If Hillary wins, they better expand Gitmo

[ParsedOut]

ALSO: LOL

Haha, that's awesome.

[ParsedOut]

No, that would indicate you have a basic understanding of the english language.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorize

ter·ror·ize: to cause (someone) to be extremely afraid
: to force (someone) to do something by using threats or violence

1 : to fill with terror or anxiety : scare

Examples of TERRORIZE

As a child she terrorized her younger siblings.
She was terrorized by nightmares.
Employees were terrorized into accepting abysmal working conditions.

2 : to coerce by threat or violence
— ter·ror·i·za·tion noun

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism

ter·ror·ism: the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal

1: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

I'm sorry, but your definitions do not help your attempt to argue semantics.

[BraveUlysses]

I don't agree with Hillary nor do I think that gun owners are terrorizing anyone. Pretty certain she and everyone who isn't a retard with a persecution complex is using definition #1.

Unless you believe gun owners are using definition #2 of terrorize--you're making the shitty semantics argument, not I.

[ParsedOut]

I don't agree with Hillary nor do I think that gun owners are terrorizing anyone. Pretty certain she and everyone who isn't a retard with a persecution complex is using definition #1.

Unless you believe gun owners are using definition #2 of terrorize--you're making the shitty semantics argument, not I.

The fact that there is ANY question as to the definition or interpretation of her statements makes it in poor taste, that's my point. There already are a lot of people who think the PATRIOT act is a serious overstep in govt power and by these shared definitions of terrorize/terrorist/whatever it's not a good association. I don't really think they are going to round us up and throw is in concentration camps if we speak out for our rights.

[cale]

I am pro-gun but I'm all for being background checked, I have nothing to hide.

You should be ok with background checks because they're not a very invasive way to determine how safe it is for you to own a gun, not because you have nothing to hide.

Should I allow someone to go through my underwear drawer because I have nothing to hide, how about all my financial records? Perhaps you did not mean it as I took it, but far too many infringements of privacy are taking place because the people enacting them are of the belief that if you have nothing to hide, it's reasonable.

[marshallnoise]

All the background checks in the world still won't stop robbery. Nor will it stop straw-buyers. http://www.suntimes.com/news/crime/1...l#.U6M4f3ZN2ko

The issue of all crime goes beyond the tools used in committing a crime. It's a societal issue, a values issue, an issue of children being raised and not reared, its a desperation issue and it is a plain and simple "some people are just that stupid" issue.

[mrsleeve]

Never Mind point less post

[ParsedOut]

The issue of all crime goes beyond the tools used in committing a crime. It's a societal issue, a values issue, an issue of children being raised and not reared, its a desperation issue and it is a plain and simple "some people are just that stupid" issue.

Yeah, but those issues are sooooo hard to address but passing a law that will likely make little impact while potentially exposing our right to defend ourselves is really easy.

We have so many govt "programs" like the one Michelle Obama heads to keep kids from getting fat, or DARE to keep kids off of drugs.
Why don't we have educational programs for adults and/or new parents that show them how neglect and emotional disregard can lead to severe sociological issues, many of which can and will turn violent.
Or how about we put all of these millions of dollars being campaigned towards gun control towards education and breaking the cycle of inner city violence among youth?
Or all the money being spent on the "war on drugs", and address the real issues that cause people to use them.
We spend all this time and money fighting endless battles instead of really digging in and going to the source.

[marshallnoise]

Yeah, but those issues are sooooo hard to address but passing a law that will likely make little impact while potentially exposing our right to defend ourselves is really easy.

We have so many govt "programs" like the one Michelle Obama heads to keep kids from getting fat, or DARE to keep kids off of drugs.
Why don't we have educational programs for adults and/or new parents that show them how neglect and emotional disregard can lead to severe sociological issues, many of which can and will turn violent.
Or how about we put all of these millions of dollars being campaigned towards gun control towards education and breaking the cycle of inner city violence among youth?
Or all the money being spent on the "war on drugs", and address the real issues that cause people to use them.
We spend all this time and money fighting endless battles instead of really digging in and going to the source.

And that's just it. It is a moral issue and unfortunately all things moral are demonized and taboo. I am not saying religious, but moral. Correct, appropriate, tasteful and most of all, respecting the rights of the individual who is responsible for all things he/she interacts with.

