07-14-2014 07:46 AM
4,617 ... 114115116117118 ...
tools
  1. Aquila's Avatar
    editing.... please hold....
    Editor! Copy! Go!

    Transmitted through spacetime.
    07-20-2013 08:50 AM
  2. llamabreath's Avatar
    Editor! Copy! Go!

    Transmitted through spacetime.


    07-20-2013 08:53 AM
  3. gollum18's Avatar
    Ban them period.

    Yes I know that won't work... But that's my serious opinion.

    But anyway, how can humanity expect to survive as a species if we can't stop the constant bickering with each other?

    Look at other animals in nature. They all peacefully coexist, and while true they fight for dominance or territory, you don't see them walking around killing each other for an invalid reason. Because when is it right to kill another human. Never.

    We are all the same people, united under one universal bond. When you hurt or kill one, you weaken that bond, until eventually it degenerates to the point of breaking. Sadly in the current human condition we are quickly headed down that path. If something doesn't change my fear is that it will lead to open bloodshed among the common people, not just armies or governments.

    How can you justify harming another or possessing the means to harm another? It just isn't right. And sadly these tools will lead us down the path of destruction as they have many times before. But after eons, of this kind of mindless violence. I suppose you can't change the leopards spots.

    Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
    07-20-2013 09:04 AM
  4. llamabreath's Avatar
    Zimmerman stalked a kid(really weird btw)...
    Now he's a pervert???


    Uhhhh.... again....

    People portraying Martin as a "kid", a mere "child", a "boy"....

    Was he some four foot tall, 90 pound kid riding his bike? Or rather, wasn't he a six foot tall, 160 lb unfamiliar figure on a dark, rainy night?

    http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/247...on-on-the-case

    And "Walking home"?
    No, he didn't live there, he was visiting, which also contributed to him looking out of place. If he lived there, was walking home and Zimmerman was familiar with him, do you still think it would've happened?

    07-20-2013 09:13 AM
  5. Live2ride883's Avatar
    Simple answer? Ban guns. To all the pro gun people saying "we arez responzible guns ownerz" well guess what many people are not responsible furthermore the other ones that say "driving also kills,should I stop driving?" Well no, you are wrong. Cars are for transportation guns are for killing/wounding. So no they are ABSOLUTELY NOT the same thing.

    /flame suit

    Posted via Android Central App
    First off your comment "we arez responzible guns ownerz" I can only assume is an attempt to make gun owners seem less intelligent than non-gun owners is offensive.

    Guns like cars have a purpose, their purpose is defense. Some people (criminals) will use guns in an offensive manner. Just as some criminals use cars in the commission of a crime (vehicular homicide) comes to mind, or DUI. Yet no one is lining up to blame the car.

    A firearm like a car is an inanimate object, it has no will, no desire, no goal of its own. It cannot be blamed for that actions of the person holding it.

    I agree that criminals should not have guns especially violent ones.
    07-20-2013 09:26 AM
  6. Live2ride883's Avatar
    Guns like the one that killed one of my best friends one year ago today are used less in murders than common household objects like hammers, ball bats, bricks, or any other object.

    To the OP did you pick this day to start this thread because of it's significance in the battle for gun control?
    07-20-2013 09:32 AM
  7. Live2ride883's Avatar
    Ban them period



    Look at other animals in nature. They all peacefully coexist, and while true they fight for dominance or territory, you don't see them walking around killing each other for an invalid reason. Because when is it right to kill another human. Never.

    We are all the same people, united under one universal bond. When you hurt or kill one, you weaken that bond, until eventually it degenerates to the point of breaking. Sadly in the current human condition we are quickly headed down that path. If something doesn't change my fear is that it will lead to open bloodshed among the common people, not just armies or governments.

    How can you justify harming another or possessing the means to harm another? It just isn't right. And sadly these tools will lead us down the path of destruction as they have many times before. But after eons, of this kind of mindless violence. I suppose you can't change the leopards spots.

    Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
    Wars are fought over dominance and territory

    Self-defense or the defense of someone else.

    IMO the criminals that would steal from, rape, or murder responsible members of society have already given up their place in that society. They made the choice to break that bond, no one made it for them.

    Others (criminals) having the means to harm or destroy me and my family gives me the right to protect myself from them.

    I am willing to take a life in order to defend my life and the lives of my family and friends. But I am also willing to give my life in their defense as well.

    There are things worth living for, worth dying for, and worth killing for.
    gollum18 likes this.
    07-20-2013 09:44 AM
  8. cdmjlt369's Avatar
    PURELY HYPOTHETICAL....This is an unfortunate event. Here is why I would have got out and investigated. People here seems to like hypotheticals so here goes. Say zimmerman is driving through and he sees an unfamiliar figure standing near someone's house. Lets say he decides not to stop and goes about his business. What if he is awaken at 3a.m. by police saying there was a home invasion 2 houses down and everyone was killed? What if it was his home? I would not want that fear or those worries on me.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    07-20-2013 10:01 AM
  9. return_0's Avatar
    And "Walking home"?
    No, he didn't live there, he was visiting, which also contributed to him looking out of place. If he lived there, was walking home and Zimmerman was familiar with him, do you still think it would've happened?

    He lived very close nearby, and I believe he was walking home. There are lots of people in my neighborhood whom I've never seen before.

    Sent from my pure Google Nexus 4 using Android Central Forums
    07-20-2013 11:55 AM
  10. llamabreath's Avatar
    1. He lived very close nearby, and I believe he was walking home.

    2. There are lots of people in my neighborhood whom I've never seen before.
    1. He lived in Miami (hundreds of miles away).
    He was visiting his father in Sanford.

    2. Zimmerman was part of the Neighborhood Watch, you're not.

    07-20-2013 12:30 PM
  11. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    I bolded and italicized the part that I feel is important. Look at the lengths the government went to just to circumvent their Constitution. In the US, our Constitution says we have the right to keep and bear arms. I'm assuming those that think guns should be banned also don't care about the rest of our Constitution.

    There, now that I said that, let's wait until this conversation also devolves to the point where this thread gets closed.

    From Wikipedia about how the Australian gun laws were enacted:

    The Port Arthur massacre and its consequences[edit]

    The Port Arthur massacre in 1996 transformed gun control legislation in Australia. Thirty-five people were killed and 21 wounded when a man with a history of violent and erratic behaviour beginning in early childhood[14] opened fire on shop owners and tourists with two military style semi-automatic rifles. Six weeks after the Dunblane massacre in Scotland,[9] this mass killing at the notorious former convict prison at Port Arthur horrified the Australian public and had powerful political consequences.
    The Port Arthur perpetrator said he bought his firearms from a gun dealer without holding the required firearms licence.[15]
    Prime Minister John Howard, then newly elected, immediately took the gun law proposals developed from the report of the 1988 National Committee on Violence[16] and forced the states to adopt them under a National Firearms Agreement. This was necessary because the Australian Constitution does not give the Commonwealth power to enact gun laws. The proposals included a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and all semi-automatic and pump-action shotguns, and a tightly restrictive system of licensing and ownership controls.
    Some discussion of measures to allow owners to undertake modifications to reduce the capacity of magazine-fed shotguns ("crimping") occurred, but the government refused to permit this.
    Surveys showed up to 85% of Australians supported gun control, but some farmers and sporting shooters strongly opposed the new laws.
    The government planned a series of public meetings to explain the proposed changes. In the first meeting, on the advice of his security team, Howard wore a bullet-resistant vest, which was visible under his jacket. Many shooters were critical of this.[17][18][19]
    Some shooters applied to join the Liberal Party of Australia in an attempt to influence the government, but the Liberal Party barred them from membership.[20][21] A court action by 500 shooters seeking admission to membership eventually failed in the Supreme Court of South Australia.[22]
    The Australian Constitution prevents the taking of property without just compensation, so the federal government introduced the Medicare Levy Amendment Act 1996 to raise the predicted cost of A$500 million through a one-off increase in the Medicare levy. The gun buy-back scheme started on 1 October 1996 and concluded on 30 September 1997.[23] The buyback purchased and destroyed more than 631,000 firearms, mostly semi-auto .22 rimfires, semi-automatic shotguns and pump-action shotguns. Only Victoria provided a breakdown of types destroyed, and in that state less than 3% were military style semi-automatic rifles.
    Live2ride883 likes this.
    07-20-2013 02:15 PM
  12. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    Now he's a pervert???


    Uhhhh.... again....

    People portraying Martin as a "kid", a mere "child", a "boy"....

    Was he some four foot tall, 90 pound kid riding his bike? Or rather, wasn't he a six foot tall, 160 lb unfamiliar figure on a dark, rainy night?

    Trayvon Martin pictures shape our perception on the case | wtsp.com

    And "Walking home"?
    No, he didn't live there, he was visiting, which also contributed to him looking out of place. If he lived there, was walking home and Zimmerman was familiar with him, do you still think it would've happened?

    He lived very close nearby, and I believe he was walking home. There are lots of people in my neighborhood whom I've never seen before.

    Sent from my pure Google Nexus 4 using Android Central Forums
    The circle is now complete.

    Thread closed.
    07-20-2013 02:20 PM
  13. Live2ride883's Avatar
    The firearms in my house present 0 danger to anyone that comes to my door peacefully. If anything else happens just remember, you brought that it upon yourself.
    07-20-2013 02:26 PM
  14. anon5664829's Avatar
    First off your comment "we arez responzible guns ownerz" I can only assume is an attempt to make gun owners seem less intelligent than non-gun owners is offensive.

    Guns like cars have a purpose, their purpose is defense. Some people (criminals) will use guns in an offensive manner. Just as some criminals use cars in the commission of a crime (vehicular homicide) comes to mind, or DUI. Yet no one is lining up to blame the car.

    A firearm like a car is an inanimate object, it has no will, no desire, no goal of its own. It cannot be blamed for that actions of the person holding it.

    I agree that criminals should not have guns especially violent ones.
    I apologise deeply. I did not mean to offend, I will edit my post accordingly.

    Posted via Android Central App
    07-20-2013 02:30 PM
  15. anon5664829's Avatar
    The firearms in my house present 0 danger to anyone that comes to my door peacefully. If anything else happens just remember, you brought that it upon yourself.
    That's because I know that you will have bought them legally and probably locked them up safely. I have no doubt there are responsible people such as you, but what about the mother in the sandy hook massacre? She legally obtained the guns but she didn't lock them up so therefore irresponsible. Furthermore let's just say for a moment I don't mind having guns in the hands of citizens IF there are random checking of licence owning citizens to see if they did indeed keep the gun in a safe location.

    Posted via Android Central App
    07-20-2013 02:36 PM
  16. Live2ride883's Avatar
    That's because I know that you will have bought them legally and probably locked them up safely. I have no doubt there are responsible people such as you, but what about the mother in the sandy hook massacre? She legally obtained the guns but she didn't lock them up so therefore irresponsible. Furthermore let's just say for a moment I don't mind having guns in the hands of citizens IF there are random checking of licence owning citizens to see if they did indeed keep the gun in a safe location.

    Posted via Android Central App
    How do you propose we remove firearms from CRIMINALS without affecting the 2nd Amendment rights of us Americans who choose to own firearms?
    07-20-2013 02:51 PM
  17. anon5664829's Avatar
    How do you propose we remove firearms from CRIMINALS without affecting the 2nd Amendment rights of us Americans who choose to own firearms?
    Get rid of the second amendment. That amendment was created at the time the government was barbaric and you HAD to defend yourself.

    Posted via Android Central App
    07-20-2013 02:59 PM
  18. Live2ride883's Avatar
    Get rid of the second amendment. That amendment was created at the time the government was barbaric and you HAD to defend yourself.

    Posted via Android Central App
    Key Words: "without affecting the 2nd Amendment rights of us Americans who choose to own firearms"

    Governments are still barbaric...
    07-20-2013 03:06 PM
  19. Live2ride883's Avatar
    Furthermore let's just say for a moment I don't mind having guns in the hands of citizens IF there are random checking of licence owning citizens to see if they did indeed keep the gun in a safe location.
    Sorry, no one is coming into my house to verify my guns are stored safely, it's unconstitutional, and an Illegal search.
    07-20-2013 03:10 PM
  20. anon5664829's Avatar
    Sorry, no one is coming into my house to verify my guns are stored safely, it's unconstitutional, and an Illegal search.
    Won't be illegal if that law is passed.

    Posted via Android Central App
    07-20-2013 03:11 PM
  21. Live2ride883's Avatar
    I bolded and italicized the part that I feel is important. Look at the lengths the government went to just to circumvent their Constitution. In the US, our Constitution says we have the right to keep and bear arms. I'm assuming those that think guns should be banned also don't care about the rest of our Constitution.

    There, now that I said that, let's wait until this conversation also devolves to the point where this thread gets closed.
    Not long..
    07-20-2013 03:13 PM
  22. cordoni's Avatar
    Sorry, no one is coming into my house to verify my guns are stored safely, it's unconstitutional, and an Illegal search.
    Exactly.

    Ultimately the OPs opinions come down to only two choices: repeal the 2nd amendment, or accept my right to own firearms as I see fit for recreational and defensive purposes free from government interference.

    Posted via Android Central App
    07-20-2013 03:14 PM
  23. gollum18's Avatar
    Get rid of the second amendment. That amendment was created at the time the government was barbaric and you HAD to defend yourself.

    Posted via Android Central App
    That's a rather bashful statement. The founders of this nation, were the brightest minds we have ever seen. They recognized the barbarity of other governments (authoritarian mainly) and built a government "for the people, by the people, and of the people".

    If they wanted to create a barbaric government they would have just instituted a dictator or king (doesn't matter they are both the same). But instead they chose to create one in which its people can and are encouraged to actively participate. And i consider that among the most precious of freedoms I have as an united states citizen.

    As per the second amendment, we all know it can be and has been interpreted differently. But the base premise remains the same. That the right to bear arms is reserved for out citizens in order to defend our lives, liberty, and country.

    Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
    07-20-2013 03:17 PM
  24. Live2ride883's Avatar
    Our rights come from our creator, our Constitution only enumerates them.

    Transcript of the Constitution of the United States - Official Text
    07-20-2013 03:17 PM
  25. anon5664829's Avatar
    Key Words: "without affecting the 2nd Amendment rights of us Americans who choose to own firearms"

    Governments are still barbaric...
    They are not that type of barbaric. Furthermore, that amendment is so old,we might as well bring back slavery right?

    Posted via Android Central App
    07-20-2013 03:20 PM
4,617 ... 114115116117118 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Larva Cartoon - FREE and FUNNY Application
    By liontyping in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-21-2014, 11:03 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-25-2013, 07:33 AM
  3. POI information and Gallery
    By robjulo in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 11:00 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 04:28 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD