Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[TemplarKormac]

Just curious. For those of you who have been posting here for a while has any liberal among you actually come up with a plan?

As evidenced by Joe's citations of a flawed study way back in this thread, no. The only plan is "take the guns."

 

[Pogo]

Just curious. For those of you who have been posting here for a while has any liberal among you actually come up with a plan?

The question is stupid.

Not your question; I mean the OP question.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Just curious. For those of you who have been posting here for a while has any liberal among you actually come up with a plan?

The question is stupid.

Not your question; I mean the OP question.

Argumentum ad hominem. That's not like you, Pogo.

 

[Pogo]

Just curious. For those of you who have been posting here for a while has any liberal among you actually come up with a plan?

The question is stupid.

Not your question; I mean the OP question.

Argumentum ad hominem. That's not like you, Pogo.

No it's not, but that's not ad hom. I didn't even name a person. The subject of the sentence is argument. I made no judgement on the person who presented it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The question is stupid.

Not your question; I mean the OP question.

Argumentum ad hominem. That's not like you, Pogo.

No it's not, but that's not ad hom. I didn't even name a person. The subject of the sentence is argument. I made no judgement on the person who presented it.

A literal translation of argumentum ad hominem means to "attack the source."

 

[Pogo]

Argumentum ad hominem. That's not like you, Pogo.

No it's not, but that's not ad hom. I didn't even name a person. The subject of the sentence is argument. I made no judgement on the person who presented it.

A literal translation of argumentum ad hominem means to "attack the source."

Uh-- no, it doesn't. It means "argument to the (hu)man". (homimen / homo sapiens)

Or whatever that thing is in the OP in this case.

 

[OKTexas]

So if you're walking down the street and forget to check your six and someone gets the drop on you and shoots you in the back of the head...it's your fault for not checking your six?

Damn, now you're sounding like a child, setting new standards for the ridiculous.

The answer from you guys is constant vigilance and being able to defend yourself. Apparently anyone who gets shot is responsible for because they didn't shoot the other guy first.

It's ridiculous to think that guns make you safer given the statistics. It's also ridiculous that we expect the victims of gun violence to simply budget for the assault without any built-in system to compensate those who are wrongly shot.

Call me names all you wish...it's all you got left.

Do you really want to go there, holding society liable for the actions of individuals, what about the people who are victims of the knockout game, should we compensate them, or people who have their car stolen and crashed in a high speed chase? I could keep going but then I would be acting just as absurd as you.

 

[Bumberclyde]

So, you admit that the current gun control laws don't work. Obviously an accident, because it puts you on the correct side. Now, do YOU have anything else?

I'm asking NRA/gun yahoos if they even have a plan to keep guns out of criminals' hands.

And ya, I have something: stop selling bullets. There's no constitutional protection for bullets.

I answered this question. Read the OP. We CANNOT keep guns out of criminals hands. Our position is people should be allowed to defend themselves.

And again you are committing the routine leftists fallacy of if we don't want your socialist government solution, we need to think of an alternate socialist government solution. We support a liberty solution.

And your argument that bullets are not covered by the 2nd amendment is well into retarded, of course they are.

Show me which part of the second amendment covers bullets.

 

[kaz]

I'm asking NRA/gun yahoos if they even have a plan to keep guns out of criminals' hands.

And ya, I have something: stop selling bullets. There's no constitutional protection for bullets.

I answered this question. Read the OP. We CANNOT keep guns out of criminals hands. Our position is people should be allowed to defend themselves.

And again you are committing the routine leftists fallacy of if we don't want your socialist government solution, we need to think of an alternate socialist government solution. We support a liberty solution.

And your argument that bullets are not covered by the 2nd amendment is well into retarded, of course they are.

Show me which part of the second amendment covers bullets.

"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"

 

[kaz]

Just curious. For those of you who have been posting here for a while has any liberal among you actually come up with a plan?

The question is stupid.

Not your question; I mean the OP question.

And yet you can't answer it. You did say you want to change the gun culture, but you can't answer how to do that either. I'm waiting for that one, how you're going to get ganstas & red necks & gun collectors & sportsmen & hunters & hobbyists to say wow, guns, eew...

So what's your plan?

 

[kaz]

The question is stupid.

Not your question; I mean the OP question.

Argumentum ad hominem. That's not like you, Pogo.

No it's not, but that's not ad hom. I didn't even name a person. The subject of the sentence is argument. I made no judgement on the person who presented it.

True, but that was probably your first post that wasn't ad hominem in the discussion...

 

[TemplarKormac]

No it's not, but that's not ad hom. I didn't even name a person. The subject of the sentence is argument. I made no judgement on the person who presented it.

A literal translation of argumentum ad hominem means to "attack the source."

Uh-- no, it doesn't. It means "argument to the (hu)man". (homimen / homo sapiens)

Or whatever that thing is in the OP in this case.

Did you come here to mince words with me or actually argue the point? That's funny, all liberals do is attack the person, the point and not the argument.

