Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes, you are one of "those" people that think things should be easy and free (paid for by blood and effort from someone other than yourself) and not require putting up any effort or fight at all. Your right to welfare is is a dictate in the constitution, correct?
Uh.... nnnnnnnnnno. And your strawman has nothing to do with my post at all.
Why don't you respect your own Ignore button; you obviously can't handle this.
I'm not clear what your actual point is, Pogo, can you boil it down?
Uh.... nnnnnnnnnno. And your strawman has nothing to do with my post at all.
Why don't you respect your own Ignore button; you obviously can't handle this.
I'm not clear what your actual point is, Pogo, can you boil it down?
I did that in post 1116. And I got a nice red herring for it, just in time for lunch. ::urp::
Something about "welfare", which has zero to do with the good-vs-evil dichotomy that I actually posted about.
Btw I agree with your previous post, the drug dealer analogy. We can't address cultural values by throwing laws at them. We should have learned that with Prohibition.
Who gives a fuck what the Slave-Rapists who wrote it thought. It's what WE think it is now that matters. This original intent bullshit doesn't fly with me.
If any one wants the links to the research in this video, go to http://www.freedomainradio.com
Adam Lanza having access to mommy's arsenal doesn't work for us. Get it?
I do get it. You're just a really shitty problem solver. Taking guns away from people that aren't dangerous doesn't prevent what Adam Lanza did. Not only should he have not had a gun, I would debate his mother shouldn't have either. Those two people however have nothing to do with the literally millions of other responsible gun owners.
If any one wants the links to the research in this video, go to http://www.freedomainradio.com
Good video, mister beale. I like the way they put the Europe argument, correlation doesn't prove causation. Saying "The UK" isn't an argument.
[
There ARE no rights. Never were. There is what society will let you have.
You really are about a fucking idiot, aren't you?
Have you never read ANY of our Founding Documents?
Do you not understand the very basis that ALL of our Founding Documents stand on?
It's called "Natural Law".
You're just a nasty little man that needs to be locked up somewhere.... Permanently
[
I do get it. You're just a really shitty problem solver. Taking guns away from people that aren't dangerous doesn't prevent what Adam Lanza did. Not only should he have not had a gun, I would debate his mother shouldn't have either. Those two people however have nothing to do with the literally millions of other responsible gun owners.
[No, that's EXACTLY what they do, when they fight against background checks, waiting periods, and more importantly, market military grade weapons to the civilian market. The purpose is to keep Nancy Lanza just scared enough so she wants to buy more guns, too.
My debate skills are the problem? The above would be considered nothing more the unsubstantiable, unevidenced opinion in high school debate. Not only that, the evidence you did feabily attempt to support it with was a flat out lie. You claimed it was from a gun manufacturer yet provided no evidence as to where it came from at all. Don't tell me I'm the one that would fail at high school debate.
No, design is probably the overriding factor. While the car makers are striving to make their products safer every year, the gun makers are striving to make their products deadlier.
Again unsubtantiable opinon. Unsuported and in fact contradicted. If it were true that design mattered, than guns ought to be the number one killer in america by your defintion. They are not.
Guy, I understant it perfectly,
There ARE no rights. Never were. There is what society will let you have.
And if you happened to be Japanese in January 1942, you were basically fucked. They could take all your shit and lock you up in a camp for the duration of the war. And everyone thought it was a wonderful idea at the time.
Just because someone's rights were deprived, unjustifiably I might add, does not prove rights don't exist.
[
I do get it. You're just a really shitty problem solver. Taking guns away from people that aren't dangerous doesn't prevent what Adam Lanza did. Not only should he have not had a gun, I would debate his mother shouldn't have either. Those two people however have nothing to do with the literally millions of other responsible gun owners.
The problem is, there isn't a gun owner who isn't potentially dangerous because there isn't a person who isn't potentially dangerous.
Earlier, one of the mutants (the one who uses a Confederate Flag as a avi and doesn't feel the least bit embarrassed by it) said he wishes HE had been at that indicent with the bikers and the SUV driver.
Now think about it. None of those people had criminal records, none of them were even really bad people. But a combination of fear, anger and bad judgement resulted in a rather bad situation. Now imagine if they had guns.
[
My debate skills are the problem? The above would be considered nothing more the unsubstantiable, unevidenced opinion in high school debate. Not only that, the evidence you did feabily attempt to support it with was a flat out lie. You claimed it was from a gun manufacturer yet provided no evidence as to where it came from at all. Don't tell me I'm the one that would fail at high school debate.
Uh, guy, there's no dispute that the Gun Manufacturers run the NRA.
This Is How The Gun Industry Funds The NRA - Business Insider
And whenever somene proposes even the most modest gun laws, the NRA is out there trying to defeat it.
Well, no, you see when you kill someone with a gun, the police treat it as a crime. Car accidents are largely excused. So, no, not really. Frankly, the "Cars are worse" argument is kind of lame. People use their cars every day. Most people do not use their guns every day.
Guy, I understant it perfectly,
There ARE no rights. Never were. There is what society will let you have.
And if you happened to be Japanese in January 1942, you were basically fucked. They could take all your shit and lock you up in a camp for the duration of the war. And everyone thought it was a wonderful idea at the time.
Just because someone's rights were deprived, unjustifiably I might add, does not prove rights don't exist.
No, it proves they are a figment.
Old Ito probably thought he had rights. Until he got the notice he was going to a concentration camp for the duration. No trial. no right to his property.
Now, if there were rights that were CLEARLY understood by everyone, the courts would have found this wrong. Ummm. Nope. The SCOTUS found in Korematsu vs. US that the government was completely within its power to incarcerate 110,000 people for no other reason than their ancestory. And I'll bet they even took away their guns.
Incidently, I wouldn't go so far as to say it was "unjustifiable". We were at war. The invasion of the West Coast was a plausible thing. And given the Axis powers found collaborators in every country they occuppied or invaded, probably a good idea to lock up the people you weren't sure of.
[
Now, if there were rights that were CLEARLY understood by everyone, the courts would have found this wrong. Ummm. Nope. The SCOTUS found in Korematsu vs. US that the government was completely within its power to incarcerate 110,000 people for no other reason than their ancestory. And I'll bet they even took away their guns.
Incidently, I wouldn't go so far as to say it was "unjustifiable". We were at war. The invasion of the West Coast was a plausible thing. And given the Axis powers found collaborators in every country they occuppied or invaded, probably a good idea to lock up the people you weren't sure of.
As to guns are designed tio kill argument and that that is all they are good for, we have over 300 million guns in private hands yet less than 11000 murders a year, kinda proves your claim is absolute BULLSHIT.
And again since according to you , guns are designed solely to kill why woiuld insurance pay for a firearm doing its job? You have yet to display for us a defective firearm.
It's sad that you don't think human beings have it in them to prevent 10,000 deaths a year (Sgt's stat--we all know the actual number is much higher)
Adam Lanza having access to mommy's arsenal doesn't work for us. Get it?
I do get it. You're just a really shitty problem solver. Taking guns away from people that aren't dangerous doesn't prevent what Adam Lanza did. Not only should he have not had a gun, I would debate his mother shouldn't have either. Those two people however have nothing to do with the literally millions of other responsible gun owners.
That is it in a nutshell. Liberals like Joe and Candy are convinced that the solution to mass shootings is taking guns away from people who aren't shooting anyone. They can't explain it, they don't have an argument for it other than just assuming it's true. But they believe it as strongly as water is wet.
I do get it. You're just a really shitty problem solver. Taking guns away from people that aren't dangerous doesn't prevent what Adam Lanza did. Not only should he have not had a gun, I would debate his mother shouldn't have either. Those two people however have nothing to do with the literally millions of other responsible gun owners.
That is it in a nutshell. Liberals like Joe and Candy are convinced that the solution to mass shootings is taking guns away from people who aren't shooting anyone. They can't explain it, they don't have an argument for it other than just assuming it's true. But they believe it as strongly as water is wet.
I heard an interesting commentary on this debate a few days ago that I found had merit. The common denominator in all these mass shootings is not guns. The commonality in all these mass shootings is a PERSON with a history of mental issues. Lanza, Loughner, etc. All were screwed up in the head. So was the gal who went on a rampage with here car in DC recently. You'll notice the media isn't covering this and people like Joe aren't screaming for the ban of cars. Same type of situation, she just used a car instead of a gun. Anyway, way back in the day it used to be legal to commit people involuntarily to a mental health care facility. I believe it was Kennedy that made that illegal, so now people can only voluntarily commit themselves. That needs to be the national focus. What do we do with these people with sever mental illness that are a danger to themselves and society? No one seems to want to talk about that.
