[Leroy]

Where are the liberal zealots crying for banning Knives?

"
A new Justice Department study looking at violent crimes committed against “youth”—defined as Americans from 12 to 17 years of age—discovered that the rate of “serious violent crime” committed against youth by a perpetrator using a firearm dropped 95 percent from 1994 to 2010.

The study—“Violent Crime Against Youth, 1994-2010”–also discovered that American youth who were victims of a serious violent crime in 2010 were six times more likely to have been attacked by a perpetrator wielding a knife than one wielding a gun.
"

[snakeoil]

Is that true or did you hear it on Fox News?

[BilboBagend]

True or not true we can all rest assured it is a gross misrepresentation of the data, the statements, the legitimate analysis, or any other factor of the real story. That is the certain historical e3xperience with everything liar leroy posts.

[2X8]

The DOJ report, for the internet challenged...


http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/vcay9410.pdf

[elklindo69]

Red Herring...

I grew up in NYC. And we all carried some type of sharp edged object for self defense.

[Leroy]

True or not true we can all rest assured it is a gross misrepresentation of the data, the statements, the legitimate analysis, or any other factor of the real story. That is the certain historical e3xperience with everything liar leroy posts.

Notice how Dildo shows that he can't actually look for or comprehend data, he has to be told by liberal blogs and websites what his position should be.

[snakeoil]

Ah but, knives were not used in the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords that also killed 6 people, the movie theater shooting that left 12 dead, the Virginia Tech shooting that left 33 dead and several others wounded, the recent high school shooting that left 2 dead, the Columbine shooting that left 13 dead plus the 2 shooters, the attempted assassinations of Presidents Jackson, Roosevelt, Truman, Ford, Reagan, The assassinations of President Kennedy and Robert Kennedy, and on and on.

[Leroy]

Ah but, knives were not used in the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting, the shooting of Congresswoman Giffords that also killed 6 people, the movie theater shooting that left 12 dead, the Virginia Tech shooting that left 33 dead and several others wounded, the recent high school shooting that left 2 dead, the Columbine shooting that left 13 dead plus the 2 shooters, the attempted assassinations of Presidents Jackson, Roosevelt, Truman, Ford, Reagan, The assassinations of President Kennedy and Robert Kennedy, and on and on.

But knives are actually used in mass killings around the world, so you don't really have a point, other than misdirection.

[snakeoil]

Of knife single mass murderers that are known to us, (11 at present), two in the USA, one in Germany, most have been in Asia, and most have targeted children in schools.

Two US mass murderers in the US. The knife culture is more prevelent in Asia and the Mid-East. Mass murderers in the US favor guns.

http://www.spartancops.com/edged-weapon-mass-murder/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Leroy]

The point you seem to be missing, like most liberals, is that it doesn't matter what laws are enacted, there will still be mass killings by those weapons as well as others. The one thing you and liberals are unable to admit or even see is that Guns protect people far more than they are endangered by them - we see this by how Obama is protected by guns, but he doesn't want you or our children protected by the same means.

Liberals even get protection by the same guns they seek to outlaw, except for their protection.

[elklindo69]

Liberals even get protection by the same guns they seek to outlaw, except for their protection.

So Leroy, where is the line drawn?

Machine Guns?

Rocket Launchers?

Howitzers?

Battle Ships?

Death Stars?

[RealJustme]

So Leroy, where is the line drawn?

Machine Guns?

Rocket Launchers?

Howitzers?

Battle Ships?

Death Stars?

Do you really think a private citizen can guy those items? It goes to show you how uninformed liberals really are. :lol:

[elklindo69]

So Leroy, where is the line drawn?

Machine Guns?

Rocket Launchers?

Howitzers?

Battle Ships?

Death Stars?

Do you really think a private citizen can guy those items? It goes to show you how uninformed liberals really are. :lol:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12 ... yback?lite" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[RealJustme]

Elk thinks the rocket launcher the LAPD recovered was legally sold:lol: :lol: :lol: Another law would have stopped the bad guys from having it :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Leroy]

Liberals even get protection by the same guns they seek to outlaw, except for their protection.

So Leroy, where is the line drawn?

Machine Guns?

Rocket Launchers?

Howitzers?

Battle Ships?

Death Stars?

I would say that the line is drawn when the person owning the weapon is no longer to reasonably properly care for it and keep others from reasonably getting unauthorized access to it.

I don't see any issue with anyone that is competent having any of those devices. There is certainly NOTHING in our Constitution that would even remotely appear to limit citizens from owning any weapon, and certainly nothing to keep them from owning Rockets or Cannon (which were available at the time, although not as sophisticated as todays).

Again, you're missing the point - liberals cry about guns, but Knives kill 6x as many kids as guns, but there is no cry to stop knives - and you know why, there is just one reason, because the government having mass MILITARY weapons (guns and such) doesn't fear a citizenry with just knives.

[markjean59]

WHEN GUNS ARE OUTLAWED ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS

[elklindo69]

Liberals even get protection by the same guns they seek to outlaw, except for their protection.

So Leroy, where is the line drawn?

Machine Guns?

Rocket Launchers?

Howitzers?

Battle Ships?

Death Stars?

I would say that the line is drawn when the person owning the weapon is no longer to reasonably properly care for it and keep others from reasonably getting unauthorized access to it.

I don't see any issue with anyone that is competent having any of those devices. There is certainly NOTHING in our Constitution that would even remotely appear to limit citizens from owning any weapon, and certainly nothing to keep them from owning Rockets or Cannon (which were available at the time, although not as sophisticated as todays).

Again, you're missing the point - liberals cry about guns, but Knives kill 6x as many kids as guns, but there is no cry to stop knives - and you know why, there is just one reason, because the government having mass MILITARY weapons (guns and such) doesn't fear a citizenry with just knives.

No constitutional right is absolute. So it's not unconstitutional to impose restrictions, i.e., verbally threatening someone.

The second amendment states: "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."

If anybody knows history "A well regulated militia" is a government sponsored military force on the state level, which was to provide defense for the states in the absence of the regular army. Soldiers who were in the militia, more commonly known as the national guard would take their weapons home with them. So they would be able to arm themselves and quickly provide a defense in case of an attack by indians or if the British returned looking for payback. So the 2nd amendment was devised to prevent the federal government from disarming the population from defending themselves, NOT FROM A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT, but from foreign or domestic enemies. Why? Because by the time the federal government got word of an enemy attack, it would be too late to mobilize the regular army.

Therefore there is nothing in the second amendment which allows for private ownership of firearms nor the formation of a private militia group. I think they call private militia groups, insurrectionists or mercenaries.

[RealJustme]

there is nothing in the second amendment which allows for private ownership of firearms

Bullshit, if that were true liberals would have banned years ago. What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

[Vj2]

You guys are just so over the top in your ridiculoud stances and specious statements take yourselves way too seriously

[Vj2]

Where are the liberal zealots crying for banning Knives?

"
A new Justice Department study looking at violent crimes committed against “youth”—defined as Americans from 12 to 17 years of age—discovered that the rate of “serious violent crime” committed against youth by a perpetrator using a firearm dropped 95 percent from 1994 to 2010.

The study—“Violent Crime Against Youth, 1994-2010”–also discovered that American youth who were victims of a serious violent crime in 2010 were six times more likely to have been attacked by a perpetrator wielding a knife than one wielding a gun.
"

If you ae going to quote the drops in firearms related stats shouldn't you in the name of being honest and open say what the drop in knife related serious crimes is as well? Also why not actually post the numbers if you're going to go to the trouble of omission

[RealJustme]

You guys are just so over the top in your ridiculoud stances and specious statements take yourselves way too seriously

Standing by our Constitution isn't a ridiculous stance and yes we take it serious.

[Leroy]

No constitutional right is absolute. So it's not unconstitutional to impose restrictions, i.e., verbally threatening someone.

The second amendment states: "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."

Militia is not defined as "Government"

RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED - this also seems clear.

So, the constitution is clear and there is no limitation included in that wording anywhere.

The only limits to unlimited sections of the constitution are those placed on it by liberals that are unhappy with it.

[Leroy]

You guys are just so over the top in your ridiculoud stances and specious statements take yourselves way too seriously

I think it's people like you that are way over the top - failing to stand for the one means of control we have over a government that goes rogue, fascist, corrupt, by a means outlined for that purpose in our own Constitution.

[Leroy]

Vj2, read this article, it explains how you and other liberals fail to comprehend what the 2nd Amendment was about.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/ ... nough.html

[BilboBagend]

Ah, liar leroy and the violence exttreme all squirm. All using their own pwersonal devine underdtanding of the 2nd AMENDMANT OUTSIDE ANY HISTORICAL CONT3EXT. oUTSIDE ANY CONTEXT OF THE WEAPONS AVAILBLE TO THE PUBLIC AT THE TIME. aLL OUTSIDE THE INTENT.


Historical context.

The authors were mostly concerned with a European power conquering the individual states if they separated. That was the strongest reason for joining the Union. No state felt it could long remain independent of a stronger power.

The militia were the preferred and the historical defense of the states. The argument was over the question of whether we should have a standing army (no) or depend on a militia to defend the Union and the states.

Not all weapons were available or allowed to the public. The public had neither ships of war nor canon.

This whole 2nd Amendment bullshit is just that. Completely made up bullshit to fit the malevolent purpose of the extremist crazy and the weapons manufacturers. iT'S THE USUAL BULLSHIT. lOOK AT THE CONCLUSION AND THEN BUILD THE RATIONALIZATION INDEPENDENT OF THE ACTUAL FAQCTS.

[Vj2]

Vj2, read this article, it explains how you and other liberals fail to comprehend what the 2nd Amendment was about.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/01/ ... nough.html

We've had this liberal conversation a few fucking times now. Don't presume to tell me what's am as I don't label you as anything in the political spectrum. Don't presume that I don't comprehend. I think you guys take yourselves way too seriously. It's a national trait not limited to one political side or the other. Simple as that

[Leroy]

Dildo, you really are stupid, completely stupid

Many PRIVATELY OWNED MERCHANT SHIPS too part in our war and they were armed with cannon and various other war implements. The "Public" had little, but the private citizen owned far more than the Government and those Private citizens brought their ships and weapons to the war.

In historical context, any weapon that ANY citizen could get their hands on was permitted in the use of war against the oppressors.

Learn our history moron!

VJ2 - sorry, but your complaints/posts mimic those of the liberal agenda - I called it like I read it. And, Like a liberal, you ignored the intent of the 2nd Amendment and chose to take exception to being called what you're presenting yourself as instead.

[snakeoil]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

[Leroy]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

Typical reaction of a liberal - ignores the context of anything and cherry picks the part they want to claim supports their misdirected beliefs.

[RealJustme]

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Can't be any more clear than that, end of discussion.

[elklindo69]

there is nothing in the second amendment which allows for private ownership of firearms

Bullshit, if that were true liberals would have banned years ago. What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

The 2nd amendment allows for members of "A well regulated militia" to possess firearms not private citizens.

It's quite clear, if you don't understand, read the amendment over again...

[elklindo69]

No constitutional right is absolute. So it's not unconstitutional to impose restrictions, i.e., verbally threatening someone.

The second amendment states: "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."

Militia is not defined as "Government"

RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED - this also seems clear.

So, the constitution is clear and there is no limitation included in that wording anywhere.

The only limits to unlimited sections of the constitution are those placed on it by liberals that are unhappy with it.

You have it ass backwards.

The government defines a militia force.

"A well regulated militia"

The national guard is a "well regulated militia," not private citizens.

And it's not unconstitutional to place limitations on the constitution. Go and see a movie and shout out 'he's got a gun' and go see what happens to you...

[elklindo69]

Dildo, you really are stupid, completely stupid

Many PRIVATELY OWNED MERCHANT SHIPS too part in our war and they were armed with cannon and various other war implements. The "Public" had little, but the private citizen owned far more than the Government and those Private citizens brought their ships and weapons to the war.

In historical context, any weapon that ANY citizen could get their hands on was permitted in the use of war against the oppressors.

Learn our history moron!

VJ2 - sorry, but your complaints/posts mimic those of the liberal agenda - I called it like I read it. And, Like a liberal, you ignored the intent of the 2nd Amendment and chose to take exception to being called what you're presenting yourself as instead.

