This forums stance on guns
Posted by EndTheFed (+24) 8 years ago
Knowing that most of you are leftists, I'm curious to see where you people stand on gun control and that topic in general. Especially after the shootings.
Top
founder
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hal Neumann (+9743) 8 years ago
Mr. Fed, or may I call you EndThe? Guess I'll go with EndThe, Mr, Fed sounds pretty darned formal for a setting such as this.

I'm thinking if you'd simply look, you'd see quite a few opinions on the topic - left & otherwise (see below). Some of those opinions have even been posted by folks (left & otherwise) who don't hide behind an alias. Imagine that! I'd be curious EndThe, what you think of the value of anonymous opinions being posted online? Do you take them seriously or take them for what they're usually worth?

http://milescity.com/foru...ew/287663/
http://milescity.com/foru...ew/287407/
http://milescity.com/foru...ew/286638/
Top
Posted by Kacey (+3152) 8 years ago
YOU PEOPLE???????????
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+16506) 8 years ago
Trolls, Kacey. No one could really be that stupid.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14728) 8 years ago
Well, first of all, as a "leftist" I don't "stand"... I sit on a throne and reign supreme.

Secondly, what Hal said.

Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1664) 8 years ago
I would like to read a discussion as to what exactly it is that the Second Amendment guarantees.
Top
Posted by Matt - Schmitz (+172) 8 years ago
It says we are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms. Because thats as far as it goes, the kind of arms and their capabilities is now left up to those that govern. If they outlaw everything but muskets, they will have still honored the constitution. And the constitution says nothing about 30 round magazines, so the banning of them will still be legitimately within their powers. As it should be. In my opinion.

[This message has been edited by Matt - Schmitz (1/12/2013)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1664) 8 years ago
What the original text references is a well regulated militia.

Now, I know that in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia.

But, what should be the meaning attributed to well regulated?
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14728) 8 years ago
If I remember correctly, Warren Burger was a rather conservative Chief Justice.

The Right To Bear Arms

A distinguished citizen takes a stand on one of the most controversial issues in the nation

By Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice of the United States (1969-86)
Parade Magazine, January 14, 1990, page 4

Our metropolitan centers, and some suburban communities of America, are setting new records for homicides by handguns. Many of our large centers have up to 10 times the murder rate of all of Western Europe. In 1988, there were 9000 handgun murders in America. Last year, Washington, D.C., alone had more than 400 homicides -- setting a new record for our capital.

The Constitution of the United States, in its Second Amendment, guarantees a "right of the people to keep and bear arms." However, the meaning of this clause cannot be understood except by looking to the purpose, the setting and the objectives of the draftsmen. The first 10 amendments -- the Bill of Rights -- were not drafted at Philadelphia in 1787; that document came two years later than the Constitution. Most of the states already had bills of rights, but the Constitution might not have been ratified in 1788 if the states had not had assurances that a national Bill of Rights would soon be added.

People of that day were apprehensive about the new "monster" national government presented to them, and this helps explain the language and purpose of the Second Amendment. A few lines after the First Amendment's guarantees -- against "establishment of religion," "free exercise" of religion, free speech and free press -- came a guarantee that grew out of the deep-seated fear of a "national" or "standing" army. The same First Congress that approved the right to keep and bear arms also limited the national army to 840 men; Congress in the Second Amendment then provided:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
In the 1789 debate in Congress on James Madison's proposed Bill of Rights, Elbridge Gerry argued that a state militia was necessary:
"to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty ... Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia in order to raise and army upon their ruins."
We see that the need for a state militia was the predicate of the "right" guaranteed; in short, it was declared "necessary" in order to have a state military force to protect the security of the state. That Second Amendment clause must be read as though the word "because" was the opening word of the guarantee. Today, of course, the "state militia" serves a very different purpose. A huge national defense establishment has taken over the role of the militia of 200 years ago.

Some have exploited these ancient concerns, blurring sporting guns -- rifles, shotguns and even machine pistols -- with all firearms, including what are now called "Saturday night specials." There is, of course, a great difference between sporting guns and handguns. Some regulation of handguns has long been accepted as imperative; laws relating to "concealed weapons" are common. That we may be "over-regulated" in some areas of life has never held us back from more regulation of automobiles, airplanes, motorboats and "concealed weapons."

Let's look at the history.

First, many of the 3.5 million people living in the 13 original Colonies depended on wild game for food, and a good many of them required firearms for their defense from marauding Indians -- and later from the French and English. Underlying all these needs was an important concept that each able-bodied man in each of the 133 independent states had to help or defend his state.

The early opposition to the idea of national or standing armies was maintained under the Articles of Confederation; that confederation had no standing army and wanted none. The state militia -- essentially a part-time citizen army, as in Switzerland today -- was the only kind of "army" they wanted. From the time of the Declaration of Independence through the victory at Yorktown in 1781, George Washington, as the commander-in-chief of these volunteer-militia armies, had to depend upon the states to send those volunteers.

When a company of New Jersey militia volunteers reported for duty to Washington at Valley Forge, the men initially declined to take an oath to "the United States," maintaining, "Our country is New Jersey." Massachusetts Bay men, Virginians and others felt the same way. To the American of the 18th century, his state was his country, and his freedom was defended by his militia.

The victory at Yorktown -- and the ratification of the Bill of Rights a decade later -- did not change people's attitudes about a national army. They had lived for years under the notion that each state would maintain its own military establishment, and the seaboard states had their own navies as well. These people, and their fathers and grandfathers before them, remembered how monarchs had used standing armies to oppress their ancestors in Europe. Americans wanted no part of this. A state militia, like a rifle and powder horn, was as much a part of life as the automobile is today; pistols were largely for officers, aristocrats -- and dueling.

Against this background, it was not surprising that the provision concerning firearms emerged in very simple terms with the significant predicate -- basing the right on the necessity for a "well regulated militia," a state army.

In the two centuries since then -- with two world wars and some lesser ones -- it has become clear, sadly, that we have no choice but to maintain a standing national army while still maintaining a "militia" by way of the National Guard, which can be swiftly integrated into the national defense forces.

Americans also have a right to defend their homes, and we need not challenge that. Nor does anyone seriously question that the Constitution protects the right of hunters to own and keep sporting guns for hunting game any more than anyone would challenge the right to own and keep fishing rods and other equipment for fishing -- or to own automobiles. To "keep and bear arms" for hunting today is essentially a recreational activity and not an imperative of survival, as it was 200 years ago; "Saturday night specials" and machine guns are not recreational weapons and surely are as much in need of regulation as motor vehicles.

Americans should ask themselves a few questions. The Constitution does not mention automobiles or motorboats, but the right to keep and own an automobile is beyond question; equally beyond question is the power of the state to regulate the purchase or the transfer of such a vehicle and the right to license the vehicle and the driver with reasonable standards. In some places, even a bicycle must be registered, as must some household dogs.

If we are to stop this mindless homicidal carnage, is it unreasonable:

-to provide that, to acquire a firearm, an application be made reciting age, residence, employment and any prior criminal convictions?

-to required that this application lie on the table for 10 days (absent a showing for urgent need) before the license would be issued?

-that the transfer of a firearm be made essentially as with that of a motor vehicle?
to have a "ballistic fingerprint" of the firearm made by the manufacturer and filed with the license record so that, if a bullet is found in a victim's body, law enforcement might be helped in finding the culprit?

These are the kind of questions the American people must answer if we are to preserve the "domestic tranquillity" promised in the Constitution.


http://www.guncite.com/burger.html
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob Netherton II (+1910) 8 years ago
My stance, simply put:

Anyone posting under a "name" like "EndtheFed" shall not be allowed to own any type of weaponry whatsoever.

You're welcome.
Top
supporter
Posted by howdy (+4949) 8 years ago
Ditto, Bob!!
Top
Posted by Matt - Schmitz (+172) 8 years ago
I like Burgers reference to "marauding Indians" Who marauded who?
Top
Posted by Elizabeth Emilsson (+790) 8 years ago
Endthe,you may have knowledge of the following: In Western Idaho there is purported to be a small community with about 30,000 assault weapons for approximately 3000 families. To join them you must complete a questionnaire stating if or if not you are racially biased and send them a $208 application fee. I don't think this is a leftist community where somone like yourself would feel uncomfortable. I think I heard about it from the Colbert Report.
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+16669) 8 years ago
I firmly believe in our right to bear arms, and think that gun control laws should be weakened, if anything. Think how fun it would be to go gopher hunting with a machine gun.

Does that mean I am not a lefty liberal?

Of course, I think that anyone who believes that we should abolish the federal reserve system is probably a white cracker dumbass.
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+187) 8 years ago
Matt - Schmitz said:

"It says we are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms."

No, it says it guarantees "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms."

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Now you can waffle all you want about the definition of a Militia as mentioned in the prefatory clause but it is irrelevant because the "right" is defined in operative clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The "Heller" ruling was the first definitive interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as an individual right because no previous Court wanted to go there. The Heller ruling defined "people" as the individual. That genie is out of the bottle and it will be a very foolish Court that would try to stick it back in.

With that being said, now comes the easy part. "shall not be infringed" is a clear legal distinction. "No" means "no". The individual has the right to keep and bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed upon.

That makes the question does the interpretation give the individual the right to define "arms"? The statement "shall not be infringed" makes it crystal clear that the individual has an absolute right to arms and it has to follow, everything that makes them operational. The purpose of the Amendment is to limit the power of Government. The Government has no power to infringe upon the right.

Zip guns are "arms" and assault rifles are "arms".
Top
supporter
Posted by Denise Selk (+1664) 8 years ago
I found this tidbit, in a discussion of the meaning of the phrase "well regulated", interesting.

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.


So, if we are to derive the meaning of "well regulated" from the customary definitions of the time, let's call this using context, why would we not then use the customary definitions of "arms" of the time, thus also using context? It seems self-serving to say that context must be used to define "well regulated" (the founders did not intend for well regulated to mean government regulation), but context must not be used to define "arms" (the founders certainly did not envision the arms available today).

I find the contradiction fascinating.
Top
supporter
Posted by Steve Craddock (+2737) 8 years ago
The below paragraph was floating around Facebook the other day, and it makes the point that the reference to a "well regulated miliatia" in the Second Amendment cannot be interpreted correctly without taking into consideration other related Amendments, to wit:

"In order to understand what the intent of "well regulated militia" is, let us look into other sections of the Constitution itself: Article 1, Section 8: Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,... suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; Clause 16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the MILITIA of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"

So, SURPRISE Tea Partiers!!! The right to bear arms does not include the right to use those arms in a treasonous or rebellious manner, but rather to serve the President in quelling insurrections - which undoubtedly includes calls for secession.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bob Netherton II (+1910) 8 years ago
Just curious, EndtheFed and Oddjob...What is your limit as to what types and size of arms a private citizen should be allowed to own? Tanks? Cannons? Napalm? Nuclear weaponry? Where's the line?
Top
Posted by EJR (+45) 8 years ago
Our government is established firmly upon the idea that THE PEOPLE have ALL RIGHTS. Period. The Constitution enumerated and delegated certain powers to the government for the sake of enabling it to function. If the Constitution did not delegate a specific named authority, the government does not have that authority. There is no authorization in law (the Constitution) allowing government to interfere with people's right to have guns, of ANY caliber and size. There is no authorization in law for "health care". There is no authorization in law for allowing a private foreign corporation to print our money and LOAN it back to us at interest. There is no authorization in law (the Constitution) to restrict our freedom to travel (i.e. car and driver "licenses") by way of converting that right into a "privilege". People love to hypothecate and create "what if" scenarios to justify more government control over our lives, but that doesn't change the fact that the government is one of LIMITED powers. Those who espouse the position that "government can write any law they want" are expressing themselves to be anti-government and anti-America, because "government" in America is established by the Constitution, and NOT by Karl Marx and his 10-planks communist ideologies that assume those who are acting as government somehow own us and have the right to control us. If you want to change our government into a socialist dictatorship, then get an amendment to the Constitution passed. Do it the right way. Stop trying to overthrow our system by way of allowing and encouraging "government" to act outside of the law. Stop supporting this anarchist overthrow of our country. Or move somewhere else that already has socialism/communism firmly established. Quit attacking America with your liberal ideologies. Quit supporting "policy" that overthrows the rule of law.

