Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Logo
Search Members FAQ Portal
  • Navigation
  • Our Hoosier Board
  • →
  • Other
  • →
  • Politics
  • →
  • gun control legislation introduced
Welcome to Our Hoosier Board!

Most of the posters here have been around for nearly a decade now. You'll find their knowledge and insight to be second to none. We have a really strong community and value everyone's opinions.

Feel free to jump into any thread and voice your opinion with conviction. We love heated debates and even some fanbase ribbing from time to time. We pride ourselves on the lack of moderation needed to make this board successful.

Please remember that we have been around many years and have an astute ability to tell the difference between an immature, childish, trash-talking troll and a passionate fan voicing his or her opinion. It is at the discretion of Jazen and myself whether any moderating actions should be taken at any given time. It's a very, very rare thing. In other words, no worries....you'll be fine!

Cheers,
sirbrianwilson

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
gun control legislation introduced
Tweet Topic Started: Feb 16 2009, 09:11 AM (323 Views)
troubleatiu Feb 17 2009, 11:26 AM Post #46
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
3,218
Group:
Members
Member
#21
Joined:
February 5, 2008
Hoosier_Faithful_07
Feb 17 2009, 10:06 AM
troubleatiu
Feb 17 2009, 09:28 AM
first of all, im stone cold sober. 2ndly, i am beside myself that you think, " Very few laws are to stop criminals; they're to prevent people from becoming criminals in the first place." that is totalitarian by its very nature. a law is made simply to classify a particular type of behavior as "criminal". i also personally believe this wouldnt save any lives. but thats my opinion. 3rd, do you feel this bill violates the constitution? specificly the 2nd and 4th amendments? if it does, i dont give a shit what law enforcement thinks, ITS NOT ALLOWED.
I've stated in every post that I'm AGAINST this bill because it takes away liberties. I don't know how to be any more clear.

Laws have two purposes: a deterrent and retribution. It's pretty simple, you right now are not a criminal because the threat of jail time has deterred you from selling weapons to deviants. As soon as you step over that line and become a criminal, it's no longer a deterrent. Laws only purpose than becomes retribution. It's not my opinion; it's a fact.

I haven't been arguing in favor of this bill; I've just been stating that it actually has a working purpose. Instead of shooting it dead, it would make a lot more sense to revise it within the confines of the Constitution. I don't see anything constitutionally wrong with having a federal database of gun owners.
first of all, i recognize youve stated opposition to the bill; but not on grounds that it takes away liberties. you actually told me earlier, "That doesn't mean it's a conspiracy to take away liberties." furthermore youve argued your position as law enforcement being in favor of it. law enforcement isnt shit without the constitution and the supreme court to back them. now you say youd like to see this work WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE CONSTITUTION.
i see you trying to argue both sides here.
i am AGAINST this on the grounds it VIOLATES the 2nd and 4th amendments to the US constitution. THAT IS CLARITY. i could care less about any moral arguments, or "working purpose" anybody might perceive about it.
Posted Image
"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer."--Henry Kissinger
"What luck for rulers that men do not think."- Adolph Hitler
"Terrorists don't want your freedoms--they want your life. It's dictators and tyrants who want your freedoms."-author unidentified
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
yawnzzz Feb 17 2009, 11:51 AM Post #47
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
4,964
Group:
Members
Member
#58
Joined:
February 6, 2008
troubleatiu
Feb 17 2009, 11:26 AM
first of all, i recognize youve stated opposition to the bill; but not on grounds that it takes away liberties. you actually told me earlier, "That doesn't mean it's a conspiracy to take away liberties." furthermore youve argued your position as law enforcement being in favor of it. law enforcement isnt shit without the constitution and the supreme court to back them. now you say youd like to see this work WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE CONSTITUTION.
i see you trying to argue both sides here.
i am AGAINST this on the grounds it VIOLATES the 2nd and 4th amendments to the US constitution. THAT IS CLARITY. i could care less about any moral arguments, or "working purpose" anybody might perceive about it.
Blah... I'm done. Apparently I have to outline everything. Are you too dense to realize that if I'm against the bill and pointed out that it takes away liberties while stating that the bill would work, why the hell do you think I'm against it? The whole conspiracy point was that you seem to believe every bill that takes away liberties is an attempt to erode the constitution. This isn't some bill where they squeaked in a clause; the purpose of the bill is clear, and the purpose is a worthy one. If they altered it to be in the confines of the constitution, then I would be completely for this type of legislation. Is that clear enough for you?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
troubleatiu Feb 17 2009, 12:09 PM Post #48
Member Avatar
Coach
Posts:
3,218
Group:
Members
Member
#21
Joined:
February 5, 2008
"Are you too dense to realize that if I'm against the bill and pointed out that it takes away liberties while stating that the bill would work, why the hell do you think I'm against it? The whole conspiracy point was that you seem to believe every bill that takes away liberties is an attempt to erode the constitution. This isn't some bill where they squeaked in a clause; the purpose of the bill is clear, and the purpose is a worthy one."-faithful

that my friend is doublespeak. its the sole reason ive kept at it. you ARE NOT being clear. and shrugging your shoulders and calling me "dense" doesnt make your position any clearer. you say youre against the bill even though it takes away liberties, but it would "work" and thus im to guess why youre against it? im lost.
later you say im a conspiracy nut because i think this is an attempt to erode the constitution BY TAKING AWAY LIBERTIES. you have never responded to my question, "do you think this bill violates the constitution?" then you say, "the purpose of the bill is clear, and the purpose is a worthy one,"-this sounds like a recommendation. be done. as long as you continue to doublespeak ill still be here. ive moved beyond arguing with you and called my representative. but thanks, this argument had alot to do with me calling him.
Posted Image
"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer."--Henry Kissinger
"What luck for rulers that men do not think."- Adolph Hitler
"Terrorists don't want your freedoms--they want your life. It's dictators and tyrants who want your freedoms."-author unidentified
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Register for Free
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

Track Topic · E-mail Topic Time: 9:31 AM Jul 11
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards · Privacy Policy