Welcome to Gaia! ::


Wheezing Kitten

26,865 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Millionaire 200
  • Invisibility 100
Next thing you know, they'll try to say that owning a gun will give you cancer or make you fat. rolleyes
i highly doubt it. ill give you an off subject example. black man makes fun of bush-he's funny. white man makes fun of obama-racist. any man makes fun of first lady president-sexist. black man shoots another black man-murderer. white man shoots another white man-murderer. black man shoots white man- he's at the wrong place at the wrong time. white man shoots black man- racist. everyone is just looking for excuses to make out of any given situations.
I think its the other way around. The gun control laws ar more racist. The first laws were against Natives/Blacks

Shadowy Powerhouse

9,125 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
Superior Firepower
black man shoots white man- he's at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Well, yes, since 45% of the people on death row are black. * Despite being only 13% of the overall population. *

Certainly shooting a white man and winding up on death row would qualify as being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Execution for murder is better avoided.

Larry Matasareanu The 2nd
I think its the other way around. The gun control laws ar more racist. The first laws were against Natives/Blacks
What laws precisely do you mean?
Wendigo
Superior Firepower
black man shoots white man- he's at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Well, yes, since 45% of the people on death row are black. * Despite being only 13% of the overall population. *

Certainly shooting a white man and winding up on death row would qualify as being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Execution for murder is better avoided.

Larry Matasareanu The 2nd
I think its the other way around. The gun control laws ar more racist. The first laws were against Natives/Blacks
What laws precisely do you mean?


Nativesand blacks were not allowed to have guns
All American laws are racist.
So the one you put is that some guy beat her up. ok not cool but she walked out of the room got a gun and walked back in to shoot. Zimmerman did not drive home get a gun drive back and shoot. she could have called the cops after she walked out but did not. Zimmerman had a guy on top of him. not the same thing in the end. the stand your ground laws are about if someone comes in to your home and shoot him. he can not turn around and sue you for that.
I don't know anyone from America in a militia, so I don't know what if any good the 2nd amendment serves. But race doesn't appear to be a factor. Gun control in the United States, on the other hand, has the same history as Cola Wine. You should look in to it. Maybe you will learn something.

Shadowy Powerhouse

9,125 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
southinthemouth
So the one you put is that some guy beat her up. ok not cool but she walked out of the room got a gun and walked back in to shoot. Zimmerman did not drive home get a gun drive back and shoot. she could have called the cops after she walked out but did not.
She went to the garage, to drive away. She found herself trapped in the garage - she had to go back for her keys, and according to his deposition, the garage door was faulty and wouldn't have let her out regardless. There was a gun where she was.

When she had the gun and she confronted him, she could have shot him in the heart, like Zimmerman; instead she fired to frighten him but didn't hurt or kill anybody. Let him leave the house and locked the door behind him. Twenty years in prison. Twelve minute deliberation.

Distinct Informer

Just throwing this out there, as silly at it seems. The letter of the law allows deadly force in cases of imminent threat to life or limb. However the intentional firing of the air is not deadly force. It is not a direct form of self defense. In fact you are endangering everyone else because what goes up must come down.
Thus by the letter of the law she was guilty of a crime. It is the jurors responsibility to judge based on the actions and the letter of the law.
Alrighty where to begin this little rant of mine. Ah yes your constant use of racist accusations. The 2nd amendment was created so the people can fight against a tyrannical government. Yes that's right our government wanted the people to be able to defend itself from its own government. For the founding fathers feared that a strong central government would lead to a monarchy such as Britain and abuse it's citizens. So to combat that they not only gave the states most of the power of government try also have the citizens the empowerment they needed to feel safe with the new form of government that was being created. Had nothing to do with slave patrols or those issues. Yes they may have played some role but not one that would have been significant.
Two your understanding of our military is quiet sad. Here's a brief break down of our militias. After the civial war and the Spanish American war we trusted our militias more than a standing army. Though we have always felt that from the start. It wasn't until ww1 where the us government realized that for any large conflict they needed to have more funding and be better trained and equipt. So here comes the national guard. They still are funded and fall under state jurisdiction but get some federal funding and can be called upon at anytime. Thus where are our militias our national guardsmen.
Third. Now you keep claiming that removal of firearms is needed and yet you have failed to show that Britain is just that. Disarmed their population. Now they have very little fun violence so A+ there yet their stabbing a, mugging and home invasions are up so that gets a big ol' F. The fact that most people still believe the police are going to be enough to help is disturbing really. With intruders just like bullies. Stand your ground and fight them off. Cowering in a corner and waiting for someone else to fight your battles isn't going to keep you safe. Claims of its out of date and we don't need it also shows that you have no problems with someone ruling you and your "open minded" and yet want someone to spoon feed you everything shows the great decline in society today. Conservitives believe in traditional roles yes yet we practice a multitude of ideology. Ignorance of us shows me that you don't 1 understand your opposition thus opinions that you have are not only bias but based off of biased "research" 2 you don't fully understand the reasonings behind this. History teaches you a lot. Like one if you look through books picking only one book and claiming it is fact and not doing further research using primary sources not secondary. CNN is not a primary source, any news media can't be considered a good clear source. The only good source is that of your local or even federal library's archives. I'd suggest you research the topic fully before speaking. As you still do not have a good understanding of the problem at hand.

Shadowy Powerhouse

9,125 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
iamzergling
Alrighty where to begin this little rant of mine. Ah yes your constant use of racist accusations. The 2nd amendment was created so the people can fight against a tyrannical government. Yes that's right our government wanted the people to be able to defend itself from its own government.
No, they didn't. Otherwise they wouldn't have included calling up the militia to suppress insurrections in the powers of Congress.
Wendigo
iamzergling
Alrighty where to begin this little rant of mine. Ah yes your constant use of racist accusations. The 2nd amendment was created so the people can fight against a tyrannical government. Yes that's right our government wanted the people to be able to defend itself from its own government.
No, they didn't. Otherwise they wouldn't have included calling up the militia to suppress insurrections in the powers of Congress.


They don't want te federal government to have any control of a large standing force. Period. The citizens do not trust a large standing force until just before ww2. Then we had a large standing for. The militias are not for the federal government it is for the states. As the states should have more power then the federal government.

Shadowy Powerhouse

9,125 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
iamzergling
Wendigo
iamzergling
Alrighty where to begin this little rant of mine. Ah yes your constant use of racist accusations. The 2nd amendment was created so the people can fight against a tyrannical government. Yes that's right our government wanted the people to be able to defend itself from its own government.
No, they didn't. Otherwise they wouldn't have included calling up the militia to suppress insurrections in the powers of Congress.


They don't want te federal government to have any control of a large standing force. Period. The citizens do not trust a large standing force until just before ww2. Then we had a large standing for. The militias are not for the federal government it is for the states. As the states should have more power then the federal government.
Read a little farther in the Constitution. Congress can call it into federal service, and the President can command it - like the National Guard, which it was replaced by. Among the reasons, to prevent what you were describing earlier, the "people fighting against a tyrannical government," or in other words, an "insurrection."

As for the states being stronger than the federal government, we did indeed try that...until 1789, when the current Constitution replaced it.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum