Who do you want to see go?

[Weltall]

Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Um, this sounds more like an arguement FOR strong controls on guns than against...

I agree about harsh punishments for drug arrests, though. I know many liberals wouldn't, but I do. But all of that just strengthens the anti-gun position... all of those things wouldn't be nearly as bad if these people couldn't so easily get guns to carry out their crimes with!

And how many of those people go through currently-legal avenues to get their guns? What good is making guns illegal when almost all guns used in drug crimes are ALREADY illegal!? What part of that do you not comprehend!!??

[A Black Falcon]

The part that says that when you make legal guns harder to get at illegal ones become harder to get to too, especially if you really crack down?

[OB1]

You missed the point of the allusion.

I agree with background checks myself. The problem is, people who wish to use a gun for unscrupulous activities is going to bypass that process and get one on the black market. Therefore, it really doesn't accomplish much.

So they should just completely abolish all background checks and make it even easier for idiots to get guns? Don't you think it would be better to try harder to prevent criminals and the like from getting guns on the black market?

He was wrong. She proved it. Sorry.

Did you even read her remarks? Instead of trying to disprove Franken's actual serious accusations against Ann Coulter she only responds to his very obvious jokes. Perhaps it would have been better if you had read the book, Weltall. When you get used to his writing style it's very easy to differentiate between his serious comments and his jokes. So I hate to report to you that she was wrong. Sorry. :(

I won't defend O'Reilly. I agree with some things he says, but hardly everything.

At least he has some sense when it comes to certain issues. Ann Coulter is just pure blind hatred towards everything on the left. Guess that's why you love her so much.

[Weltall]

Originally posted by A Black Falcon
The part that says that when you make legal guns harder to get at illegal ones become harder to get to too, especially if you really crack down?

That's just stupid. Black market arms dealers aren't going to perform background checks, and banning guns that are legal now isn't going to do a damn thing to those dealers. I'm all for massive crackdowns on illegal arms, but how banning legal arms helps that cause a damn bit is totally without my comprehension.

So they should just completely abolish all background checks and make it even easier for idiots to get guns? Don't you think it would be better to try harder to prevent criminals and the like from getting guns on the black market?

Of course I do. I'm all for cracking down on the illegal arms trade, but I see no reason at all to deprive normal citizens of their right to bear arms, when many of them do so without incident. Now read this next line carefully because the immutable logic of it either escapes your comprehension or your notice:

BANNING LEGAL WEAPONS WILL NOT STOP SALES OF WEAPONS THAT ARE ALREADY ILLEGAL.

We clear on that? I hate repeating myself.

Did you even read her remarks? Instead of trying to disprove Franken's actual serious accusations against Ann Coulter she only responds to his very obvious jokes. Perhaps it would have been better if you had read the book, Weltall. When you get used to his writing style it's very easy to differentiate between his serious comments and his jokes. So I hate to report to you that she was wrong. Sorry.

No, and I won't read his book, however I can tell which accusations are jest (the one about them being friendly) and which are not (most of the rest). Politics aside, I think he's as humorous as a toothache, and if I need something to wipe my ass with, Charmin's a lot cheaper than his awful book.

At least he has some sense when it comes to certain issues. Ann Coulter is just pure blind hatred towards everything on the left. Guess that's why you love her so much.

Indeed :love:

[OB1]

Of course I do. I'm all for cracking down on the illegal arms trade, but I see no reason at all to deprive normal citizens of their right to bear arms, when many of them do so without incident. Now read this next line carefully because the immutable logic of it either escapes your comprehension or your notice:

BANNING LEGAL WEAPONS WILL NOT STOP SALES OF WEAPONS THAT ARE ALREADY ILLEGAL.

We clear on that? I hate repeating myself.

Perhaps you wouldn't have to do that if the points you made weren't completely inane.

Normal, law-abiding citizens who pass background checks can get guns. However, you're suggesting that because criminals are able to buy guns on the black market, all background checks should be abolished, which would make it even easier for people who shouldn't have guns to buy them? Or what are you trying to say?

No, and I won't read his book, however I can tell which accusations are jest (the one about them being friendly) and which are not (most of the rest). Politics aside, I think he's as humorous as a toothache, and if I need something to wipe my ass with, Charmin's a lot cheaper than his awful book.

Oh how mature. I'm glad you can call his book awful without ever having read it. You extreme conservatives and liberals make me sick. You never actually think about the issues that you are defending, instead preferring to blindly take sides without a second thought just because you've sworn allegiance to a certain party.

[A Black Falcon]

Weltall, as usual your points are completely nonsensical. For proof look at Europe and Japan. They ban guns. Gun violence, while there because of black-market guns, is low. Thus restricting/banning guns greatly cuts violence. Simple math.

Now... does it stop ALL violence? Does it keep ALL people from getting black-market guns, or stealing them? Of course not! But it does for the vast, vast majority of people. Your "arguement" here has no sense and no logical backing...

Or do you mean something else? I hope so, because if that's what you mean its completely ridiculous.

Oh how mature. I'm glad you can call his book awful without ever having read it. You extreme conservatives and liberals make me sick. You never actually think about the issues that you are defending, instead preferring to blindly take sides without a second thought just because you've sworn allegiance to a certain party.

I can sort of understand his position... I doubt I'd get much of any pleasure from reading a book that (even in good fun) attacked/made fun of Democrats in that way... but Conservatives don't seem to do that much. Just attack books, it seems.

[OB1]

I read the rest of Ann Coulter's responses to Franken's books. Not only does she take his jokes seriously and respond to them (like the one about her calling Franken a friend), but she also takes things out of context and completely distorts them in order to help her claims. The funny thing is that that's one the tricks Al Franken mentions her using very frequently, quoting things out of context. She quotes a paragraph out of the book and says that it doesn't make any sense, but the reason it doesn't make any sense is because he explains what he means in the paragraphs following that first one! It's very sad that she's a hero to people like Weltall. Very, very sad.

And for the record, I'm not really suggesting a ban on guns in the U.S. I don't think we're ready for that, and hopefully it'll never have to come to that. But we do need to crack down on these gun fairs and black market trading where any criminal can get a gun. And don't say it's impossible because they've been pretty damn successful in Hong Kong where even the worse gangs and criminals find it nearly impossible to buy guns.

[A Black Falcon]

Well yes, I would agree that we as a nation aren't ready for a ban on guns. I wish we were, but we are not. But there is so much we could be doing that we aren't...

[Weltall]

Originally posted by OB1
Perhaps you wouldn't have to do that if the points you made weren't completely inane.

Normal, law-abiding citizens who pass background checks can get guns. However, you're suggesting that because criminals are able to buy guns on the black market, all background checks should be abolished, which would make it even [b]easier for people who shouldn't have guns to buy them? Or what are you trying to say?

[/b]

I'm sorry, but what part of

Look, I'm all for making it VERY hard to obtain a gun legally. I steadfastly believe that only people who meet very certain criteria and have proper training and knowledge should ever own and carry a weapon.

do you not understand? What part of that translates to "abolish background checks" in OBSpeak? I'm against BANNING guns, but not background checks. Capiche?

What I'm saying is that the weapons already illegal aren't purchased legally. No background checks are performed on the buyers. Now, I know background checks help in that it forces criminals to resort to these methods to get a gun, but since the illegal methods are a lot easier than the legal methods, you can therefore, if you have a brain, see why background checks do not put much of a halt on violent crime, since a LOT of it in America is just an extension of other criminal activity, such as drugs.

Oh how mature. I'm glad you can call his book awful without ever having read it. You extreme conservatives and liberals make me sick. You never actually think about the issues that you are defending, instead preferring to blindly take sides without a second thought just because you've sworn allegiance to a certain party.

Cry me a river, Fauntleroy. I have no allegiance to a party, I think most Repubicans are too centrist and deferential to liberals. It's just that Republican ideals make sense to me.

[Weltall]

Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Weltall, as usual your points are completely nonsensical. For proof look at Europe and Japan. They ban guns. Gun violence, while there because of black-market guns, is low. Thus restricting/banning guns greatly cuts violence. Simple math.

Now... does it stop ALL violence? Does it keep ALL people from getting black-market guns, or stealing them? Of course not! But it does for the vast, vast majority of people. Your "arguement" here has no sense and no logical backing...

Or do you mean something else? I hope so, because if that's what you mean its completely ridiculous.

No, not nonsensical because you ignore the major difference between America and Europe: There's a huge drug market here, far, far larger and more virulent than Europe or Japan. Because of that, there's an exponentially larger black arms market in America than elsewhere. I don't know why you ignore or don't understand that basic fact. Do you honestly think it means nothing? Where is America's violent crime based in? Inner cities. What else thrives in America's inner cities?

Ding ding ding!

In contrast, Rural areas, which have, by far, the highest concentration of legal gun ownership and the lowest concentration of drug trade, has by far the lowest amounts of violent crime. Coincidence? No, it's obvious fact that I know you'll continue to ignore because it makes your position worth shit.

I can sort of understand his position... I doubt I'd get much of any pleasure from reading a book that (even in good fun) attacked/made fun of Democrats in that way... but Conservatives don't seem to do that much. Just attack books, it seems.

Books, and the lying liars that write them.

[A Black Falcon]

No, not nonsensical because you ignore the major difference between America and Europe: There's a huge drug market here, far, far larger and more virulent than Europe or Japan. Because of that, there's an exponentially larger black arms market in America than elsewhere. I don't know why you ignore or don't understand that basic fact. Do you honestly think it means nothing? Where is America's violent crime based in? Inner cities. What else thrives in America's inner cities?

Ding ding ding!

In contrast, Rural areas, which have, by far, the highest concentration of legal gun ownership and the lowest concentration of drug trade, has by far the lowest amounts of violent crime. Coincidence? No, it's obvious fact that I know you'll continue to ignore because it makes your position worth shit.

In rural areas (like this state) guns are generally for hunting... I don't really have a problem with that as long as they're registered, legal, and kept away from children (preferably with gun locks)...

Also, I don't see how getting illegal guns could be easier than getting legal ones... that doesn't make sense...

And banning handguns would help inner city violence! Sure, it'd take quite a while to get most of those guns off the streets, but if it was illegal to just have one... you'd be surprised how much crime would go down.

[Weltall]

Originally posted by A Black Falcon
In rural areas (like this state) guns are generally for hunting... I don't really have a problem with that as long as they're registered, legal, and kept away from children (preferably with gun locks)...

Also, I don't see how getting illegal guns could be easier than getting legal ones... that doesn't make sense...

And banning handguns would help inner city violence! Sure, it'd take quite a while to get most of those guns off the streets, but if it was illegal to just have one... you'd be surprised how much crime would go down.

Sure it makes sense. When you buy a gun on the black market, you get it VERY easily. No background checks, no credit checks, no sort of registration whatsoever. you just give a person cash and you walk out with a gun in 30 seconds. Easy in, easy out. Conversely, to buy a gun legally you have to pass a background check that sometimes takes weeks, you have to properly register it with all the required authorites, and in some states even take and pass a handgun safety course, all before you can purchase a legal handgun. Not only does the legal avenues take far longer to navigate, they acquire reams of information on you in the process, and best of all it often ends up being more expensive.

I hope that's as obvious to you as it is to me.

And I agree, banning handguns would help inner city violence, maybe a percentage or two. Maybe one or two fewer crimes of passion. But be serious, how many drug runners do you think go through legal routes to attain weapons, when they can get more powerful weapons for cheaper the illegal way?

[OB1]

I'm sorry, but what part of


Look, I'm all for making it VERY hard to obtain a gun legally. I steadfastly believe that only people who meet very certain criteria and have proper training and knowledge should ever own and carry a weapon.



do you not understand? What part of that translates to "abolish background checks" in OBSpeak? I'm against BANNING guns, but not background checks. Capiche?

What I'm saying is that the weapons already illegal aren't purchased legally. No background checks are performed on the buyers. Now, I know background checks help in that it forces criminals to resort to these methods to get a gun, but since the illegal methods are a lot easier than the legal methods, you can therefore, if you have a brain, see why background checks do not put much of a halt on violent crime, since a LOT of it in America is just an extension of other criminal activity, such as drugs.

Now perhaps--if there's a brain up there in your skull-- you could, in the future, actually READ my posts before you go off on your pro-gun rant. Here's what you responded to:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I said: So they should just completely abolish all background checks and make it even easier for idiots to get guns? Don't you think it would be better to try harder to prevent criminals and the like from getting guns on the black market?



Then you said: Of course I do. I'm all for cracking down on the illegal arms trade, but I see no reason at all to deprive normal citizens of their right to bear arms, when many of them do so without incident. Now read this next line carefully because the immutable logic of it either escapes your comprehension or your notice:

BANNING LEGAL WEAPONS WILL NOT STOP SALES OF WEAPONS THAT ARE ALREADY ILLEGAL.

We clear on that? I hate repeating myself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where in that post of mine did I suggest that all guns be banned? Pay attention next time, boy.

Cry me a river, Fauntleroy. I have no allegiance to a party, I think most Repubicans are too centrist and deferential to liberals. It's just that Republican ideals make sense to me.

Oh please, I don't know who you're trying to kid with that remark. You're the biggest, most extreme Republican I've ever known. Everything you say, everything you believe in, falls directly in line with what far-right conservative Republicans believe. Helping the poor is bad, the U.S. should not have good relations with the rest of the world, war is the only solution to anything, etc. Don't make me laugh, Ryan.

[A Black Falcon]

:bang:

But if you ban legal guns the places where they'd be getting illegal guns from would dry up a lot! Where do you think all those illegal guns come from? Sure, many would still get it, but the numbers would be much less... no guns to steal from people, fewer guns in gun stores to manage to get into illegal circulation... really, its not that hard to figure out...

And yes, in some ways its easier to get illegal weapons, at least in cities... but still. Crack down on all the guns and illegal ones would be limited in use too! Why is that so hard to understand?

[Weltall]

Originally posted by OB1
Now perhaps--if there's a brain up there in your skull-- you could, in the future, actually READ my posts before you go off on your pro-gun rant. Here's what you responded to:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I said: So they should just completely abolish all background checks and make it even easier for idiots to get guns? Don't you think it would be better to try harder to prevent criminals and the like from getting guns on the black market?



Then you said: Of course I do. I'm all for cracking down on the illegal arms trade, but I see no reason at all to deprive normal citizens of their right to bear arms, when many of them do so without incident. Now read this next line carefully because the immutable logic of it either escapes your comprehension or your notice:

BANNING LEGAL WEAPONS WILL NOT STOP SALES OF WEAPONS THAT ARE ALREADY ILLEGAL.

We clear on that? I hate repeating myself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where in that post of mine did I suggest that all guns be banned? Pay attention next time, boy.

When did I ever say you were in favor of banning guns? You must remember that I'm responding in tandem to one loony liberal and... well, whatever you happen to be. I get my lines crossed because of that. And in any case, you did suggest that banning guns would deal a deathblow to violent crime, what with your comparisons to Hong Kong, did you not?

Oh please, I don't know who you're trying to kid with that remark. You're the biggest, most extreme Republican I've ever known. Everything you say, everything you believe in, falls directly in line with what far-right conservative Republicans believe. Helping the poor is bad, the U.S. should not have good relations with the rest of the world, war is the only solution to anything, etc. Don't make me laugh, Ryan.

I believe what I believe. I happen to agree with the conservative Republican point of view. That does not make me a concrete loyalist of the Republican party, it's just that there are no Democrats out there who shares views with me more than their Republican opponent. Being conservative doesn't automatically make one Republican, nor is the opposite true, which is why I derise liberals and not Democrats. So let's not try and pigeonhole me, boy. :)

[Weltall]

Originally posted by A Black Falcon
:bang:

But if you ban legal guns the places where they'd be getting illegal guns from would dry up a lot! Where do you think all those illegal guns come from? Sure, many would still get it, but the numbers would be much less... no guns to steal from people, fewer guns in gun stores to manage to get into illegal circulation... really, its not that hard to figure out...

And yes, in some ways its easier to get illegal weapons, at least in cities... but still. Crack down on all the guns and illegal ones would be limited in use too! Why is that so hard to understand?

...you honestly think illegal weapons were honestly purchased somewhere down the line? There are so many guns out there, so many illegal guns out there, that even if you banned legal guns, there would still be an incredibly ample supply for the black market for decades. Banning guns may stop production of new guns but it won't make all the millions of currently existing guns disappear.

And of course, your naivete shows through again, as you seem to have no idea just how many already-illegal weapons are used in drug crimes, like Uzis, AKs, and the like, many, many of them handguns... handguns that ALREADY ARE NOT LEGAL HERE. How would a gun ban eliminate those, Professor?

[OB1]

When did I ever say you were in favor of banning guns? You must remember that I'm responding in tandem to one loony liberal and... well, whatever you happen to be. I get my lines crossed because of that. And in any case, you did suggest that banning guns would deal a deathblow to violent crime, what with your comparisons to Hong Kong, did you not?

That was in response to DJ's remark about the Bowling for Columbine documentary or something like that. When I replied to your post I was specifically referring to how the government cracked down on illegal arms dealing in Hong Kong, making it near-impossible for triads and other criminals to obtain guns.

I believe what I believe. I happen to agree with the conservative Republican point of view. That does not make me a concrete loyalist of the Republican party, it's just that there are no Democrats out there who shares views with me more than their Republican opponent. Being conservative doesn't automatically make one Republican, nor is the opposite true, which is why I derise liberals and not Democrats. So let's not try and pigeonhole me, boy.

Oh right, like how you call everyone that's not an extreme conservative a communist or an idiot? Don't try to tell me that you agree with nothing that liberals believe in. Same goes for ABF with conservatives. You two are pigeonholing yourselves.

[A Black Falcon]

Oh right, like how you call everyone that's not an extreme conservative a communist or an idiot? Don't try to tell me that you agree with nothing that liberals believe in. Same goes for ABF with conservatives. You two are pigeonholing yourselves.

So you have a better alternative?

Sure I don't agree with the Democrats on everything, but on far more than enough to make it the only real choice... the Greens can't win so that's as good as voting Republican.

[OB1]

You hate republicans and conservatives simply for being republicans and conservatives, and vice versa with Ryan. I'm sure you two could agree on a lot of issues but you would never let that happen because you've taken different sides.

[A Black Falcon]

We don't agree on much of anything. The only thing I can think of is the death penalty... sorta.

[Weltall]

Originally posted by A Black Falcon
We don't agree on much of anything. The only thing I can think of is the death penalty... sorta.

I don't remember, were you in favor of the forced slave labor alternative?

[Fittisize]

I sure'd be in favour if slave labour instead of the death penalty...

But let's not get into this debate again.

[Weltall]

Originally posted by Fittisize
I sure'd be in favour if slave labour instead of the death penalty...

But let's not get into this debate again.

It's not debatable. There is no better alternative

[A Black Falcon]

Hey... what I meant was 'that's the only issue where we're within miles of eachother' not 'we agree completely'... :)

Forced labor? I don't know... the question is, would it accomplish something, or is it just for punishment?

[Weltall]

Originally posted by A Black Falcon
Hey... what I meant was 'that's the only issue where we're within miles of eachother' not 'we agree completely'... :)

Forced labor? I don't know... the question is, would it accomplish something, or is it just for punishment?

Public works projects. It's too bad there isn't much market for hard labor that wouldn't take jobs away. Of course, there's nothing wrong with hard labor as mere punishment, either. If a person is to be incarcerated at my expense, I'd prefer they were doing something other than sitting around watching TV or playing basketball. What sort of punishment is that? And it's not as though the prisoners themselves have anything more constructive to do anyway.

Reintroduce the chain gang, I say. Hard labor every day until your last will definitely scare a few people straight.

[Great Rumbler]

Soungs like a good idea to me.

[Fittisize]

Uh, I don't think prison is all watching TV and playing basketball and working out in the yard...it's the place where the bottom rung of society are, so I'd imagine it would be very unpleasant.

[Great Rumbler]

That's what you'd think, but we live in a society that think criminals have rights or something crazy like that.

[Weltall]

Originally posted by Fittisize
Uh, I don't think prison is all watching TV and playing basketball and working out in the yard...it's the place where the bottom rung of society are, so I'd imagine it would be very unpleasant.

The rest of the time is spent in cells, and in some cases, some manual labor is done. It's just my opinion that there should be no recreation for criminals at all. They are convicted and made to do time, it should be as unpleasant as it can possibly be. I'm not saying prison is like a hotel stay, but I think that when you commit crimes against society, you should be forced to forfeit your freedom entirely for the duration of your sentence, and not a moment of it out to be pleasurable.

[A Black Falcon]

That's pretty harsh... maybe some prisoners deserve that, but not all of them. And for ones for who it is possible prisons should try a lot harder to reform them.

[Weltall]

Originally posted by A Black Falcon
That's pretty harsh... maybe some prisoners deserve that, but not all of them. And for ones for who it is possible prisons should try a lot harder to reform them.

If busting your ass 18 hours a day, seven days a week won't reform you, you're a lost cause. I know that I'd definitely think twice about doing something criminal if I knew that getting caught would mean endless days of hard labor. The best way to reform a criminal is to make inprisonment such an exhausting and constantly, utterly unpleasant experience that only the stupid would dare try criminal behavior again.

And I'm not discriminatory, I think all criminals should recieve the same treatment in this regard, the duration being longer for the more serious felons of course. Yes, it is harsh. It should be. When you break the law, you're attacking society.

[Fittisize]

Sned serious criminals to Korea to rot in a cell with 15 other guys. The minor criminals can stay in regular prisons in North America, and continue to get ass raped (that alone should be reason enough to stay out of prison).

Man have I ever heard of some pretty bad horror stories about Korean prisons. Just sickens me.

[A Black Falcon]

North Korea? Their prisons are a small step above Siberin Gulags... horrific and completely inhumane. And Weltall... I'd think that that would just make you bitter and angry, not likely to really reform...

[Weltall]

Originally posted by A Black Falcon
North Korea? Their prisons are a small step above Siberin Gulags... horrific and completely inhumane. And Weltall... I'd think that that would just make you bitter and angry, not likely to really reform...

Well, of course. It depends on the person. I really don't think most people would become bitter and hard after that though. I think most people would come out of it relieved that it's finally over and wanting to take extra caution not to end up in that situation again. Of course, it's not foolproof, but people are people regardless, and those who would be embittered by that would be embittered by any sort of punishment.

That aside, it will still serve the other main purpose, and that is as punishment for the crime committed.