 

[kaz]

So if you're walking down the street and forget to check your six and someone gets the drop on you and shoots you in the back of the head...it's your fault for not checking your six?

Damn, now you're sounding like a child, setting new standards for the ridiculous.

The answer from you guys is constant vigilance and being able to defend yourself. Apparently anyone who gets shot is responsible for because they didn't shoot the other guy first.

It's ridiculous to think that guns make you safer given the statistics. It's also ridiculous that we expect the victims of gun violence to simply budget for the assault without any built-in system to compensate those who are wrongly shot.

Call me names all you wish...it's all you got left.

If we allow people to defend themselves, that's blaming them if they do not successfully do it. That argument sounded good to you.

So BTW, you're to blame by your logic for every gun death that happens now. The police drawing lines around victims and making a few inquiries to see if they can figure out who did it isn't working, there are still gun deaths. So since that's your solution and you say if your solution doesn't work ever then you're to blame. By your logic, every murder in this country is your personal fault.

What a stupid argument, grow up.

 

[kaz]

A literal translation of argumentum ad hominem means to "attack the source."

Uh-- no, it doesn't. It means "argument to the (hu)man". (homimen / homo sapiens)

Or whatever that thing is in the OP in this case.

Did you come here to mince words with me or actually argue my point?

He's the one who argued that when I said he called me female he said I was a liar because he didn't use the word female, he called me "she." He's the one who says the op is stupid because the right solution is to change the gun culture, but he has no plan to accomplish that. He's the one who says he isn't calling me names when he calls me "Cousin It."

Dude, he's here to mince words.

 

[Bumberclyde]

I answered this question. Read the OP. We CANNOT keep guns out of criminals hands. Our position is people should be allowed to defend themselves.

And again you are committing the routine leftists fallacy of if we don't want your socialist government solution, we need to think of an alternate socialist government solution. We support a liberty solution.

And your argument that bullets are not covered by the 2nd amendment is well into retarded, of course they are.

Show me which part of the second amendment covers bullets.

"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"

Arms are not bullets, you're doing what's known as "wishful thinking".

 

[kaz]

Show me which part of the second amendment covers bullets.

"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"

Arms are not bullets, you're doing what's known as "wishful thinking".

What you talking about, willis.

You're delusional. Of course bullets are arms. And not allowing people to buy them would clearly be infringing on their right to bear arms. And clearly they did not mean that people could have guns but not bullets. You're not good at word parsing, give this one up.

 

[Bumberclyde]

"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed"

Arms are not bullets, you're doing what's known as "wishful thinking".

What you talking about, willis.

You're delusional. Of course bullets are arms. And not allowing people to buy them would clearly be infringing on their right to bear arms. And clearly they did not mean that people could have guns but not bullets. You're not good at word parsing, give this one up.

Arms aren't even necessarily guns, you could be armed with a bow and arrow. A baseball bat...

 

[Pogo]

A literal translation of argumentum ad hominem means to "attack the source."

Uh-- no, it doesn't. It means "argument to the (hu)man". (homimen / homo sapiens)

Or whatever that thing is in the OP in this case.

Did you come here to mince words with me or actually argue the point? That's funny, all liberals do is attack the person, the point and not the argument.

Look TK, yer fuckin' wrong, you posted a Latin translation that's outright bullshit, man up and admit it. Jesus Christ on a frickin' bicycle!

What the fuck is wrong with you, dood? Defend your misapplication of logical fallacy for which you offer a bullshit translation nobody's ever come up with before. Holy shit that's dishonest. And then doubling down with a blanket statement too?

Worst post ever, TK. Fix that or don't waste my time.

 

[Pogo]

Just curious. For those of you who have been posting here for a while has any liberal among you actually come up with a plan?

The question is stupid.

Not your question; I mean the OP question.

And yet you can't answer it. You did say you want to change the gun culture, but you can't answer how to do that either. I'm waiting for that one, how you're going to get ganstas & red necks & gun collectors & sportsmen & hunters & hobbyists to say wow, guns, eew...

So what's your plan?

I've told you throughout this sorryass thread, Kazzin It, your question is inoperative. That's why you're not getting an answer. Have you stopped beating your wife/husband/SO of indeterminate gender? Answer that.

Longest thread ever that goes absolutely nowhere.

 

[Pogo]

Uh-- no, it doesn't. It means "argument to the (hu)man". (homimen / homo sapiens)

Or whatever that thing is in the OP in this case.

Did you come here to mince words with me or actually argue my point?

He's the one who argued that when I said he called me female he said I was a liar because he didn't use the word female, he called me "she." He's the one who says the op is stupid because the right solution is to change the gun culture, but he has no plan to accomplish that. He's the one who says he isn't calling me names when he calls me "Cousin It."

Dude, he's here to mince words.

Your ARE a liar. You posted a bunch of shit attributed to me, when I called you on it you couldn't produce it, and later you shifted to acknowledge what I actually did say. You don't have an honest bone in your indeterminate gender body. And now you've got TK getting in the mud with you, posting absolute horseshit and blaming it on "liberals".

Dishonest scumbuckets like you make me puke.