Ken and NIU, when they have their own state/country (State of Ted Nugent/Texas), they can shoot one another till there's no longer an issue.

Dear CHIP ENEMA,
Absolutely correct.

Dear Chip1RO,
Yes there was study by the CDC during Obama's second term, but it was rather inconclusive for both sides of the argument of gun violence in America. The one statement coming out of that report that seemed important was; "The United States has a indisputable gun violence problem".
To further study the issue in 2014 and 2015, President Obama requested ten million dollars, however, the republican controlled House of Representatives blocked the requested funding.
Going back to the Trump controlled CDC, the current administration has told the CDC if they want any kind of funding for certain research. they (CDC) may not use the following words: vulnerable, entitlement, diversity, transgender, fetus, evidence-based, and science-based. In the existence of the CDC they have never been told to not use certain words. How's that for having freedom of speech?

(08-18-2019 01:58 PM)Ken Barna Wrote:  Dear Chip1RO,
Talk about not knowing the Constitution. Your wonderful Second Amendment gives you the right to keep weapons. What about giving the right to women to vote?
What about giving former slaves their freedom? Can't wait for some more you know what to come.

Well if you would read the text, you’d see -

The 19th Amendment:

“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

Once again the specific language of the passage does not explicitly grant a right it recognizes the pre-existing right of all citizens to vote. It doesn’t say “women now have the right to vote.” There are literally dozens of scholarly articles, written by constitutional experts that argue the same position I’m talking - the Constitution doesn’t grant rights, it only recognizes pre-existing rights. Just read the Declaration of Independence. The founders states that people are “Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights...” they certainly wouldn’t have written that if they believed rights come from the gov.

(08-18-2019 02:23 PM)CHIPPEWA ENEMA Wrote:  Ken and NIU, when they have their own state/country (State of Ted Nugent/Texas), they can shoot one another till there's no longer an issue.

Actually, like I said before the vast majority of gun violence is inner city, drug and gang related. Us legal gun owners, aren’t the problem. Coincidentally, the cities that produce the most gun violence are governed by dems and have been for many decades.

(08-18-2019 02:45 PM)Ken Barna Wrote:  Dear CHIP ENEMA,
Absolutely correct.

Dear Chip1RO,
Yes there was study by the CDC during Obama's second term, but it was rather inconclusive for both sides of the argument of gun violence in America. The one statement coming out of that report that seemed important was; "The United States has a indisputable gun violence problem".
To further study the issue in 2014 and 2015, President Obama requested ten million dollars, however, the republican controlled House of Representatives blocked the requested funding.
Going back to the Trump controlled CDC, the current administration has told the CDC if they want any kind of funding for certain research. they (CDC) may not use the following words: vulnerable, entitlement, diversity, transgender, fetus, evidence-based, and science-based. In the existence of the CDC they have never been told to not use certain words. How's that for having freedom of speech?

https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/unpu...-annually/


Also, you haven’t answered my question Ken. I explained how many more lives are saved with guns than taken with guns and asked you why you want so many more people to die. Well why, Ken? Why do you want 20x more people to die at the hand of criminals? Why do you and the other dems have such a bloodlust?

Dear Chip1RO,
So what? That article tries to justify having a weapon, and considering the source, of course they are going to take that position. That was part of the CDC study of gun violence and what they found. However, that does nothing to answer the fact that further studies were denied by the republicans, that we have a gun violent society, and that the CDC today is being hamstrung by the Trump administration.
Please, your semantics about our Constitution are just that. If, we had no government to enforce the Constitution you would not enjoy any of the rights that we have.

(08-18-2019 03:09 PM)Ken Barna Wrote:  Dear Chip1RO,
So what? That article tries to justify having a weapon, and considering the source, of course they are going to take that position. That was part of the CDC study of gun violence and what they found. However, that does nothing to answer the fact that further studies were denied by the republicans, that we have a gun violent society, and that the CDC today is being hamstrung by the Trump administration.
Please, your semantics about our Constitution are just that. If, we had no government to enforce the Constitution you would not enjoy any of the rights that we have.

Ken, why would you need further studies? The CDC has already given the answer. I’m glad it was denied, no need to waste my money.

The Constitution is a legal document. Semantics is LITERALLY EVERYTHING when it comes to legal documents. Don’t believe me? Ask an attorney. Come on, Ken!

Look I can respect your opinion - you think that eliminating 2A will save lives and that’s a noble initiative, but we need to let data drive our policy not emotion. The data is clear - guns save more lives than they take. You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts.

Dear Chip1RO,
It's too bad you cannot see the trees because of the forest. Do you really think one inconclusive study proves anything about gun violence? You are totally wrong when it comes to the Constitution. You need a form of enforcement, and that is the government. Without the government one cannot have any rights, and it was formed as part of the Constitution for that very reason.
You are not entitled to your own set of facts. But you probably got your rationale from Kelly Ann Conway when she stated there are alternative facts. You fit right into the republican BS that has been spouted by your leader Trump.

(08-18-2019 04:44 PM)Ken Barna Wrote:  Dear Chip1RO,
It's too bad you cannot see the trees because of the forest. Do you really think one inconclusive study proves anything about gun violence? You are totally wrong when it comes to the Constitution. You need a form of enforcement, and that is the government. Without the government one cannot have any rights, and it was formed as part of the Constitution for that very reason.
You are not entitled to your own set of facts. But you probably got your rationale from Kelly Ann Conway when she stated there are alternative facts. You fit right into the republican BS that has been spouted by your leader Trump.

Actually there’s been at least two studies by the CDC, one wasn’t released to the public (see link above) but they both came to the same conclusion. So...kind of conclusive.

Once again, calling me “wrong about the Constitution” is not an argument. Please articulate a reasoned argument using objective facts as I have done repeatedly in this thread.

No one is disputing that the gov protects people’s fundamental rights. As a matter of fact that’s one of the few specific jobs the gov is assigned. I’m simply saying that since our rights come from our creator not from the gov, then we have those rights even if the constitution didn’t exist.

Ken I haven’t watched network television in years. I get my rationale from this thing called critical thinking - it’s a lost art these days, certainly lost on you.

I’ll let you in on a little secret, Ken. I have a compelling interest in the Constitution because I took an oath to defend it. I spent the better part of a decade in the Army by way ROTC at CMU. Before I took that oath I read and reread and studied the Constitution and Federalists Papers because I wanted to know exactly what I was signing up to defend. When I see people so eager to surrender their fundamental rights the words of P. Mccree Thornton come to my mind:

“To those who have fought for it, freedom has a flavor that the protected will never know.”

I propose we do background checks on all Asians before they are allowed to drive (that's how silly some of the arguments are here).

Dear Chip1RO,
Where does the creator talk about all of these pre-existing rights that are in the Constitution? I have never been aware that they were in existence. Maybe you could tell me where to find them.

(08-18-2019 06:46 PM)Ken Barna Wrote:  Dear Chip1RO,
Where does the creator talk about all of these pre-existing rights that are in the Constitution? I have never been aware that they were in existence. Maybe you could tell me where to find them.

I’m so glad you asked that, Ken. I’d be happy to explain.

One need only look to The Ten Commandments which contain prohibitions against such things as murder and theft. So, If God has ordained that murder is a grave sin doesn’t that naturally imply that one has an inalienable right to life? And if one has an inalienable right to life shouldn’t then that person have the right to defend that life? Same goes for theft and an individuals right to property. The Mosaic Law is also full of examples of how God expects everyone to be treated justly.

Our Founders drew heavily on biblical principles and the philosophy of natural rights when crafting the constitution.

Dear Chip1RO,
Sorry, but the Ten Commandments doesn't cover the right to bear arms, or the right to free speech, or any of the Bill of Rights. As I said earlier, Biblical quotes can be interpreted to fit any justification one wants. However, that does not make them right, correct, or complete. That is what you have tried to do with the Ten Commandments.

(08-19-2019 07:03 AM)Ken Barna Wrote:  Dear Chip1RO,
Sorry, but the Ten Commandments doesn't cover the right to bear arms, or the right to free speech, or any of the Bill of Rights. As I said earlier, Biblical quotes can be interpreted to fit any justification one wants. However, that does not make them right, correct, or complete. That is what you have tried to do with the Ten Commandments.

Ken, that’s your opinion. Our founding fathers had a very different one. I respect your opinion, but you need to work on your debate skills, brother. I provided a logical, reasoned argument explaining how 2A was derived from the biblical principles in the Ten Commandments....and your only response is basically “No that’s wrong.” PLEASE ARTICULATE A REASONED ARGUMENT TO THE CONTRARY. YOUR OPINION IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. Also, the Ten Commandments are pretty straight forward....”Thou thalt not kill” not too many different ways to interpret that.

I’m not sure what it is with the left today, but it’s like you all share this impenetrable ignorance...even when presented with facts, logic, and reason. It’s disheartening to think that so many people can’t think for themselves.

[quote='Ken Barna' pid='16243607' dateline='1566216236']
Dear Chip1RO,
Sorry, but the Ten Commandments doesn't cover the right to bear arms, or the right to free speech, or any of the Bill of Rights. As I said earlier, Biblical quotes can be interpreted to fit any justification one wants. However, that does not make them right, correct, or complete. That is what you have tried to do with the Ten

Also, please answer the question I’ve presented to you multiple times.

It is clear that more deaths would occur If we eliminated 2A - more lives are saved through defensive use of firearms than are taken by criminal use of firearms. The argument isn’t even academic, we have examples of nations that have banned guns and seen skyrocketing violent crime - UK and Australia.

So why is it that you and the left at large want so many people to die? Why do you people have such a bloodlust? It’s terrifying.

Dear Chip1RO,
Talk about not answering questions. You have avoided most of my comments because you have no answers. Whether you like it or not, your continued asinine support of a comment from one study, shows so much of your credulity that you have lost it. You are a prime example of Captain Queeg, when at the court martial of one of his subordinates, lost it with his supposed geometric logic.

(08-19-2019 08:40 AM)Ken Barna Wrote:  Dear Chip1RO,
Talk about not answering questions. You have avoided most of my comments because you have no answers. Whether you like it or not, your continued asinine support of a comment from one study, shows so much of your credulity that you have lost it. You are a prime example of Captain Queeg, when at the court martial of one of his subordinates, lost it with his supposed geometric logic.

I have responded to you on a point by point basis throughout our discussion.

And once again nothing you wrote is even close to a logical argument, just the rambling and incoherent opinions of a partisan, closed minded fool with an impenetrable ignorance and seemingly deep seeded disdain for our founding principles.

(08-18-2019 05:54 PM)CHIPPEWA ENEMA Wrote:  I propose we do background checks on all Asians before they are allowed to drive (that's how silly some of the arguments are here).

Asians and immigrants too. And anybody else that doesn't look like us. They're the reason for all the problems we have today including unemployment, climate change, and sucky fast food.

(08-19-2019 10:46 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(08-18-2019 05:54 PM)CHIPPEWA ENEMA Wrote:  I propose we do background checks on all Asians before they are allowed to drive (that's how silly some of the arguments are here).

Asians and immigrants too. And anybody else that doesn't look like us. They're the reason for all the problems we have today including unemployment, climate change, and sucky fast food.

(08-18-2019 09:31 AM)Ken Barna Wrote:  Dear Chip1RO.
First of all, the Constitution does grant rights, that's why it was written. I've read parts of the Federalist papers, and it's just like quoting the Bible or any other of many documents. You can take any kind of interpretation to fit your argument. The argument comparing malpractice, etc., is stupid because it has nothing to do with gun deaths. As they say that is a straw man argument.
As far as using statistics from the CDC, that is a right wing organization whose objectivity is questionable at best.
Lastly, why do you want to see so many people die (and they will) with your continued adherence to allow people to have any weapon they want, as NIU007 said.

Ken,

Lay off the whiskey man. Since when is the CDC right wing? You spew some pretty biased things on this forum, but you are better than this.