Our country was founded on the idea that God gave man rights. Remove God from it and it looks like this: Our country was founded on the idea that no other man can give a man rights. Insert the Flying Spaghetti Monster: Our country was founded on the idea that the Flying Spaghetti Monster gave man rights. No contradiction no matter what pronoun, object or anything other than man you replace God with.

The advantage of believing in something other than nothingness is that you should be accountable to that thing for what you do to other men who were given the same rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Only a change of our hearts towards fellow man can make bad things stop happening. Guns for protection would not be necessary if everyone respected each other. Simple as that.

[smooth]

All the background checks in the world still won't stop robbery. Nor will it stop straw-buyers. http://www.suntimes.com/news/crime/1...l#.U6M4f3ZN2ko

gotta love this article...

ask him to justify Chicago...

His excuse for Chicago is that you can still go into the burbs and get guns and their suburban freedom is undermining the liberal utopia of a gunless society.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

and then marshallnoise posts an article describing exactly what I was pointing out about the flow of guns moving from the suburbs of Illinois into Chicago.

Also of note in that article, straw buys would be reduced if the person standing at the counter buying the firearm for his "buddy" had to process the sale just like the dealer. Seems to be the entire point of the article

[smooth]

Yeah, but those issues are sooooo hard to address but passing a law that will likely make little impact while potentially exposing our right to defend ourselves is really easy.

We have so many govt "programs" like the one Michelle Obama heads to keep kids from getting fat, or DARE to keep kids off of drugs.
Why don't we have educational programs for adults and/or new parents that show them how neglect and emotional disregard can lead to severe sociological issues, many of which can and will turn violent.
Or how about we put all of these millions of dollars being campaigned towards gun control towards education and breaking the cycle of inner city violence among youth?
Or all the money being spent on the "war on drugs", and address the real issues that cause people to use them.
We spend all this time and money fighting endless battles instead of really digging in and going to the source.

ask your local Republican representative if they do or do not support Head Start and federal education funding instead of relying on local tax dollars for public K-12 schooling

not sure why you think talking about one issue in a thread means people are not talking about other issues at the same time elsewhere. it's not like someone has to choose between regulating firearms and funding education

[ParsedOut]

not sure why you think talking about one issue in a thread means people are not talking about other issues at the same time elsewhere. it's not like someone has to choose between regulating firearms and funding education

Didn't say I was the only one talking about it, doesn't change the fact that we should take the effort and money involved in trying to pass regulations that would have little impact on the overall violent crime statistic and put them to use in other more sociologically constructive ways. If we continue to try and regulate the tool...maybe gun crime goes down, yay we win high fives all around! Uh oh, knives, baseball bats and fists are going up considerably (see England and Australia)...ohhh, now we need to pass laws on knives! Let's just keep pouring water from one bucket to another and asking ourselves why nothing works.

[ParsedOut]

gotta love this article...



and then marshallnoise posts an article describing exactly what I was pointing out about the flow of guns moving from the suburbs of Illinois into Chicago.

Also of note in that article, straw buys would be reduced if the person standing at the counter buying the firearm for his "buddy" had to process the sale just like the dealer. Seems to be the entire point of the article

While we're taking quotes from other threads...

no, I don't bother considering the root cause of violence because it's stupid to try and think I can prevent crime

Wait, so you say it's stupid to try and think about preventing crime? What purpose would these background checks serve then? Hmm...

[smooth]

no one is asking why "nothing works"
in fact, we [criminologists] know a lot about what does work but lobbyists prevent sound legislation from passing that would do a lot toward reducing violence and crime in this country

[marshallnoise]

gotta love this article...



and then marshallnoise posts an article describing exactly what I was pointing out about the flow of guns moving from the suburbs of Illinois into Chicago.

Also of note in that article, straw buys would be reduced if the person standing at the counter buying the firearm for his "buddy" had to process the sale just like the dealer. Seems to be the entire point of the article

But the argument is that Chicago is fucked because of the suburbs. What then is the solution? Ban guns in the suburbs. Then when people go farther away, the solution is to ban them there too.

It is a fruitless exercise. Bad people get guns. The solution is to change what helps create bad people.

You reposted the article and claimed victory. Such odd behavior.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk