Family Research Center Shooting

[Pinky]

so which guy would you rather have to deal with, in a crowded room, with your wife and family present, bridge troll?  The guy armed with a rock or the guy armed with a sub machine gun?

Why is this question so hard for any of you guys to answer?

A rock Stephen.  Were any of the recent crimes commited with a sub machine gun?  Just how many crimes are commited with sub machine guns?

hmm.  See I would prefer a guy with a rock as well.  you know, in the theoretical. I don't know if any recently publicized crimes have been committed in America with a sub machine gun, Bridge Troll.  I will google it for you though.

While I am doing that perhaps someone else could answer the question?

I'll take a swing at it:  I'd be happy to face either, given that I (legally) carry a handgun just about everywhere I go.  Boom boom, out go the lights.  Score: Good Guys: 1, Crazy Motherf%^ker: 0.   

Next issue? 

(Oh, and when are *you* going to answer *my* question regarding drunk drivers?  Would you outlaw the automobiles, or the consumption of alcohol?  Because of course, both are found in every single case of drunk driving...)

[Ocklawaha]

I don't know Pinky, I kind of liked 'Tampon Control', 'Bear Control' or 'Woman Control' as a smorgasbord of choices to end the consumption of females in the polar regions.

[Pinky]

I don't know Pinky, I kind of liked 'Tampon Control', 'Bear Control' or 'Woman Control' as a smorgasbord of choices to end the consumption of females in the polar regions.

Yeah, that was pretty nice...   

[Ocklawaha]

I don't know Pinky, I kind of liked 'Tampon Control', 'Bear Control' or 'Woman Control' as a smorgasbord of choices to end the consumption of females in the polar regions.

still cant answer the question ock?  Thats not very characteristic of you.

I have Stephen, it's an unanswerable question as in any such situation (as others have loudly pointed out) there are just too many variables to know exactly which is the correct course of action without being on scene to size it up.

[NotNow]

My take on this event is that it is another example of the violence which can occur with the extreme polarization of our politics.  When political discourse gives way to name calling and demonization (sound familiar Dare!?) then it should surprise no one when the weaker minded in our society allow themselves to over emphasize and overdramatize the arguments.  It happens on both sides of the fence. 

The answer is to demand intellectual honesty from each other.  Remain logical and factual in our arguments.  In matters that are subjective and agreement can not be reached, then, within the bounds of law and public safety, we should each live our lives as we see fit and not worry about the opinions of others.  The current climate (common on this site) of saying or doing ANYTHING to make a political point is a direct contributor to these kinds of incidents.

Then why have you denied that this has happened every time the person agrees with your political side of the spectrum?

Doesn't sound very intellectually honest.

If you speak, you will need to provide facts.  Otherwise I will assume that you are making up everything you say, just as you did on the Valerie Plame claims that you made.  You have shown yourself to be dishonest in your statements in your attempts to make a political point.

[NotNow]

turns out that there was a pretty famous case of an UZI being used to shoot up a whole bunch of people in 1984.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Ysidro_McDonald's_massacre

But the sub machine gun is no longer legal.

Did you mention that there havent been any major crimes committed with a sub machine gun recently bridge troll?

Also, did you find the word 'gun' used in the Constitution?

A sub machine gun was not used in this shooting.  Do you even know what a sub machine gun is?  This is your chance to google.

As for your "question", I'll take on either one if they are trying to kill others.

Of course in your world, you will be fighting the sub gun with a rock, because you have given away your rights to a government.

And yes, it is a stupid question.

Well since I had to google the answer to Bridge Troll's question (since none of us apparently knew the answer) I don't mind being mistaken that the UZI used in the attack was a semi automatic weapon rather than their more famous submachine gun.

Please point out which article says the word 'gun'.

So you would prefer that your crowded room be attacked by both rocks and submachine guns?

That seems a little bizarre.

The Constitution says that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms.  If you need instruction on what they meant, I will point you to numerous writings by the very men who wrote that document.  You can start with the Federalist Papers.  They made it very clear that they were referring to firearms.  To suggest differently would be at best...intellectually dishonest. 

I stated no preference to your silly question.  My answer is the same no matter the weapon, attack the person who is trying to murder other people.  What's "bizarre" to me is why that is difficult for you? 

[Pinky]

so then, No.  The Constitution does not mention the word guns once?

What do you suggest they meant by arms Stephen?  Nuclear weapons?  Bazookas?  Scimitars?  FIREARMS were common and readily available at the time, but what do you think they meant?

[NotNow]

StephenDare! is not an honest poster.  He will make up statements and ignore any request to verify them.  When they are proven false, he will attempt to change the subject or just post a youtube video. 

Just as in this case, he is not trying to deal with truth, but would rather obfuscate the truth.  He does this in an attempt to make political hay.  It is a dishonorable practice.   I have answered his question and he knows, just as everyone else does, exactly what the founding fathers wrote and meant.  Let him carry on like the lackey he has shown himself to be.

[NotNow]

so then, No.  The Constitution does not mention the word guns once?

What do you suggest they meant by arms Stephen?  Nuclear weapons?  Bazookas?  Scimitars?  FIREARMS were common and readily available at the time, but what do you think they meant?

Perhaps it means all of those things, Pinky.

What would you say is the defining line, considering the escalation and enlargement of what we consider 'arms'?

Read the documents StephenDare!  Any middle schoolerwho has read the documents knows exactly what was meant.  Your games are silly and have no bearing on this conversation.  I have provided instructions on where to look if you are as clueless as you sound.  If you can't find the time or energy to read, then we will wait for YOUR proof that the founding fathers meant something else.  Until then, this schill tactic is moot.

[Pinky]

so then, No.  The Constitution does not mention the word guns once?

What do you suggest they meant by arms Stephen?  Nuclear weapons?  Bazookas?  Scimitars?  FIREARMS were common and readily available at the time, but what do you think they meant?

Perhaps it means all of those things, Pinky.

What would you say is the defining line, considering the escalation and enlargement of what we consider 'arms'?

I'd draw the line at Nuclear Weapons, but only because I'm given to wearing tight fitting clothes and it would be hard to conceal one.  But the question at hand is what do you believe the founding fathers meant by "arms" if not firearms?  (Or have you already quietly conceded that point with your "perhaps"?)

[NotNow]

LOL, that is a FRENCH officer in the painting StephenDare!.   And what does a kidnapping from the French and Indian wars have to do with this conversation?  MORE OBFUSCATION.   You really don't care what you post, do you?  Just as long as you "make some points" truth really means nothing to you. 

Let us know when you find documentationt that the founding fathers meant something else.  I'll hold my breath.

[civil42806]

Okay there have been some bizarre posts on here, but using a picture of a french officer, which by the way is during the french and indian war, not the revolutionary war, is somehow relevant to the discussion of the second amendment is just plain weird

[civil42806]

I stand corrected stephen

[Pinky]

What's the procedure for posting images on this board?  I've got a few Revolutionary War paintings to share with you Stephen.

[civil42806]

I guess I just don't get the meaning of your post.  Is it that the revolutionaries carried sabres, ,well at least the officers, the Indians and the some of the militia carried tomahawks therefore the SECOND amendment didnt really mean firearms