I have seen the light

You cannot shout FIRE in a crowded theater without creating havoc. Yet you aren't recommending that people have their voice boxes removed and be rendered unable to speak lest they choose to shout FIRE in a crowded theater.

You can own a high capacity semi or fully automatic weapon however without harming a soul. And 99.9% of those who own them harm nobody with them.

Let's focus on the idiot who shouts FIRE in the theater and the guy who irresponsibly or maliciously uses any kind of weapon and stop THEM from creating havoc instead of presuming to limit law abiding, responsible citizens in the freedoms they have.

People need their voiceboxes to communicate.

WHy would one need a high capacity semi or fully automatic weapon that a 10 round weapon can not do for them?

I have been trying to get an answer from M 14 but he seems to only want to generalize and talk about not "needing to give need when exercising his right"

Why do you need a larynx when you can write or learn sign language?

And a lot of folks for one reason or the other HAVE to use sign language. If everybody did then we would never have to worry about anybody shouting FIRE in a crowded theater would we.
 
You do not need to show "need" when exercising your right...I agree.
So why do you keep asking me to?
I told you why I have them. You can accept that, or not.

And as for my second question.....so you agree you are not qualified to have a debate...
No... I said exactly what I said.
What I said is a truism, as a 'reasoned discussion' requires substantive facts to back ones' premise. If you cannot provide sibstantive facts to back your premise - or refute that offered by someone else, you cannot have a reasoned discussion.
You cannot offer substantive facts if you know nothing about the subject

Now, you can either respond to what I actually said, or you can be put on ignore for blatant intellectual dishonesty.

In other words, you really cant asnwer the first question without looking like an ass and you are so baffled by my second question that you opted to punt.

You are one of those "I am always right" fools on this board who are an embarrassment to those of us on the right side of the debate.

Ignore? Nah...You are way too entertaining to put on ignore.
 
People need their voiceboxes to communicate.

WHy would one need a high capacity semi or fully automatic weapon that a 10 round weapon can not do for them?

I have been trying to get an answer from M 14 but he seems to only want to generalize and talk about not "needing to give need when exercising his right"

Why do you need a larynx when you can write or learn sign language?

That is a silly question and not helpful in this debate.

Why is it that my desire to hear your side of the debate is ebing met with sarcasm and no answers?

I am on the fence with this and I would like some info....but jeez...everone prefers to just "be right" and not educate.

It's no sillier than asking why you need a 20 round magazine when a 10 round magazine is available.
 
I have been converted, years of common sense conservative and republican thought have won me over. I am saved. But I will need help as I transition a mind lost so long in liberalism. So please correct any lingering liberal ideas as I reform myself.

I now believe: Freedom is all you need and government should leave us alone. The Federal deficit started in 2009. Unions and teachers are the fault of our educational woes. Fannie and Freddie all by themselves caused the financial meltdown. The unemployed are not looking for jobs and are lazy to boot. Taxes are bad bad bad. Corporations are the best and really honest people. Global warming is a fraud made up by tree huggers. Our founding principles were perfect, Ms Bachmann showed me the way. Slavery was really kinda nice. Social Security, Medicare, and Healthcare are socialism. Minimum wage is too high and outsourcing is just great. Joe McCarthy was just one super guy. And Sarah, Glenn, and Michelle Bachmann are super patriots who really know history. Any criticism of American policy is anti American hate. Am I right so far?

So fellow conservatives, republicans, tea partyers, and righties, what have I missed? Help me see more of the light.

I am sensing a tone here in your comment....private message me the secret code word for Feb....I want to see if you are legit in your conversion...:tongue:
 
I have been converted, years of common sense conservative and republican thought have won me over. I am saved. But I will need help as I transition a mind lost so long in liberalism. So please correct any lingering liberal ideas as I reform myself.

I now believe: Freedom is all you need and government should leave us alone. The Federal deficit started in 2009. Unions and teachers are the fault of our educational woes. Fannie and Freddie all by themselves caused the financial meltdown. The unemployed are not looking for jobs and are lazy to boot. Taxes are bad bad bad. Corporations are the best and really honest people. Global warming is a fraud made up by tree huggers. Our founding principles were perfect, Ms Bachmann showed me the way. Slavery was really kinda nice. Social Security, Medicare, and Healthcare are socialism. Minimum wage is too high and outsourcing is just great. Joe McCarthy was just one super guy. And Sarah, Glenn, and Michelle Bachmann are super patriots who really know history. Any criticism of American policy is anti American hate. Am I right so far?

So fellow conservatives, republicans, tea partyers, and righties, what have I missed? Help me see more of the light.

With your caricature of conservatism, there really is no reason to question why you are a progressive. It's not that your dumb. It's just that you've learned so many things that simply aren't so. There is a huge web of misinformation and premises you need to untangle.

It's a shame you aren't willing to actually learn some things and ask questions. But then you might actually have to give up the misinformation. and it may make you unsure and insecure. I understand why people want to avoid that.
 
