Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
The John Byrne Forum
Byrne Robotics > The John Byrne Forum << Prev Page of 20 Next >>
Topic: Again and again. (Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post ReplyPost New Topic
Author
Message
Brian Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 July 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 30897
Posted: 13 June 2016 at 5:02pm | IP Logged | 1  

It would have had to happen that he'd been twice cleared of the charges. It's a failure of the FBI to properly determine  what he was.

*********

I totally agree. That was the point of my post. Marcio's insistence that the US Govt stay out of gun rights is the right way to do it. It's not, and it fails on many levels. To suggest it's working is ludicrous.

Back to Top profile | search
 
Marcio Ferreira
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 September 2008
Location: Brazil
Posts: 2518
Posted: 13 June 2016 at 5:04pm | IP Logged | 2  

Robbie Parry, should I remind you that Brian Miller does not speak for me when he writes nonsense? I never said these things. 

Back to Top profile | search
 
Brian Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 July 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 30897
Posted: 13 June 2016 at 5:05pm | IP Logged | 3  

See how political correctness and the insistence on not address radical Islam as the great evil that is for the world contributed to the massacre in Orlando

****************

Donald?

Back to Top profile | search
 
Marcio Ferreira
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 September 2008
Location: Brazil
Posts: 2518
Posted: 13 June 2016 at 5:07pm | IP Logged | 4  

Since Brian Miller cannot have an adult conversation, and has been more than once disrespectful to me, he leaves no alternative but to put him on the ignore list.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Brian Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 July 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 30897
Posted: 13 June 2016 at 5:09pm | IP Logged | 5  

Robbie Parry, should I remind you that Brian Miller does not speak for me when he writes nonsense? I never said these things. 

***************

You said it in this very thread, Marcio!!! 

 Marcio wrote:

What is the difference, for you, of a legal civil union that has exact the same rights/ obligations of a marriage? Is just the word? Is it the religious aspect? I remember that thread and someone (not you apparently) said that it would be too dificult impossible to attain that goal (exact same rights/ obligations between civil union and marriage). Well, I am not a specialist on laws, I just things that it would be the right thing to do. The reason is because "marriage" is a religious institution, not a civil one. The word come from the union a male and a female to share genetic material and produce children. 
If the matter is to have same sex union recognized by society, I am all for it (remember, same legal rights/obligations).

 
Show me in these words of yours where you say you are not against gay marriage.
 
You were a bigot in the previous thread and you're a bigot now. Nothing's changed.


Edited by Brian Miller on 13 June 2016 at 5:09pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
Brian Skelley
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 14 February 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 231
Posted: 13 June 2016 at 5:09pm | IP Logged | 6  

 Brian Miller wrote:
Marcio's insistence that the US Govt stay out of gun rights is the right way to do it. It's not, and it fails on many levels. To suggest it's working is ludicrous.

Ah.. I missed it. Honestly I have a tendency to gloss over most of his posts (as I'm sure most do mine) as I find his views to be a bit tilted. The Government should be heavily involved in the restrictions of guns. While they have become a bit more than just killing machines (it is a sport in the Olympics) they should be heavily regulated. Who else but the Government has the ability to do such a task.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Brian Miller
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 28 July 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 30897
Posted: 13 June 2016 at 5:11pm | IP Logged | 7  

There ya go, Marcio. Put me on ignore and run away.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Robbie Parry
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 June 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12186
Posted: 13 June 2016 at 5:11pm | IP Logged | 8  

Thanks Brian. Seems clear-cut to me. 
Back to Top profile | search
 
Lance Hill
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 22 April 2005
Posts: 991
Posted: 13 June 2016 at 5:16pm | IP Logged | 9  


 QUOTE:
Remember that the terrorists in Paris did not have a lot of trouble obtaining guns illegaly.


They obtained the guns. But what makes you think it wasn't difficult?

It doesn't mean that Omar Mateen, or other "lone wolf" mass shooters would have been savvy or connected enough to illegally obtain powerful firearms on the black market.

No law can eradicate any crime entirely. The idea is to make it as difficult as possible for the criminals, to make sure that there are safety measures in place to protect the general public.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Robbie Parry
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 17 June 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12186
Posted: 13 June 2016 at 5:21pm | IP Logged | 10  

No law can eradicate any crime entirely. 

***

Exactly. 

People who say "bad guys will always get guns if firearms are outlawed" are akin, in a certain sense, to people who would say "drink driving will always be a problem so we may as well legalize drink driving". Maybe not the best comparison, but comes across like that. 
Back to Top profile | search
 
Dave Phelps
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4178
Posted: 13 June 2016 at 5:27pm | IP Logged | 11  

 Marco Ferreira wrote:
A Muslim can murder 50 homossexuals and liberals still defend their religion, but a Christian who refuses to bake a homossexual's wedding cake endures nation wide shaming on behalf of his religion.


How is that equivalent? If the "nation wide shaming" was applied to all Christian bakers and there were calls for non-homophobic bakers to speak out against their homophobic brethren (while of course ignoring all of the ones who have) you might have a point.

All people are saying is that the actions of one person do not define those of everyone who falls under whatever category you decide is the most important one to list someone under.    


 QUOTE:
If the government cannot do right its basic function (provide security) and arrest the people that are a danger to others, why do you think they would do gun control right?


If you insist upon 100% perfection in all things, you will be sorely disappointed in life. And averted shootings, especially ones prevented by keeping the shooter from getting a gun in the first place, don't receive nearly the air coverage the successful ones do.

Until this past weekend, this guy was just a loudmouth. Are you really saying the Government should have put him away for that? Or kept him under constant surveillance after investigating him and finding nothing? It's the nature of the beast that being an asshole isn't an arrestable offense; someone has to actually DO something first. Expecting the Government to be TOO proactive is a recipe for that police state you're so concerned about.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Marcio Ferreira
Byrne Robotics Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 September 2008
Location: Brazil
Posts: 2518
Posted: 13 June 2016 at 5:28pm | IP Logged | 12  

Lance Hill, about safety measures:

GUN FREE ZONES - How they worked in the Orlando attack? It certainly worked for law abiding citizens, not for the terrorist.

FBI - The killer was investigated, twice. And how the government worked out on that? Failed. 

GUN CONTROLS - The killer worked for a security company, meaning, he had access to guns. His co-worker said he was a nut job, but (perhaps) people thought that the co-worker was just being islamophobic and did nothing. The terrorist found about his co-worker allegation and started threatening the guy, who eventualy resigned.

The belief that government control works is just an empty faith. And a dangerous one. People should never surrender their right to defend themselves. Look at what happened to Suzanna Hupp and tell me if you think government did it right when they took her right to defend herself and her family (LINK to the video).

Back to Top profile | search
 

<< Prev Page of 20 Next >>
  Post ReplyPost New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login