At 1/25/13 05:38 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 1/25/13 04:25 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

At 1/25/13 04:12 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 1/25/13 03:43 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: No really as I agree that NYC, LA, Chicago, need more gang control and more gun control of the gangs.

Those areas have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Doesn't deter gangs from obtaining guns one bit.

I would say that you have no authority or experience to state weather or not the Police and gun control laws are doing a good job in mitigating gun related homicides in the American ghettos.

But I am qualified.

In the heart of gangland...the police's authority only exists on paper. They are out-gunned and stay away.

As for gun control...no it does not work. Further gun control will not reduce gun violence in the US.

Obviously if they had no guns then there would not be an issue LOL right. Clearly they are not doing a good job then right. Clearly if proper gun control were being executed than we would not be having this argument right.

At 1/25/13 10:59 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Obviously if they had no guns then there would not be an issue

But this is impossible.

At 1/26/13 12:46 AM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 1/25/13 10:59 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Obviously if they had no guns then there would not be an issue

But this is impossible.

They sent a man to the moon they can fix a gun epidemic.

At 1/26/13 01:47 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: They sent a man to the moon they can fix a gun epidemic.

not when you have the constitution and a republican congress ya can't!

then you have the BIG BAD NRA.

At 1/26/13 01:47 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: They sent a man to the moon they can fix a gun epidemic.

Sending people to the moon is not the same as forcing your will upon people with threats of violence. I honestly don't know how you can correlate the two.

Can you show me an example of the government stopping crime. In every instance of prohibition I've seen, they actually increase the problem.

At 1/25/13 09:42 PM, CaveStoryGrounds wrote:
That's horseshit. One quick google search finds that Pakistan (one of the countries) has the same "right to bare arms". I highly doubt a single one of those countries has a gun ban, but by all means prove me wrong if you can.

2 words: North Korea.

As for the African countries guns are so common the AK-47 is called the African credit card.

At 1/26/13 02:03 AM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 1/26/13 01:47 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: They sent a man to the moon they can fix a gun epidemic.

Sending people to the moon is not the same as forcing your will upon people with threats of violence. I honestly don't know how you can correlate the two.

I honestly can't see how you believe the propaganda. You want the right to be safe while your Government ass pumps and kills countries that are at an economic disadvantage. You can't complain or demand anything until the US Government stops pumping the world up the ass without giving so much as the common courtesy of a reach around.

Can you show me an example of the government stopping crime. In every instance of prohibition I've seen, they actually increase the problem.

They stop much crime but the point is the Government is a money making corporation when it all boils down there is allot of money to be made in the Judicial system. The problem with the US is things like Greed and material wealth have become more important than being content, humble, respectful, and healthy.

At 1/25/13 07:37 PM, Ceratisa wrote:

Actually, legally, killing in self defense IS murder. It merely falls under the category of justifiable murder and thus carries no liability.

Actually you are talking out of your ASS again

Have you ever set foot in a courtroom? Have you ever tried a criminal case? NO? Oh, I HAVE.

Self defense is justified murder.

It is an affirmative defense, not a negating defense. An affirmative defense is one where even though all of the elements of a charge have been satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, there is a special and specified set or circumstances where even the satisfaction of all elements is deemed not to carry any liability.

Just because something carries no liability doesn't mean the root act isn't unlwaful either. (hint: there is no such thing as a lawful killing).

SO, sorry, child, you're out of your league here.

At 1/26/13 11:34 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: I honestly can't see how you believe the propaganda. You want the right to be safe while your Government ass pumps and kills countries that are at an economic disadvantage. You can't complain or demand anything until the US Government stops pumping the world up the ass without giving so much as the common courtesy of a reach around.

No, I'm saying I want the right for all countries and people to be safe. If you've payed attention to, like...ANYTHING I've ever posted in the political forum, you'd know I'm also hugely opposed to US intervention and war.

No propaganda here

They stop much crime but the point is the Government is a money making corporation when it all boils down there is allot of money to be made in the Judicial system. The problem with the US is things like Greed and material wealth have become more important than being content, humble, respectful, and healthy.

Material wealth and greed enable being content, humble, respect and health.

At 1/26/13 11:38 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 1/25/13 07:37 PM, Ceratisa wrote:

Actually, legally, killing in self defense IS murder. It merely falls under the category of justifiable murder and thus carries no liability.

Actually you are talking out of your ASS again

Have you ever set foot in a courtroom? Have you ever tried a criminal case? NO? Oh, I HAVE.

Self defense is justified murder.

It is an affirmative defense, not a negating defense. An affirmative defense is one where even though all of the elements of a charge have been satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, there is a special and specified set or circumstances where even the satisfaction of all elements is deemed not to carry any liability.

Just because something carries no liability doesn't mean the root act isn't unlwaful either. (hint: there is no such thing as a lawful killing).

SO, sorry, child, you're out of your league here.

It is ultimately up to the judge to sort out the particulars of a murder beef.
That being said Murder is not defensive it is offensive which is why we need to disarm the population because they don't even understand that there is a huge difference. Cops are trained to intelligently take down a target not necessarily shoot to KILL whereas an untrained pleb with a gun is more than likely going to panic and light up the target up which is murder. Pepper spray is self defense, Karate is self defense but shooting someone in the head even if under the guise of self defense is still murder.

At 1/26/13 12:18 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: That being said Murder is not defensive it is offensive which is why we need to disarm the population because they don't even understand that there is a huge difference. Cops are trained to intelligently take down a target not necessarily shoot to KILL

1) How did you go from being hugely anti-fascist, to spouting total fascist dictatorship rhetoric??

2) Cops are trained to shoot to kill.

At 1/15/13 11:23 PM, LemonCrush wrote: Going for maximum irrational emotional appeal, much like Hitler and Mao, and other murderers.

Do you really have to bring that up? I think that we should probably just give this a try and see how well it works out.

At 1/26/13 01:35 PM, Ericho wrote: Do you really have to bring that up?

Absolutely. Those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it. You know, there were some Germans in the 30s who thought it'd be okay to give disarmament a try.

How about this, you can give up your guns, and if the government hits maximum overdrive, you can deal with it. I'll keep mine.

I'd posit that comparing Obama to Hitler or Mao is an example of going for maximum irrational emotional appeal.

At 1/26/13 01:56 PM, Feoric wrote: I'd posit that comparing Obama to Hitler or Mao is an example of going for maximum irrational emotional appeal.

I'm not comparing them, I'm pointing out similarities.

Obviously is not genocidal...oh wait, he kills brown people daily....nevermind.

But seriously, he's not putting people on death trains. But there are similarities and they are undeniable.

At 1/26/13 12:18 PM, leanlifter1 wrote:

That being said Murder is not defensive it is offensive which is why we need to disarm the population because they don't even understand that there is a huge difference. Cops are trained to intelligently take down a target not necessarily shoot to KILL whereas an untrained pleb with a gun is more than likely going to panic and light up the target up which is murder. Pepper spray is self defense, Karate is self defense but shooting someone in the head even if under the guise of self defense is still murder.

No...murder, as Camaro is pointing out, can be either defensive or offensive. As the only attorney I know posting here on NG, I think on these matters his opinion are authoritative and defenitive.

Furthermore, you're making some erroneous assumptions here.

1) Cops are trained to shoot center-mass (ie: the torso)...much like people going through CCW training are taught to do. Furthermore, any 'plebe' who goes and target shoots a human form will notice that the target rings are located center-mass...not in the head. Now here's the thing about head shots...anyone who aims for the head who is not a sniper or special forces is a moron. It is a small, highly mobile target. So any 'plebe' aiming for it...is probably going to miss.

2) It is nice to sit there stroking yourself and thinking how much of a man you are for being able to take care of someone with just your bare hands or melee weapons. But I don't give a shit about your puffed-up male ego. My ex-wife was one of the 25% of women who have been raped (unless you know 3 or less women...we all know a woman who has been sexually assaulted). So what about a woman who is lacking in physical prowess or the man who does not know how to fight? Also, pepper spray is horribly inadequate. See that's the problem with chemical weapons...once out of the canister you no longer control them. Often times, the sprayer gets incapacitated as well...especially if there is a height differential. God created man...Sam Colt made man equal.

3) More people get injured (about double) when a cop pulls their gun than when a civilian...I mean 'plebe'...pulls theirs.

The reality is LL1...you are grossly underinformed on this topic which oddly puts in a positon 180 degrees from your anti-fascism rants.

I'm sure I can find similarities between the United States and the Soviet Union or the Byzantine Empire. That doesn't mean they're alike, nor does it count for much other than fodder for history nerds. It's meaningless charged rhetoric and it's intellectually dishonest to say "well there's just similarities" because that's obviously not the intent.

At 1/26/13 02:10 PM, Feoric wrote: I'm sure I can find similarities between the United States and the Soviet Union or the Byzantine Empire. That doesn't mean they're alike, nor does it count for much other than fodder for history nerds. It's meaningless charged rhetoric and it's intellectually dishonest to say "well there's just similarities" because that's obviously not the intent.

I'm not saying I think Obama is gonna declare himself king and put all white people in camps tomorrow. Nor am I saying he's going to make guns illegal or anything like that.

I'm just saying, the way he runs his administration, and his policies, warrant some caution. Something to keep eyes on. To pretend "that could never happen in America" or "Obama could never do that", is ignorant, and a dangerous, complacent mindset.

At 1/26/13 02:25 PM, RacistBassist wrote: I know right? We would never put people into camps based on ethnicity nor would we ever nearly commit genocide or have second class citizens

Shhhhhhh ;)

At 1/26/13 02:02 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 1/26/13 01:56 PM, Feoric wrote: I'd posit that comparing Obama to Hitler or Mao is an example of going for maximum irrational emotional appeal.

I'm not comparing them, I'm pointing out similarities.

This just seemed suddenly appropriate. :)

Let me know when you see Obama championing domestic policies like ethnic deportation or forced resettlements or private farming being illegal.

Anyway, I have a question. What guns did the NY legislation ban?

At 1/26/13 02:39 PM, Feoric wrote: Let me know when you see Obama championing domestic policies like ethnic deportation or forced resettlements or private farming being illegal.

Again, for (I think) the 3rd time, I didn't say he was Hitler or Mao or that they were identical. I said his policies of a strong corporate/government relationship, false imprisonment, and imperialism, are similar.

Anyway, I have a question. What guns did the NY legislation ban?

Copy/paste from USA Today:

Assault weapons -- defined as any rifle with a "military style" feature, such as a bayonet or a telescoping stock [note: doesn't make guns more dangerous] -- that are currently owned would be grandfathered and would have to be registered with the state. Magazines with a capacity of more than 10 rounds and manufactured before 1994, which are currently legal, would have to be turned over to authorities or sold out of state within one year. If a magazine has a capacity between eight and 10, it would have to be retrofitted to only hold seven rounds.

So, basically any gun with more than a 7 round capacity. Which, again, wouldn't be an issue...if government thugs and enforcers were subject to the same laws.

At 1/26/13 02:38 PM, TheMason wrote: This just seemed suddenly appropriate. :)

I... I don't know what to think anymore...

At 1/26/13 02:08 PM, TheMason wrote:

No...murder, as Camaro is pointing out, can be either defensive or offensive. As the only attorney I know posting here on NG, I think on these matters his opinion are authoritative and defenitive.

Furthermore, you're making some erroneous assumptions here.

1) Cops are trained to shoot center-mass (ie: the torso)...much like people going through CCW training are taught to do. Furthermore, any 'plebe' who goes and target shoots a human form will notice that the target rings are located center-mass...not in the head. Now here's the thing about head shots...anyone who aims for the head who is not a sniper or special forces is a moron. It is a small, highly mobile target. So any 'plebe' aiming for it...is probably going to miss.

2) It is nice to sit there stroking yourself and thinking how much of a man you are for being able to take care of someone with just your bare hands or melee weapons. But I don't give a shit about your puffed-up male ego. My ex-wife was one of the 25% of women who have been raped (unless you know 3 or less women...we all know a woman who has been sexually assaulted). So what about a woman who is lacking in physical prowess or the man who does not know how to fight? Also, pepper spray is horribly inadequate. See that's the problem with chemical weapons...once out of the canister you no longer control them. Often times, the sprayer gets incapacitated as well...especially if there is a height differential. God created man...Sam Colt made man equal.

3) More people get injured (about double) when a cop pulls their gun than when a civilian...I mean 'plebe'...pulls theirs.

The reality is LL1...you are grossly underinformed on this topic which oddly puts in a positon 180 degrees from your anti-fascism rants.

Funny you have nothing to back up your claims but your incessant whining that everyone agrees with you LOL. Further you are trying to imply that the law system is infallible and perfect instead of basing your ideals about gun ownership and so called rights on morals and respect you cop out to a corrupt system of coercion and oppression to justify your agenda.

At 1/26/13 02:58 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Funny you have nothing to back up your claims but your incessant whining that everyone agrees with you LOL.

Except...you know....reality.

Also, the law does not give people rights.

At 1/26/13 03:37 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 1/26/13 02:58 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Funny you have nothing to back up your claims but your incessant whining that everyone agrees with you LOL.

Except...you know....reality.

Also, the law does not give people rights.

Anyway Tit for Tat I advocate for morality and equal rights and what was it that you are an advocate for ?

At 1/26/13 03:01 PM, RacistBassist wrote: Any semi-automatic gun with a "military" feature

Didn't New York already have a state law virtually similar to the federal assault weapons ban? I thought the SAFE act just codified a stricter definition among other things, not implementing the actual ban itself.

At 1/26/13 02:47 PM, LemonCrush wrote: So, basically any gun with more than a 7 round capacity.

That's pretty funny. Not "haha" kind of funny but "...oh god..." kind of funny.

It's this kind of stuff that just makes me hate being on the pro-gun control side, where all "we" have to show for is the most retarded legislation. If you're not banning handguns, you're doing jack shit to stop crime. I don't know what it would take for legislators to get this, but there's also the frustrating possibility that they probably do. They're basically cowards, quite frankly, because they're too worried to tread new waters. It seems callous, but it needs to be said: the purpose of the SAFE Act was to score political points, and you can't score points if you try to enact a law which will face a ton of backlash and is probably unconstitutional to boot, ending up bogged down in court for years. They just don't want to spend the time, money and political capital necessary to implement a weapons ban that involves handguns with the exception of limiting magazine capacity limits in lieu of the AWB. The purpose of that is - although the AWB is a known dumb law - it does have one upside, which is that it is a known quantity in terms of the law and public perception, and as an added bonus it's unlikely to trigger any new court challenges that can build on stuff like McDonald.

Although I admit this is an oversimplification, the end result of the SAFE Act is that it essentially targets sport shooters and does nothing to curb criminals. I have no problem if the lives of sport shooters are made more difficult if any sort of gun control legislation is passed and it's demonstrably proven to lower crime and homicide rates, tough shit. But if that's all it effectively does, then I'd be narrow minded to support it. It's worth clarifying here that I don't actually think the intention behind the law was to specifically target sport shooters and let criminals get away, I just believe that the lawmakers ostensibly don't care that much about sport shooters or crime, as the law is appearing more and more to me as a feel good measure that was written with more of an emphasis on political expediency than out of any real interest in reducing crime, or hurting sport shooters for that matter.

At 1/26/13 02:02 PM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 1/26/13 01:56 PM, Feoric wrote: I'd posit that comparing Obama to Hitler or Mao is an example of going for maximum irrational emotional appeal.

I'm not comparing them, I'm pointing out similarities.

Obviously is not genocidal...oh wait, he kills brown people daily....nevermind.

But seriously, he's not putting people on death trains. But there are similarities and they are undeniable.

THAT IS AMERICA>

For you to not realize the idiocy of you singling out a single pawn in the long stream of bullshit that is the american empire is just really really really short sighted. You think Obama is to blame for this shit? Try the entire fucking country.

You shouldn't want to have a gun.

At 1/26/13 06:03 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: You shouldn't want to have a gun.

The gun bigots justified there want of a gun by a synthetic need for a gun. How do they create this synthetic need for a gun well the put themselves at a disadvantageous and dangerous location where they choose to call home.