Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Rotation Advertisements



We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum.


If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away.


Click here to Register!

If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk


If you're already a member please log in to your account:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 10
Terrorist attack in Florida
Topic Started: Jun 12 2016, 06:39 PM (4,858 Views)
Helvius Pertinax Augustus
Member Avatar
What will you do when you get old?

Steve
Jun 18 2016, 01:24 AM
Jar-Jar Binks
Jun 18 2016, 12:41 AM
I linked that in my previous post. Even the first "Mass shooting" in January by FBI/CRS standards wasn't a mass shooting. There's been 8 according to their standard, which is 4 or more killed, not 4 or more wounded.
Does wounded vs killed even matter here? Being wounded or killed is pretty much just luck. In every case people intended to do harm with these weapons, how successful they were isn't all that important.

Quote:
 
Also you should look where the majority of those shootings are happening and refer to my previous posts.


They happen in America, which is where it's a problem.

Quote:
 
You all are forgetting that American soldiers are American citizens too. They lose every right we do if they're taken from us, they would have no reason to fight us and more reason to fight with us against the government.

So...why is the government taking over something people pose as a legitimate threat? Again why would they even do it what would they gain?

Unless half the soldiers in the army are corrupt bastards they probably wouldn't turn on their own people, is that the assumption here? Odd since many Americans are proud of their army :rofl:


The amendment is outdated because the country is different now, simple as that. There's no danger of the government taking over they have no reason to do so and not much power to do so unless every single soldier is on board with the idea of killing their own people for...some reason.

Pretty much the only benefit would be is if another country invaded civilians would be able to defend themselves a bit better but much the same thing would happen as if the US army attacked, most civs with guns would be annihilated.


I think it should be much more difficult for a civilian to get a weapon but more jobs should have people using them.
If the bouncers at the club in this shooting had guns and extensive training maybe they could have stopped the guy.
Same with schools, it's not pretty to have armed guards at schools but...damn well seems necessary.
It does matter. If you're basing your conclusions off of one set of data but claiming it's from another, your conclusions would be outright false statements.

It wouldn't be such a problem if the government enforced existing laws, i.e removing firearms from convicted criminals possession and jailing said criminals since it's a felony to own or possess a firearm if you've ever been convicted of a felony and some misdemeanors as well prevent you from it as well. There's also a federal law relating to organized crime that also prevents gang members from owning firearms even if they have no criminal record that they can be jailed for as well. None of it's enforced, but they don't need to enforce laws for honest, respectable citizens because they aren't criminals and will follow the law.

Times haven't really changed, citizens still need firearms to defend themselves from a tyrannical government now. Do you just forget things that are inconvenient like when the Japanese and many other non-Japanese United States citizens where imprisoned unjustly during WWII? More recently, what about if Trump becomes president and decides to ship off all non-white U.S citizens to other countries or even incarcerate and/or execute them? What if Hillary becomes president and decides to incarcerate and/or execute anyone who didn't support her?

The doorman for the shooting was an off duty police officer who was confirmed to have shot at the suspect at least once pretty much let the guy go in and shoot up the place. You'd think he, someone who is sworn to uphold the law and who works for an organization whos motto is "to protect and serve", would have made more of an effort to stop it regardless of if he was off duty or not.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daemon Keido
Member Avatar
Warmaster of Chaos

How likely do you actually think it is that the American Government would turn tyrannical as of today? I am asking seriously because you seem adamant that the probability is high enough to warrant this stance you have taken. So what is your percentile number of that outcome?

For that matter, what about if Trump or Hilary won? I am curious enough to want to know so that I can gather more info on your stance to understand it better.
A Shadow is merely Darkness in the presence of Light


Posted Image

Thanks Kid Buu for this awesome sig!

The Emperor Protects
Member Online View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Helvius Pertinax Augustus
Member Avatar
What will you do when you get old?

Tinny
Jun 18 2016, 02:31 AM
Quote:
 
Also, the 2nd amendment is not outdated. If that was the case then the rest of the Constitution would be outdated too.

This is what you wrote. And like I said, it's obsolete, and its current interpretation is, if anything, a curtailing of previous rights the states had. Your rights are weaker because of that interpretation, considering it was intended to defend against the federal government, and not random criminals.
If all you have is regurgitated joke and a statement that is false and irrelevant, I can't say you're being convincing.
You're ignoring the fact that you can legally purchase AA guns in the U.S for civilian ownership, the only restriction is how you use them which boils down to don't murder people and don't try to shoot down planes or otherwise be a nuisance with it. You can even buy fully operational tanks, but cannot have any fully automatic firearms mounted on it without the appropriate forms and taxes paid and each explosive you have for the tank has to be registered with the BATFE as a destructive device, but you can own them and use them if you can afford them. It's not outdated because of the amendment itself, but it's becoming further obsolete as we allow more restrictions on our rights and the stupid conclusion that registering things cuts down on crime.