Privateers were authorized by the government to arm themselves. Therefore by definition they were considered a "well regulated militia."

[Leroy]

Dildo, you really are stupid, completely stupid

Many PRIVATELY OWNED MERCHANT SHIPS too part in our war and they were armed with cannon and various other war implements. The "Public" had little, but the private citizen owned far more than the Government and those Private citizens brought their ships and weapons to the war.

In historical context, any weapon that ANY citizen could get their hands on was permitted in the use of war against the oppressors.

Learn our history moron!

VJ2 - sorry, but your complaints/posts mimic those of the liberal agenda - I called it like I read it. And, Like a liberal, you ignored the intent of the 2nd Amendment and chose to take exception to being called what you're presenting yourself as instead.

Privateers were authorized by the government to arm themselves. Therefore by definition they were considered a "well regulated militia."

Not all of them were "Authorized by the Government", but all of them were authorized by the Constitution. Go back and do some research.

[elklindo69]

Dildo, you really are stupid, completely stupid

Many PRIVATELY OWNED MERCHANT SHIPS too part in our war and they were armed with cannon and various other war implements. The "Public" had little, but the private citizen owned far more than the Government and those Private citizens brought their ships and weapons to the war.

In historical context, any weapon that ANY citizen could get their hands on was permitted in the use of war against the oppressors.

Learn our history moron!

VJ2 - sorry, but your complaints/posts mimic those of the liberal agenda - I called it like I read it. And, Like a liberal, you ignored the intent of the 2nd Amendment and chose to take exception to being called what you're presenting yourself as instead.

Privateers were authorized by the government to arm themselves. Therefore by definition they were considered a "well regulated militia."

Not all of them were "Authorized by the Government", but all of them were authorized by the Constitution. Go back and do some research.

So if that was true, then they are considered mercenaries.

[Vj2]

VJ2 - sorry, but your complaints/posts mimic those of the liberal agenda - I called it like I read it. And, Like a liberal, you ignored the intent of the 2nd Amendment and chose to take exception to being called what you're presenting yourself as instead.

Leroy as is always the case this is where you lose the plot. If a question is asked it makes one a liberal? That's ridiculous. Further I haven't posted anything in favour of one side or the other. You need to stop reading with a predetermined outcome. I know this is a waste of time telling you this but I tried yet again. Which is my mistake I should accept you for what you are. I don't attach labels to your pov don't do so with mine.

Re the 2nd amendment. I don't give a rats arse I'm not an American. I respect that there are differing viewpoints on interpretation as applied in a modern context. I think that you guys have a preoccupation with weapons and take yourselves way too seriously. Unfortunately the rest of us have to as well.

[Leroy]

So if that was true, then they are considered mercenaries.

According to your idea, any citizen that wasn't part of a government sanctioned force was a "mercenary" - hardly, that's just completely stupid thinking.

Definition Mercenary: Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.

[Leroy]

VJ2 - sorry, but your complaints/posts mimic those of the liberal agenda - I called it like I read it. And, Like a liberal, you ignored the intent of the 2nd Amendment and chose to take exception to being called what you're presenting yourself as instead.

Leroy as is always the case this is where you lose the plot. If a question is asked it makes one a liberal? That's ridiculous. Further I haven't posted anything in favour of one side or the other. You need to stop reading with a predetermined outcome. I know this is a waste of time telling you this but I tried yet again. Which is my mistake I should accept you for what you are. I don't attach labels to your pov don't do so with mine.

Sorry, but I didn't say you were a liberal because of a question, I said you were a liberal because of the bent of most of your replies and positions on most things. Your consistent position on things makes you a liberal.

Re the 2nd amendment. I don't give a rats arse I'm not an American. I respect that there are differing viewpoints on interpretation as applied in a modern context. I think that you guys have a preoccupation with weapons and take yourselves way too seriously. Unfortunately the rest of us have to as well.

You don't seem to understand, again, taking a liberal position - it doesn't matter what you think the "Modern context" is, it's what the originating context was that matters.

We don't have a "Preoccupation with weapons", we have a preoccupation with freedom, something liberals don't support.