Ron Paul 2008 Revolution

[Outsiders71]

Freedom of speech never put a hole through an innocent person's head. That's why it will never be fought. Guns can and have. MANY times. The US is under absolutely no threat of internal uprising or invasion. None whatsoever. There is no legitimate reason to own an assault rifle or a submachine gun. The only thing those weapons have brought the country is violence.

Guns are not just for government uprising, but also to protect your life, your families life and your property.

Where do people like you get off thinking that if we just get rid of the 2nd amendment all the guns will just disappear? They won't! Instead the same evil people will find ways to get these guns, while the innocent are helpless to evil people with guns...

I agree that assault rifles or submachine guns aren't necessary and that there needs to be more restrictions on who is capable of purchasing a gun.

 

[SirKristoff]

Rattler, so not many citizens have been killed my machine gun fire.
that doesnt make any relevence to the situation.
ANY gun can kill someone.
not just machine guns, so get your mind off of that one way track.
As i said, after i moved to the US my father quickly got into collecting firearms.
i do not believe they should be illegal, but i do believe there should be a bit more control on those who own them.
and last time i checked, even though the gun was used by the person, the person doesnt do the killing, the bullet from the gun does.
i can see weapons being used for wars and whatnot
but petty stuff in the streets is rediculus
you said you live near a city with the highest murder rate per capita.
actually, if you pay attention, Jacksonville Florida is the highest now.
and i lived there for 14 years, pleanty of shootings with semi automatic or automatic weapons
statistics are just observations and guesses
not facts.
and remember, the language you are using when you go off on a rant shows the lack of maturity you possess, so how about you tone that down and act like a young adult with some dignity?
knives vs guns
guns have one soul purpose.
to harm or kill another being
knives however, are used for art, cookings, killing(yes i know), clearing stuff out of the way in woods, etc etc etc.
as someone said earlier, i doubt someone would be cutting their steak with an MP5 i believe is what they said.
lol that made my day, i would pay to see that. but it is true, we dont use guns for our food, unless we are hunting. i am getting way off of topic now
but Rattler, if your going to argue with others, come up with a semi-intelligent arguement that does not involve profanity
do yourself a favor and stick a bar of soap in that mouth of yours, or in this case, wash your hands.

 

[Outsiders71]

Remember, not very long ago "marriage" was modified to allow people of different races to marry.

Marriage has and always been defined as a covenant between a MAN and a WOMAN. The definition or meaning of the word marriage never changed when interracial marriages occurred. What you meant to say is that interracial marriages were frowned upon in the past and now has gained some acceptance in todays culture, which has nothing to do with the definition of marriage...

Keeping gay people from having the financial and legal protections of marriage is just as wrong as it was to keep interracial couples from having them, as we did for hundreds of years. Sometimes "tradition" is a crock.

I'm pretty sure I typed this...THEY DO DESERVE THE SAME FINANCIAL AND LEGAL PROTECTIONS! It just shouldn't be defined as "gay marriage" because marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman. The definition of gay marriage doesn't even make sense:

Two people of the same sex, either both male or female, a covenant between a man and a woman.

If civil union isn't good enough, make up a new term because using the words gay and marriage is an oxymoron.

 

[rattler]

Kristoff....you and Wurm are new to these forums.....use the search function and you will find an awefully long discussion about firearms. you to seem unintereted in facts you want to control guns but not all guns. you cant decide what kind of guns should be banned.....you say machine guns, something which Wurm brought up not me, hell i wasnt the one who brought up the gun control issue, i was specifically staying away from it as it had no bearing on the discussion. i prove law abiding ppl with machine guns dont kill ppl and you say it has no bearing on the discussion though they were the main example brought up. what it boils down to is that CRIMINALS MURDER PPL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS DONT! gun laws do nothing but take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens while the criminals get to keep theirs.what more control do you want on who owns them, it is illegal and punishable by jail time for felony offenders to own a gun. seems like that should do it. no need for more laws.

 

[SirKristoff]

Kristoff....you and Wurm are new to these forums.....use the search function and you will find an awefully long discussion about firearms. you to seem unintereted in facts you want to control guns but not all guns. you cant decide what kind of guns should be banned.....you say machine guns, something which Wurm brought up not me, hell i wasnt the one who brought up the gun control issue, i was specifically staying away from it as it had no bearing on the discussion. i prove law abiding ppl with machine guns dont kill ppl and you say it has no bearing on the discussion though they were the main example brought up. what it boils down to is that CRIMINALS MURDER PPL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS DONT! gun laws do nothing but take guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens while the criminals get to keep theirs.what more control do you want on who owns them, it is illegal and punishable by jail time for felony offenders to own a gun. seems like that should do it. no need for more laws.

show me where i said they should ban ANY gun what so ever
i said they need to enforce it, get it right before you try to argue with me
i dont care how new to these forums i am
the fact of the matter is that you cannot argue much less debate with anyone
you cannot get your facts or your story right if your life depended on it.

