Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

I B Hankering · 07-25-2012, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CJ7

you assume right

90% of the time IB gets ignored, the other 10% hes busy posting the same reply that was ignored 90% of the time ..

SpeedRacerXXX · 07-26-2012, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You are a jackass when you pretentiously state:

Your “round 1” is based on BS artifice you created, and it’s nonsubstantive; hence, of no value. Further, you proffer another fallacious, BS argument when you claim this discussion is solely about Odumbo’s position on the Second Amendment. You need to return to the beginning and reread the entire thread, or, better yet, find some one who is more literate than you and have them read it to you; especially at the posts # 17 and #19 where CBJ7 introduced Romney and the Brady Campaign for at least the fifteenth and sixteenth time:

This thread, like most threads that have existed for a while, has gone from point to point, discussing several issues. Started out with a comment on Mexico giving the U.S. advice on gun control and has meandered from topic to topic. I have NEVER said that this thread was solely about Obama's position on the Second Amendment. Fact is, you are the one who made the statement in post #23 that "Odumbo . . . continues to be the greater threat to American's Second Amendment civil liberties."

All I have asked of you is why you believe that? Why do you believe Obama is such a great threat to our/your Second Amendment rights? What specifically has he done? I can't make the question any easier for you. You obviously are more interested in name-calling and offering nothing sustantive to this discussion.

I B Hankering · 07-26-2012, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

This thread, like most threads that have existed for a while, has gone from point to point, discussing several issues. Started out with a comment on Mexico giving the U.S. advice on gun control and has meandered from topic to topic. I have NEVER said that this thread was solely about Obama's position on the Second Amendment. Fact is, you are the one who made the statement in post #23 that "Odumbo . . . continues to be the greater threat to American's Second Amendment civil liberties."

All I have asked of you is why you believe that? Why do you believe Obama is such a great threat to our/your Second Amendment rights? What specifically has he done? I can't make the question any easier for you. You obviously are more interested in name-calling and offering nothing sustantive to this discussion.

Your question(s) were answered on the NRA poster which details what Odumbo has done to abridge Second Amendment civil rights; plus, he is part of the "Chicago Machine" which has implemented some of this nation's most restrictive gun control measures.

Obama Pushes Gun Control

On Wednesday evening while speaking before the National Urban League convention, Obama said he supports greater gun control.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/07/obama-takes-stronger-stance-on-gun-control.html

theaustinescorts · 07-27-2012, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

A couple of months ago a home 3 doors down was broken into. Burglars were very smart. Obviously knew the routine of the homeowners, broke in while they were not there, and took easily sellable items. To me, this is the modus operandi of most burglars. Smart and quick.

I disagree with several of your points but, to me only one point is important: How often any of your scenarios occur? Rape is a very hard one to break down. As I stated, I read the paper on a daily basis and watch the news pretty much every day. Home break-in murders make the news. They are probably the rarest of violent crimes. The last one I remember reading/hearing about was when 2 individuals in Austin were killed. Investigators later found out the guy was a drug dealer and the killers didn't want to pay him the money they owed him and killed the couple.

Contract killings??? Come on!! That's why I use the term "random home break ins" because what you are describing, for the most part, are not random.

In Austin property burglaries on way on the increase, as are car break-ins, because the police aren't investigating any of them. The financial gain from these crimes is small, and just because they burglers got away doesn't mean they were intelligent.

How many break-ins involving rape and murder does there need to be for you to consider it a risk? In Austin there are very few murders, but in most American cities murder is a rather routine and commonplace matter.

The risk is substantial, and there would be a lot more such crimes if people didn't have guns to defend themselves with.

What I really disagree with is the notion that all of use who are responsible and intelligent should have our necessary right to self defense comprmised because of idiots and morons who misuse their weapons.

I just don't care how idiots harm themselves.

I also think the government has no right to criminalize the ownership of anything, any weapon, so long as it's owner has no malicious intent.

It's not a good enough reason to say, "what do you need that for? If you don't need it then the government should make it illegal. Send the police after those guys! They shouldn't be having that thing."

If you go down that road the bullyboys in law enforcement will SWAT you just because you have one to many rounds in your clip. They'll shoot your dog first, and then shoot your wife in the head, and call it a day's work.

And whatever you do don't criticize the police for shooting your dog or family, because that's not supporting our heros or warriors.

SpeedRacerXXX · 07-27-2012, 02:02 PM

For theaustinescorts:

In Austin property burglaries on way on the increase, as are car break-ins, because the police aren't investigating any of them. The financial gain from these crimes is small, and just because they burglers got away doesn't mean they were intelligent. I don't worry about such crimes. I worry about violent crimes. Do you know, according to the police, why property burglaries are on the increase? People leave their garage doors open and house doors unlocked. Car break-ins? Simply park your car in the garage. Crooks are looking for easy scores and too many people make it sooooo easy.

How many break-ins involving rape and murder does there need to be for you to consider it a risk? In Austin there are very few murders, but in most American cities murder is a rather routine and commonplace matter. In the city of Austin, murders are almost entirely in a few sections of the city. I simply avoid those areas, especially at night. A person can substantially reduce the risk of being a victim of a violent crime by being smart. If something has never happened and the odds are very low that it will happen, I don't consider it enough of a risk to worry about it. As I said, you take a much greater risk of being killed when driving your car (or an even greater risk of driving a motorcycle, if you do so) than I do of living in my home without a gun to protect myself.

The risk is substantial, and there would be a lot more such crimes if people didn't have guns to defend themselves with. That is your opinion, which I sincerely doubt. Do you know the #1 way to keep your home from being burglarized? Put a sign out front that it is protected by a home protection service company like Wells Fargo. A crook doesn't know if a homeowner has a gun but the average crook will more than likely believe the sign and move on to a different house. #2 way -- hook up the burglar alarm system so it goes off if someone tries to get in your house. You don't even have to have the system monitored. The noise alone will send that crook heading for the hills.

What I really disagree with is the notion that all of use who are responsible and intelligent should have our necessary right to self defense comprmised because of idiots and morons who misuse their weapons. I don't know how you got from point A to point B. I simply said that a gun in the house has a down side. The woman who was killed was an innocent victim. The father who was killed was an innocent victim. The only thing they did wrong was get into an argument with an idiot or moron. I have never said that your right to own a gun should be compromised in any way. I certainly think it is a right that everyone should have and for everyone to decide if they want to exercise that right. I simply choose not to exercise that right.

I also think the government has no right to criminalize the ownership of anything, any weapon, so long as it's owner has no malicious intent. Not exactly sure what you mean here, but I don't think citizens should be allowed to own any weapon they want, regardless of their intent. The government does not allow us to own nuclear weapons. Don't know how you feel about that, but I certainly support it.

It's not a good enough reason to say, "what do you need that for? If you don't need it then the government should make it illegal. Send the police after those guys! They shouldn't be having that thing."

If you go down that road the bullyboys in law enforcement will SWAT you just because you have one to many rounds in your clip. They'll shoot your dog first, and then shoot your wife in the head, and call it a day's work.

And whatever you do don't criticize the police for shooting your dog or family, because that's not supporting our heros or warriors. This statement, and the two preceeding ones, are not worth addressing. You went from making fairly valid points whether I agree or not, to rambling on about government, police brutality, and other things that I can't, and don't want to, understand