Ah, yes....the way ReRon loved America.....by launching class-warfare!!!
(...As a distraction from GREED.)​

"We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion that the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one!" - Ronald Reagan, 1964

HERE

Sure, Cause he was the one trying to steal from those who worked to earn their keep to give to those who didn't..
 
In order for President Obama to be "Reaganesque", he would have to become a traitor to the nation and violate the constitution.

I don't see him doing that.

Then you have your head so deep in the sand that you must be getting fed by some Chinese peasants.

And violating the Constitution isn't Reaganesque.
 
There are truths and there are lies.

These things actually exsist in the world.

You are intitiled to your own oppinions but not your own truths.


There are no death panels in the HC bill.

Obama is not a socialist.

The HC bill is not a governement take over.


Fanny and freddy did not cause the economic meltdown.

Obama is a natural American citizen.




Just because someone chooses to believe lies does not make the lies truths.

Considering every example you used except the last is a lie, i think you should probably take your own advice.
 
Again...WOW! With all that's goin' on in the world....:lol:

Checkout O'buzzards swat teams on oil rigs...

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkTyRPm7ZOg&feature=player_embedded[/ame]
 
Last edited:
It ignores the health and safety of the resident family and concentrates all the blame for the mayhem on the intruder.
Yes -- Damn that homeowner for having things worth stealing - clearly, its HIS fault that the criminal broke in.
:cuckoo:

You do realize that you are talking to someone who thinks exactly that. There is an element of people in both parties who have no compunction using the force of government to rob from people who work for their money to give to those that dont, IE, Themselves.

It's always the people who work's fault that they have money while those robbers don't.

Robbers aren't any different just because they use government power to commit their crimes against the people. If they blame the person with positions to justify using government force to take those possessions, why would thinks change simply by eliminating the government factor?
 
It ignores the health and safety of the resident family and concentrates all the blame for the mayhem on the intruder.
Yes -- Damn that homeowner for having things worth stealing - clearly, its HIS fault that the criminal broke in.
:cuckoo:

You do realize that you are talking to someone who thinks exactly that. There is an element of people in both parties who have no compunction using the force of government to rob from people who work for their money to give to those that dont, IE, Themselves.

It's always the people who work's fault that they have money while those robbers don't.

Robbers aren't any different just because they use government power to commit their crimes against the people. If they blame the person with positions to justify using government force to take those possessions, why would thinks change simply by eliminating the government factor?
I'm talking about blame for the mayhem. You're over reaching to find some political point that just ain't there. You will serve yourself better if you just read what's in front of you and stop stretching a point to the breaking point.
 
Yes -- Damn that homeowner for having things worth stealing - clearly, its HIS fault that the criminal broke in.
:cuckoo:

You do realize that you are talking to someone who thinks exactly that. There is an element of people in both parties who have no compunction using the force of government to rob from people who work for their money to give to those that dont, IE, Themselves.

It's always the people who work's fault that they have money while those robbers don't.

Robbers aren't any different just because they use government power to commit their crimes against the people. If they blame the person with positions to justify using government force to take those possessions, why would thinks change simply by eliminating the government factor?
I'm talking about blame for the mayhem. You're over reaching to find some political point that just ain't there. You will serve yourself better if you just read what's in front of you and stop stretching a point to the breaking point.

So it's mayhem to shoot a fucking criminal breaking into your home so as to rape your wife and burn your house down?

A person defending himself does not cause mayhem because anything he does is caused by the fucking criminal who is violating the rights of the victim.
 
There are truths and there are lies.

These things actually exsist in the world.

You are intitiled to your own oppinions but not your own truths.


There are no death panels in the HC bill.

Obama is not a socialist.

The HC bill is not a governement take over.


Fanny and freddy did not cause the economic meltdown.

Obama is a natural American citizen.




Just because someone chooses to believe lies does not make the lies truths.

Considering every example you used except the last is a lie, i think you should probably take your own advice.

Nope every one of those is true and you are a partisan hack who denies reality to keep believing in ideas that are proven failures to the world.
 
You do realize that you are talking to someone who thinks exactly that. There is an element of people in both parties who have no compunction using the force of government to rob from people who work for their money to give to those that dont, IE, Themselves.

It's always the people who work's fault that they have money while those robbers don't.

Robbers aren't any different just because they use government power to commit their crimes against the people. If they blame the person with positions to justify using government force to take those possessions, why would thinks change simply by eliminating the government factor?
I'm talking about blame for the mayhem. You're over reaching to find some political point that just ain't there. You will serve yourself better if you just read what's in front of you and stop stretching a point to the breaking point.

So it's mayhem to shoot a fucking criminal breaking into your home so as to rape your wife and burn your house down?

A person defending himself does not cause mayhem because anything he does is caused by the fucking criminal who is violating the rights of the victim.
If, in the obvious confusion and stress of a situation like an intruder (you added the hyperbole about rape and arson, but let's play along), you decide the best course of action is to fire your semi-automatic handgun with a 30 round clip, I'd say (as most reasonable people might) that there would be MAYHEM.

Or, in your world, does this scenario just add up to a typical Wednesday?

Be honest
 

Forum List

Back
Top