Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 456789 LastLast
Results 176 to 200 of 224
  1. #176
    Believe. Adam Lambert's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Post Count
    4,912
    So triggered you had to resurrect the Adam Lameburt account just to try to fish more information from me. You have no idea what I know or don't, and if you think I'd actually tell you.

    Too vulgar a display of power. In time, in time.
    thinking im trying to fish info from you
    empty threats
    email searcher
    rent free presidential suite

  2. #177
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    "beyond"

    that means "aside from"

    since we both know you dont know anything personally about me or where i live, its really sad watching this pretense, but keep trying.
    you were so emotionally affected by posts from anonymous men on the internet that you accessed their emails to out their alts and research personal information about them.
    thinking im trying to fish info from you
    empty threats
    email searcher
    rent free presidential suite
    It's quite obvious that you two are of the mind that I have all the goods on you both.

    Maybe I do. So?

    using "rent free" while using your outed alt that you resurrected just for me

  3. #178
    Believe. Adam Lambert's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Post Count
    4,912
    imagine being so insecure about your ability to articulate your perspective on an online message board that you rely on the fantasy of others being unsuccessful in life in order to feel some kind of intellectual upper hand.

    imagine pretending to know personal information about them and issuing veiled threats to reveal it, and thinking this is something to be proud of.


  4. #179
    Believe. Adam Lambert's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Post Count
    4,912
    It's quite obvious that you two are of the mind that I have all the goods on you both.

    Maybe I do. So?
    to be clear, i dont think you have any goods on me other than my registration email, and i think its hilarious that you think i do, or that you think this makes you look cool.

    using "rent free" while using your outed alt that you resurrected just for me
    3 clicks for me to log in.
    ??? hours of you thinking about this alt

    just giving you what you want. thank me.

  5. #180
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    to be clear, i dont think you have any goods on me other than my registration email, and i think its hilarious that you think i do, or that you think this makes you look cool.



    3 clicks for me to log in.
    ??? hours of you thinking about this alt

    just giving you what you want. thank me.
    You're right, I have nothing on you. Just like before when I said that.

    So why are you so salty about your alty?

  6. #181
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    imagine being so insecure about your ability to articulate your perspective on an online message board that you rely on the fantasy of others being unsuccessful in life in order to feel some kind of intellectual upper hand.

    imagine pretending to know personal information about them and issuing veiled threats to reveal it, and thinking this is something to be proud of.

    Imagine all the people, living for today. YooHOOOOooooooo

  7. #182
    Veteran Th'Pusher's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    6,097
    You're right, I have nothing on you.
    This is a lie. What you have on him is the email he registered his accounts with.

    The same as you have on me and likely anyone on this forum who gets under your skin.
    Last edited by Th'Pusher; 11-26-2017 at 09:31 AM.

  8. #183
    Veteran Th'Pusher's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    6,097
    When did the BoR become American law?

    The argument for the 2nd has to support the 2nd. How can someone argue "shall not be infringed" any other way? It's like saying "argue "do not enter" without saying "do not enter". What you want me to do is argue for gun ownership, but the 2nd doesn't support gun ownership. It simply states that a pre-existing right will not be taken away or neutered by congress. It doesn't grant the right, else it would say so. The language implies a right already existed. So you'd have to go back beyond that amendment to find the spirit of the right to bear arms. I've done so on this forum. Use the search feature.

    Let's look at the 4th:

    "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

    Notice it doesn't grant a right, but grants protections for what was presumed to be existing rights. Notice people aren't saying that the 4th Amendment doesn't guarantee the right of people to be secure in the persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, because that would fly in the face of the actual statement in the amendment itself. So "shall not be violated" and "shall not be infringed" are being used in similar ways. However the latter also includes encroachments on rights that the founding fathers knew would happen (based on experience) that might not be considered as an actual binary go/no go for "right to bear arms", like the stuff some of you are proposing.
    so your argument hinges on "shall not be infringed" being absolute. Yet, any for of gun control would be an infringement on a person's right to keep and bear arms. We know that you, and more importantly the SCOTUS, accept certain forms of gun control which undermines the basis of your argument.

  9. #184
    Believe. Adam Lambert's Avatar
    My Team
    Dallas Mavericks
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Post Count
    4,912
    Just like before when I said that.
    okay we'll go with that narrative for now

    So why are you so salty about your alty?
    only one of us is salty about my alty and its not me, email investigator


  10. #185
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    This is a lie. What you have on him is the email he registered his accounts with.

