DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Texas state Senate approves bill to post Ten Commandments in public schools

No, not allowing citizens to purchase them if they wish infringes on your rights. Not owning one is not the infringement.

I have no issues with people owning machine guns.

I have no issues with people being allow to own belt fed machineguns. Why would think 100 round magazines are an issue?

People owned cannon during the founding, I'm ok with that as well.

I GOTTA GET ME 3 OR 4 OF THOSE.

As I said - your welcome to your opinion. I can't even begin to imagine how much worse the country would be if people were legally allowed to own and keep machine guns and cannon.

If we stop blaming tools and try to fix the people problem that could make things better.

There is the family of the bank shooting it Texas a couple of weeks ago. The mom and dad were interviewed this morning on the Today Program. They appeared to be god fearing people. Seemed caring and right minded parents who loved their son.

They appear to have tried everything they could think of to help their son. In fact, they thought they had it under control.... Then Boom. He buys an AR-15. It took him roughly 30 minutes to buy it.. 30 MINUTES... yes, you read that correctly.

So with all due respect about helping those that have problems, I call BS.

Here's a kid (25 years old by the way), who was supported and loved and treasured by his parents.. He had a job that he was successful at. He had a girlfriend. He had problems but was being treated for them.

So for you or anyone else to say, just fix the people and all will be better? That's just not enough. You/we have to do it all. Restrict who can get a gun (any gun) and help those we can.

Both or nothing. Thus far, the right seems only to want to do NOTHING

So they worked with medical personnel to have him involuntarily committed to a mental health facility? That would become a prohibitor for purchase.

That sounds like it was lifted straight out of some NRA literature or some online gun advocacy group. They are good at those sort of things - one I will always remember is "Criminals prefer victims without guns".

How many legally purchased fire arms currently are in the hands of criminals, gangs and persons mentally unfit to own them do you think? The idea that you can "fix people" - and by extension "fix society and societies problems" is misguided or arrogant. When this topic was discussed before and largely it was agreed that mass shootings and gun violence is a factor of more than ONLY the proliferation of guns and the gun culture in the USA - Pit asked some hard questions about how and what you do to actually "fix people". At that point people stopped wanting to discuss those issues. But is it a State problem? Federal? Community based / Church based? If you want to fix people and society - do you want to spend tax dollars fixing those at the bottom who might be hardest to impact?

I mean it sounds good and it sounds catchy.... I think the devil is in the details and being realistic.

I'd much rather tax dollars be spent fixing the people issue instead constantly trying to disarm citizens that want to protect themselves. But that is not politically viable. Hen you are is a eople issue your voter base gets offended. It is far more politically convenient to blame a totem.

So you have a solution - but no opinion or actual means, suggestions or comment on how to achieve your solution, instead going back to politics as being the issue.... so you realize that means you have no solution right?

What's odd is they have been screaming about mental health and fixing the mental health issue for decades now. While the very people they keep electing have done nothing to fix mental healthcare.

To be fair - the same could be said about most topics and most campaign issues that either party says they are fighting for or going to fix.

I never claimed to have a solution. I said I was good with tax dollars being spent trying to solve the mental health issue. I also pointed out the political hurdle. I don't know what a solution to the mental health issue looks lime, but I'd be much better exploring that then just blaming a tool. In the long run helping people get better is better for everyone. Just blaming, and banning, arms does help those that still need help.

Again, if you don't like the topic of the thread, which is about the 10 commandments, then turn it into a second amendment conversation.

Actually the turn was calling out Pits dislike for people that doesn't believe in the constitution when he doesn't.

Actually it's about people making false claims that it protects things it does not protect.

Nah, you pontificate from an extreme ideological position that is unreasonable.

Good luck with that philosophy of fixing the people problem, we have always had people issues and wishing it away is not going to happen.

You fail to realize that guns are used as offensive weapons, not just for the protection of themselves. And how many rounds does one need to provide protection of self and property? At some point that self protection device becomes a offensive threat to others.

https://www.dawgtalkers.net/ubbthre...t-ten-commandments-in-public#Post2012311

Do you forget there is a record of what is said?

.


Copy and highlight the part that "falsely claims it protects things it does not protect" or swallow your idiotic pride and own your nonsense.

Thus far the only poster who has stated they think that all the nonsense isn't coming from you, is you.

Because everyone else is eating popcorn and watching you get destroyed.

By thinking people should be able to own machine guns?

Typical. You cannot refute what was said so you make it some sort of attack.

Again, point out the part where I said what you claimed I said. Oh you can't it doesn't exist. Yet another lie on your part. Shocked face and all.

Oh look, you deflected. Can't prove what you said so shift topic.

Obviously context is not your strong suit.

Obviously proving your assertions is not yours.

Did you or did you not post this?


Who is lying again?

You are. I never claimed to not say that.

Now revisit https://www.dawgtalkers.net/ubbthre...t-ten-commandments-in-public#Post2012809 and prove your assertions.

This is your solution that is not a solution. How quickly you forget what you write I guess?

I've proven it over and over again. There is no protection involving how many rounds a magazine can hold. Having less then 30 rounds in your magazine in no way prevnents you from keeping or bearing arms. As such that is not protected by the second amendment.

No, you've asserted it over and over. With no regard to word means and historical jurisprudence. Those are vastly different things.

And you continue to ignore very important words. Restricting freedoms does not lead to liberty.

No, that is not. That is a different perspective. I don't know how to fix the people problem, but I belive this is a people problem not a tool problem.

So somehow your assertions mean more? I think not.

I'll ask again, how in any way does having a lower capacity magazine prevent or infringe on anyone from having "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"?

When you make accusations you cannot prove then dodge and squirm, yes.

You first, prove what you said or admit lying. Not here to dance to your stupid drum.

What is it exactly that you claim you wish me to prove? You often times come here for nothing more than do this dance. You spend a remarkable amount of time doing it to turn around and claim that's not what you're here to do.

While I do not see eye to eye with Frank I will chime in here since you opened the door. Frank is right with what he says about the way you post. You have these types of fights with a lot of posters. That should tell you something.

As for the topic of the thread… This is stupid. It will be struck down as unconstitutional after costing taxpayers millions of dollars. It is just being done to win votes imo

It tells me that those who disagree with me love to get into it with me and I don't back away from it. So you think the name calling isn't an attempt to start fights? Sure, I'll go toe to toe with anyone, any time. But I'm not the only one. Do you think calling anyone who disagrees with you "libtards" isn't trying to start a fight? People get what they ask for.

And you you or don't you agree that anyone qualified to purchase a firearm should be able to buy a fully automatic machine gun or not? Try to stay focused.

I don’t use that word. I’m pretty sure only a couple of people do that are on here. I only can name one, and that is Eve. Pretty sure she would call me one as well even though I’m a middle of the road kinda guy. When it comes to Frank, he doesn’t really name call except for calling you a joke. That was wrong imo. I was suspended once for calling Vers an ass, so I know firsthand it’s wrong.

Full disclosure…I know Frank somewhat and I consider him a friend. Well at least as much as one can over the internet. I don’t jump in too often during these kind of beefs but did because you invited it. You two can now go back to your bickering over the second amendment and your continued hijacking of this thread. Not that I care.

The door I opened was in regards to people agreeing with Frank on his position that the second amendment includes unlimited rounds in your magazine and that people have the right to own machine guns is okay. That was the context of the comment.

Obviously you haven't been paying attention. Franks has called me a liar over and over again along with a coward and I could go on. But if these are the things you wish to ignore and uphold while pointing the finger directly at me that's up to you. But you have certainly decided to skirt around a lot of what is going on here.

Do I have to post it thrice?

https://www.dawgtalkers.net/ubbthre...t-ten-commandments-in-public#Post2012809

You made assertions, you were wrong. You then ignore that you were wrong so you can go on and fight about other things.

I call you a liar because you have said, on more than one occasion, that I said something when I clearly demonstrated I didn't. You also have said you didn't say things when I clearly demonstrated you did.

Telling untruths is lying. You have lied, and you continue to do so because actual facts don't support your what you want to see.