Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 9/27/07 02:59 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

At 9/27/07 12:16 PM, TheMason wrote:

Tony, I know I get long on this but I'd like to know where my argument is failing to persuade you. I have analyzed it in a historical, textual and not English context. And yet I have not seen anything of equal force from you or D2K...

i only read through your latter comments to d2k what i was reading was references to past posts and something about the citing wikipedia versus your education but from what i read through here im somewhat impressed.

someone from the opposite end of the spectrum actually acknowledges this - i for one am shocked.

If you look back to where I wrote about the founder's feelings towards a standing army you will see I feel the preamble is in fact very important...even though it is not conditional. For me I see its importance in how it places things in context...

And I pulled out my education because he kept insisting on citing Wikipedia even when I quoted text!

--> oh no you have a sulk about all the other amendments being abused and then when it comes to the 2nd youre all meow meow meow. </obligatory> <--

Well it was obligatory on my part to bring it up.

Thus this clause is only describing a state of being and a relationship between two principles.

No thus. Just because it is not the primary focus of a sentence does not mean it is only a complement. it's describing a state of being and a relationship between two principles? i had to actually re-read that to comprehend but it's actually very interesting i never interpreted it that way. a slightly deviated wording could have spared much confusion however "[because] a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state" and i'm not sure madison/ jefferson would be that absent-minded.

I don't think so either...

Therefore by its structure it does not place a restriction or condition on anything.

without the over-analysis i'm sure anyone would agree that the primary subject of the amendment was the people's right to bear arms. But this does not mean that it is free from condition or restriction simply because it is not the main subject of a sentence.

I think the 2nd allows citizens to own firearms...especially military style ones. However, I think there is a place for regulation. We should not have rocket launchers or artillery...but those are so expensive that cost is prohibitive...

(will finish thought later)

---

At 9/23/07 11:33 AM, D2Kvirus wrote: And have you noticed that Proteas comes up with the argument that Congress won't change a 200 year old edict in regards to the Second Amendment (bastardisation of), but if the US has an army, which you say is Unconstitional, meaning that at some point the United States Government has done exactly that? In other words, that means one piece of legislation has casually been cast aside and/or reinterpreted to whichever ends those in charge prefer, the same is instantly possible for each and every aspect of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

What the hell are you talking about?

And have you noticed that you're agreeing with somebody who:
* Can't tell the difference between Boston, Mass. (USA) and Boston, Lincolnshire (UK)

I have no clue what you're talking about here. If, by some off chance, I included a link to some such ends, provide it and I'll admit my mistake. But, since I almost never provide links, as yours prove you plenty wrong. So, put up or shut up.

* Can't tell the difference between an automatic rifle and a semi-autoomatic pistol

I know the difference just fine.

* Whinges rather than face up to the subject, which you're doing right here

You can't show me a single instance of me changing the subject. I have not once, backed down from a challenge from you. However, I can show dozens of attempts from you to change the subject. In fact, I've called you on it repeatedly.

* Didn't fare particularly well in the "Best debators" subject (and was routinely outed as being the poolar opposite of best, or a debator)

I spoke once, maybe twice in that forum.
I didn't keep up with it, but in the two pages I read, no one nominated you.
Hmmmmmm.....

* Regularly displays the ignorance of a crack-smoking retard

You use ad hominims alot.
I've repeatedly proved my intelligence, and have bested you in our debates. Just because you're a jackass who can't debate me properly, but to call me a "crack smoking addict".

But hey, you're the imbecile who posted my ACKNOWLEDGED appeal to emotion to you and used it to discredit me as a debater.
And who repeatedly provide links that don't prove what you say.

I don't think you're one to talk much about the short comings of others.

At 9/23/07 12:51 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: "Wolvenbear, goes into pretty good detail. But lacks good judgement. Like using a hand drawn map (of hidden WMD in Syria) as a source that can't be backed up by anyone else in the entire world. And then calling it proof." - bcdemon

It is ONE source that I use among dozens. If that was my entire case, yes, it would suck pretty badly. And as I pointed out to BCDemon, it's that a Syrian reporter is confirming what others say. It's kind of silly to expect someone fleeing their nation to have detailed maps.

