[quote]Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Hey everyone, the world is flat and I can prove it. Actually, I have before and I stand by my assertion that it is so. If you don’t believe me, do your own fucking research. It’s true but I shouldn’t have to demonstrate it again, so I won’t.
I see why you guys do this, it’s easier than actually presenting any facts or arguments and makes me sound like I’ve done the work when I really haven’t.
Well, I hope I made it clear that statistically you have nothing to worry about.
I can’t tell if that statement is in jest, or a sneaky way to insult me. I’m going to assume it’s in jest.
No, completely serious.[/quote]
Please excuse my last post, I was misunderstanding your intent.
You did make a valid point that I have a greater chance of dying due to other causes. The chance of someone being murdered in general is a statistically low value. Maybe it’s the fact that murder is an brutal and intentional act of snuffing out someone’s light that makes it more abhorrent to me and thus something I’m passionate about.
[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
pushharder wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Froggie, you should’ve just taken my advice and did some reading and kept your mouth shut. Instead you let your masochistic bent get the best of you and now you’re getting flogged just like I told you you would.
Educate me. I dare you. Who’s flogging me? A lot of insults being tossed around but no facts, statistics, or evidence to the contrary. Even if you could just point me in the direction of the thread where you argued this previously, I’d be happy to look at the evidence that was presented. I did a search and came up with stuff all over the map - not pertaining to gun control at all.
I’m not dragging a PWI rookie around again - for now - on this subject because I and many others including Sifu who has done a masterful job on a number of occasions, have been through this over and over again especially with foreigners who think they know just exactly how the cow ate the cabbage when it comes to the U.S.A. and gun control and liberty.
I’m not going to go search for you. Do it yourself. Google my name, Sifu, Cockney Blue, gun control, Varqanir, liberty, freedom, crime, Gary Kleck, statistics, Second Amendment, and foreigner’s bullshit.
You’re bound to get a hit somehow, somewhere, that will lead you either down the path of enlightenment or into the sulfur laden vat of denial.
I should have expected as much. I posted statistics and facts to support my argument, you dodge. Well played, sir. rolls eyes
To be fair, this subject has been done to death ad nauseum, and push has contributed lots of facts. I wouldn’t want to rewrite them either. You can do your own leg work if you’re really that interested. This may be the 1st go-round for you but we’ve been through this so many times before it gets tiring. Besides which a google search takes all of ten seconds.
If it’s so tiring then why not just post a link to where your arguments are constructed in a coherent, easy to understand way. It’s very convenient to state that you’ve already proven your point and send someone off into the internet ether to find out what your point is. I’ve done a Google search and have yet to find anything resembling a coherent argument. THIS IS A DODGE, plain and simple.
You’re kidding me right? Those threads are each over 50+ pages. There’s no way in hell I’m going to do that to satisfy you. And there’s really no way push should have to. We have this standard in my profession, it’s called do your own damn legwork. Leaving aside the fact that you’ve been pretty civil with me, this really galls me. I wade through database after database looking for my academic or professional research, or even looking for statistics, facts, and evidence for weight training and nutrition and in my posts on here, but you’re too lazy to google and read through a few threads? Hell, I did my own background reading when I came to this site too.
I’m tired of doing it. I don’t want to do it. And I shouldn’t have to. They’re long ass threads, I know. It’s ok, you can skim. It would be nice if push decided to post links to some relevant threads as a common courtesy, but I’m assuming you already found most of those with your brief google, as you said you performed one. Reading those threads is up to you, and it is absurd to complain to someone to spend time looking up an exact post on an exact page of the thread.
Look, if you’re going to assert something in PWI to make a point, it’s useful to your argument if you link to some references to support your statements. That’s it’s been done before is irrelevant. It’s more than common courtesy - it’s called supporting your assertions with facts. I’ve heard lots of claims that this has been done before, and according to push very recently, so I see nothing wrong with asking him or you or anyone else to link to SOMETHING to support your assertions. Even just the NAME of the previous thread where these facts have been presented. I don’t need the whole fucking encyclopedia! Just a link to a valid, relevant source. If you can’t do that, or don’t care to, why post anything at all? Just to show the world that you can’t back up your claims with anything concrete?
Personally I think it’s absurd that I have to ask twice. It’s clear that there is no coherent argument presented anywhere on TN or this wouldn’t be such an insurmountable task. Prove me wrong, I dare you![/quote]
You don’t dare me to do shit. I don’t play that way. Push gave you a series of keywords to google that should bring up what you wanted. And you admitted to doing a google search. So either you suck at searching, or you’re too lazy to search. I plugged some of those terms into google with a site filter and had no problems. 30 seconds and I had about 48 hits. Do it yourself.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
pushharder wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Froggie, you should’ve just taken my advice and did some reading and kept your mouth shut. Instead you let your masochistic bent get the best of you and now you’re getting flogged just like I told you you would.
Educate me. I dare you. Who’s flogging me? A lot of insults being tossed around but no facts, statistics, or evidence to the contrary. Even if you could just point me in the direction of the thread where you argued this previously, I’d be happy to look at the evidence that was presented. I did a search and came up with stuff all over the map - not pertaining to gun control at all.
I’m not dragging a PWI rookie around again - for now - on this subject because I and many others including Sifu who has done a masterful job on a number of occasions, have been through this over and over again especially with foreigners who think they know just exactly how the cow ate the cabbage when it comes to the U.S.A. and gun control and liberty.
I’m not going to go search for you. Do it yourself. Google my name, Sifu, Cockney Blue, gun control, Varqanir, liberty, freedom, crime, Gary Kleck, statistics, Second Amendment, and foreigner’s bullshit.
You’re bound to get a hit somehow, somewhere, that will lead you either down the path of enlightenment or into the sulfur laden vat of denial.
I should have expected as much. I posted statistics and facts to support my argument, you dodge. Well played, sir. rolls eyes
To be fair, this subject has been done to death ad nauseum, and push has contributed lots of facts. I wouldn’t want to rewrite them either. You can do your own leg work if you’re really that interested. This may be the 1st go-round for you but we’ve been through this so many times before it gets tiring. Besides which a google search takes all of ten seconds.
If it’s so tiring then why not just post a link to where your arguments are constructed in a coherent, easy to understand way. It’s very convenient to state that you’ve already proven your point and send someone off into the internet ether to find out what your point is. I’ve done a Google search and have yet to find anything resembling a coherent argument. THIS IS A DODGE, plain and simple.
You’re kidding me right? Those threads are each over 50+ pages. There’s no way in hell I’m going to do that to satisfy you. And there’s really no way push should have to. We have this standard in my profession, it’s called do your own damn legwork. Leaving aside the fact that you’ve been pretty civil with me, this really galls me. I wade through database after database looking for my academic or professional research, or even looking for statistics, facts, and evidence for weight training and nutrition and in my posts on here, but you’re too lazy to google and read through a few threads? Hell, I did my own background reading when I came to this site too.
I’m tired of doing it. I don’t want to do it. And I shouldn’t have to. They’re long ass threads, I know. It’s ok, you can skim. It would be nice if push decided to post links to some relevant threads as a common courtesy, but I’m assuming you already found most of those with your brief google, as you said you performed one. Reading those threads is up to you, and it is absurd to complain to someone to spend time looking up an exact post on an exact page of the thread.
Look, if you’re going to assert something in PWI to make a point, it’s useful to your argument if you link to some references to support your statements. That’s it’s been done before is irrelevant. It’s more than common courtesy - it’s called supporting your assertions with facts. I’ve heard lots of claims that this has been done before, and according to push very recently, so I see nothing wrong with asking him or you or anyone else to link to SOMETHING to support your assertions. Even just the NAME of the previous thread where these facts have been presented. I don’t need the whole fucking encyclopedia! Just a link to a valid, relevant source. If you can’t do that, or don’t care to, why post anything at all? Just to show the world that you can’t back up your claims with anything concrete?
Personally I think it’s absurd that I have to ask twice. It’s clear that there is no coherent argument presented anywhere on TN or this wouldn’t be such an insurmountable task. Prove me wrong, I dare you!
You don’t dare me to do shit. I don’t play that way. Push gave you a series of keywords to google that should bring up what you wanted. And you admitted to doing a google search. So either you suck at searching, or you’re too lazy to search. I plugged some of those terms into google with a site filter and had no problems. 30 seconds and I had about 48 hits. Do it yourself.[/quote]
Your post makes zero sense here. You post up two opposing sentences to start it off. The answers are No, and NO.
Protecting minority rights (real rights here, btw, not “rights”) is very important. That is precisely my point. I also mentioned an illustration of left-leaning hypocrisy because they simply don’t apply their “protect the minority” consistently when it comes to guns. Further, I oppose the notion that keeping with our founding documents and founders opinions–and furthermore keeping more of our individual freedom to choose-- is allowing “minority tyranny”. That is absurd.
There are many times where a minority issue with tenuous or near zero Constitutional backing are championed by the Left and considered sacrosanct (and indeed by many who are Not left leaning). This particular issue is on firmer Constitutional footing than just about any other one of those issues, since it is explicitly provided for in the Bill of Rights, but somehow is not protected. That is hypocrisy, and unsound reasoning.[/quote]
I posted two opposing questions to find out where you stand - it wasn’t clear in previous post.
Correct me if I’m wrong but is protecting from the Tyranny of the Majority the purpose of a Republic. If Democrats stand for Democracy and Republican stand for the Republic, is it hypocrisy for the Democrats to want to uphold a majority decision, if that’s the case. Perhaps it’s hypocritical for them to have demanded to uphold the rights of the minority. I’m very confused about this issue. It’s like I don’t understand what either party really stands for at all. (not being sarcastic, I’m really confused about this)
Also, I started doing a little cursory research on the Second Amendment and it doesn’t appear to be as clear cut and definitive as you suggest. There have been many different interpretations on the wording and punctuation used, so maybe this debate isn’t as stupid as some may think.
[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Also, I started doing a little cursory research on the Second Amendment and it doesn’t appear to be as clear cut and definitive as you suggest. There have been many different interpretations on the wording and punctuation used, so maybe this debate isn’t as stupid as some may think.[/quote]
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.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Gregus wrote:
I was in the scouts as a kid and there is no reason that I can see that a boy scout should have a different set of laws to the rest of the country. You can argue wether the law is wrong, fine but don’t try and claim that anything has changed. All that has happened is that the scouting association has sensibly informed their members of the law as it pertains to carrying knives.
The Mail has done what it normally does, misrepresented the facts to get mental midgets’ knickers in a twist. Seems to have worked![/quote]
I find it hard to believe that the little pen knives that the Boy Scouts use are an illegal length. If they are illegal wouldn’t it make better sense to just use a size that complies with the law?
[quote]doc_man_101 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
It is politically incorrect to treat violent thugs like the animals they are in this country and thus we protect them and get more of them.
Ah, so despite the theme of this thread, it’s not just Britain which is fucked up by spineless politicians, then? [/quote]
Of course Britain doesn’t have a monopoly on bad leadership, BUT Britain does have exceptionally bad leaders. It is quite obvious at the moment that Labour is engaged in a policy of scorched earth so that when they are driven from power in eight and a half months noone will be able to clean up the mess they have left behind.
[quote]
Sifu wrote:
If you seperate the statistics for the black ghettos from the rest of the country it is a completely different story. The vast majority of the country is more like Switzerland than Detroit. It is purely a societal issue that has nothing to do with firearm ownership.
Well, leaving aside that one of the claimed benefits of gun ownership is the promotion of law and order … you might concede that similar comments apply to Britain. The odds of getting ‘glassed’ in most pubs are… nil. [/quote]
Again you are late to the party because I have already thoroughly disproved the idea that glassing isn’t widespread in Britain. There are over 5000 glassings a year in Britain. When I did my research for the thread below I just concentrated on young women who were glassed and I found incidents all over the country including areas I would consider to be nice, like Mayfair or just outside Bath. So it is time for Capn’ cut-n-paste to give you a mere taste of what I covered in that thread.
Thank you. I have been trying to get the point across to Cockney for a while that in the US violence has consequences. If you look back in the thread I provided a whole bunch of links for women who were glassed in nightclubs and pubs. The average sentences their attackers received were around 2 years. I’ll dig up the links for you.
Here look at this shit. In the UK they have 5,000 glassing’s a year. That is a hundred a week. Yet just because they don’t have as many shootings as the US the British have this fantasy that Britain is much much safer than the US.
All these glassing articles are young women. There are a couple of models, a singer one or two cosmetologists. They have had their lives ruined and their careers destroyed.
In Britain the average rate of young women being admitted to a hospital A&E for treatment of glassing wounds is one to two per week. For men the average is even higher.
A PRETTY hairdresser told yesterday how a Âglassing attack left her with such horrific facial scars she was forced to give up her job.
Louise Reeves, 21, needed more than 60 stitches and was almost blinded when Samantha Attrill slashed her with a broken bottle.
Before the nightclub attack she had been offered modelling work but her dreams of a career as a fashion model have also now been shattered.
Attrill, 23, was jailed for four years this week after a jury found her guilty of malicious wounding.
Research shows that 5,000 people a year fall victim to bottle and glass attacks in Britain, prompting calls for a full ban on all glass in pubs and clubs.
AN Exeter City Council worker who lied to police about being in a nightspot when a woman was left permanently scarred in a glass attack, said he was the victim of mistaken identity.
A glass was used in an attack on Christine Pearce, 23, in the Timepiece club, causing cuts to her face which required stitches, Exeter Crown Court heard. She had scarring near her nose and is now unable to wear contact lenses.
Girl, 14, nearly blinded by glass thugs at carnival
A MOTHER of two launched an unprovoked glass attack on a woman in a Newton Abbot pub, cutting open her head.
But a judge at Exeter Crown Court spared Catherine Regan, 37, from serving a prison sentence.
Recorder Michael Allen QC told Regan, of Greenway Road, Newton Abbot: "I have to strain to stop sending you to custody and the victim may wonder why that is.
"The vast majority of judges would take that course but that would have the Draconian effect of you losing custody of your children when they are at a vulnerable age.
GLASS and bottle attacks in Gwent have soared by 130 per cent amid claims by a leading police officer that cheap booze and supermarket offers could be to blame.
In 2007, there were 33 incidents involving bottles and glasses, but this year?s figures show the number of attacks has increased to 76 incidents.
Attacks in Newport have also increased from 14 to 26 reported incidents, a rise of almost 86 per cent, despite an Argus campaign to encourage pubs to use plastic glasses.
Published Date: 01 December 2007
A WOMAN was left needing reconstructive surgery to her face after a glassing attack outside a pub, a crown court heard.
Published Date: 25 August 2008
A MODEL scarred for life by a glass attack to the face is planning to return to the spotlight, it was reported today.
Joanne Minto, 20, feared she would have to give up a promising career in the modelling industry after her face was cut to shreds and she was blinded in one eye in a drunken attack.
NRL star faces lesser ?glassing? charge
LEAGUE star Greg Bird, back from holidaying with the girlfriend he allegedly glassed, has had a charge against him downgraded.
THIS video-grab photograph shows a man fleeing a city nightclub after viciously attacking a woman with a glass, leaving her permanently scarred.
A jury at Exeter Crown Court yesterday found 23-year-old Doucoure, of Haldon Road, St David’s, guilty of wounding Christine Pearce with intent to cause her grievous bodily harm.
Miss Pearce, also 23, told the court how Doucoure approached her, began swearing and then attacked her with the glass, at the club in Little Castle Street, on June 28 last year.
She said the defendant was a distant acquaintance and she had rebuffed his attentions at another nightclub in the past.
The victim was led to an ambulance, blood pouring from her face after suffering cuts to one of her eyes and her nose.
Detective Constable Blain Bishop told the Echo after the verdict: "This was a horrific incident, particularly for such a young woman, who has been badly scarred across her face and it has had a traumatic effect on her. She still has fragments of glass embedded in her eye to this day.
TWO young Bournemouth women have each been sentenced to 12 months detention after being convicted of separate glassing incidents that left their female victims scarred for life.
I don’t know if it will be difficult for all the “rootin tootin” “gun toting” “gun culture” “redneck cowboys” on this forum to believe but it appears that Australians engage in this activity too. Imagine that.
A WOMAN glassed in the face and now blind in one eye has demanded pubs and clubs be forced to use toughened plastic cups.
The 20-year-old’s call follows plans by police to encourage Sydney CBD pubs and clubs to consider changing to the plastic alternative late at night.
Ms Kelley is the fourth person to be glassed in NSW in less than three weeks. On Melbourne Cup night a young man suffered severe cuts to the face when struck with a glass at a Surry Hills pub.
And last Friday, a 19-year-old Tamworth teenager was rushed to hospital after being allegedly hit with a schooner glass at a hotel.
On October 13 an off-duty police officer was hit in the eye with a glass at a city pub when his alleged attacker made an unwanted advance towards one of his colleagues.
These are the horrific injuries a teenager suffered when she was glassed at a nightclub.
RSS ICON
Your views (4)
Horror image of ‘girl gang glassing’ victim
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
These are the horrific injuries a teenager suffered when she was glassed at a nightclub.
Glassing victim
The 19-year-old needed 30 stitches to her face, neck and shoulders.
She told how she was cornered in the toilets by a gang of women who hit her several times with a broken glass.
Doctors said I was lucky not to lose my eye.’
[quote]
Chushin wrote:
3. Most of us have had it with foreign geniuses who deign to tell us what our “problem” is.
And yet this is a thread started by a New Jersey resident telling us what’s wrong with Britain. And when the Brits say it’s got nothing to do with guns, they get shouted down? Man, I love double standards.[/quote]
It is really good that people in this country are paying attention to what is going on over in Europe and discussing it. Obama and the other Democrats would love to turn America into a Euro style socialist basket case.
Here is a real good example of what is wrong with Britain not only do they not have the right to keep and bear arms, they don’t have freedom of speech. Look at this bullshit, these poor people were arrested and are facing criminal charges for saying something which is true. This is why America has the second amendment, so people can speak the truth freely without fear of reprisal from their government.
“A Christian couple have been charged with a criminal offence after taking part in what they regarded as a reasonable discussion about religion with guests at their hotel.
Ben and Sharon Vogelenzang were arrested after a Muslim woman complained to police that she had been offended by their comments.”
“It is understood that they suggested that Mohammed, the founder of Islam, was a warlord and that traditional Muslim dress for women was a form of bondage.”
Personally I think it’s absurd that I have to ask twice. It’s clear that there is no coherent argument presented anywhere on TN or this wouldn’t be such an insurmountable task. Prove me wrong, I dare you!
You don’t dare me to do shit. I don’t play that way. Push gave you a series of keywords to google that should bring up what you wanted. And you admitted to doing a google search. So either you suck at searching, or you’re too lazy to search. I plugged some of those terms into google with a site filter and had no problems. 30 seconds and I had about 48 hits. Do it yourself.
I’m not surprised. Another dodge.[/quote]
So what you’re telling me is that you are too incompetent to use Google given a list of keywords and take 10 seconds to do it. In that case I’ll leave you to your pathetic excuses. You think what you want. You’re just fucking lazy. 09’ers.
[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
pushharder wrote:
And just like Senor Blue and I discussed awhile back, why, in your utopia, should my 105 lbs. wife not be allowed to own and carry a weapon of death when a man of my size carrying no weapon other than his bare hands IS a living, breathing weapon of death in her eyes and for all practical purposes (in a violent crime situation)?
You’re right, and by extension a 3 year old child should also be permitted to carry a weapon. They typically weigh much less than your wife.
[/quote]
Is that your idea of a rebuttal? You are comparing an adult woman to a 3 year old child.
I feel like I have to give you an example to show how retarded your argument is: I claim an adult woman should be allowed to have sex. Your reply “You’re right, and by extension a 3 year old child should also be permitted to have sex.”
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Also, I started doing a little cursory research on the Second Amendment and it doesn’t appear to be as clear cut and definitive as you suggest. There have been many different interpretations on the wording and punctuation used, so maybe this debate isn’t as stupid as some may think.
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.
I’m not seeing any ambiguity here…[/quote]
The ambiguity I was referring to was what exactly did the term “bear arms” mean? It’s been interpreted by some to refer to any and all guns. In the 1800s, however, the term “bear arms” had a more specific meaning, i.e. tools for the act of warfare. There is a subtle difference between these two interpretations. Also, in the context of the sentence, when used in conjunction with “a well regulated militia…”, it becomes less obvious that the 2nd amendment was intended to allow universal gun ownership to all citizens.
Personally I think it’s absurd that I have to ask twice. It’s clear that there is no coherent argument presented anywhere on TN or this wouldn’t be such an insurmountable task. Prove me wrong, I dare you!
You don’t dare me to do shit. I don’t play that way. Push gave you a series of keywords to google that should bring up what you wanted. And you admitted to doing a google search. So either you suck at searching, or you’re too lazy to search. I plugged some of those terms into google with a site filter and had no problems. 30 seconds and I had about 48 hits. Do it yourself.
I’m not surprised. Another dodge.
So what you’re telling me is that you are too incompetent to use Google given a list of keywords and take 10 seconds to do it. In that case I’ll leave you to your pathetic excuses. You think what you want. You’re just fucking lazy. 09’ers. [/quote]
Is this really contributing to the discussion? So I’m incompetent and lazy because I demand that when someone claims they’ve made an argument they back it up? You’re a tool.
[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Also, in the context of the sentence, when used in conjunction with “a well regulated militia…”, it becomes less obvious that the 2nd amendment was intended to allow universal gun ownership to all citizens.[/quote]
What people do you think it’s referring to? It certainly says nothing about qualifications. It just says the people have the right to KEEP and BEAR arms.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Also, in the context of the sentence, when used in conjunction with “a well regulated militia…”, it becomes less obvious that the 2nd amendment was intended to allow universal gun ownership to all citizens.
What people do you think it’s referring to? It certainly says nothing about qualifications. It just says the people have the right to KEEP and BEAR arms.[/quote]
The term “the people” can be interepreted as the collective body of persons. If it had said “all persons” have the right to keep and bear arms then that would imply universal ownership. As it is written, it seems to me to refer to the right of the collective to form a WELL REGULATED militia that has the right to the instruments of war.
This does not say that every Tom, Dick, and Harry have the right to handguns. It also doesn’t mention anything about gun ownership for self defense.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Also, in the context of the sentence, when used in conjunction with “a well regulated militia…”, it becomes less obvious that the 2nd amendment was intended to allow universal gun ownership to all citizens.
What people do you think it’s referring to? It certainly says nothing about qualifications. It just says the people have the right to KEEP and BEAR arms.[/quote]
Also, I think there is plenty of evidence that the Gun Industry Lobby of the 18th century broke into Congress and inserted a sneaky “and” in the amendment. The true intent of the Founding Fathers was to allow the people to KEEP BEAR ARMS - which were a delicacy of the time and greatly sounght after by the King of England.