Political Crossfire Forums

Lucky Luke · Joined: 28 Oct 2005 Posts: 8662 Location: Scotland

The Comrade wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: The Comrade wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: The Comrade let's see you answer this question now.

How many American lives are you willing to sacrifice a year, every year, year after year in order up to avoid gun control to become borderline unconstitutional?

:-D
:-D

as many as it takes to keep america from falling into the hands of tyranny.

cars and heart diseae kill many more people a year in america.

do you agree with banning cars and greasey food?

How many is that The Comrade, 100, 1000, 100000, 1, you?

Quote: as many as it takes to keep america from falling into the hands of tyranny.

now answer my question lucky luke. should cars and greasy food be banned?

Give us a number The Comrade considering that America is not falling in the hands of a tyrant soon nor that stricter gun control laws can achieve any of that.

If cars or greasy food were used by criminals to murder the number of people criminals are murdering with handguns in America today, I can tell you that car or greasy food control laws would be introduced immediately, no doubt.

Now you asked your question differently The Comrade, you wrote banned, why? I remind you that we are only talking about stricter gun control laws that you said were borderline unconstitutional and not about banning any guns.

Let's keep the debate to the same level and not try to exaggerate the situation.
:-D
:-D

Lucky Luke · Joined: 28 Oct 2005 Posts: 8662 Location: Scotland

Jefferson wrote:

Sounds to me like it is time to use guns and get then back. Why? No else is going to get them back? Right? Is the UN going to come over and get them for me? Or do I need to take them back myself?

You are mistaken Jefferson, I'll correct you. We are only talking about stricter gun control laws that The Comrade found borderline unconstitutional. Get the gun down Jefferson, slowly and for crying out loud breath!

:-D
:-D

The Comrade · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 12039 Location: Zagreb

Lucky Luke wrote: Give us a number The Comrade considering that America is not falling in the hands of a tyrant soon nor that stricter gun control laws can achieve any of that.

If cars or greasy food were used by criminals to murder the number of people criminals are murdering with handguns in America today, I can tell you that car or greasy food control laws would be introduced immediately, no doubt.

Now you asked your question differently The Comrade, you wrote banned, why? I remind you that we are only talking about stricter gun control laws that you said were borderline unconstitutional and not about banning any guns.

Let's keep the debate to the same level and not try to exaggerate the situation.

but car accidents still kill people. why not do away with them and get rid of the risk forever?

same with greasy food. just do away with it and never have the risk of heart disease.

or only allow people to drive for an hour a day. then you can limit the amount of crashes.

and instead of getting rid of greasy food, just ration it out.

Quote: Give us a number The Comrade considering that America is not falling in the hands of a tyrant soon nor that stricter gun control laws can achieve any of that.

as many as it takes to keep the basic freedoms associated with this country.

and if a criminal is hellbent on getting a gun, he will. so there is no point in making gun laws strict.

Lucky Luke · Joined: 28 Oct 2005 Posts: 8662 Location: Scotland

The Comrade wrote:

but car accidents still kill people. why not do away with them and get rid of the risk forever?

same with greasy food. just do away with it and never have the risk of heart disease.

or only allow people to drive for an hour a day. then you can limit the amount of crashes.

and instead of getting rid of greasy food, just ration it out.

Quote: Give us a number The Comrade considering that America is not falling in the hands of a tyrant soon nor that stricter gun control laws can achieve any of that.

as many as it takes to keep the basic freedoms associated with this country.

and if a criminal is hellbent on getting a gun, he will. so there is no point in making gun laws strict.

Again you have decided to change the nature of the debate The Comrade, we were talking about murders with weapons and how to reduce them not about accidents. If firearm deaths were only due to accidents, you would not see me here. Some safety legislation or even a set of regulations to the manufacturer and sometimes the dealer would be more than enough, what we have here for fireworks, something similar.

I am afraid that I'll have to disagree with you, our criminals are very rarely armed with firearms here. It could be as risky and difficult to get a gun than to commit the crime unarmed, British criminals have understood this. Strict gun control will do that for you.

:-D
:-D

Numb · Joined: 02 Sep 2006 Posts: 273

Lucky Luke wrote: Jefferson wrote:

Sounds to me like it is time to use guns and get then back. Why? No else is going to get them back? Right? Is the UN going to come over and get them for me? Or do I need to take them back myself?

You are mistaken Jefferson, I'll correct you. We are only talking about stricter gun control laws that The Comrade found borderline unconstitutional. Get the gun down Jefferson, slowly and for crying out loud breath!

:-D
:-D
Stricter as in how?

Lucky Luke · Joined: 28 Oct 2005 Posts: 8662 Location: Scotland

Numb wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: Jefferson wrote:

Sounds to me like it is time to use guns and get then back. Why? No else is going to get them back? Right? Is the UN going to come over and get them for me? Or do I need to take them back myself?

You are mistaken Jefferson, I'll correct you. We are only talking about stricter gun control laws that The Comrade found borderline unconstitutional. Get the gun down Jefferson, slowly and for crying out loud breath!

:-D
:-D
Stricter as in how?

Applying the same restrictions you have for CCW laws to the possession of firearms and closing the loopholes that allow all criminals to buy guns from unregulated sale outlets and private individuals.

:-D
:-D

lilwolf · Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 14180 Location: idaho

Lucky Luke wrote: lilwolf wrote: As what someone here said" freedom is not free".

In order to keep our freedoms and maintain a free will and remain out from under a tyranny..... I will guarentee that people will die to keep the freedom that we have.

We here will not surrender our rights and no one can ever take them away.

If we were to surrender our rights to keep arms then you are going to have 100 million + illegal gun owners in this nation. Now lets say there are 300 million guns and after 20 years people have been killed by the thousands because they have no way to protect themselves any longer.

Those numbers are unacceptable LL and it will never be allowed by any american with a lick of common sense.

So in answer to your question.... yes I would allow lives to die to maintain the rights and freedoms that we have to benfit all who want freedom. To surrender as you want is not being free.
To give up our rights in the 2nd is the same as suicide and that is wrong. All 50 states have now taken or are taking steps to strengthen the 2nd in their state constitutions to prevent it from being taken away.

So, you lose on that one LL.

With the passing of HR bill 5013 yesterday that protects the american people from illegal confiscation that is another nail in your coffin and that of the bozos that would attempt to take away our right to keep and bear arms

You are right Lilwolf, your numbers are unacceptable.

I suggest that you forget about some bloodshed you are planning for America in your head and look at the bloodshed that is really happening in reality, today.

:-D
:-D

Basically LL, it does not matter what you think you would get here because in spite of all your rhetoric you lose.
In spite of all of your numbers ...you lose.

In spite of all your spin and other s***....you lose.

In the end we still ahve our guns and that will never change. Again you lose. It's called voters LL and again you lose.

The Comrade · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 12039 Location: Zagreb

Lucky Luke wrote: Again you have decided to change the nature of the debate The Comrade, we were talking about murders with weapons and how to reduce them not about accidents. If firearm deaths were only due to accidents, you would not see me here. Some safety legislation or even a set of regulations to the manufacturer and sometimes the dealer would be more than enough, what we have here for fireworks, something similar.

but you want to save lives, correct?

then why not legislate anything that has the potential for risk?

stopping at guns seems silly.

Lucky Luke wrote: I am afraid that I'll have to disagree with you, our criminals are very rarely armed with firearms here. It could be as risky and difficult to get a gun than to commit the crime unarmed, British criminals have understood this. Strict gun control will do that for you.

strict gun control is borderlin unconstitutional.

you may not understand what that means, but to us it's what our forefathers fought and died for.

Giving it up would be a disgrace to them and our country and i would charge someone with high treason for attempting to go against the constitution with such blatan disregard.

lilwolf · Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 14180 Location: idaho

LL, you seem to be forgetting that the kid was mentally handicapped and that he more than likely was not given the gun. So why not argue about that instead of cars.

Lucky Luke · Joined: 28 Oct 2005 Posts: 8662 Location: Scotland

The Comrade wrote:

but you want to save lives, correct?

then why not legislate anything that has the potential for risk?

stopping at guns seems silly.

Lucky Luke wrote: I am afraid that I'll have to disagree with you, our criminals are very rarely armed with firearms here. It could be as risky and difficult to get a gun than to commit the crime unarmed, British criminals have understood this. Strict gun control will do that for you.

strict gun control is borderlin unconstitutional.

you may not understand what that means, but to us it's what our forefathers fought and died for.

Giving it up would be a disgrace to them and our country and i would charge someone with high treason for attempting to go against the constitution with such blatan disregard.

There is legislation for manufacturers and distributors regarding safety to prevent fatal accident but this has nothing to do with gun control, gun control is about reducing the number of murders, making it difficult for criminals to get a gun, not about making it safer for them to use one The Comrade. Back to the issue if you please.

Strict gun control is may be borderline unconstitutional for you but it is very successful at reducing an insane murder rate with firearms. You founding fathers did not fight for guns, they fought with guns like everybody else. They even did not fight for a constitution, they fought to request proper representation.

:-D
:-D

The Comrade · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 12039 Location: Zagreb

Lucky Luke wrote:
There is legislation for manufacturers and distributors regarding safety to prevent fatal accident but this has nothing to do with gun control, gun control is about reducing the number of murders, making it difficult for criminals to get a gun, not about making it safer for them to use one The Comrade. Back to the issue if you please.

so lives are only important when the cause of death is guns?

(i'm not going to stop asking these questions until you can explain yourself out of the hole you've dug)

Lucky Luke wrote: Strict gun control is may be borderline unconstitutional for you but it is very successful at reducing an insane murder rate with firearms. You founding fathers did not fight for guns, they fought with guns like everybody else. They even did not fight for a constitution, they fought to request proper representation.

they fought for their basic freedoms and when the constitution was eventually drafted it became the voice of america.

and our insane murder rate happens to be falling in parts of the country, and it has nothing to do with gun control laws.

did you know new york city is one of the safest in the countries?
surprising huh. and guess how much of it had to do with super strict tyrannical gun laws?

zero.

Lucky Luke · Joined: 28 Oct 2005 Posts: 8662 Location: Scotland

The Comrade wrote: Lucky Luke wrote:
There is legislation for manufacturers and distributors regarding safety to prevent fatal accident but this has nothing to do with gun control, gun control is about reducing the number of murders, making it difficult for criminals to get a gun, not about making it safer for them to use one The Comrade. Back to the issue if you please.

so lives are only important when the cause of death is guns?

(i'm not going to stop asking these questions until you can explain yourself out of the hole you've dug)

Lucky Luke wrote: Strict gun control is may be borderline unconstitutional for you but it is very successful at reducing an insane murder rate with firearms. You founding fathers did not fight for guns, they fought with guns like everybody else. They even did not fight for a constitution, they fought to request proper representation.

they fought for their basic freedoms and when the constitution was eventually drafted it became the voice of america.

and our insane murder rate happens to be falling in parts of the country, and it has nothing to do with gun control laws.

did you know new york city is one of the safest in the countries?
surprising huh. and guess how much of it had to do with super strict tyrannical gun laws?

zero.

No, gun control is only viable for the criminal use of guns, not for firearm accidents. Gun control is the name of the forum, not fatal accidents. There are many things a hell more important to me than gun control.

They fought for representation and they had stopped fighting when the constitution was eventually drafted.

Here is an interesting claim I'll wait for you to demonstrate, your insane murder rate happens to be falling in parts of the country, and it has nothing to do with gun control laws I read you write. you won't find many places where your theory is true but many places where it is false.

I start, Alaska, Richmond, VA, Washington, DC...

:-D
:-D

The Comrade · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 12039 Location: Zagreb

Lucky Luke wrote: They fought for representation and they had stopped fighting when the constitution was eventually drafted.

no taxation without representation was a tiny part of the revolution.

most of the reason why washington kept up the revolution was his radical whig indoctrination by george madison. both of which believed england was attempting to enslave the colonies.

it came down to freedom, not representation.

Lucky Luke wrote: Here is an interesting claim I'll wait for you to demonstrate, your insane murder rate happens to be falling in parts of the country, and it has nothing to do with gun control laws I read you write. you won't find many places where your theory is true but many places where it is false.

I start, Alaska, Richmond, VA, Washington, DC...
the entire state of alaska is in a crime epidemic?

i'm sure the four people who live there are terrified.

and the two cities you just stated have always had high crime rates. and strict gun control laws should not be passed based on two cities.

Wolverine · Joined: 15 Jul 2005 Posts: 10980 Location: Podunk, Colorado

britboy wrote: Wolverine wrote: britboy wrote:
My little pony could be fashined into a shank? yea? Or, er, you could prise the teachers eyes out using my little pony's head, then lead the teacher over a cliff to kill him yea?
Ever see large edged weapons?

Wait, I forgot, the hoplophobic politicians in the UK banned swords like this too.
http://gungfu.com/pics_info_pages/swords_fantasy_sword_of_kilgorin_darkness.jpg

Quote: Gun control is effective. I believe if the 9th grader didn't have a gun, the teacher would not have been shot. You probably disagree, why don't you tell me 'That kid was devious -- if someone hadn't given him a gun he'd have fashioned one out of toilet roll and alphabeti spagetti like they do off the A team and the teacher would be dead anyway'. :lol:
The principal was in a gun free zone. certainly, using anti-gun logic, he should have been one of the safest persons in the world. But, whoa, what do ya know, disarming people and making them sitting ducks doesn't work too well.
Why strip people of self-defense and allow criminals to run free?

Quote: So you think, gun or not, the teacher was a dead man walking because of this criminal?? Can you answer? I dare you. I double dare you.
Mature. :ok:
Wow! Normally threads on here virtually always end in stalemate, someone gets bored, and new threads start. It's very rare I actually see a pro-gunner capitulate so obviously. Well, it was nice debating with you Wolverine on this thread. I don't know how many threads you're gonna have to conceed before you start rethinking your policies (you probably never will) -- but it's nice to think that at least you are able to know when the anti-gun guy is right.

See you on the next thread .. I'll persuade you to the light side of the force one day young padawan.
*woosh*

I have no idea how this addresses my post.

Lucky Luke · Joined: 28 Oct 2005 Posts: 8662 Location: Scotland

The Comrade wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: They fought for representation and they had stopped fighting when the constitution was eventually drafted.

no taxation without representation was a tiny part of the revolution.

most of the reason why washington kept up the revolution was his radical whig indoctrination by george madison. both of which believed england was attempting to enslave the colonies.

it came down to freedom, not representation.

Lucky Luke wrote: Here is an interesting claim I'll wait for you to demonstrate, your insane murder rate happens to be falling in parts of the country, and it has nothing to do with gun control laws I read you write. you won't find many places where your theory is true but many places where it is false.

I start, Alaska, Richmond, VA, Washington, DC...
the entire state of alaska is in a crime epidemic?

i'm sure the four people who live there are terrified.

and the two cities you just stated have always had high crime rates. and strict gun control laws should not be passed based on two cities.

You made a claim The Comrade, I can't see you backing it up.

Alaska has a higher murder rate than New York.

Strict gun control laws should be passed based on the places where they are most needed, where most of the people live, the cities, and lawless Alaska of course.

At the end it came down to taxation.

:-D
:-D

lilwolf · Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 14180 Location: idaho

Lucky Luke wrote: Numb wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: Jefferson wrote:

Sounds to me like it is time to use guns and get then back. Why? No else is going to get them back? Right? Is the UN going to come over and get them for me? Or do I need to take them back myself?

You are mistaken Jefferson, I'll correct you. We are only talking about stricter gun control laws that The Comrade found borderline unconstitutional. Get the gun down Jefferson, slowly and for crying out loud breath!

:-D
:-D
Stricter as in how?

Applying the same restrictions you have for CCW laws to the possession of firearms and closing the loopholes that allow all criminals to buy guns from unregulated sale outlets and private individuals.

:-D
:-D

You cannot regulate what private citizens do with sales. To costly and besides at gun shows almost all states have fed guidelines that are required to be followed.
You cannot tell or enforce (impossible) what people can and cannot sell.

The Comrade · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 12039 Location: Zagreb

Lucky Luke wrote: You made a claim The Comrade, I can't see you backing it up.

Alaska has a higher murder rate than New York.

i can't see you backing up your claim that america is some lawless country with people running around shooting eachother.

Lucky Luke wrote: Strict gun control laws should be passed based on the places where they are most needed, where most of the people live, the cities, and lawless Alaska of course.

i would rather have a gun in the city to protect myself.

Lucky Luke wrote: At the end it came down to taxation.

i don't know what weird british history books you're reading but i think you need to read up on the american revolution again.

Lucky Luke · Joined: 28 Oct 2005 Posts: 8662 Location: Scotland

lilwolf wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: Numb wrote: Lucky Luke wrote: Jefferson wrote:

Sounds to me like it is time to use guns and get then back. Why? No else is going to get them back? Right? Is the UN going to come over and get them for me? Or do I need to take them back myself?

You are mistaken Jefferson, I'll correct you. We are only talking about stricter gun control laws that The Comrade found borderline unconstitutional. Get the gun down Jefferson, slowly and for crying out loud breath!

:-D
:-D
Stricter as in how?

Applying the same restrictions you have for CCW laws to the possession of firearms and closing the loopholes that allow all criminals to buy guns from unregulated sale outlets and private individuals.

:-D
:-D

You cannot regulate what private citizens do with sales. To costly and besides at gun shows almost all states have fed guidelines that are required to be followed.
You cannot tell or enforce (impossible) what people can and cannot sell.

You can make them responsible for what they sell to whom and you can make them follow the same legislation than law abiding gun dealers are now following.

Lucky Luke · Joined: 28 Oct 2005 Posts: 8662 Location: Scotland

lilwolf wrote:

You cannot regulate what private citizens do with sales. To costly and besides at gun shows almost all states have fed guidelines that are required to be followed.
You cannot tell or enforce (impossible) what people can and cannot sell.

You can make them responsible for what they sell to whom and you can make them follow the same legislation than law abiding gun dealers are now following.
Guidelines are not enough, regulation is needed.
:-D
:-D

lilwolf · Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 14180 Location: idaho

Lucky Luke wrote: lilwolf wrote:

You cannot regulate what private citizens do with sales. To costly and besides at gun shows almost all states have fed guidelines that are required to be followed.
You cannot tell or enforce (impossible) what people can and cannot sell.

You can make them responsible for what they sell to whom and you can make them follow the same legislation than law abiding gun dealers are now following.
Guidelines are not enough, regulation is needed.
:-D
:-D

It's been looked at before and was found to be to costly, and to much red tape. Crashed and burned about the time the bogus brady thing came on . Congress and the senate said it was not worth the cost and an infringement upon rights of americans. so you lose.