I can already hear the red herring diversions, the straw man arguments that will insult ME rather than addressing the points at issue, the distractions with flippant and pathetic attempts at humor to minimize what I said, the bleeding-heart exceptional examples (real or imagined) that are somehow supposed to make me surrender my rights because "somebody" got hurt somewhere. Have it your way. I said my piece.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8992) 8 years ago
I understand that you believe many of these things EJR, but the Supreme Court begs to differ on most (if not all) of these points, and it's what THEY believe the Constitution to say that matters.
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+187) 8 years ago
Bridgier:

Please elaborate. Perhaps you can you tell me where I can find the Supreme Court ruling on what kind of toilet I have to install in new construction?

Since you are so enamored by the fine work of the Supreme Court, can I assume you are satisfied with the ruling in District of Columbia v Heller, which affirms the Second Amendment guarantees the individuals right to keep and bear arms?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8992) 8 years ago
Oh, you caught me - I only read about the first half or less of that giant wall of text - If someone can't be bothered to put some vertical white space into their rants, then I'm only going to expend so much energy on reading their rants.

Heller is the law, but I don't think it allows a free for all as far as weapon ownership - please tell me if I've misinterpreted it.
Top
Posted by Lorin Dixson (+590) 8 years ago
To the Odd one.
Zip guns are "arms" and assault rifles are "arms".


So are nuclear bombs, nerve gas, attack helicopters, and many other things in todays military arsenal. Should there be no infringement on your rights?
Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hannah Nash (+2500) 8 years ago
My well-regulated militia is seriously lacking in the grenade launcher and surface-to-air missile areas. It is important for me to have unregulated access to these items to protect me from the tyranny of the government.
Top
Posted by Lorin Dixson (+590) 8 years ago
From what I am seeing on the internet and on television, my fears are the crazies are going to be much better armed in the wake of the recent school shootings. I am afraid the efforts of sane people to regulate the availability of a few guns that only have the single purpose of killing a lot of people at one time is back firing. Even on the classified section of milescity.com there seems to be an increase in guns for sale recently.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8992) 8 years ago
protect me from the tyranny of the government.

who now have cheap flying death robots, which doesn't seem to upset the 2nd amendment absolutists nearly as much as you think it would.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11447) 8 years ago
We accept limitations on the FIRST amendment, so why not the second?
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+187) 8 years ago
Amorette:

I have posted a link below to something called "facts". I know this will be alien to you, but please, just try it. With practice, using "facts" becomes much easier. I know it's hard for "smart, well-educated and successful people" (as you like to refer to yourself) to actually research something before you post, but please...Just give it a try.

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

I think you will discover that the 2nd Amendment is much more "well regulated" than the 1st.
Top
Posted by mule train (+1049) 8 years ago
Speaking from the far left here...totally in favor of guns of all sorts. Against gun laws in general. I would love to own an AR-15. Sounds like a fun, expensive, way to spend an afternoon.

Would like to add that I am in FAVOR of stricter background checks, higher funding and revised laws in dealing with mental health in this country, and additional waiting time before you get your guns.

All that said, with the amount of guns already on the streets in this country, real change will only happen with an increased commitment to mental health funding in this country.

[This message has been edited by mule train (1/17/2013)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8992) 8 years ago
I agree with mule_train (for the most part)- I'd also like to see the CDC or the NIH begin collecting statistics on gun-related deaths/accidents, something currently barred by law since 1996.

It's hard to make policy based on facts or reason when you're not even allowed to study the results of the current policy.
Top
Posted by Forsyth Mike (+479) 8 years ago
The Constitution says the people can keep and bear arms. It does NOT say we can fire those arms. It also doesn't say anything about ammunition.

It also doesn't say what kind of arms we can keep and bear. So the government could ban guns while still allowing knives, slingshots, crossbows and so forth and still be within their powers.

Considering we've got all the millions of guns already out there, many in the hands of bad people, I guess the government might as well outlaw the act of shooting, except in the case of target practice, self defense or hunting. It would work about as well as any other 'solution.'
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+145) 8 years ago
Actually the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has given guidance in what is to be considered as appropriate for Citizen ownership.

In Heller v DC and in McDonald v City of Chicago as well as many other SCOTUS decisions over the last few decades, they keep referring back to United States v. Miller - 307 U.S. 174 (1939) in the source data.

If you were to look at United States v. Miller - 307 U.S. 174 (1939) You will find that the SCOTUS, when deciding on an appeal of a violation to the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), provided some insight when they listed the following quotes:

"In all the colonies, as in England, the militia system was based on the principle of the assize of arms. This implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence."

"The possession of arms also implied the possession of ammunition, and the authorities paid quite as much attention to the latter as to the former."


Now let me back up just a little here. MR. JUSTICE McREYNOLDS delivered the opinion of the Court, and that opinion was:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.


At the time of this decision, (please note how it begins with "In the absence of any evidence"), it was not presented to the SCOTUS that the Armed Forces (US Army specifically in WWI 1914-1919) did in fact possess and use shotguns with less than an 18 inch barrel for close quarter combat and guard related functions.

Had that information been presented to the SCOTUS then, the sawn-off shot-gun might not have been permitted to remain on the list of prohibited weapons that the NFA outlined, as it would have been shown that a short-barreled shot-gun had a valid purpose in the Militia, and thus private citizens would have a valid reason for owning one.

If you would like to peruse that ruling for yourself, here is a link.
http://supreme.justia.com.../case.html

[This message has been edited by Donald Mullikin (1/17/2013)]
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11447) 8 years ago
St. Ronnie of Reagan on the subject. Remember him. He was shot while surrounded by armed guards.

http://www.snopes.com/pol...anak47.asp
Top
supporter
Posted by Kelly (+2618) 8 years ago
I'm just wondering why you can't carry a gun into a gun show as an attendee?

[This message has been edited by Kelly (1/18/2013)]
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+145) 8 years ago
By Kelly I'm just wondering why you can't carry a gun into a gun show as an attendee?


Simplest answer is Safety!

Not all guns have safeties that will disable the firearm from shooting it, if you inadvertently put a bogger-hook on the bang switch, and it is loaded, it will fire. Glocks, Taurus 738 TCP's and others like them, have the safety incorporated on the trigger and what is worse, do not have a visible hammer to see if the firearm is cocked. This is a bad combination for those who carry fully loaded (with a round in the chamber) and ready to fire. The safeties on these are designed to prevent an accidental discharge (AD) if dropped, but will permit a negligent discharge (ND) if the person forgets to "index" (put trigger finger along the side of the firearm) and touches the bang switch with their booger-hook.

And not every gun show restricts carry of firearms into the show. What they do not want is loaded firearms or firearms that can be quickly loaded going in the door. That is why at some gun-shows, you will be permitted to carry one in, AFTER you prove it is unloaded and they zip-tie it, so that it cannot be loaded or fired.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8992) 8 years ago
Not all guns have safeties that will disable the firearm from shooting it, if you inadvertently put a bogger-hook on the bang switch, and it is loaded, it will fire. Glocks, Taurus 738 TCP's and others like them, have the safety incorporated on the trigger and what is worse, do not have a visible hammer to see if the firearm is cocked. This is a bad combination for those who carry fully loaded (with a round in the chamber) and ready to fire.


Again... let us ponder this statement for a moment.
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+187) 8 years ago
It appears that most of the Supreme Court cases prior to Heller tried to interpret limits to the 2nd Amendment by it's relationship to "a well regulated militia". Heller ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right and not connected to any military service. McDonald extended the individual right to the States. I believe the Heller decision throws Miller open to a challenge because it tries to rationalize a justification for possessing the weapon to it's use in a "militia".

In reality, Miller did not make possession of machine guns and sawed-off shotguns illegal but imposes a requirement to pay a tax and acquire a permit. It's a de facto prohibition to those without a certain class of FFL.
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+145) 8 years ago
In reality, Miller did not make possession of machine guns and sawed-off shotguns illegal but imposes a requirement to pay a tax and acquire a permit. It's a de facto prohibition to those without a certain class of FFL.


No, that was the NFA, passed by Congress! In Miller, the SCOTUS did not rule on the Constitutionality of the NFA as they were not being asked to and have not been asked to since then either.

They were ruling on if a sawn-off shotgun was protected under the Second Amendment. If you look at how they ruled, they interpreted that EVERY "Adult" (edit) Male inhabitant of the United States is considered as being a part of the Militia and should be permitted to be equally armed as that which would be considered as making the Militia efficient! As I mentioned, (paraphrasing here) because they were not provided evidence that a short-barreled shot-gun had a purpose in the Military mission, they could not say it should be protected for PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL ownership under the 2nd Amendment.

So, contrary to what a lot of folks say that the Heller and McDonald cases did for clarifying individual ownership of firearms, they are ignoring that the US v Miller case in 1939 already did that, or that case would not be cited in all of those following cases.

[This message has been edited by Donald Mullikin (1/18/2013)]
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+145) 8 years ago
Glocks, Taurus 738 TCP's and others like them, have the safety incorporated on the trigger and what is worse, do not have a visible hammer to see if the firearm is cocked. This is a bad combination for those who carry fully loaded (with a round in the chamber) and ready to fire.
____________________________________________________________________

Again... let us ponder this statement for a moment.


Ok????

Are you going to try and insinuate that certain firearms are inherently unsafe all on their own, or are you going to put the onus of that blame for their being unsafe squarely where it belongs, which is on those who cannot exercise self-control and keep their booger-hooks off the bang switches?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8992) 8 years ago
And how do I know which of my fellow citizens can be trusted to keep their booger-hooks off the bang switches?

THAT is the problem with the fantasy of everyone carrying, whether it be open or concealed.
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+145) 8 years ago
As a follow up to my last post. Firearms are a tool just like most any other tool we humans develop.

Is it more dangerous than others? No!

A bus is a tool for travel, when in the skilled, responsible hands, it is a great tool, and very useful.
When in the hands of someone lacking self-control can be a weapon of mass destruction.

Should we ban the buses or those who would misuse them?

Airplanes are another tool for travel, when in skilled, responsible hands are great and useful.
We only need to look at 9-11-2001 to know that in the hands of 4 individuals, thousands of lives were lost, and billions of dollars of damage was done.

Have we banned Airplanes? No!

Cars are yet another tool for travel, ~~~~~ nuff said I should hope.

Is it the fault of the tools that they are so deadly? No, it is the fault of those using those tools.

Who is it that use those tools?

Humans do!

So why don't we just ban all humans?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8992) 8 years ago
I don't think you get the point I'm driving at.

I'm not saying "ban guns".

I MIGHT be saying "regulate guns by requiring some sort of minimal competency and/or insurance program"

I'm DEFINITELY saying "More people carrying guns == more shootings, accidental or otherwise", because that's simple statistics, and therefore I question the need that some people have to carry a firearm everywhere they go.
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+187) 8 years ago
"And how do I know which of my fellow citizens can be trusted to keep their booger-hooks off the bang switches?"

"THAT is the problem with the fantasy of everyone carrying, whether it be open or concealed."

And how do I know which of my fellow citizens can be trusted to not suck down a quart of Jack Daniels and go blasting their Humvee through school zones at 3:10PM.

THAT is the problem with the reality of everyone driving 2-ton missiles.

30 years of MADD hasn't done much for the real stats on drunks other than chain cops to traffic patrol and overflow all the jail cells on weekends.

Frankly, I worry more about crossing the street than I would being at a gun show in a room full of guns and ammo.
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+145) 8 years ago
I'm DEFINITELY saying "More people carrying guns == more shootings, accidental or otherwise", because that's simple statistics, and therefore I question the need that some people have to carry a firearm everywhere they go.


I get you, it is just that by the way you snipped out where I said the responsibility should fall. It looked as if you were insinuating that the guns themselves are to blame.

And I will disagree with compentency testing, as I know of folks who spent years in Military combat, are now retired Law Enforcement Officers, and still do not know how to keep their booger-hooks off the bang switch. These types will concentrate on doing everything by the book during the testing and then will revert back to their bad habits after they have gotten their Government issued Permission slips that in and of themselves are a Violation of our Second Amendment, in that they are an infringement or restriction.

I also will disagree with your use of "Accidental", if you read my prior post you will know that an AD happens when a weapon is dropped and goes off. Any unintentional firearm discharge while in the hand of the owner, is Negligent, and should be treated as such!

I have no qualms with instituting laws that direct that those who are found guilty of a ND that takes a life, be restricted from carrying. Pure and simple.

I would point at how in New York recently there was a shoot-out between multiple Police Officers and a criminal. Though the Police got the upper hand and the criminal, there were 9 innocent bystanders who had been shot during the incident. The investigation revealed that none of the bystanders injuries were caused by the criminal. That was a PC or polite way of sidestepping the responsibility of the fact that all of the innocent bystanders were shot by TRAINED POLICE OFFICERS!

EDIT: removed statement that did not apply..
http://usnews.nbcnews.com...ounds?lite
http://www.huffingtonpost...30007.html

[This message has been edited by Donald Mullikin (1/18/2013)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8992) 8 years ago
that all of the innocent bystanders were shot by TRAINED POLICE OFFICERS!

Again... let us think about the implications of this statement.
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+145) 8 years ago
Again... let us think about the implications of this statement.


Yes, lets.. and while you are at it, maybe you can show a case of an Armed Law-Abiding Citizen shooting and/or injuring/killing an innocent bystander while defending himself or others?

I can't find any cases. Yet I can find case after case of Police hitting or injuring innocent bystanders.

Besides, I don't know if you are aware, but you are 6,200% more likely to be killed by a Medical Professional than by being shot by a Homicidal Maniac.

http://www.naturalnews.co...eaths.html
Top
supporter
Posted by Kelly (+2618) 8 years ago
This is a link to some really dumba$$ gun videos. Enjoy

http://www.huffingtonpost...90579.html
Top
supporter
Posted by Chris Gamrath (+379) 8 years ago
I'm thinking if we weren't a society of booger heads who can't seem to undersrand to keep our booger hooks off of the trigger, then we wouldn't feel so obligated by the bunch of booger eaters that lead us, to come up with a solution!
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+187) 8 years ago
Let's ponder this for a moment....

http://www.lvrj.com/news/19257519.html

Please note the article states there were 300 people in the joint when the armed citizen took out the shooter. If you have ever been in the Players, you would see that there is room for about 100.

Considering this took place during the Runamucca Biker Rally it would be safe to assume there were probably 30-50 other armed citizens in the Players that nite who exercised considerable restraint.

The only problem here is that these incidents don't lead all major media news for a month.

[This message has been edited by Oddjob (1/19/2013)]
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+145) 8 years ago
This is a link to some really dumba$$ gun videos. Enjoy

Very humorous!
Considering how they were captured on video, it makes me wonder how many of those were set-ups (pre-scripted events).

I will say that most depictions were of stupid people doing stupid stuff in general, but that does not mean I believe they were all real-life situation. I do not know anyone who would hold a rifle away from their shoulder -body- when shooting it. I have seen people who reload their own, intentionally put in too much powder just to see what it will do.. Stupid in and of itself.. but if they hand that off to someone else to fire, I consider that as being criminal, thus taking them out of the Law-Abiding Citizen classification.

Again, can anyone attest to how many were real and not staged?

I won't.

Especially with most of those hand-gun episodes that had no flash or any evidence of powder smoke, just a bang and a jerk, which could have been good acting & editing.

Then there are those where we do not even see the gun going off. ??
Were blanks (bullet-less rounds) or snap-caps (casings with just a primer) being fired and the ID10T just being a good actor? The gun in the book is a prime example of sounding like a snap-cap and not
an actual round.

Of course if they are all actually staged -faked or set-up- stupid events, what should we call those who believe them to be real?
Top
Posted by Joe Whalen (+618) 8 years ago
State-by-state incident reports compiled by the Violence Policy Center of innocent citizens and law enforcement officers killed by persons issued CCW permits.

http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+145) 8 years ago
The Constitution says the people can keep and bear arms. It does NOT say we can fire those arms. It also doesn't say anything about ammunition.

It also doesn't say what kind of arms we can keep and bear.

It looks like you missed my prior post about the US v Miller case that the SCOTUS heard in 1939. The second was pretty well interpreted with that post.

All Adult Male inhabitants are considered to be the Militia and
anything that serves to increase the efficiency of the Militia (those weapons that are common or have a Military use) are protected for civilian ownership.

Here is the link again.
http://supreme.justia.com.../case.html
Top
supporter
Posted by Kelly (+2618) 8 years ago
Of course if they are all actually staged -faked or set-up- stupid events, what should we call those who believe them to be real?


Maybe we can say that they haven't been around guns during their life so they aren't as astute at picking out the items you described?
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+145) 8 years ago
State-by-state incident reports compiled by the Violence Policy Center of innocent citizens and law enforcement officers killed by persons issued CCW permits.

http://www.vpc.org/ccwkillers.htm


I just saw this post. So I took a couple minutes to read it. I am wondering if you had? FYI it is based on 2007 information.

When you read that, you will hopefully see something that I have mentioned. It is not Armed Law-Abiding Citizens (LAC) that we have to worry about. It is criminals who ignore the laws to begin with, that we have to concern ourselves with.

It shows that of 32 states there were 370 incidents of a concealed carrier killing someone. Look at those numbers very carefully as they do not add up.

Some of the incidents have to be crossing into two or more categories. So, how many of the concealed carriers were actually licensed? The only reference that gives any indication is when it says that 10 unintentional fatalities were by licensed concealed carriers. That equates to about 2.7 percent.

How many were criminals? Roughly 97.3 percent.

How many of that 370 incidents were by criminals who had prior convictions and were already prohibited from legally carrying a firearm? 71.6%

Restricting the LAC from carrying a firearm only serves to make things safer for the Criminals out there, while making it unsafe for the general public. Just like the Gun Free School Zone Act (GFSZA) that the SCOTUS originally overruled as Unconstitutional in 1995 (by the way) made the areas where we keep our most precious resource (our children) for hours each weekday, a Safe Haven for the COWARDS who are bent on killing, as they know there will generally be no armed resistance.

Please note that, the study done in the post I am responding to, only covered concealed carry.

Can anyone provide a source citation (hopefully a credible one) to a study done on Openly Carried firearms?

And Yes, I have seen the reports on the ID10T in N.C. who was stupidly transporting a loaded shotgun in a gun bag and caused an ND at the outside checkpoint of the Gun-Show.
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+145) 8 years ago
Maybe we can say that they haven't been around guns during their life so they aren't as astute at picking out the items you described?


I can also pick out all the falsehoods with what is called Professional Wrestling too.

But there are a great many who believe all of it is real.

Top
Posted by Joe Whalen (+618) 8 years ago
Res ipsa loquitor.

Why the contortions, Donald?

The Concealed Carry Killer reports referenced in the VPC link cover the years leading from 2007-present. Each one of those deaths were caused by the actions of a concealed weapons permit holder. Note how incident dates range from 2007 to 2012 and how the heading above each incident report reads "Concealed Weapon Permit Holder" followed by the shooter's name.

Gun Appreciation Day Special: 3 accidental shootings, 5 wounded at gun shows.
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+145) 8 years ago
Res ipsa loquitor.

Why the contortions, Donald?

The Concealed Carry Killer reports referenced in the VPC link cover the years leading from 2007-present. Each one of those deaths were caused by the actions of a concealed weapons permit holder. Note how incident dates range from 2007 to 2012 and how the heading above each incident report reads "Concealed Weapon Permit Holder" followed by the shooter's name.

Gun Appreciation Day Special: 3 accidental shootings, 5 wounded at gun shows.


I might agree that it is speaking for itself, but not in the way that you might intend. Please read on.

Let's look at the opening of the link I was referring to.
"Total People Killed by Concealed Carry Killers."


If the data in fact is for multiple years rather than just 2007, then we are talking an unusually and extremely low number all in all. Making its use as justification for gun-control not only misleading, but a great injustice.

The very first statement here basically sums it up.
The Violence Policy Center's Concealed Carry Killers database documents 370 incidents in 32 states. In more than three quarters of the incidents (295) the concealed carry killer has already been convicted


Of the 370 incidents, 295 of the concealed carriers have already been convicted.

Further down, it says:
An additional 10 incidents were fatal unintentional shootings involving the gun of the concealed handgun permit holder.
Now we have something that discusses the shooters actually being Concealed Carry Permit holders. The way it is worded implies that all of the prior lists were not actually Permit Holders, but were simply people who were carrying concealed.

Example, in many States, a Concealed Carry Permit is not required to possess a Concealed Firearm inside your personal dwelling or owned place of business. This is not the same as having a Concealed Carry Permit, but I see far too often where some will point to the fact that the Law allows it as meaning they had an actual Permit.

That rational is a twist if nothing else. Personally, I view Permit Laws as an infringement of the Second Amendment, but being a LAC, and to avoid legal entanglements, I have undergone background checks multiple times to maintain my Concealed Pistol License. In some States that I have been, those background checks have been almost as rigorous as the ones I had to undergo for my Military Security Clearances and the Security Clearances I have had to do for civilian employment over nearly 40 years.

And considering this statement by the VPC site, I would be more likely to challenge their credibility, than to blindly accept all that they are saying.
Because detailed information on such killings is not readily available, the VPC is forced to rely primarily on news accounts for reports of such killings and subsequent legal proceedings.


That statement in and of itself is speaks volumes or as you put it.
Res ipsa loquitor
Top
Posted by pc (+128) 8 years ago
Joe said:
"Gun Appreciation Day Special: 3 accidental shootings, 5 wounded at gun shows."

Meanwhile, in Chicago, where gun laws are among the very strictest in the nation, 17 people were shot over the weekend, 2 fatally.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8992) 8 years ago
Logical fallacies, how do they work?
Top
Posted by pc (+128) 8 years ago
Great question.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8992) 8 years ago
Indeed.
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+145) 8 years ago
Meanwhile, in Chicago, where gun laws are among the very strictest in the nation, 17 people were shot over the weekend, 2 fatally.


And this is just one city. Can anyone find what the stats for the City of Kennesaw, GA are?

I would compare them as Chicago basically has the most restrictive gun ownership laws where Kennesaw mandates gun ownership.

We would then see the effect of the two trains of thought. I will not try to twist information the way those who are against guns would, and will say that if we look at that per capita; 17 shootings in Chicago ends up being a low figure.

I wish I could find that data comparing more than just the Rest of GA or comparing to the National Average. But here is that link:
http://www.cityrating.com...nesaw.html

[This message has been edited by Donald Mullikin (1/21/2013)]
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8992) 8 years ago
Logical fallaciesstatistics, how do they work?

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (1/21/2013)]
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+145) 8 years ago
Logical fallaciesstatistics, how do they work?


For an answer to that, you would have to contact those that conducted the investigation/survey and complied the data.

Now, something else to consider, it would be a natural conclusion by most that in a city where guns are required to be in every home, that the number of murders by gun would go up.

Here is an article that shows that argument might be a fallacy.
[url]http://kennesaw.11alive.com/news/crime?page=1


Please notice that a knife was used in this case even though based upon the City Ordinance (at least one firearm being possessed by the head of household in every home), a firearm should have been present and available.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8992) 8 years ago
Could someone please correlate the # of unicorns in Chicago vs the # of pirates in Kennesaw? I think there's something here, but I can't quite make it out.

If you could somehow work this into a venn diagram, I think this would be the most helpful.

[This message has been edited by Bridgier (1/21/2013)]
Top
Posted by Cactus Plains (+90) 8 years ago
who now have cheap flying death robots, which doesn't seem to upset the 2nd amendment absolutists nearly as much as you think it would.

And SWMS sensors; very good, another cover, I think they are trying to sell guns, not control them, they want another civil war like they suckered us into a 100 and some years ago ... the Civil War ...
Can you believe the American people were baited so to speak into partisipating in such controlled ignorance and wickness against brothers etc

Thanks I can re adjust my theory now ... the 85% with rh+ did not evolve from monkey, except maybe one bloodline, that magical power maybe gone but left the world programmed to continue the total destruction

Pike said God is SATAN (God of War and Red Hot Deserts aka Custer corruption County ... pay your taxes to who?

he (Pike) was tapped into the ether???

Cactus Plains
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8992) 8 years ago
See? Even Cactus P. is stepping up his game in honor of the inauguration.
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+145) 8 years ago
who now have cheap flying death robots, which doesn't seem to upset the 2nd amendment absolutists nearly as much as you think it would.


Is the Government operating death drones here in the US? If so, then there may be a Second Amendment issue.

I know they are operating Surveillance Drones which violates everyones 4th Amendment rights to be secure against unreasonable searches.

http://www.usconstitution...t.html#Am4
Top
Posted by Cactus Plains (+90) 8 years ago
I guess you are referring to your god; Akhenaton jr. 50/44/6 ;
ever notice how closely he resembles Akhenaton the Pharaoh who destroyed Egypt a couple thousand years ago. Also the resemblance of the CIA wife and two kids to the wife and kids of Akhenaton???

Sigmund Froid suggested that Akhenaton was the biblical "Moses"?

If you know the all knowing intelligent design God aka the God Mind which connects all plants and animals to the universal God Mind.

You might realize SATAN is the anti-christ and has been since the education system that roots from "the tower of babel" was forged to deceive?

All knowing intelligent design God maybe very angry about the corruption of your inaugeration!

Cactus Plains
Top
supporter
Posted by Jeri Dalbec (+3146) 8 years ago
But...all in all...the Aliens are only worried about protecting Mother Earth so maybe all the rest of it is a "moot" point:-)
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+16669) 8 years ago
Is the Government operating death drones here in the US? If so, then there may be a Second Amendment issue.


I don't believe the 2nd Amendment is an issue here, as the government death drones aren't using guns.

Hmmmm.....but that does bring up an interesting question. Are the chemtrails the government drones use to poison our land considered to be "arms" and thus afforded 2nd Amendment protections?

I'll leave that one up to the more-educated constitutional scholars here at mc.com.
Top
Posted by Aut (+9) 8 years ago
Whether for or against gun control laws: Everyone here has failed to mention that any such LAWS will only impact LAW ABIDING citizens. How many of these gun related CRIMES were committed by people who would actually follow new gun laws/regulations? Ummmm.... I'm guessing very few. These shootings that have spurred such vigorous conversations were crimes...yes crimes! The people who committed these crimes are .... Ding ding! You guessed it! -NOT law abiding citizens. Therefore, more regulations do not impact their actions whatsoever; they are not going to say, "Oh, there's new gun regulations now. I better stop getting guns [illegally] and shooting people [illegally]!"

Let's use some common sense - the gun killings are done by criminals. As for anyone who will bring up the accidental gun killings: there doesn't need to be more laws; there needs to be more education (and enforcement of current laws). I remember being offered hunters/gun safety courses as a young child (around 10). They do not offer these in my area anymore because parents were outraged that there would be a "gun class."

[This message has been edited by Aut (1/29/2013)]

[This message has been edited by Aut (1/29/2013)]
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+145) 8 years ago
I remember being offered hunters/gun safety courses as a young child (around 10). They do not offer these in my area anymore because parents were outraged that there would be a "gun class."


Ah, but those classes are still generally available, its just that now, they are not publicly promoted anymore.

Most Gun Clubs offer a wide variety of firearm and hunter safety educations. Or will know who gives the class you seek.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8992) 8 years ago
No hunter's safety courses in Wyoming? I call bullpoop.
Top
Posted by Aut (+9) 8 years ago
Actually, I'm not from Wyoming. I noticed that it said that after I posted, but I didn't take the time to figure out how to change it. I'm from MI. I do believe that there is some hunters safety/gun courses offered by the DNR, but they have to be sought out by the persons who want to take them. At one time, they were offered through our public school system in my district (via the DNR), as after school courses or as en electives for middle school students.
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+145) 8 years ago
No hunter's safety courses in Wyoming? I call bullpoop.



Here is a link to the Wyoming State Hunter Education area.

http://gf.state.wy.us/Hun...lcome.aspx

And here is a list of the courses offered by them.
http://gf.state.wy.us/Hun...eList.aspx

Please note that they even offer Bow Hunter Classes.

EDIT: Originally read it wrong, am correcting my mistake.

Now for AUT's benefit!

Michigan? No hunter education?

Try again!
http://www.hunter-ed.com/michigan/

[This message has been edited by Donald Mullikin (2/7/2013)]
Top
Posted by Aut (+9) 8 years ago
Now, Donald, for your sake: I am COMPLETELY aware that MI has hunters' education courses; I have been involved with MI DNR education outreach programs. As I stated in my post there ARE hunters' safety courses in MI through the DNR, but they have to be sought out now.

What I was saying, that was apparently missed, is that there was a time in my town that hunters' safety was simply "offered" to young people via after school courses and/or even electives IN school. The "open" access to this type of education is limited now. I say "open" access not because they are not open to the public, but because, again, they have to be sought after, and are not advertised/offered in school. This has happened because of parent outcries about "guns in school".
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8992) 8 years ago
This has happened because of parent outcries about "guns in school".

Do you have proof of this, or is this just something that you believe?
Top
Posted by Aut (+9) 8 years ago
This is something that I have seen. Obviously not all the parents have made such outcries, but enough of them have to influence such courses' availability via the schools.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8992) 8 years ago
What's the cost structure for these classes? Was enrollment down? Is this just where you live, or across Michigan as a whole? If so, how precisely were you gauging the intent of parents in school districts remote from your own?

What I'm trying to get at is there could be any number of reasons that these classes have disappeared.
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+145) 8 years ago
I remember being offered hunters/gun safety courses as a young child (around 10). They do not offer these in my area anymore because parents were outraged that there would be a "gun class."
emphasis added for clarity

Ok, so I posted where Not only WY but also MI conducts Hunter Education and Firearms training, that does not need much searching in either state to locate, by the way.

Now you claim:
Now, Donald, for your sake: I am COMPLETELY aware that MI has hunters' education courses; I have been involved with MI DNR education outreach programs. As I stated in my post there ARE hunters' safety courses in MI through the DNR, but they have to be sought out now.


Which is it?
Please keep your story straight.
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+16506) 8 years ago
"They do not offer these in my area anymore..."
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+145) 8 years ago
"They do not offer these in my area anymore..."


