I think the democratic party is racist

[glockmail]

Did he really say that? Sheesh.

That he did:

....Yeah well american "freedom" is causing thousands of needless deaths every year, but surly thats worth it so you can have a gun in your house, right?

[Noir]

Sure why not? The mere question he asked 'is freedom worth it' shows how Europeans don't, and will likely never, understand Americans.

Did he really say that? Sheesh.

That he did:

....Yeah well american "freedom" is causing thousands of needless deaths every year, but surly thats worth it so you can have a gun in your house, right?

Wow, hold the bus, you guys really know how to twist things. I was not asking 'is freedom worth it' if you look closely you'll see i said 'Is "freedom" worth it' which is a completly differnet question, so please re-read, if you don't get the difference i will happily explain though i assume that you were deliberatly mis-understanding me glock.

Also my apoligies hjmick,i will reply in another post but my girlfriend wants to go shoe shopping and i can't get anymore time on the comp (bloody women )

[glockmail]

Wow, hold the bus, you guys really know how to twist things. I was not asking 'is freedom worth it' if you look closely you'll see i said 'Is "freedom" worth it' which is a completly differnet question, so please re-read, if you don't get the difference i will happily explain though i assume that you were deliberatly mis-understanding me glock.

Also my apoligies hjmick,i will reply in another post but my girlfriend wants to go shoe shopping and i can't get anymore time on the comp (bloody women )

Please clue me in on how "is freedom worth it" different from "is freedom worth it".

[emmett]

You said that, hibbit, exposing your own racist attitudes and propensity.



I know of no Democrat that espouses such or would even tolerate such from anyone. Can you name one, and please quote them, OK?

I got you this time Psycho. You asked so here you go!

Ah..........George Wallace! Which quote do you want.


End of that debate. Not even you would amke yourself look bad by trying to say that he did not do exactly what you claim NO DEMOCRAT has ever done.

If you want a backup, try Lester Maddox.

Maybe Louis Faraconnman.

Nah, I'll just stick with george for my answer!

[Noir]

Please clue me in on how "is freedom worth it" different from "is freedom worth it".

Again you have not understood, the 2 statements were (a)'is freedom worth it' and (b)'is "freedom" worth it'

You are saying that i was asking 'is freedom worth it'.

When my post says 'Is "freedom" worth it' freedom in "" this refers to not true 'freedom' (as you are suggesting i am) but freedom as you see it, to a point it is almost sarcastic.

I must sasy it is rather difficult to explain, but in my past few years of debating through the internet i have never had to explain such simple debating techniques before, so either you are deliberatly misunderstanding me and misrepresenting my position or you are naive to simple debating techniques, i'll leave it up to you to suggest which is true.

[Noir]

Then for my specious comment, I issue to you an apology.

No worries.

Wasn't there recently a fatal stabbing of a minor movie star in the U.K.? I believe the actor in question had appeared in the Harry Potter movies. The point is, any criminal wishing to do serious harm will find a way. Despite the lack of availability in the U.K., I imagine that any serious criminal who wanted one could easily purchase a gun on the black market.

Yep, we have stabbings every now and then, which is why we currently ahve a huge crack down on those carrying knives, and the problem is simple. Youths are feeling unsafe, so they are carrying knives to feel safe, but the more knives tat are being carried the more deaths by stabbings there are. And What our solution? to convince young people not to carry knives. Compare this in amerca were people want guns to stay safe, and due to the huge number of guns their are vast numbers of deaths by guns, and what do pro-gun rights folk want? More guns for to 'stay safe' which is totally false logic.

It's not the people who legally own a gun that should worry you, it's the ones who purchase them illegally.

But in (most) amercian states you do not need to buy the guns illegally because they are so easy to buy. I mean (continuing the idea of guys down my street) they're 18, known in the area as scumbags but with no crimal convictions, would they be able to buy a gun in your state?

While the system of checks in the U.S. may not be as stringent as those in the U.K., we do have some in place. For the most part, they work. I for one am not opposed to strengthening the system, allowing for more thorough background checks including mental health histories, I am simply opposed to an all out ban on the individuals right to own a firearm.

How do you know they 'work' as such, can you give examples of were they work? what is to stop a student who seems sound, walking into a gun store, buying some guns and go and shoot up some class mates?

They don't buy them legally and my having one somewhat evens the playing field, does it not?

Ofocourse there is always going to be a blackmarket, but the chance of someone breaking into you house with a gun is much much lower, and ofcourse you can have a knife or a baseball bat in your house, and as that's what they're gonna have then its a level playing field.

While this may be true, I still feel more safe with my 12 gauge.

Okie dokes. So lets put this into a simple question.

Would you feel safer
(a) having a 12 gauge and knowning that a crimal in your house also has a gun. Or
(b) havinf a baseball bat or a knife and knowing that somone in your house has, at worst, a knife.

The problem is, the illegal gun owners do not have nor can they obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Hell, in California I probably couldn't get one. This does not matter to them, they will carry regardless of the laws. When their three years is up, they will carry again.

Well if they wanna spend a few years in prision that's fine, would you be against crimals being locked up for 3 years? you ain't against them dying so i guess you'd be fine if they were in jail.

As callous as it may sound, yeah, I am pretty much okay with one criminal killing another criminal. Better that than some bystander who just happens by. Strict gun control would only mean the bad guys would find some other way to kill each other.

I have no response to that.

I have noticed a common refrain in your posts and that is, you seem to think that anyone can legally buy a gun in the U.S. This is not the case. If a person has a criminal record they can not legally buy a gun. In most cases they obtain them by purchasing them off of the street. In some cases they steal them. But rest assured, if a criminal wants one, he or she will find a way to get one.

And do you need a permit to ahve a gun? i.e. if a policeman came to your house now and asked for some documents to say its ok for you to ahve a gun would you ahve to produce them.

With the loss of the right to bear arms, you are nothing more than a slave who can be killed at will by those who have the weapons, be they gangsters or agents of the state.

Right, well i'm doing fine as a "slave" at the moment (note to glock please note the "" i.e. i am not saying 'I'm fine being a slave )

[Sitarro]

Because more guns=more gun deaths. Simple as.
Strict gun control and strict punishments is what is needed, personaly i think that anyone in the UK caught carrying a firearm should get 3 years in prison (as a min), period.

Americans are known for coming to the aid of those who can't help themselves, give us a call when that pesky muslim population becomes to much for you guys to handle, a few of us Texans will come rescue you guys....... we would enjoy the target practice.

[Noir]

Americans are known for coming to the aid of those who can't help themselves, give us a call when that pesky muslim population becomes to much for you guys to handle, a few of us Texans will come rescue you guys....... we would enjoy the target practice.

[Abbey Marie]

Again you have not understood, the 2 statements were (a)'is freedom worth it' and (b)'is "freedom" worth it'

You are saying that i was asking 'is freedom worth it'.

When my post says 'Is "freedom" worth it' freedom in "" this refers to not true 'freedom' (as you are suggesting i am) but freedom as you see it, to a point it is almost sarcastic.

I must sasy it is rather difficult to explain, but in my past few years of debating through the internet i have never had to explain such simple debating techniques before, so either you are deliberatly misunderstanding me and misrepresenting my position or you are naive to simple debating techniques, i'll leave it up to you to suggest which is true.

I understand that by putting the word freedom in quotes, you intended it to mean something different or special from the normal meaning of the word.

So, what did you mean by "freedom"?

Freedom from tyranny, from dictatorship, from government intrusion in our lives, are all just points on the same line. It is still basically the same thing.

[glockmail]

Again you have not understood, the 2 statements were (a)'is freedom worth it' and (b)'is "freedom" worth it'

You are saying that i was asking 'is freedom worth it'.

When my post says 'Is "freedom" worth it' freedom in "" this refers to not true 'freedom' (as you are suggesting i am) but freedom as you see it, to a point it is almost sarcastic.

I must sasy it is rather difficult to explain, but in my past few years of debating through the internet i have never had to explain such simple debating techniques before, so either you are deliberatly misunderstanding me and misrepresenting my position or you are naive to simple debating techniques, i'll leave it up to you to suggest which is true.

So like any true liberal, you are trying to justify your position by re-defining the English language. I've seen that technique before and I find it tiring.

[glockmail]

I understand that by putting the word freedom in quotes, you intended it to mean something different or special from the normal meaning of the word.

So, what did you mean by "freedom"?

Freedom from tyranny, from dictatorship, from government intrusion in our lives, are all just points on the same line. It is still basically the same thing.

The liberal definition is "freedom from responsibility".

[Noir]

I understand that by putting the word freedom in quotes, you intended it to mean something different or special from the normal meaning of the word.

So, what did you mean by "freedom"?

Freedom from tyranny, from dictatorship, from government intrusion in our lives, are all just points on the same line. It is still basically the same thing.

My quotes were intended to refer to Glocks freedom. i.e. for him to have his freedom to have a gun in his house is resulting in untold death, but he finds that an acceptable price to pay.

Glock has tried to incite that i said "is freedom worth it" which when taken out of context (and when the quote is edited) makes it look completly different. Again its awkward to explain but the "" adds a sarcastic twist to the sentance, which is essentail to understand what i meant.

So like any true liberal, you are trying to justify your position by re-defining the English language. I've seen that technique before and I find it tiring.

LOL if you think that using sarcasim is "redefining the English language" then i suggest you go back and study up on the English language.

[glockmail]

My quotes were intended to refer to Glocks freedom. i.e. for him to have his freedom to have a gun in his house is resulting in untold death, but he finds that an acceptable price to pay.

Glock has tried to incite that i said "is freedom worth it" which when taken out of context (and when the quote is edited) makes it look completly different. Again its awkward to explain but the "" adds a sarcastic twist to the sentance, which is essentail to understand what i meant.
......

I'm not trying to incite anything. To me, freedom should be the number one goal of government. "Live Free or Die" and all that. It's why we fought the Brits in 1776 and is why we fight terrorists now.

With regards to guns, I have them to protect myself, my family and my property.

With freedom comes responsibility- not freedom from responsibility.

Maybe I'm misundersanding your attempt at sarcasm.

[actsnoblemartin]

exactly

I'm not trying to incite anything. To me, freedom should be the number one goal of government. "Live Free or Die" and all that. It's why we fought the Brits in 1776 and is why we fight terrorists now.

With regards to guns, I have them to protect myself, my family and my property.

With freedom comes responsibility- not freedom from responsibility.

Maybe I'm misundersanding your attempt at sarcasm.

[mythbuster]

because they are against allowing poor people, especially minorities to have the right to defend themselves with a fire-arm which also violates the constitution.

and why do they do it?

so minorities and the poor rely on the government, the more problems, the more government, the more government the more problems

Democrats want gun laws, not to ban guns. Now some far left liberals might want to ban all guns, but that's not the Democratic party. We just don't want cop killer bullets on the streets. We don't want automatic guns to be sold. We don't want gun dealers selling unregistered guns on the black market.

You guys must really have NOTHING on Obama because you are trying soooo hard to make the gun argument stick. We are not biting. But maybe if the Mainstream Media keeps reporting what you tell them to report, maybe it will become an issue before November.

Or, maybe they could focus on the most corrupt Administration since Hoover, and the GOP Senators that aided and abedded them. IE, McCain.