Most of the people outside the prison were your typical stupid exagerated numbnuts protestors. Claiming he was "innocent" was incredibly foolish on there part, seeing as over the 24 years he was in prison leading up to his death they were never able to raise a reasonable doubt that the initial verdict of guilty was wrong.
Originally posted by Dagons BladeBut Backfire said it well in the last reply:
The problem is that many people felt that his "good deeds" weren't sincere and that he only did them to try and give himself a more positive image rather then out of a genuine desire to actually help people.
That's what killed him.
I thought it was the guy with the injection.
Originally posted by Dagons Blade
hmm, i agree with you a lot, it seems. must be because we're both canadian. 😄Guns and capital punishment are two separate issues. You're talking about the right to self defense VS. a decision made by lawmakers based on a predetermined set of actions by someone who deliberately muders someone, as where self defense is NOT deliberate.
Again, a case of the irrepsonsible acting in a way that those who are
law abiding have to suffer for their crimes. And to be fair, Michael Moore has polarized his views and gotten every soccer mom and knee jerk reactionist riled to the point that "Bowling For Columbine" is used as a guilt trip against gun owners and NRA members, and as both, I'm not listening to any of it..and I find it hypocritical in his case that he speaks so ill of guns yet has his own and has an armed bodyguard to defend him.And because of him, gun owners are looked at like the soldiers of the devil, and I refused to be labelled by someone whose motives were clearly propagandist in nature to deliberately destroy his political adversaries.
Why should MY rights, or the rights of anyone be totally removed so that we no longer enjoy what we've been doing for years? There were 99,000 dmedical malpractice deaths in America in the last 3 years, more than any one number of gun deaths in any peacetime decade in American history.
Sounds a bit odd here but I'd worry more about the licensed doctor putting me under the gas than someone with a gun. A possible chance encounter versus my life in the hands of a licensed professional...makes it a bit scarier.
hmm, okay, so here's a question: 100 people are given guns. nine of them use the guns to harmlessly shoot tin cans, the other uses his gun to kill his wife than turns it on himself. now, 99/100 people used them effectively and harmlessly. but, is that one case not sufficient to simply say no more guns when the consequences of their availability are so extreme? imagine if a painkilling drug was on the market and for every 100th bottle sold, the person who took the meds died. think it would last long on the shelf even though 99% of other people feel wonderful after taking it?
you sound as though you are making this a personal issue. it is not about 'you'. it is about the 'ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE', all the others who use them wrongfully. you have repreatedly asked the question: 'why should my gun be taken away when i have never done anything wrong and use it only for sport or protection, why should MY rights and 'enjoyment' to removed?' well, here's a question for you: why should i and my family have to suffer the risk of running into someone who does NOT use the weapon responsibly just because YOU want to feel a little safer and enjoy your gun?
Originally posted by leonidasYou could, oh I don't know, purchase a gun yourself in case such a thing happens.
hmm, okay, so here's a question: 100 people are given guns. nine of them use the guns to harmlessly shoot tin cans, the other uses his gun to kill his wife than turns it on himself. now, 99/100 people used them effectively and harmlessly. but, is that one case not sufficient to simply say no more guns when the consequences of their availability are so extreme? imagine if a painkilling drug was on the market and for every 100th bottle sold, the person who took the meds died. think it would last long on the shelf even though 99% of other people feel wonderful after taking it?you sound as though you are making this a personal issue. it is not about 'you'. it is about the 'ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE', all the others who use them wrongfully. you have repreatedly asked the question: 'why should my gun be taken away when i have never done anything wrong and use it only for sport or protection, why should MY rights and 'enjoyment' to removed?' well, here's a question for you: why should i and my family have to suffer the risk of running into someone who does NOT use the weapon responsibly just because YOU want to feel a little safer and enjoy your gun?
Originally posted by leonidas
hmm, okay, so here's a question: 100 people are given guns. nine of them use the guns to harmlessly shoot tin cans, the other uses his gun to kill his wife than turns it on himself. now, 99/100 people used them effectively and harmlessly. but, is that one case not sufficient to simply say no more guns when the consequences of their availability are so extreme? imagine if a painkilling drug was on the market and for every 100th bottle sold, the person who took the meds died. think it would last long on the shelf even though 99% of other people feel wonderful after taking it?you sound as though you are making this a personal issue. it is not about 'you'. it is about the 'ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE', all the others who use them wrongfully. you have repreatedly asked the question: 'why should my gun be taken away when i have never done anything wrong and use it only for sport or protection, why should MY rights and 'enjoyment' to removed?' well, here's a question for you: why should i and my family have to suffer the risk of running into someone who does NOT use the weapon responsibly just because YOU want to feel a little safer and enjoy your gun?
The opinion on the above situation, and one I agree with, is that whether or not a gun was available, the theoretical husband would have killed his theoretical wife anyway with whatever tools he did have had his disposal.
If someone wants to harm you or your family, they will do it with knives and their own to hands if need be. Guns don't kill people - people kill people; the idea that guns are the source of violence is irresponsible.
Also, if firearms should be taken away for public use because one man is irresponsible and if a certain type of medication should be taken away for public use because one person may die from it, why then should automobiles not be taken away because one man decided to get drunk behind the wheel? Especially when the number of automobile-related deaths and accidents every year dwarfs those related to firearms.
I just want to note that the argument that less available firearms = less firearm-related deaths is misleading rhetoric. Of course there will be less firearm-related deaths; the real issue is whether or not violent crime as a whole decreases with the absence of firearms.
Originally posted by Wanderer259
The opinion on the above situation, and one I agree with, is that whether or not a gun was available, the theoretical husband would have killed his theoretical wife anyway with whatever tools he did have had his disposal.
If someone wants to harm you or your family, they will do it with knives and their own to hands if need be. Guns don't kill people - people kill people; the idea that guns are the source of violence is irresponsible.
Thank you. But remember...Michael Moore is the world's expert on guns and when Michael Moore talks....
Originally posted by Wanderer259
Also, if firearms should be taken away for public use because one man is irresponsible and if a certain type of medication should be taken away for public use because one person may die from it, why then should automobiles not be taken away because one man decided to get drunk behind the wheel? Especially when the number of automobile-related deaths and accidents every year dwarfs those related to firearms.
Someone should have told that to Ted Kennedy. 🙂
Originally posted by Wanderer259
I just want to note that the argument that less available firearms = less firearm-related deaths is misleading rhetoric. Of course there will be less firearm-related deaths; the real issue is whether or not violent crime as a whole decreases with the absence of firearms.
DC, LA and parts of New York where handguns are banned.
High crime rates and occasional home invasion fatalities. DC also repealed the "right to shoot" law that forbade homeowners to shoot a violent home intruder. THAT was real smart too.
The absence of Firearms from homes and law abiding citizens in them encourages crime. Scholars and professors have proven this. Again, NO politician has the right to say "No Guns" when they have their own, and use them freely at police ranges and long weekend field trips where they figure out new ways to screw us over.
Originally posted by leonidas
hmm, okay, so here's a question: 100 people are given guns. nine of them use the guns to harmlessly shoot tin cans, the other uses his gun to kill his wife than turns it on himself. now, 99/100 people used them effectively and harmlessly. but, is that one case not sufficient to simply say no more guns when the consequences of their availability are so extreme? imagine if a painkilling drug was on the market and for every 100th bottle sold, the person who took the meds died. think it would last long on the shelf even though 99% of other people feel wonderful after taking it?
On the same note, isn't ONE death from illegal drugs or alcohol enough to tellyou that it's time to do something about that too,especially since their circumstances are 'so extreme' as you put it?
Guns kill but pot, booze, and LSD are OK...gotcha.