 

[Capslock]

No, Outsiders, I meant the definition changed. Not "acceptance" or anything. The legal definition changed when racism fell out of fashion and the denial of marriage rights to interracial couples became offensive. Similarly, nowadays it seems absurd to deny these things between gay couples. Apparently you approve of gay marriage, however, as you support the legal equality of gay couples and straight couples. But remember, "marriage" as we are discussing it is not a "covenant" among anyone. It is, rather, a legal contract with the state that confers financial and legal benefits and responsibilities upon the couple. Gay couples have homes, have kids, have family troubles, face hospital stays, and have every need for these protections just like straight couples. It is the same thing, and it seems more than a bit absurd to hang onto the "man and woman" part (minus the "of the same race" that used to be in there) as if it's somehow what's important. What's important is the stability and protections it offers families. There's no need to call it anything else. "Separate but equal" never is.

Capslock

 

[SirKristoff]

No, Outsiders, I meant the definition changed. Not "acceptance" or anything. The legal definition changed when racism fell out of fashion and the denial of marriage rights to interracial couples became offensive. Similarly, nowadays it seems absurd to deny these things between gay couples. Apparently you approve of gay marriage, however, as you support the legal equality of gay couples and straight couples. But remember, "marriage" as we are discussing it is not a "covenant" among anyone. It is, rather, a legal contract with the state that confers financial and legal benefits and responsibilities upon the couple. Gay couples have homes, have kids, have family troubles, face hospital stays, and have every need for these protections just like straight couples. It is the same thing, and it seems more than a bit absurd to hang onto the "man and woman" part (minus the "of the same race" that used to be in there) as if it's somehow what's important. What's important is the stability and protections it offers families. There's no need to call it anything else. "Separate but equal" never is.

Capslock

well said Caps.

 

[rattler]

thats right Caps.......................gay ppl have every right to be just as miserable as us straight married ppl :grin:

 

[Capslock]

ROFL Rattler! Excellent!

Capslock

 

[Clint]

I like these videos. I think it sums up the situation.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=dyXEaR-qdyg
http://youtube.com/watch?v=TrwAUV8Ofcc
http://youtube.com/watch?v=niUsik0NQmc

The second is my favorite lol.

Didn't we try that "separate but equal" thing once already? It's just a matter of time before we are awarded the same rights as everyone else. It WILL happen, the question is when.

 

[Outsiders71]

No, Outsiders, I meant the definition changed. Not "acceptance" or anything. The legal definition changed when racism fell out of fashion and the denial of marriage rights to interracial couples became offensive.

Interracial Marriage and Mixed Race Heritage
Prohibiting Interracial Marriage and “Mongrelization”
• 1661 Maryland law
– White-black marriage banned
• 1880-1948 California Civil Code
– bans marriage between a white person and “a Negro, Mulatto or Mongolian”; Filipinos added in 1933 (13 other states follow suit)
• 1922-31 Cable Law
– female citizens lost their citizenship if they married “aliens ineligible for citizenship”
– Brenda Wong Aoki’s discovery of her Grand Uncle Gunjiro’s girlfriend
• 1967 Loving v Virginia
– Supreme Court rules that states cannot outlaw interracial marriage

Sigh... the definition of marriage never changed. Here's the legal definition of marriage:

"marriage n. the joining of a male and female in matrimony by a person qualified by law to perform the ceremony (a minister, priest, judge, justice of the peace, or some similar official), after having obtained a valid marriage license (which requires a blood test for venereal disease in about a third of the states and a waiting period from one to five days in several). The standard age for marriage without parental consent is 18 except for Georgia and Wyoming where it is 16, Rhode Island where women can marry at 16, and Mississippi in which it is 17 for boys and 15 for girls. More than half the states allow marriages at lesser ages with parental consent, going as low as 14 for both sexes in Alabama, Texas and Utah. Marriages in which the age requirements are not met can be annulled. Fourteen states recognize so-called "common law marriages" which establish a legal marriage for people who have lived together by agreement as husband and wife for a lengthy period of time without legal formalities."

It doesn't matter what race the female or male are as long as they aren't the same sex they don't violate the definition of marriage.

Similarly, nowadays it seems absurd to deny these things between gay couples.

Is there a record playing?

Apparently you approve of gay marriage

No, I believe gay unions should have the same legal equality as a marriage.

But remember, "marriage" as we are discussing it is not a "covenant" among anyone. It is, rather, a legal contract with the state that confers financial and legal benefits and responsibilities upon the couple.

The definition is above.

Gay couples have homes, have kids, have family troubles, face hospital stays, and have every need for these protections just like straight couples.

Gay couples don't have kids, they adopt them.

It is the same thing, and it seems more than a bit absurd to hang onto the "man and woman" part (minus the "of the same race" that used to be in there) as if it's somehow what's important. What's important is the stability and protections it offers families. There's no need to call it anything else. "Separate but equal" never is.

Capslock

The history of interracial marriage cannot draw parallels to gay marriage.

I think it's absurd you want to remove the "man and woman" part because that's the basis of the definition. If I decided to call the color red, blue that would be ridiculous, because RED is RED and BLUE is BLUE. RED can't be modified and defined as BLUE, it's already RED. I think "Different but equal under law" is a better fit.

 

[Outsiders71]

Didn't we try that "separate but equal" thing once already? It's just a matter of time before we are awarded the same rights as everyone else. It WILL happen, the question is when.

You're not after rights, you're after forcing social acceptance using the law. If gays were really passionate about rights they could have had them by now.

 

[Clint]

If kids are in our custody, that means we have kids. Different but equal? If RED is RED and BLUE is BLUE, how can DIFFERENT be EQUAL?

We are socially accepted dude. Turn on the TV. We're everywhere. Lots of people hate us, but just as many if not more love us. They think we're fun

In all honesty, marriage and the law don't belong together in the first place. All unions should be civil, not religious, if licenses are involved. Why do you really care if we call it "marriage" anyway if you've already said we deserve the same right? If you don't want gay marriage, don't marry a man.

 

[Outsiders71]

If kids are in our custody, that means we have kids.

Having kids usually entails conceiving and birthing of a child. Adopting kids into your custody is what you do.

Different but equal? If RED is RED and BLUE is BLUE, how can DIFFERENT be EQUAL?

RED is a color. BLUE is a color. They are the same in terms of being a color. They are different as in the color they are. Just as marriage and gay unions should have the same legal rights, but are different.

We are socially accepted dude. Turn on the TV. We're everywhere. Lots of people hate us, but just as many if not more love us. They think we're fun

Then why wouldn't the term "civil union" or "gay union" which states "The union of two men or two women" which have the SAME EXACT legal rights as a marriage be good enough?

 

[Clint]

Sort of how black and white schools were different, but still "equal"? This is about segregation man. It's gender discrimination. Did you see my videos?

 

[Capslock]

Hey Outsiders, acceptance is already here. Homosexual couples are legal. There's nothing that anyone can do about it. So this is not about "acceptance". It's about legal equality. Marriage laws have NOTHING to do with a "man and a woman" as they are exclusively about legal and financial responsibilities - which do not have a gender. The entire purpose of marriage is to provide incentives to monogamy to provide stability to families, to provide legal protections in the interests of the children, to provide for the division of property after a death, and to facilitate fair taxation, among other things. Nothing in there is exclusive to "a man and a woman", and in fact I challenge you to indicate one aspect of the marriage laws in which the gender of the couple is relevant. I bet you can't.

Furthermore, gay marriage is already with us. The following nations have legal gay marriage: Belgium, Canada, South Africa, Spain and the Netherlands. In the USA, gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts and Iowa. The world has not fallen apart. Nothing bad has happened. The sky did not fall.

And yes, gay couples have children. I didn't say they conceived them, but they are the legal parents of kids. And as such, they need and deserve the same legal protections.

Capslock

 

[Finch]

MMM I was paying attention to studying this weekend so I dent devote any brainpower to arguments with you yet, rattler, I would like to now but im afraid a gay marriage –abortion- Hillary Clinton -gun rights (been around long enough to know not touch that one, to tell the truth) - politics- global warming is far too much for me in one sitting.

~ on my friend, got a call from him and he’s ok. Pretty messed up, but he’ll be fine got knocked pretty bad. He was not wearing a seatbelt (dumb***), and that would have meant no injuries for him but you know where I stand on those so I wont go into it.

 

[Outsiders71]

Sort of how black and white schools were different, but still "equal"? This is about segregation man. It's gender discrimination. Did you see my videos?

It's a shame the gay community can't walk on their own two legs and instead ride on the coat tails of the African Americans of the 1960's. These two scenarios are NOT the SAME!

The segregation of two different races into separate schools were not equal. Gay couples who decide to have a civil union and are given the same rights as a married couple is equal. The names are different because the relationships are different. If I said that I'm a gay male and am heterosexual does that make sense? Homosexual and heterosexual are TWO DIFFERENT things and in terms of sexuality are equal.

 

[DrWurm]

Gay marriage feels like a Dr. Seuss book topic for me. It's that incredibly obvious.

LET THEM GET MARRIED!

 

[SirKristoff]

Yeah, if two people love eachother, who is to say they cannot themselves regardless of gender be married?
Gay marriage should be allowed.