    The same as you have on me and likely anyone on this forum who gets under your skin.

  11. #186
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    so your argument hinges on "shall not be infringed" being absolute. Yet, any for of gun control would be an infringement on a person's right to keep and bear arms. We know that you, and more importantly the SCOTUS, accept certain forms of gun control which undermines the basis of your argument.
    My argument isn't whether or not "shall not be infringed" is absolute, but whether it intentionally differs from "shall not be violated" and that hinges on the word "unreasonable". There is no such word in the 2nd Amendment. For example, no one said "canons are unreasonable for arms" because the term "arms" means firearms you can carry on your person. You cannot bear a canon, not without a liberal use of the word "bear".

    Again, the 2nd doesn't grant the right so even if you said the 2nd is bunk, the right is presumed to still exist. The real meat of the 2nd is "the right to keep and bear arms", not "shall not be infringed".

    The BoR is still subject to the will of the nation, just like it was when the founding fathers created it.

    The right to keep and bear arms isn't removed by removing certain types of arms. Otherwise arms that are in development and not currently available to the public are violating our rights by not being available. A person could be allowed to have a single shot rifle and that would meet the requirements of "shall not be infringed".

    See, I just argued it both ways. It's quite easy. This is why the make up of the USSC is so important. You can bet that the Vegas shooter did not feel he had the right to take those firearms into that hotel, or that the Texas shooter didn't have the right to walk into that church with firearms. So you have to back up a step and say they didn't even have the right to own those firearms. That horse has left the barn though. The firearms are owned, by millions.

    So you either push for a ban/confiscation or you just continue with placebo legislation while tip toeing around the fears of losing voters.

  12. #187
    Veteran Th'Pusher's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    6,097
    Email investigator. Data miner. These are terms people associate with you.

  13. #188
    Veteran Th'Pusher's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    6,097
    So you either push for a ban/confiscation or you just continue with placebo legislation while tip toeing around the fears of losing voters.
    And there it is. Also, can you mention the left more explicitly? Someone might not know what your talking about.

  14. #189
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    Email investigator. Data miner. These are terms people associate with you.
    "people"


  15. #190
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    And there it is. Also, can you mention the left more explicitly? Someone might not know what your talking about.
    You won't ban semi-autos in a way that matters since so many of them are in existence already. I'm waiting for your alternative that makes any sense at all.

  16. #191
    Veteran Th'Pusher's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    6,097
    Yep. People.

  17. #192
    Veteran Th'Pusher's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    6,097
    You won't ban semi-autos in a way that matters since so many of them are in existence already. I'm waiting for your alternative that makes any sense at all.
    Buyback and time.

  18. #193
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    "people knowing"

    "there is no audience"

    Tell mom I said hi!
    Email investigator. Data miner. These are terms people associate with you.

  19. #194
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    Buyback and time.


    You expect the taxpayers to buy every semi-auto someone wants to sell?

    Have you ever researched gun buyback programs in the US to see how effective they were?

  20. #195
    Veteran Th'Pusher's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    6,097

  21. #196
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    Still waiting for just a modi of rationality and sense from you. The magic wand was cute, but get down to brass tacks now. How do you propose to ins ute a gun ban when you don't know who owns the guns to begin with? You'd have to have a ban for a buyback to mean anything, else you have a supply/demand loop that would result in taxpayer money flowing to low end gun manufacturers. Make a gun for 50.00, sell it for 100.00. Do that all day.

    So you ban the semiauto. What does it mean? You ban manufacturing of the semiauto but do you ban sales of pre-existing stock? If you do both, do you ban the sale of a semi-auto between citizens? How would you track it?

    "just do it" sounds cool for Nike, but not for any real legislation.



    CINCINNATI -- The rifles, pistols and shotguns always look impressive when they're displayed at news conferences celebrating the end of gun buyback campaigns.

    Spread across tables or piled high into overflowing stacks, all those weapons reinforce the notion that trading cash for guns works. It gets guns off the street, organizers say, and makes the city safer.

    The problem, according to years of research, is that it does neither.

    Cincinnati will join a growing list of cities this week that have embraced gun buyback programs in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Connecticut. The first of Cincinnati's three planned gun buybacks for 2013 is Tuesday.

    POLITICS: Biden to produce gun package this week

    The local campaign begins as the national debate over gun violence is intensifying, and as President Barack Obama awaits recommendations this week from his task force on gun-related crime.

    Researchers who have evaluated gun control strategies say buybacks – despite their popularity – are among the least effective ways to reduce gun violence. They say targeted police patrols, intervention efforts with known criminals and, to a lesser extent, tougher gun laws all work better than buybacks.

    The biggest weakness of buybacks, which offer cash or gift cards for guns, is that the firearms they usually collect are insignificant when measured against the arsenal now in the hands of American citizens.

    The government estimates there are more than 310 million guns in America today, nearly enough to arm every man, woman and child in the country.

    "They make for good photo images," said Michael Scott, director of the Center for Problem Oriented Policing, based at the University of Wisconsin's law school. "But gun buyback programs recover such a small percentage of guns that it's not likely to make much impact."

    The relatively small number of guns recovered isn't the only problem, Scott said. Buyback programs tend to attract people who are least likely to commit crimes and to retrieve guns that are least likely to be used in crimes.

    Scott and others say violent criminals – the people who do most of the shooting and killing – steer clear of buyback programs unless they're trying to make some quick cash by selling a weapon they don't want anymore.

    That means buyback campaigns more often end up with hunting rifles or old revolvers from someone's attic than with automatic weapons from the trunk of a criminal's car.

    "They don't get a lot of crime guns off the street," said Matt Makarios, a criminal justice professor who studied buyback programs while at the University of Cincinnati in 2008. "You're only going to reduce the likelihood of gun crimes if you reduce the number of guns used in crimes."

    A buyback in Tucson, Ariz., last week collected about 200 firearms, many of them old or inoperable, in exchange for about $10,000 worth of grocery gift cards. A few hundred feet away, gun dealers set up tables and offered cash for any guns in good enough condition to resell.

    "Every gun that came in was an old gun, no assault weapons," Tom Ditsch, who watched the event, told The Associated Press. "They didn't even take any weapons off the streets."

    Supporters: Buybacks save lives

    Even with their shortcomings, Makarios said buyback programs have a few things going for them. They raise awareness about a serious problem. They also rally community groups to get more involved.

    And they really do collect guns, an average of about 30 per event. Some big-city buybacks in Los Angeles and Seattle have brought in 2,000 or more guns in a single day.

    When BLOC Ministries held a buyback two years ago in Cincinnati, it became a neighborhood happening that involved several churches and community groups. The program netted 50 guns, most of them old pistols and rifles.

    Dwight Young, the director of BLOC Ministries, said he knows statistics show buybacks don't put a dent in serious street crime. But he said the effort is worthwhile because, even if it doesn't address the big problem, it still might save a few lives.

    During the buyback, Young said a worried mom brought in a handgun she'd found in her 16-year-old daughter's purse. The girl had been holding the gun for her boyfriend when her mom discovered it.

    "Who knows what would have been done with that?" Young said. "We have to assume that we deterred some kind of crime, even if statistically it doesn't show. I have to believe it's worth the time."

    The United States is far and away the world's leader in gun-related deaths, with more than 31,000 a year. Organizers of the upcoming buybacks in Cincinnati say taking some kind of action is better than doing nothing.

    "If we can save one life, if we can stop one act of violence, if we can get a gun out of one person's hands, we have made progress in the fight to end violence in our communities," said Ennis Tait, pastor of Church of the Living God in Avondale.

    But some say that energy could be better put to use in other ways. Alex Tabarrok, research director of the nonpartisan Independent Ins ute in Oakland, Calif., said investing in buyback programs makes little sense when study after study shows they don't work.

    A few researchers believe buybacks may even do some harm: A 1999 article in the Law and Order journal found that some people sold guns to police during buybacks and then used the money to buy new guns.

    Tabarrok said buybacks consume thousands of dollars, most of it donated, that would be better spent on police overtime to put more officers on the street, or on other law enforcement efforts that are more likely to have an impact.

    Programs 'badly flawed'

    Measuring the effectiveness of buybacks is tricky, given all the things that can influence crime rates. But several studies over the years have examined the weapons retrieved during buybacks and the level of gun violence in the months after the events.

    Most reached the same conclusion: The guns collected usually aren't the type used in crimes, and the impact of the buybacks on crime was "not statistically significant."

    So what does work? Makarios, now a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Parkside, said more stringent gun laws that limit access to certain weapons or require background checks are slightly more effective in reducing violence than gun buybacks. But not much more.

    The most successful efforts involve old-fashioned police work, in which officers, probation departments and other law enforcement agencies work together to identify and target the biggest threats.

    One program, known as "focused intervention," singles out people with a history of criminal activity so police and probation officers can keep close tabs on them.

    The approach is part carrot, part stick. Officers meet with high-risk individuals regularly to offer help through social service agencies – and to remind them they will land back in prison if they commit new crimes.

    "It is focused on those people who are more likely to be involved in gun violence," said Capt. Paul Humphries of Cincinnati police, which uses the program.

    He wouldn't discuss gun buyback programs, but police across the country are divided on the issue.

    Scott, of the Center for Problem Oriented Policing, said most police departments now see buybacks as either a distraction, or as a harmless way to mobilize community groups. He said few believe they will solve the problem.

    "There's some merit to them," he said. "But if they're done with an eye to reducing intentional gun violence, there's not much evidence they will."

  22. #197
    Veteran Th'Pusher's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    6,097


    You expect the taxpayers to buy every semi-auto someone wants to sell?
    Sure. Ive seen tax dollars spent on worse.

    Have you ever researched gun buyback programs in the US to see how effective they were?
    Why would I limit my research to the US where buyback programs have only been implemented regionally when I am proposing a federal buyback program?

  23. #198
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    Sure. Ive seen tax dollars spent on worse.
    So that makes it a working solution?
    Why would I limit my research to the US where buyback programs have only been implemented regionally when I am proposing a federal buyback program?
    Because we're talking about the US?

  24. #199
    Veteran Th'Pusher's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    6,097
    Still waiting for just a modi of rationality and sense from you. The magic wand was cute, but get down to brass tacks now. How do you propose to ins ute a gun ban when you don't know who owns the guns to begin with? You'd have to have a ban for a buyback to mean anything, else you have a supply/demand loop that would result in taxpayer money flowing to low end gun manufacturers. Make a gun for 50.00, sell it for 100.00. Do that all day.

    So you ban the semiauto. What does it mean? You ban manufacturing of the semiauto but do you ban sales of pre-existing stock? If you do both, do you ban the sale of a semi-auto between citizens? How would you track it?
    All of these questions would be answered through the legislative process. You and I aren't legislators and don't need to have all of the answers.


    CINCINNATI -- The rifles, pistols and shotguns always look impressive when they're displayed at news conferences celebrating the end of gun buyback campaigns.

    Spread across tables or piled high into overflowing stacks, all those weapons reinforce the notion that trading cash for guns works. It gets guns off the street, organizers say, and makes the city safer.

    The problem, according to years of research, is that it does neither.

    Cincinnati will join a growing list of cities this week that have embraced gun buyback programs in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre in Connecticut. The first of Cincinnati's three planned gun buybacks for 2013 is Tuesday.

    POLITICS: Biden to produce gun package this week

    The local campaign begins as the national debate over gun violence is intensifying, and as President Barack Obama awaits recommendations this week from his task force on gun-related crime.

    Researchers who have evaluated gun control strategies say buybacks – despite their popularity – are among the least effective ways to reduce gun violence. They say targeted police patrols, intervention efforts with known criminals and, to a lesser extent, tougher gun laws all work better than buybacks.

    The biggest weakness of buybacks, which offer cash or gift cards for guns, is that the firearms they usually collect are insignificant when measured against the arsenal now in the hands of American citizens.

    The government estimates there are more than 310 million guns in America today, nearly enough to arm every man, woman and child in the country.

    "They make for good photo images," said Michael Scott, director of the Center for Problem Oriented Policing, based at the University of Wisconsin's law school. "But gun buyback programs recover such a small percentage of guns that it's not likely to make much impact."

    The relatively small number of guns recovered isn't the only problem, Scott said. Buyback programs tend to attract people who are least likely to commit crimes and to retrieve guns that are least likely to be used in crimes.

    Scott and others say violent criminals – the people who do most of the shooting and killing – steer clear of buyback programs unless they're trying to make some quick cash by selling a weapon they don't want anymore.

    That means buyback campaigns more often end up with hunting rifles or old revolvers from someone's attic than with automatic weapons from the trunk of a criminal's car.

