BF2S Forums Arizona Congresswoman Shot

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

That's either untrue, or a retarded system which will inevitably lead to high repeat offending rates.

untrue? ok well there is a reason they ask if you are a convicted felon on applications, and they do a criminal back ground check.

Obviously it will bar you from some jobs.

I've never seen anything on a job application which asks if I'm a convicted felon, though I've had to have a criminal record check done when I worked with some schools for a while. I don't think you'd be allowed to ask if someone had a criminal record on an application form over here, unless it was specifically relevant to the job.

Your previous assertion was that no one in the US who has ever committed a crime has a job. I reckon that's bullshit.

Macbeth wrote:

That's pretty fair.

Most people manage to never assault someone after a few drinks. If your part of the few that have proven unable to not assault someone after a few drinks then you're not responsible enough to own a gun. Don't commit violent crimes and you won't have your right to weapons taken away. It's simple.

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

voting is not a right Turquoise

Um...  yes it is.  Once you reach adulthood, it becomes a right.

hate to disagree with you but it isn't. Unless you can pull it up in the constitution...... I'll wait.

Last edited by Turquoise (2011-01-13 13:26:17)

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Obviously it will bar you from some jobs.

I've never seen anything on a job application which asks if I'm a convicted felon, though I've had to have a criminal record check done when I worked with some schools for a while. I don't think you'd be allowed to ask if someone had a criminal record on an application form over here, unless it was specifically relevant to the job.

Your previous assertion was that no one in the US who has ever committed a crime has a job. I reckon that's bullshit.

never said that. I said MOST felons can not get gainful employment. big difference.

You said most felons are disqualified from getting a job. Big difference there to what you've just said.

The meaning of your original statement being that the majority of all felons are completely disqualified from being able to get any sort of job.

Felons are disqualified from getting most jobs may be what you meant.

Pug wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

Pug wrote:

Need has nothing to do with it.

Why do we need an army then?

Because other countries have armies surely? What if no other country had an army, would you think having one was necessary then?

Exactly my point.

What is the chance of that happening?  Zero.

The 2nd amendment is primarily about defending your property, with a good measure of "bearing arms"...meaning the right to defend your property any way you see fit.

For Americans, it means society doesn't see a handgun or rifle as something that is considered "overkill" to defend your property.

Last edited by presidentsheep (2011-01-13 13:29:34)

Turquoise wrote:

Shahter wrote:

how so? government records every case it gets involved in - that could be just about anything. some of those cases involve guns. some of those are owned legitimately. some of those are misused. i don't see which step would really screw the picture. if surveys are any indication there are several millions gun uses a year by legitimate owners in usa - even if only coupla percents were being registered by the police you'd have a pretty good picture, no?

Statistics can be used to prove a lot of things if they are improperly used.  For example, I could argue that black people are naturally more criminal by nature if I solely looked at the proportion of blacks in prison vs. the proportion of whites.

This argument is clearly false for reasons that go beyond statistics, and I believe the same applies to the merits of self-defense if you used statistics on crimes using legally owned weapons.

Turquoise wrote:

More than anything, gun registries are a logical method of gun control that make it possible to respect people's gun rights while also aiding law enforcement in the event of a crime.

Turquoise wrote:

I don't think you can statistically back up banning guns, however.

Turquoise wrote:

Shahter wrote:

how many states are there in us? and how many have different guns regulations? and how different are the crime rates? that's not even close to the data you'd need for any conclusion.

While disparity of gun laws across states are part of the problem, it also shows that stricter gun control doesn't equal less crime.  It shows that a lot of factors outside of gun control affect crime rates.

Last edited by Shahter (2011-01-13 13:28:20)

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Um...  yes it is.  Once you reach adulthood, it becomes a right.

hate to disagree with you but it isn't. Unless you can pull it up in the constitution...... I'll wait.

The Voting Rights Act is one reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth … nstitution   This is another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth … nstitution  yet another

Shahter wrote:

not simply crimes using legal guns - all registered cases involving those guns regardless.

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

hate to disagree with you but it isn't. Unless you can pull it up in the constitution...... I'll wait.

The Voting Rights Act is one reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth … nstitution   This is another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth … nstitution  yet another

no Turqouise, that protects someone from not being able to vote based on sex race etc... It is a discrimination piece of legislature it does not guarantee you the right to vote.

The constitution does not afford a right to vote..period. but I will continue to wait until you are convinced I am right. Which I am

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

The Voting Rights Act is one reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth … nstitution   This is another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth … nstitution  yet another

no Turqouise, that protects someone from not being able to vote based on sex race etc... It is a discrimination piece of legislature it does not guarantee you the right to vote.

The constitution does not afford a right to vote..period. but I will continue to wait until you are convinced I am right. Which I am

Uh...  what?  Dude, you're not making any sense here.  These amendments specifically use the phrase "right to vote."  It doesn't say "privilege to vote."

Last edited by lowing (2011-01-13 13:39:19)

Pug wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

I see your point. The second amendment seems like it's its own problem and solution at the same time, kinda results in unnecessary firearms deaths though in my opinion.

True.

But remember the US & UK are different.  We are a little more violent as a society in general.

But, albeit it is just impossible to know how many cases where having a gun prevented something from happening, I feel it decreases the violence as a whole.  It would never work in the UK - the US is far more violent.

Last edited by presidentsheep (2011-01-13 13:37:32)

lowing wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

lowing wrote:

no Turqouise, that protects someone from not being able to vote based on sex race etc... It is a discrimination piece of legislature it does not guarantee you the right to vote.

The constitution does not afford a right to vote..period. but I will continue to wait until you are convinced I am right. Which I am

Uh...  what?  Dude, you're not making any sense here.  These amendments specifically use the phrase "right to vote."  It doesn't say "privilege to vote."

Here let me help: scroll down to "right to vote"
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2011-01-13 13:42:51)