And, yes, my name wasn't mentioned once, which has nothing to do with not having a pro-conservative stance - the people who wer eposting their favourites all went for the right-wing flamers and trolls, a pattern anyone could spot. In other words, of course I wasn't going to get a nomination. No wonder Memorize and cellardoor6 got picked, despite serious deficiencies as debators or intellectual beings.

I personally named Rav, despite being on other sides of the debate on almost every issue, because, unlike you, he debates his points. And actually makes me think to debate him. And there's the whole thing of his sources tending to back up what he claims.

---

At 8/25/07 01:24 AM, seabassmm wrote: I believe gun control is dumb because the 2nd amendment clearly states:

Dude, fuck off. We need control otherwise people take shit too far. You should be glad the government is keeping you safe from outside threats, asshole.

---

- the people who wer eposting their favourites all went for the right-wing flamers and trolls,

I picked nearly entirely left-wing academics and agnostics (Rav included), myself being a right-wing Catholic.....

Is there's ever a case where gun control can provide more good than harm?

It's obvious it doesn't necessarily get rid of the underlying problem, but can it alleviate some of the lethality and occurrences of gun related crimes, as they pertain to ghettos and gangs?

I'm thinking simply in terms of practical ease and lethality of the weapon in gangland areas, where common methods of gang activities revolve around firearms (it's hard to do a drive-by knifing).

Would banning guns in areas surrounding a gang area be more effective than in the are itself? My thinking is that guns must come from an outside source into a gang member's hands, so that trying to dry up the outside sources (rather than banning guns in the ghetto itself) would be more effective, since gun dealers and gang members would then have to increase the distance from which guns could be attained, thus making them harder to get and more susceptible to interception?

[just got done watching something on Russia's Scorched Earth policy] :)

---

At 9/27/07 07:39 PM, DariusR wrote: Dude, fuck off. We need control otherwise people take shit too far. You should be glad the government is keeping you safe from outside threats, asshole.

2nd Amendment bitch, nothing you can do about it.

---

At 9/28/07 07:52 AM, K-RadPie wrote:

At 9/27/07 07:39 PM, DariusR wrote: Dude, fuck off. We need control otherwise people take shit too far. You should be glad the government is keeping you safe from outside threats, asshole.

2nd Amendment bitch, nothing you can do about it.

completely untrue. You drink alcohol don't you?
if 33 states say they want to repeal the 2nd amendment its gone.

---

2002/3: 53% of UK gun crime uses air weapons, and the main increase is brandishing replicas like the real thing
2005: replica usage had increased by 2/3 on the previous year, actual gun crime down 13%

Never let the facts get in the way of a good diatribe, eh? That makes it fundamentally impossible to brand anyone a liar (just like citing the Dunblane massacre as evidence gun control didn't work, when it was the event that sparked gun control).

Firstly, to clarify: those Boston error & air rifle errors are here.

What I'm talking about? Proteas says that the US government can't be wrong about the Second Amendment for 200 years, while TheMason says the US government have been wrong about the First Article of the US Constituution for 200 years. In other words, if they can be wrong about one, they can be wrong about the other - or both Proteas and TheMason are wrong.

Themason going on about Wikipedia misses the point: how comes somebody didn't edit the article to state that the US can't have an army - or even have the merest mention of it? There's oversights, and then there's not seeing something for the simple reason it isn't there.

Your attempts to "out" me for changing the subject have actually proven that I'm still on subject: for example, on the We Need Gun Control topic you cited the erronious sources as proof of no criminal-on-criminal gun violence, and later post links that back me up - I was caslling you out, due to having a better memory. In other words, you were called out twice: once for posting seriously pathetic links, and a second time for changing the subject that was there prior.

In other words, my argument was backed up - and that orange text I post is a link to what I'm quoting, you need to get used to that. These links include:
* The two posted above.
* Gun murder rates.
* Overall murder rates.

This is, on your part, whinging. As is trying to cry sarcasm for that appeal to emotion thing - didn't buy it then, don't buy it now.