Well David, I don't know which town you may live in, but there are some links that you may wish to look at.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/huntin.../basic.php

http://www.hunter-ed.com/washington/
http://www.examiner.com/a...rses-now-1
http://www.tacomassportsm...terEd.aspx
http://www.tacomarifle.org/index.htm

Where don't they offer these courses here in Washington State?
Top
moderator
founder
Posted by David Schott (+16506) 8 years ago
Donald, I found your picture on the web:

Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+145) 8 years ago
Donald, I found your picture on the web:


Sorry, it couldn't be one of my pictures, I use charcoal for my medium. Though it clearly depicts a lot of the Politicians I use for models.

Are you a politician by chance?
Top
supporter
Posted by Wendy Wilson (+6170) 8 years ago
Donald's lack of acuity is fascinating.
Top
Posted by Aut (+9) 8 years ago
Really Donald? Get my story straight? Yup, I'm pretty sure it hasn't changed. The following was my initial post on this matter:

"I do believe that there is some hunters safety/gun courses offered by the DNR, but they have to be sought out by the persons who want to take them. At one time, they were offered through our public school system in my district (via the DNR), as after school courses or as en electives for middle school students."

My further posts reiterated this statement; therefore, my story HAS NOT changed.

You seem to be simply LOOKING for something to be contradictory about, and I'm not going to clarify myself any further on the matter, as I was VERY clear, already. With that said, I'm done with this discussion; it's not leading anywhere. I'm not lowing myself to that level of an argument, as you will probably beat me with experience.

[This message has been edited by Aut (2/10/2013)]
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+145) 8 years ago
Really Aut?
they have to be sought out by the persons who want to take them.


I am not a resident of your state, yet I found them without any extensive searches.

So where do they require to be sought out?

From what I am seeing they are advertised and the links are open for public viewing.

Or are you trying to make it sound harder than what it really is?

If so, what is your objective in that deception?
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8992) 8 years ago
I... I... I don't know what to say. I'm starting to think that "Donald Mullikin" is some sort of elaborate performance art project.
Top
banned
Posted by Bobby Boatley (+65) 8 years ago
Hello Goodfellows. My 2nd Amendment Right is my gun permit.
Top
banned
Posted by Bobby Boatley (+65) 8 years ago
Hey B. Woood. Are you some kind of communist? You certaintly haven't since enough violence in your lifetime to form an opinion. Setting behind your desk and never having to fear for your life in combat will certaintly change your opinion. They are many many evil mean people who just want to harm innocent people. I won't be a victim. Humbly yours: B. Boatley.
Top
Posted by Sledge H. (+9) 8 years ago
Well said, Bobby!!!!!!!
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+145) 8 years ago
I... I... I don't know what to say. I'm starting to think that "Donald Mullikin" is some sort of elaborate performance art project.


I have no idea what you are trying to say.. please explain it. "elaborate performance art project"?

Rest assured, I am an educated human being and not someones project.

Likewise, I am a free-thinker and do not follow any specific Political Party agenda/platform, as I will not have someone telling me what I will be thinking to be thinking properly, according to whatever the political party happens to be.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+8992) 8 years ago
All I can say donald, is good luck at the Turing competition. I think you've got a real shot this year.
Top
supporter
Posted by Kelly (+2618) 8 years ago
10 Pro-gun Myths, Shot Down

http://www.motherjones.co...fact-check
Top
Posted by Aut (+9) 8 years ago
So where do they require to be sought out?

From what I am seeing they are advertised and the links are open for public viewing.

Or are you trying to make it sound harder than what it really is?

If so, what is your objective in that deception?


Donald there is no deception there if you know what the word SOUGHT means. Let me help you out a little bit.

sought: verb
simple past tense and past participle of seek.
seek: verb (used with object)
1.to go in search or quest of: to seek the truth.
2.to try to find or discover by searching or questioning: to seek the solution to a problem.
3.to try to obtain: to seek fame.
4.to try or attempt (usually followed by an infinitive): to seek to convince a person.
5.to go to: to seek a place to rest.
(dictionary.com)

Did you have to do an internet "search" for that information? Ummmm, yup! Therefore, you SOUGHT that information out.
Once again, such courses need to be SOUGHT out by persons wanting to participate (i.e if one wants to participate, one must SEEK out information on when and where courses are taking place). I never said they were DIFFICULT to find, nor did I say they were not available. I simply said they were not offered through the schools anymore.
Donald, stop taking my, and others', words and "fitting" them into your argument, just for the sake of arguing. I know what I said, and I meant what I said.
Top
Posted by Donald Mullikin (+145) 8 years ago
Donald there is no deception there if you know what the word SOUGHT means. Let me help you out a little bit.

sought: verb
simple past tense and past participle of seek.
seek: verb (used with object)
1.to go in search or quest of: to seek the truth.
2.to try to find or discover by searching or questioning: to seek the solution to a problem.
3.to try to obtain: to seek fame.
4.to try or attempt (usually followed by an infinitive): to seek to convince a person.
5.to go to: to seek a place to rest.
(dictionary.com)

Did you have to do an internet "search" for that information? Ummmm, yup! Therefore, you SOUGHT that information out.
Once again, such courses need to be SOUGHT out by persons wanting to participate (i.e if one wants to participate, one must SEEK out information on when and where courses are taking place). I never said they were DIFFICULT to find, nor did I say they were not available. I simply said they were not offered through the schools anymore.
Donald, stop taking my, and others', words and "fitting" them into your argument, just for the sake of arguing. I know what I said, and I meant what I said.


With my NOT being from the same area as you.. of course I searched. However, you seem to have misunderstood my statement of "From what I am seeing they are advertised" I continued from there by explaining that the online indications of public advertisements that I found, also have links directly to the information about the classes.

If they are advertised locally, then if people pay attention to what goes on around them, there is no real need to search for a thing.

An example is how our News in the Seattle area does, they will give a bit of information about a subject on the air-waves, and instruct the listeners to go to their Online News Site for more information, those who are interested can get the information without searching as they were told where to find it. This is a common practice of how things are being "Publicly Announced" in todays society!
>EDIT: Additonally, television commercials do very much the same thing, announce it and tell you where to go to get the additional information. Again, no searching involved. End Edit <
That was the basis for my statement!

Why are you trying to make it into something it was not?

[This message has been edited by Donald Mullikin (2/26/2013)]
Top