I agree with Piers

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

I've got a friend who is a Swiss national and I have been there 4 times. Great country.

But they have something else we don't have. They tightly control who comes into the country. And when your work visa expires or if you lose your job and you are a foreigner, they throw you out of the country.

High income levels are a lot easier when you don't allow cheap foreign labor into the country and you restrict the social safety net to native born Swiss citizens.

The Swiss didn't let women vote until 1971. They are really old school.

[Yssup Rider]

I'm not. Melting down on this, just observing how fucking ridiculous you boys sound trying to justify guns. I hear that more people die from heart disease... We need to outlaw heart. Wait, we did that two years ago.

And on and on.

[JD Barleycorn]

How did the NRA enable mass murder??? The NRA can't pass any laws. Only Congress and the president can pass or sign off on laws. So it is accurate to say that Congress enabled mass murder, both democrats and republicans if that is the hill you want to die on. At best the NRA is a civil rights organization, at worst they are lobbying for the gun industry. Both are legal.

As for Piers Morgan; he is an alien, he is not an American citizen. He can be deported for various reasons including be convicted in Englans of wiretapping British citizens for his news magazine.

While we are talking about Switzerland and drunk driving....what is the penalty for drunk driving in Switzerland?

[essence]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

How did the NRA enable mass murder???

It wasn't Piers who said this, but one of the other panel members.

[essence]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Is Piers an American citizen? If I went over to England and got a TV show and started using it to trample some long affirmed holy English right, what would the reaction be?

Then I would either tell you to fuck off, or tell you to spend your dollars in British industry.

The problem with your argument is that:

- Piers explicitly said he was not attacking the right to bear arms.
- Piers explicityl said he was nto attacking the second amendment.
- Piers explicitly said he was not looking for a ban on arms.
- The right to bear arms is a long affirmed holy English right, from way back with Alfred the Great.

The problem with your argument is, that by showing yourself incapable of listening to a discussion lasting more than a few seconds, you do a disservice to the US education system and you do a disservice to the vast majority of intelligent thinking US citizens.

You also destroy credibility in any useful argument you may (or may not) have.

[essence]

Originally Posted by bojulay

Did I mention what a stupid English thumb sucking diaper wearing twit that Piers guy is.

I agree with you. I said originally I don;t like him. I have already said that if you send him back, I would 'return to poster'.

The word is nappy, not diaper.

But even idiots can get it right sometimes.

Even you, once in a while, can make sense.

The only person who made a fool of themselves on the program, out of the four, was the NRA spokesperson.

[Randy4Candy]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

So why isn't Switzerland wall to wall carnage? Too busy making cuckoo clocks? Too sleepy from eating too much Swiss chocolte?

1. I wonder what the poverty rate in Switzerland is?

2. I wonder what the income spread is between the bottom 10% and the top 1% is in Switzerland?

3. I wonder what form of government Switzerland has? Socialist with universal healthcare? What other forms of social safety nets are in place?

4. Who was the Swiss John Wayne/Clint Eastwood?

5. Of course 4.5 million people is a lot differen than 350 million. Probably not a lot of cultural diversity.

Let's hear it for the Idiot Teawipe apples/oranges obfuscation ploy. You guys really need to develop other tactics. Boring (and simplistic) as hell. And, it doesn't even qualify as "wit" unless, of course, one puts "nit" in front of wit.

A Note About "Ferriners" sounding off about other countries' internal issues:

Even taking off of the table the United States' penchant for military intervention, we Americans are, by far, the world's worst about meddling in other countries' internal matters. We always know best and if you don't think so - just ask us. We are worse than some old lady down the block in a small town about sticking our noses into others' business and contributing our two cents. Naturally, we are suitably offended when some non-American does exactly the same thing. Adjust your nappies, Teawipe boyz.

[Randy4Candy]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

How did the NRA enable mass murder??? The NRA can't pass any laws. No, you fu*king drooling simpleton, they can't. BUT, what they can do and HAVE done is write legislation for inbred Republican Teawipe state legislators such as "Castle" laws. Only Congress and the president can pass or sign off on laws. So it is accurate to say that Congress enabled mass murder, both democrats and republicans if that is the hill you want to die on. At best the NRA is a civil rights organization, at worst they are lobbying for the gun industry. Both are legal.

As for Piers Morgan; he is an alien, he is not an American citizen. He can be deported for various reasons including be convicted in Englans of wiretapping British citizens for his news magazine. Big...Fu*king...Deal. The sky is also blue (and the gym floor you keep mopping on a daily basis is brown).

While we are talking about Switzerland and drunk driving....what is the penalty for drunk driving in Switzerland? A much better question is, "how did you become so ignorant?"

Our resident "scholar" *snick*snick*snick*cough*cough * is at it again. JDCornyhole, you're a sorry excuse for a "thinker."

[JD Barleycorn]

Nice to know I scare Randy so much. He can't even respond except by flinging his own shit.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by essence

Then I would either tell you to fuck off, or tell you to spend your dollars in British industry.

The problem with your argument is that:

- Piers explicitly said he was not attacking the right to bear arms.
- Piers explicityl said he was nto attacking the second amendment.
- Piers explicitly said he was not looking for a ban on arms.
- The right to bear arms is a long affirmed holy English right, from way back with Alfred the Great.

The problem with your argument is, that by showing yourself incapable of listening to a discussion lasting more than a few seconds, you do a disservice to the US education system and you do a disservice to the vast majority of intelligent thinking US citizens.

You also destroy credibility in any useful argument you may (or may not) have.

There's no use having a discussion when people don't acknowledge the facts.Piers stated the AR-15 was used at the scene and was an automatic weapon. It was neither.

There's no use wasting my time discussing an issue when the parties can't articulate their specific solutions to fix the problems. I listed my specific solutions to decrease gun deaths in the US. Did you? No. Simply listening to tired arguments over and over again only makes the arguer feel better...but nothing gets accomplished Mrs Essence.

For the record, I probably spent 3 minutes listening to your two links. Enlighten me as to what "discussion" I missed. You have a lot of "was not"s, Mrs Essence. Tell me what was.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by ExNYer

I've got a friend who is a Swiss national and I have been there 4 times. Great country.

But they have something else we don't have. They tightly control who comes into the country. And when your work visa expires or if you lose your job and you are a foreigner, they throw you out of the country.

High income levels are a lot easier when you don't allow cheap foreign labor into the country and you restrict the social safety net to native born Swiss citizens.

30 year ago my accounting professor mentioned many times how he wanted to move to Switzerland but didn't have the $1 million entrance fee. That was thirty years ago.

I'm glad all the libtards (not referring to you exNYer) on this board acknowledge the US can't have the same gun law "results" on this board because we aren't full of rich white people. Sparkling.

[Randy4Candy]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Nice to know I scare Randy so much. He can't even respond except by flinging his own shit.

Like almost everything you "know," you don't. Nice self-portrait there JD Cornyhole. Your unintentional comedic act just keeps getting better.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

But a license and a driving test will not keep unqualified drivers from driving a car. Adam Lanza did not get the guns he used legally. Therefore, we MUST ban all cars if we are going to stop drunk driving deaths. It only makes sense.

Absolutism is almost never the answer. Anyone who thinks we will STOP drunk driving, or STOP gun deaths, is fooling themselves. But just because we can't drive them to zero doesn't mean we should stop trying to reduce them.

Are you for eliminating driver's licenses? I would hope not. I spend a lot of time in a couple of states with the highest % of unlicensed drivers and the associated problems are indeed worse.

Originally Posted by essence

- Piers explicitly said he was not attacking the right to bear arms.
- Piers explicityl said he was nto attacking the second amendment.
- Piers explicitly said he was not looking for a ban on arms.
- The right to bear arms is a long affirmed holy English right, from way back with Alfred the Great.

Sadly, there are a lot of Good Ol’ Boys who think ANY change that tries to limit, document, or put conditions on their ability to own whatever arms they care to own in secret is the same as abolishing all guns. In many ways they have a similar mindset about guns as do the Taliban. Intelligent conversation with the extremists is near impossible.

Originally Posted by gnadfly

There's no use wasting my time discussing an issue when the parties can't articulate their specific solutions to fix the problems. I listed my specific solutions to decrease gun deaths in the US. Did you? No.

A very false assumption. I can recognize a building totally engulfed in flames—that doesn’t mean I know how to either extinguish it in a safe manner, nor does it mean I am an expert on fire prevention. I can recognize when support beams on a bridge look rusted and warped, that does not make me a structural engineer.

Much of our problem in this country is jumping to “sounds good” solutions that only make problems worse instead of having necessary discussion and consensus building. Prohibition is a good example. Welfare programs. Many of our educational “reforms”. Witch trials. Airport security. And knee-jerk reactions to guns, child molesters, and many other things that have the inconsiderate nature of being difficult.

I’m sorry, but the gun solution that works in rural Alabama may not be the simplistic solution for New York City, and the reverse is likely true as well. Just because someone does not have a solution does not mean they cannot recognize a problem.

[joe bloe]

You say absolutes are seldom the best way to deal with a problem. The second amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That means shall not be limited in any way. That may or may not be a reasonable amendment, but it is an absolute. The second amendment does not just prohit banning guns, it prohibits any limitation on gun ownership.

By analyzing Madison's use of the word infringe in his other writings, it is clear that he uses the word to mean to change in any way.

If you don't think the second amendment is reasonable, then work to repeal it.

James Madison's Usage
The Second Amendment's "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" language is exactly what was proposed as the first clause of the amendment by James Madison on June 8, 1789. In addition to that "infringe" based language, Madison also included this freedom of religion related protection in his Bill of Rights proposals to Congress: “nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.” [The Origin of the Second Amendment p.654] Assuming that Madison's intention in preventing religious liberty from being “infringed” was to allow for considerable "reasonable" regulation by the federal government is illogical. In fact, it is clear that the intent of such language was to prevent any interference whatsoever by the government in such matters. The later change to “Congress shall make no laws” language buttresses this period understanding of "infringe" based protection.

http://onsecondopinion.blogspot.com/...infringed.html

[Yssup Rider]

The Ten Commandments states, "Thou shalt not kill." Period. God trumps Madison. Period.

Using the Founding Fathers argument is as lame as using the fucking Bible to make your point.