---

At 9/30/07 12:45 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: Proteas says that the US government can't be wrong about the Second Amendment for 200 years

What I said was that you're going to have a hard time getting them to admit they are wrong on the issue, which will have to happen in order for them to strike down the 2nd amendment, which is something akin to getting them to admit they were wrong about Marijuana before they'll reverse their stance on it and legalize it.

Quit putting words in my mouth, quit twisting what I said.

---

And if you don't mind me asking, why in God's name are you still posting in this topic, d2k? At the end of the day, all your effort will be for naught because me every other pro-gun member of this forum that you have been trying so damn hard to sway the opinions of will still not take you or your stance on the issue seriously!

I stopped posting in this topic because of that, not because I conceded any of your points or believed you were right, but purerly because of your use of Proof by Assertion in this topic. This and the other gun control topic are two and three months old apiece and still going because of your use of that tactic, do you realize that?

GIVE IT A REST ALREADY. You're not changing anyone's minds... if anything, you're helping to refine their talking points and giving them a place to practice their rhetoric, and vice versa.

---

who ever trys to ban guns is some kind of retard, if guns do get banned
people still smuggle drugs what to say that they wont smuggle em.
I mean all us americans to have to proctect us is police (even they do stink =()
and guns and if they take em away were left wide open =O.

---

At 9/30/07 12:45 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: What I'm talking about? Proteas says that the US government can't be wrong about the Second Amendment for 200 years, while TheMason says the US government have been wrong about the First Article of the US Constituution for 200 years. In other words, if they can be wrong about one, they can be wrong about the other - or both Proteas and TheMason are wrong.

D2K,

I have never argued that the US cannot have an army. I only said that the framers had a deep hostility towards a standing army and therefore gave the Congress extraordinary restrictions and conditions on forming a standing army that it did not place on the navy...mainly placing a two year maximum on funding the army.

Their vision was of an "expandable/collapsable" army that when at peace it would only maintain about 12-14% strength. Then in the event of war/invasion/crisis it would expand to full strength...and then shrink after the event had passed.

Like the second amendment, you misread, misinterpret and twist my words.

Themason going on about Wikipedia misses the point: how comes somebody didn't edit the article to state that the US can't have an army - or even have the merest mention of it? There's oversights, and then there's not seeing something for the simple reason it isn't there.

Dude I'm pointing out that your argument based upon Wikipedia is not a valid source to critic my argument on several levels. If you were to cite Wikipedia in a college course you would loose points, and if you relied upon it too heavily you would fail.

I guess I could go to Wikipedia and edit it...since D2K thinks it is more reliable than the text of the Consitiution itself.

---

At 9/30/07 12:45 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: 2002/3: 53% of UK gun crime uses air weapons, and the main increase is brandishing replicas like the real thing

That's not what you said on the last page, where you got caught in your lies. Even then, that's only from one year to the next, it does NOT take into account the effect the gun ban has actually had in the country as a whole since it was introduced in 1997.

Meanwhile, the use of REAL FIREARMS in crime has DOUBLED since the gun ban.

Thus AUTOMATICALLY PROVING that the gun ban didn't work. Something you continually keep ignoring, something you keep trying to deny by fabricating lies.

2005: replica usage had increased by 2/3 on the previous year

That's a year to year trend, that doesn't at all reflect or implicate the effect of gun control. And funny, you LEAVE OUT the part where it says:

The ban is being introduced after the latest gun crime figures showed that the use of imitation weapons rose by 66% in the last year and is fueling a 10% increase in all gun crime.

You JUST SAID: "the main increase is brandishing replicas like the real thing".
Which is FALSE, it is only causing a 10% increase in all gun crime.

Your own link proved you wrong.

actual gun crime down 13%

First of all, that was a lie from your ministers. Secondly, if it were true, that's only giving the difference in the space of a year. That does NOT reflect the actual effect the gun ban has had on the country since it was enforced.

Never let the facts get in the way of a good diatribe, eh?

AHAHAAHA

How many times have you been proven wrong with facts in every single gun control thread? SEVERAL! You have been getting disproved back and forth so many times, and every time something you LIED about gets proved wrong, you just ignore what was said and keep lying.

That makes it fundamentally impossible to brand anyone a liar (just like citing the Dunblane massacre as evidence gun control didn't work, when it was the event that sparked gun control).

And here you lie again. I stated that the Dunblane Massacre, and several other massacres, are proof that such things are not an American-exclusive phenomenon, and that tighter gun control does not get rid of these things. In case you didn't know, before the 1997 gun ban, the UK STILL had tighter gun control than the US. Since you're trying to forget what was actually said, I also listed massacres in Germany and Canada, during periods of time where they also had tighter gun control than the US has today.

Everything you say is a lie, seriously. You get proven wrong, you know what you say is wrong, but you just lie and keep saying things anyway because you're brainwashed and you have more loyalty to your false political view than you do to a little something called reality.

Firstly, to clarify: those Boston error & air rifle errors are here.

To clarify, the page where you got systematically proven wrong in everything you said and caught in your lies was right here... oh, and right here, here, here, here... and there's probably several more I can't remember.

In other words, my argument was backed up - and that orange text I post is a link to what I'm quoting, you need to get used to that. These links include:
* The two posted above.
* Gun murder rates.
* Overall murder rates.

Funny, because you caught using all of those stats incorrectly and deceptively on this page. You used top high murder states by total number of murders, then you used states by gun death rate, all incorrectly and for things that later came to bite you in the ass.

This is, on your part, whinging. As is trying to cry sarcasm for that appeal to emotion thing - didn't buy it then, don't buy it now.

You are a liar. Your whole argument consists of deceit and your subsequent efforts to dodge the facts once your deceit gets revealed for what it is. Your incredibly idiotic and disingenuous attempts of pointing to replica use or air gun use has been systematically destroyed. You no longer have any support for your country's gun ban, because it has NOT worked.

TAKE A LOOK AT THE FACTS (page 36)

Not only has the use of REAL guns in crimes doubled since 1997 but now it's clear that since that gun ban several things have happened that prove that it DID NOT WORK:

- Total injures with non-air firearms has quadrupled
- Serious injuries with non-air firearms has quadrupled
- Slight injury with non-air firearms has gone up by 5 times
- Murder with firearms has gone up since the gun ban (now before you mention the fact that the amount in 2005 was equal to right after the gun ban, take into account that the most recent stat for murder rates was back up to 58 in 2006)

Conversely, and in complete contrary to the things you've said about air weapons being a bigger problem:

- Total injuries with air weapons have gone down except for a brief peak in 2002-2003

Your beloved gun ban has not worked.

Go cry now.

---

At 9/30/07 12:45 PM, D2Kvirus wrote: 2002/3: 53% of UK gun crime uses air weapons, and the main increase is brandishing replicas like the real thing

From this link:
Handgun crimes 1997: 2687. 2001: 5874. 2004: 4347. 2006: 4671 (Overall, it has doubled since 97)
Shotgun 1997: 642 2006: 642 (Net change: unaffected).
Other weapons 1997: 1314. 2006: 2496. (Net change: doubled).

In short, your link proves gun crime has gone up.
Since I never claimed air gun crime didn't go up, I'm correct. And you're lying.

2005: replica usage had increased by 2/3 on the previous year, actual gun crime down 13%

Which, according to your earlier link, is accurate, as handgun crimes did decrease. However, they were still higher than 97. And according to the first link, they increased again the next year.

You're cherry picking stats.

Never let the facts get in the way of a good diatribe, eh? That makes it fundamentally impossible to brand anyone a liar (just like citing the Dunblane massacre as evidence gun control didn't work, when it was the event that sparked gun control).

Except I never used Dunblane to say gun control doesn't work. I said that Dunblane was an isolated incident of an unprecidented nature. Since the stats on that are identical the year before and the year after Dunblane, pointing to Dunblane as the reason WHY is faulty logic.
Post Hoc logic is saying "because A happened after B, A caused B." And that's all the logic comes down to.

I brand you a liar for deliberately pretending you said one thing when you said another.

Firstly, to clarify: those Boston error & air rifle errors are here.

Oh well, I posted a link that was for the wrong thing. Shit happens. Unlike you I can admit my error.

Themason going on about Wikipedia misses the point: how comes somebody didn't edit the article to state that the US can't have an army - or even have the merest mention of it? There's oversights, and then there's not seeing something for the simple reason it isn't there.

Who cares? It's wikipedia. And since neither of them said it was illegal to have an army...your point is stupid.

Your attempts to "out" me for changing the subject have actually proven that I'm still on subject: for example, on the We Need Gun Control topic you cited the erronious sources as proof of no criminal-on-criminal gun violence, and later post links that back me up - I was caslling you out, due to having a better memory. In other words, you were called out twice: once for posting seriously pathetic links, and a second time for changing the subject that was there prior.

Except I never claimed that. I never once said criminal or criminal crime wasn't happening. That's something you pulled completely out of your ass.

But while we talk about yours:

At 8/27/07 11:36 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 8/26/07 08:53 PM, Proteas wrote:

What cracks me up about the whole gun control argument is this; typically democrats are for liberal interpretation of the laws and loosening regulations with regards to the taboo and potentially dangerous, yet the minute subject of gun control comes up it is strict and regimented interpretation of the amendment as what the original writers supposedly inteded it to be. What's the problem, folks? You trust the public at large to be responsible with minors drinking, legalized marijuana, abortions, and the right to burn their flag at will but you won't trust them with a firearm becuase they might hurt someone?

Pathetic, absolutely pathetic.

Which I'm sure those who drew it up will be thinking of those who make a living bastardising it for their own ends.

Coincidentally, it's the 15,876 murders and approximatly 16,000 suicides that use guns per year that's the concern - killing somebody is slightly more worthy of concern than, you know, hurting somebody.

Ignore his point, and talk about something else. More people die of drunk drivers and traffic accidents than guns. As do kids of abortion.

Here's another:

At 9/9/07 02:40 PM, D2Kvirus wrote:

At 9/8/07 06:12 PM, TheMason wrote:

In short, if there have been Acts passed in order to clarify what a well-regulated militia - as specified in the text - is, therefore a private citizen does not have the same rights as the National Guard

This line of reason endangers ALL civil liberties because essentially what you are arguing is that the congress can pass legislation that infringes upon the Bill of Rights.

Answer me this: are your civil rights infringed by rocket launchers and flame throwers being banned in the US? Because I'm sure somebody out there has quite probably used this argument at some point.

His logic is correct. You're trying to appeal to emotion by using "rocket launchers" to negate his point. You said that if Congress made a law, they were correct. He pointed out your flaw...and you changed subject.

The list goes on. You ALWAYS dodge the subject. The point that you have always brought up, without a single exception, when people point out crime has risen in the UK, is to say that your rates of crime are lower than ours. It's true, but it doesn't address the point made. All you do is obscufate and lie.
Or in my case, you make up shit that I said.

In other words, my argument was backed up - and that orange text I post is a link to what I'm quoting, you need to get used to that. These links include:
* The two posted above.
* Gun murder rates.
* Overall murder rates.

By your own links, gun crimes went up. Try again.

This is, on your part, whinging. As is trying to cry sarcasm for that appeal to emotion thing - didn't buy it then, don't buy it now.

Cause it said it was an appeal to emotion. Hence:
"If you want an appeal to emotion."

That you can point out a bad link hardly negates your complete ignoring of what your link says to make it say what you want it to.

---

I guess the general concern that everyone seems to have here is that the majority of the people in the United states might be too incompetent to handle a gun.

---

At 10/4/07 02:32 AM, Soitseems wrote: I guess the general concern that everyone seems to have here is that the majority of the people in the United states might be too incompetent to handle a gun.

Proof?

And if that's true, why stop at guns? More people are killed and have their health ruined in a year by cars than by guns. Even when you reduce down to people killed in drunk driving accidents it is still higher than people murdered with firearms.

So my concern is that the majority of people in the US are too incompetent to drive...