Originally posted by leonidas
you sound as though you are making this a personal issue. it is not about 'you'. it is about the 'ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE', all the others who use them wrongfully. you have repreatedly asked the question: 'why should my gun be taken away when i have never done anything wrong and use it only for sport or protection, why should MY rights and 'enjoyment' to removed?'
Why should good people be punished for the actions of others? It IS about me and others who are decent citizens. The actions of idiots are making the decent people suffer. Care to disagree?
MY right to personal protection is not contingent up on the will of YOU, Michael Moore, or the politicians. Moore shoots, the politicians do too, and some of them hunt. Aside from their status as lawmakers, they are NOT above us, and we are all entitled to the same rights. If politicians can carry and use them to hunt and target shoot, so can the people. End of story.
Perhaps you forget that most of the guns used in crime are BLACK MARKET. That means, not obtained legally. Take away all you want, but does that mean that gang bangers won't find a way to get them? NO.
So what do you accomplish? People defenseless in their homes while violent criminals run loose with more confidence than before, knowing they can practically walk in and have their way with you?
Originally posted by leonidas
well, here's a question for you: why should i and my family have to suffer the risk of running into someone who does NOT use the weapon responsibly just because YOU want to feel a little safer and enjoy your gun?
I live in a high crime area so don't speak for me about YOUR safety.
Boy, could you be any more selfish here? Laying guilt trips on me because of something that "might" happen to YOUR family? Why don't you go ahead and blame me for EVERY shooting that takes place. Book me in advance and blame me for the next riot in France too.
Would you care if it was MY family thata shooting happened to?
Probably not, because of the prevalent "better you than me" attitude we possess. As long as YOUR family is safe the rest of the world can go to hell..this is basically what you're saying. This was a very selfish and immature question aimed at guilt.
Personal crusade? NO. But the question of gun crime may have eventually come up sooner orlater since it was a shotgun that Tookie used.
By the way Leonidas, you quoted one of my posts to say that I agree with you because we're both Canadian (look a few posts up) I'm not Canadian, I'm from America. And I DON'T agree with you. You should know that by now. 🙂 It also could have been the way I tried to manually wrap the text with cut and paste style quote. Just so you know.
Oh yeah, Tookie Williams.. I read it in the newspaper here in Holland.
He was murdered by a famous moviestar called Arnold Swarzenegger..
But was it really necessary that he was still murdered even though he began to actually do something for mankind? I guess that is the reason why the rest of the world looks down on America. You have bad representatives.
They probably even forgot about the thoughts and necessities of the rules in question.
No one dares to go against the system even if it doesn't make sense anymore.... 🙄
<<Guns kill but pot, booze, and LSD are OK...gotcha.>>
don't put words in my mouth. not cool and poor debating tactics. ❌
<<Why should good people be punished for the actions of others? It IS about me and others who are decent citizens. The actions of idiots are making the decent people suffer. Care to disagree?>>
that's exactly correct. so how do we know just who IS 'responsible'? we just hope the 'good people' get them?
<<Boy, could you be any more selfish here? Laying guilt trips on me because of something that "might" happen to YOUR family? Why don't you go ahead and blame me for EVERY shooting that takes place. Book me in advance and blame me for the next riot in France too.>>
hmm, i thought it was you who wanted a a gun for the 'enjoyment'. and in the apparent event you didn't get it -- YOU is the general sense of the word. i stated it above, as YOUR is EVERY family. and you're only answer to the question is a selfish one. it ALWAYS equates to what ONE person wants. and WE empower politicians to make choices for us. don't like the lasws they make, blame democracy.
<<Would you care if it was MY family thata shooting happened to?
Probably not, because of the prevalent "better you than me" attitude we possess.>>
one of the truly more assinine statements i'v ever read on a forum, anywhere. of COURSE it would matter. ridiculous comment.
<<As long as YOUR family is safe the rest of the world can go to hell..this is basically what you're saying. This was a very selfish and immature question aimed at guilt.>>
i stand corrected -- THIS is the most assinine statement i ever read . . .
we were having a decent debate. it's degenerated. pity.
Originally posted by leonidas
hmm, okay, so here's a question: 100 people are given guns. nine of them use the guns to harmlessly shoot tin cans, the other uses his gun to kill his wife than turns it on himself. now, 99/100 people used them effectively and harmlessly. but, is that one case not sufficient to simply say no more guns when the consequences of their availability are so extreme? imagine if a painkilling drug was on the market and for every 100th bottle sold, the person who took the meds died. think it would last long on the shelf even though 99% of other people feel wonderful after taking it?you sound as though you are making this a personal issue. it is not about 'you'. it is about the 'ALL THE OTHER PEOPLE', all the others who use them wrongfully. you have repreatedly asked the question: 'why should my gun be taken away when i have never done anything wrong and use it only for sport or protection, why should MY rights and 'enjoyment' to removed?' well, here's a question for you: why should i and my family have to suffer the risk of running into someone who does NOT use the weapon responsibly just because YOU want to feel a little safer and enjoy your gun?
What next ban knives.......Gun control is hitting what you aim at🙂 Anyway taking guns away from the people that obey the law isn't the answer........the reason is that if people use guns illegally do you think they care if they break the law to obtain them?
Originally posted by leonidasIt's easy to say something is degenerated, assinine, etc... when you don't have anything to reply with them too.
<<Guns kill but pot, booze, and LSD are OK...gotcha.>>don't put words in my mouth. not cool and poor debating tactics. ❌
<<Why should good people be punished for the actions of others? It IS about me and others who are decent citizens. The actions of idiots are making the decent people suffer. Care to disagree?>>
that's exactly correct. so how do we know just who IS 'responsible'? we just hope the 'good people' get them?
<<Boy, could you be any more selfish here? Laying guilt trips on me because of something that "might" happen to YOUR family? Why don't you go ahead and blame me for EVERY shooting that takes place. Book me in advance and blame me for the next riot in France too.>>
hmm, i thought it was you who wanted a a gun for the 'enjoyment'. and in the apparent event you didn't get it -- YOU is the general sense of the word. i stated it above, as YOUR is EVERY family. and you're only answer to the question is a selfish one. it ALWAYS equates to what ONE person wants. and WE empower politicians to make choices for us. don't like the lasws they make, blame democracy.
<<Would you care if it was MY family thata shooting happened to?
Probably not, because of the prevalent "better you than me" attitude we possess.>>one of the truly more assinine statements i'v ever read on a forum, anywhere. of COURSE it would matter. ridiculous comment.
<<As long as YOUR family is safe the rest of the world can go to hell..this is basically what you're saying. This was a very selfish and immature question aimed at guilt.>>
i stand corrected -- THIS is the most assinine statement i ever read . . .
we were having a decent debate. it's degenerated. pity.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
[pot] doesn't and most importantly, hasn't killed.Just a little bit of info to consider when discussing it.
-AC
yes it does kill. didnt you see the commercial where the kid is stoned and playing with his dads gun? or the one where we learn that smoking a joint contributes to terrorism, thus 9-11 was caused by potheads? dont you even watch tv? 😉
Originally posted by PVS
yes it does kill. didnt you see the commercial where the kid is stoned and playing with his dads gun? or the one where we learn that smoking a joint contributes to terrorism, thus 9-11 was caused by potheads? dont you even watch tv? 😉
I can't stand those commercials.
They are straight up lies and people know it.
90% of the weed that people smoke is grown right here in the U.S.
Usually by someone they know who knows someone else who knows someone that grows it in his god damn living room.
I can see a drunk kid acting stupid and blowing his own brains out, but a high kid on weed I don't know. Must have been a major dumbshit to begin with. Watch Denis Leary's Merry F*cken Christmas to get more insight on that.
But yeah, those commercials are really reaching, and in a way I don't personally think is affective.