    "They don't get a lot of crime guns off the street," said Matt Makarios, a criminal justice professor who studied buyback programs while at the University of Cincinnati in 2008. "You're only going to reduce the likelihood of gun crimes if you reduce the number of guns used in crimes."

    A buyback in Tucson, Ariz., last week collected about 200 firearms, many of them old or inoperable, in exchange for about $10,000 worth of grocery gift cards. A few hundred feet away, gun dealers set up tables and offered cash for any guns in good enough condition to resell.

    "Every gun that came in was an old gun, no assault weapons," Tom Ditsch, who watched the event, told The Associated Press. "They didn't even take any weapons off the streets."

    Supporters: Buybacks save lives

    Even with their shortcomings, Makarios said buyback programs have a few things going for them. They raise awareness about a serious problem. They also rally community groups to get more involved.

    And they really do collect guns, an average of about 30 per event. Some big-city buybacks in Los Angeles and Seattle have brought in 2,000 or more guns in a single day.

    When BLOC Ministries held a buyback two years ago in Cincinnati, it became a neighborhood happening that involved several churches and community groups. The program netted 50 guns, most of them old pistols and rifles.

    Dwight Young, the director of BLOC Ministries, said he knows statistics show buybacks don't put a dent in serious street crime. But he said the effort is worthwhile because, even if it doesn't address the big problem, it still might save a few lives.

    During the buyback, Young said a worried mom brought in a handgun she'd found in her 16-year-old daughter's purse. The girl had been holding the gun for her boyfriend when her mom discovered it.

    "Who knows what would have been done with that?" Young said. "We have to assume that we deterred some kind of crime, even if statistically it doesn't show. I have to believe it's worth the time."

    The United States is far and away the world's leader in gun-related deaths, with more than 31,000 a year. Organizers of the upcoming buybacks in Cincinnati say taking some kind of action is better than doing nothing.

    "If we can save one life, if we can stop one act of violence, if we can get a gun out of one person's hands, we have made progress in the fight to end violence in our communities," said Ennis Tait, pastor of Church of the Living God in Avondale.

    But some say that energy could be better put to use in other ways. Alex Tabarrok, research director of the nonpartisan Independent Ins ute in Oakland, Calif., said investing in buyback programs makes little sense when study after study shows they don't work.

    A few researchers believe buybacks may even do some harm: A 1999 article in the Law and Order journal found that some people sold guns to police during buybacks and then used the money to buy new guns.

    Tabarrok said buybacks consume thousands of dollars, most of it donated, that would be better spent on police overtime to put more officers on the street, or on other law enforcement efforts that are more likely to have an impact.

    Programs 'badly flawed'

    Measuring the effectiveness of buybacks is tricky, given all the things that can influence crime rates. But several studies over the years have examined the weapons retrieved during buybacks and the level of gun violence in the months after the events.

    Most reached the same conclusion: The guns collected usually aren't the type used in crimes, and the impact of the buybacks on crime was "not statistically significant."

    So what does work? Makarios, now a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Parkside, said more stringent gun laws that limit access to certain weapons or require background checks are slightly more effective in reducing violence than gun buybacks. But not much more.

    The most successful efforts involve old-fashioned police work, in which officers, probation departments and other law enforcement agencies work together to identify and target the biggest threats.

    One program, known as "focused intervention," singles out people with a history of criminal activity so police and probation officers can keep close tabs on them.

    The approach is part carrot, part stick. Officers meet with high-risk individuals regularly to offer help through social service agencies – and to remind them they will land back in prison if they commit new crimes.

    "It is focused on those people who are more likely to be involved in gun violence," said Capt. Paul Humphries of Cincinnati police, which uses the program.

    He wouldn't discuss gun buyback programs, but police across the country are divided on the issue.

    Scott, of the Center for Problem Oriented Policing, said most police departments now see buybacks as either a distraction, or as a harmless way to mobilize community groups. He said few believe they will solve the problem.

    "There's some merit to them," he said. "But if they're done with an eye to reducing intentional gun violence, there's not much evidence they will."
    Cool unsourced regional examples that don't apply email sleuth.

  25. #200
    Veteran Th'Pusher's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    6,097
    So that makes it a working solution?
    why wouldn't it?

    Because we're talking about the US?
    we're talking about a federal buyback program, not a regional one.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •