if we're going to start saying what weapons are used in violence, lets do it across the board - knife violence, fist violence, bat violence ................ can we agree to do that ?

because only being specific with "gun" is for a purpose isn't it ? to demonize guns and make it look like guns are the problem
 

guns are not the problem, if they were? 60 million American's would be killing thousands daily wouldn't we ?
Click to expand...
Okay, but you're basically the only person talking about other forms of violence in the gun violence thread.  When it comes to "all forms of violence" guns are not the problem, but they are absolutely A problem.  

 
KCitons said:
Original intent is the right to bear arms. 

How you define arms, is different than how I define them.
Click to expand...
Not really. We both agree that nobody should privately own nuclear weapons, or chemical weapons, correct?
Therefore, we both accept the principle that there has to be SOME limitations. Once you accept that principle, then it becomes simply a matter of what the government decides should be legal. The 2nd Amendment no longer comes into it.

 
Stealthycat said:
another vote to edit the constitution ,,, and ignore the core problem

bravo .... at least you're honest 
Click to expand...
Or we can continue to think about it and hope the Great Invisible Being In The Sky will bail us out.

Only one of those options will actually lead to lives being saved, as the rest of the civilized world has shown.

 
timschochet said:
I'm OK with keeping muskets legal. Original intent!
Click to expand...
So would you also be for allowing ship of war to be in private hands.  When the Constitution was written Privateers were plentiful, warship in private hands, in corporate hands.  Our constitution explicitly acknowledges that marque and reprisal is authorized, that is taking of foreign ship of war as prizes if those foreign nations are at war with us.

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
So would you also be for allowing ship of war to be in private hands.  When the Constitution was written Privateers were plentiful, warship in private hands, in corporate hands.  Our constitution explicitly acknowledges that marque and reprisal is authorized, that is taking of foreign ship of war as prizes if those foreign nations are at war with us.
Click to expand...
Letters of marque! I like that idea. There's a couple yachts in Newport Harbor I wouldn't mind pirating...um...I mean legally seizing.

 
timschochet said:
Letters of marque! I like that idea. There's a couple yachts in Newport Harbor I wouldn't mind pirating...um...I mean legally seizing.
Click to expand...
If we have declared literal, and not just figurative war on their owners, so be it.  Pretty sure the "war on Drugs" would not qualify to allow you to seize Pablo Escobar's yacht.

 
I am unclear if it would allow seizure of Jeffry Epstein's jet.  Is that a sailing vessel, sailing thorough the skies?  Have we, or did we declare war upon him in any more than a hyperbolic sense, because I don't think hyperbole qualifies.

 
timschochet said:
Dammit. I was thinking more about the war on poverty. Aren't we still fighting that?
Click to expand...
If it helps I agree that we are and that you have my blessing to seize Jeffrey Epstein's jet.  I am trying to figure out how to seize his island.  I may start squatting immediately and making up claims of right which are less than apparently completely spurious.

 
Ditkaless Wonders said:
If it helps I agree that we are and that you have my blessing to seize Jeffrey Epstein's jet.  I am trying to figure out how to seize his island.  I may start squatting immediately and making up claims of right which are less than apparently completely spurious.
Click to expand...
Somebody needs to own that island. Might as well be you.

 
timschochet said:
Somebody needs to own that island. Might as well be you.
Click to expand...
You can land on my island anytime, with no landing or departure fees.

Now, if I can just find a diminutive person who will answer to Tattoo.

Allman Bros missed making video history when they decided to not use Hervé Villechaize  in their video for I'm no Angel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWNKHi2joJE

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Not really. We both agree that nobody should privately own nuclear weapons, or chemical weapons, correct?
Therefore, we both accept the principle that there has to be SOME limitations. Once you accept that principle, then it becomes simply a matter of what the government decides should be legal. The 2nd Amendment no longer comes into it.
Click to expand...
And you think semi automatic weapons should be banned, and I don't. As I said we disagree on what our forefathers were talking about.

 
McJose said:
This hits way to F-ing close to home. 

Nothing like a little cry before parent-teacher conferences.  
Click to expand...
Just spreading hysteria. 

If something like this would have been produced after 9/11, we would have said not to let the terrorist win. Now, we have people spreading the fear in order to further the agenda. 

Here's a drunk driving one. Doubt you shed a tear for that one though.

 
dkp993 said:
So guns kill people then?
Click to expand...
People use guns to kill people, the same way they use knives, or bats, or poison. Perhaps electricity is something that kills people without human interaction. Or maybe mother nature causing a tree to fall on someone. Every other inanimate object is completely harmless without human interaction. If guns killed people, then wouldn't there be millions of people dying each day with the number of guns in this country.

The humor is that you tried to make the analogy that guns don't protect people. If that was the case, then police wouldn't carry guns. Isn't their motto "To serve and protect"?

 
McJose said:
Pretty much anything I thought about replying with would get me ultra-banned.
Click to expand...
That's because you can't remove emotion from the conversation. 

But, you already took one jab at me. Don't dish it out if you can't take it. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
KCitons said:
People use guns to kill people, the same way they use knives, or bats, or poison. Perhaps electricity is something that kills people without human interaction. Or maybe mother nature causing a tree to fall on someone. Every other inanimate object is completely harmless without human interaction. If guns killed people, then wouldn't there be millions of people dying each day with the number of guns in this country.

The humor is that you tried to make the analogy that guns don't protect people. If that was the case, then police wouldn't carry guns. Isn't their motto "To serve and protect"?
Click to expand...
No that’s not my analogy, I was pointing out it can’t be both.  I fully agree guns can protect people, but I also don’t argue that guns don’t kill people people kill people (like some do around here).  Guns clearly kill people.  Killing is their sole intended design and purpose as I argued months ago.   

 
dkp993 said:
No that’s not my analogy, I was pointing out it can’t be both.  I fully agree guns can protect people, but I also don’t argue that guns don’t kill people people kill people (like some do around here).  Guns clearly kill people.  Killing is their sole intended design and purpose as I argued months ago.   
Click to expand...
guns don't protect without human interaction, they don't kill without human interaction. Without humans, guns would just sit there. 

So, I guess we are in agreement. 

Ban humans. 

 
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
580
(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