@Nagito, I'm saying there''s bigger fish to worry about than the tired old debate on a problem that is eradicating itself by people deciding to exercise their rights and not become victim to criminal elements.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Helvius Pertinax Augustus
Member Avatar
What will you do when you get old?

Daemon_Rising
Jun 18 2016, 02:43 AM
How likely do you actually think it is that the American Government would turn tyrannical as of today? I am asking seriously because you seem adamant that the probability is high enough to warrant this stance you have taken. So what is your percentile number of that outcome?

For that matter, what about if Trump or Hilary won? I am curious enough to want to know so that I can gather more info on your stance to understand it better.
Very likely that it will happen, maybe not now, maybe not in 5 years, but it will happen when we allow politicians to sign away the last of our freedoms for a security blanket.

Riots if Trump wins, Riots if Trump loses. If Trump wins, you can expect many people to be forcibly removed from the country based upon the color of their skin, the country they are from, or the god(s) they worship which is unconstitutional. Again if Hillary wins, riots if Trump loses. Hillary isn't known for having the best interest of anyone other than herself in mind. She's already said she will persecute gun owners and other groups of citizens if elected as well as pass unconstitutional laws regarding our government being able to abuse watch lists and what someone can or can't do while on one. That's just a little bit of it but I'm sure you know that whether it's Hillary or Trump, the U.S will turn s***ty real quick. Both rely upon tearjerk sensationalism regarding shootings to push either their Anti-American or Anti-Muslim/minority agendas.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tinny
Member Avatar


Jar-Jar Binks
Jun 18 2016, 02:48 AM
Tinny
Jun 18 2016, 02:31 AM
Quote:
 
Also, the 2nd amendment is not outdated. If that was the case then the rest of the Constitution would be outdated too.

This is what you wrote. And like I said, it's obsolete, and its current interpretation is, if anything, a curtailing of previous rights the states had. Your rights are weaker because of that interpretation, considering it was intended to defend against the federal government, and not random criminals.
If all you have is regurgitated joke and a statement that is false and irrelevant, I can't say you're being convincing.
You're ignoring the fact that you can legally purchase AA guns in the U.S for civilian ownership, the only restriction is how you use them which boils down to don't murder people and don't try to shoot down planes or otherwise be a nuisance with it. You can even buy fully operational tanks, but cannot have any fully automatic firearms mounted on it without the appropriate forms and taxes paid and each explosive you have for the tank has to be registered with the BATFE as a destructive device, but you can own them and use them if you can afford them. It's not outdated because of the amendment itself, but it's becoming further obsolete as we allow more restrictions on our rights and the stupid conclusion that registering things cuts down on crime.

@Nagito, I'm saying there''s bigger fish to worry about than the tired old debate on a problem that is eradicating itself by people deciding to exercise their rights and not become victim to criminal elements.
It needs to be brought up before it can be ignored.
Also that paragraph gets far more across than any faulty reasoning and "joke" will ever do. Why didn't you just start with that instead of acting like a faulty statement and imgur meme explained anything? This explains far more and comes off as actually reasonable instead of a mindless resistance against change. No, it's outdated because we've reinterpreted it so that our states cannot maintain a professional military to fought for our rights should such a situation occur somehow. Sure I guess there's guerrilla warfare, but it's tough to pull out a win with it without outside help, though Lazerbem did explain how it could work.

That argument makes no sense, what's limiting us to just one cause at a time? I'm pretty sure blacks would still be slaves if we applied that thinking.
Posted Image
Above signature created by Graffiti

Posted Image
Member Online View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Helvius Pertinax Augustus
Member Avatar
What will you do when you get old?

Tinny
Jun 18 2016, 03:11 AM
Jar-Jar Binks
Jun 18 2016, 02:48 AM
Tinny
Jun 18 2016, 02:31 AM
Quote:
 
Also, the 2nd amendment is not outdated. If that was the case then the rest of the Constitution would be outdated too.

This is what you wrote. And like I said, it's obsolete, and its current interpretation is, if anything, a curtailing of previous rights the states had. Your rights are weaker because of that interpretation, considering it was intended to defend against the federal government, and not random criminals.
If all you have is regurgitated joke and a statement that is false and irrelevant, I can't say you're being convincing.
You're ignoring the fact that you can legally purchase AA guns in the U.S for civilian ownership, the only restriction is how you use them which boils down to don't murder people and don't try to shoot down planes or otherwise be a nuisance with it. You can even buy fully operational tanks, but cannot have any fully automatic firearms mounted on it without the appropriate forms and taxes paid and each explosive you have for the tank has to be registered with the BATFE as a destructive device, but you can own them and use them if you can afford them. It's not outdated because of the amendment itself, but it's becoming further obsolete as we allow more restrictions on our rights and the stupid conclusion that registering things cuts down on crime.

@Nagito, I'm saying there''s bigger fish to worry about than the tired old debate on a problem that is eradicating itself by people deciding to exercise their rights and not become victim to criminal elements.
It needs to be brought up before it can be ignored.
Also that paragraph gets far more across than any faulty reasoning and "joke" will ever do. Why didn't you just start with that instead of acting like a faulty statement and imgur meme explained anything? This explains far more and comes off as actually reasonable instead of a mindless resistance against change. No, it's outdated because we've reinterpreted it so that our states cannot maintain a professional military to fought for our rights should such a situation occur somehow. Sure I guess there's guerrilla warfare, but it's tough to pull out a win with it without outside help, though Lazerbem did explain how it could work.

That argument makes no sense, what's limiting us to just one cause at a time? I'm pretty sure blacks would still be slaves if we applied that thinking.
Because honestly I'm doing this for fun, I've got nothing better to do with my time at the moment. Most video games tend to bore me, every book I've ever been interested in reading I've already read, and every movie and tv show I've been interested in I've already seen. There's not much to do around here past 9:00 pm so I spend my time on the internet starting pointless debates that will not likely change anyones outlook on things, that I intentionally drag out because like I said, there's not much for me to do.

Slavery still exists in the world and even in the U.S, Great Britain, Canada, and just about any "civilized" country but it's no longer along racial divide, it's gender divide. Sexual slavery is still a very large problem in countries that have outlawed slavery. In Africa, some Middle Eastern countries, some South-west Asian countries, and even some South Asian countries slavery in the more traditional sense exists as well as sexual slavery.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Daemon Keido
Member Avatar
Warmaster of Chaos

Jar-Jar Binks
Jun 18 2016, 03:02 AM
Daemon_Rising
Jun 18 2016, 02:43 AM
How likely do you actually think it is that the American Government would turn tyrannical as of today? I am asking seriously because you seem adamant that the probability is high enough to warrant this stance you have taken. So what is your percentile number of that outcome?

For that matter, what about if Trump or Hilary won? I am curious enough to want to know so that I can gather more info on your stance to understand it better.
Very likely that it will happen, maybe not now, maybe not in 5 years, but it will happen when we allow politicians to sign away the last of our freedoms for a security blanket.

Riots if Trump wins, Riots if Trump loses. If Trump wins, you can expect many people to be forcibly removed from the country based upon the color of their skin, the country they are from, or the god(s) they worship which is unconstitutional. Again if Hillary wins, riots if Trump loses. Hillary isn't known for having the best interest of anyone other than herself in mind. She's already said she will persecute gun owners and other groups of citizens if elected as well as pass unconstitutional laws regarding our government being able to abuse watch lists and what someone can or can't do while on one. That's just a little bit of it but I'm sure you know that whether it's Hillary or Trump, the U.S will turn s***ty real quick. Both rely upon tearjerk sensationalism regarding shootings to push either their Anti-American or Anti-Muslim/minority agendas.
What number does "pretty likely" represent? 70%? 80%?

Besides, do you really care if someone on a terror watch list isn't able to have access to legal firearms? Just seems like that should be the case by default. If they can't buy a plans ticket why can they buy a ahotgun?
A Shadow is merely Darkness in the presence of Light


Posted Image

Thanks Kid Buu for this awesome sig!

The Emperor Protects
Member Online View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Buuberries
Member Avatar
No

Florida is almost spelled like fluoride, so I'm not really surprised.
¯\(°_o)/¯
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Helvius Pertinax Augustus
Member Avatar
What will you do when you get old?

Daemon_Rising
Jun 18 2016, 03:36 AM
Jar-Jar Binks
Jun 18 2016, 03:02 AM
Daemon_Rising
Jun 18 2016, 02:43 AM
How likely do you actually think it is that the American Government would turn tyrannical as of today? I am asking seriously because you seem adamant that the probability is high enough to warrant this stance you have taken. So what is your percentile number of that outcome?

For that matter, what about if Trump or Hilary won? I am curious enough to want to know so that I can gather more info on your stance to understand it better.
Very likely that it will happen, maybe not now, maybe not in 5 years, but it will happen when we allow politicians to sign away the last of our freedoms for a security blanket.

Riots if Trump wins, Riots if Trump loses. If Trump wins, you can expect many people to be forcibly removed from the country based upon the color of their skin, the country they are from, or the god(s) they worship which is unconstitutional. Again if Hillary wins, riots if Trump loses. Hillary isn't known for having the best interest of anyone other than herself in mind. She's already said she will persecute gun owners and other groups of citizens if elected as well as pass unconstitutional laws regarding our government being able to abuse watch lists and what someone can or can't do while on one. That's just a little bit of it but I'm sure you know that whether it's Hillary or Trump, the U.S will turn s***ty real quick. Both rely upon tearjerk sensationalism regarding shootings to push either their Anti-American or Anti-Muslim/minority agendas.
What number does "pretty likely" represent? 70%? 80%?

Besides, do you really care if someone on a terror watch list isn't able to have access to legal firearms? Just seems like that should be the case by default. If they can't buy a plans ticket why can they buy a ahotgun?
It depends on how they are put on there and for what. Watchlists are abused already, and some of them for no reason or they were mistakenly put on there. Hillary wants to abuse the No Fly list by making it illegal for people on the No Fly list to buy firearms. How do you get on the No Fly list to begin with? No real reason. Bringing more than 2 liters of water on an airplane and getting caught, bringing more than a travel sized bottle of shampoo, being suspected but not proven to be a terrorist (which could be anyone the government [read Hillary] doesn't like, not just actual terrorists

Anyway it's 100% likely. All we have to do is let things continue down their current route and we'll have a tyrannical government. When exactly I can't say, but it will happen.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
* Yu Narukami
Default Avatar
Izanagi!

You make it sound as though anyone can be put on a No-Fly list at any time with absolutely no evidence whatsoever. If someone's seriously being suspected of being a terrorist, there is some evidence there to suggest that.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Helvius Pertinax Augustus
Member Avatar
What will you do when you get old?

Well, as it stands yes, you can be. Protesters, political activists, and people with Middle Eastern heritage have been put on the no fly list for simply existing. Even former government employees have been put on it for pointing out government wrongdoing. I know of a group of protesters around here who were put on the No Fly list because they were protesting the Iraq war. They didn't do anything violent or illegal, only protested the war.

Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
* Mitas
Member Avatar
It truly was a Shawshank redemption

But that sounds more like the way the 'No Fly' list operates needs to be looked into, not that they should be allowed to buy and own guns.
Posted Image
"Then you've got the chance to do better next time."
"Next time?"
"Course. Doing better next time. That's what life is."
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Helvius Pertinax Augustus
Member Avatar
What will you do when you get old?

There's already been official proposals for bills submitted to change how the No Fly list works, but they haven't made it past the proposal stage for "incompleteness". I don't see it changing much, especially with Trump and Hillary both as the primary candidates for president. They both would love to abuse it, Hillary for violation of every right for gun owners and Trump for violation of every right for non-white citizens.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
* Yu Narukami
Default Avatar
Izanagi!

Jar-Jar Binks
Jun 18 2016, 05:43 PM
There's already been official proposals for bills submitted to change how the No Fly list works, but they haven't made it past the proposal stage for "incompleteness". I don't see it changing much, especially with Trump and Hillary both as the primary candidates for president. They both would love to abuse it, Hillary for violation of every right for gun owners and Trump for violation of every right for non-white citizens.
Can you tell me where Clinton has indicated that she'd try and violate every right for gun owners?
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
* Mitas
Member Avatar
It truly was a Shawshank redemption

I sympathise with the people that are put on the No Fly list for no valid reason, and like I said, it sounds like that needs to be changed, but while it's working incorrectly, I still believe that people on it shouldn't be allowed to own guns. I'm biased because I am pro-gun control, but it makes more sense to me for a country to disallow 1000 people from owning guns when only 2 of them are potential dangers (again, while the list is dysfunctional), rather than allowing those other 998 people to own guns and making those 2 potential dangers even more dangerous.
Posted Image
"Then you've got the chance to do better next time."
"Next time?"
"Course. Doing better next time. That's what life is."
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 10

Theme Designed by McKee91