The problem is, there isn't a gun owner who isn't potentially dangerous because there isn't a person who isn't potentially dangerous.
Earlier, one of the mutants (the one who uses a Confederate Flag as a avi and doesn't feel the least bit embarrassed by it) said he wishes HE had been at that indicent with the bikers and the SUV driver.
Now think about it. None of those people had criminal records, none of them were even really bad people. But a combination of fear, anger and bad judgement resulted in a rather bad situation. Now imagine if they had guns.
Uh, guy, there's no dispute that the Gun Manufacturers run the NRA.
This Is How The Gun Industry Funds The NRA - Business Insider
And whenever somene proposes even the most modest gun laws, the NRA is out there trying to defeat it.
Well, no, you see when you kill someone with a gun, the police treat it as a crime. Car accidents are largely excused. So, no, not really. Frankly, the "Cars are worse" argument is kind of lame. People use their cars every day. Most people do not use their guns every day.
No, it proves they are a figment.
Old Ito probably thought he had rights. Until he got the notice he was going to a concentration camp for the duration. No trial. no right to his property.
Now, if there were rights that were CLEARLY understood by everyone, the courts would have found this wrong. Ummm. Nope. The SCOTUS found in Korematsu vs. US that the government was completely within its power to incarcerate 110,000 people for no other reason than their ancestory. And I'll bet they even took away their guns.
Incidently, I wouldn't go so far as to say it was "unjustifiable". We were at war. The invasion of the West Coast was a plausible thing. And given the Axis powers found collaborators in every country they occuppied or invaded, probably a good idea to lock up the people you weren't sure of.
That is it in a nutshell. Liberals like Joe and Candy are convinced that the solution to mass shootings is taking guns away from people who aren't shooting anyone. They can't explain it, they don't have an argument for it other than just assuming it's true. But they believe it as strongly as water is wet.
I heard an interesting commentary on this debate a few days ago that I found had merit. The common denominator in all these mass shootings is not guns. The commonality in all these mass shootings is a PERSON with a history of mental issues. Lanza, Loughner, etc. All were screwed up in the head. So was the gal who went on a rampage with here car in DC recently. You'll notice the media isn't covering this and people like Joe aren't screaming for the ban of cars. Same type of situation, she just used a car instead of a gun. Anyway, way back in the day it used to be legal to commit people involuntarily to a mental health care facility. I believe it was Kennedy that made that illegal, so now people can only voluntarily commit themselves. That needs to be the national focus. What do we do with these people with sever mental illness that are a danger to themselves and society? No one seems to want to talk about that.
Your point has merit in drawing attention to the mentality rather than the object. A disturbed mental state is certainly by definition required for such an event. But so equally is a gun -- you cannot have a shooting without a gun. So clearly both are required.
The underlying root cause goes back to a collective mental state, i.e. the national gun fetish. A gun cannot kill without some wacko wielding it. But the wacko who does so chooses that method because of the cultural obsession with that instrument, which as an endless diarrhea of TV cop shows and movies and sensationalist media all remind us daily, is a remarkably efficient way to blow people away from a distance. If that's what one's mental state demands.
The problem lies not in our guns but in ourselves. To our own cultural icon we are underlings.
I heard an interesting commentary on this debate a few days ago that I found had merit. The common denominator in all these mass shootings is not guns. The commonality in all these mass shootings is a PERSON with a history of mental issues. Lanza, Loughner, etc. All were screwed up in the head. So was the gal who went on a rampage with here car in DC recently. You'll notice the media isn't covering this and people like Joe aren't screaming for the ban of cars. Same type of situation, she just used a car instead of a gun. Anyway, way back in the day it used to be legal to commit people involuntarily to a mental health care facility. I believe it was Kennedy that made that illegal, so now people can only voluntarily commit themselves. That needs to be the national focus. What do we do with these people with sever mental illness that are a danger to themselves and society? No one seems to want to talk about that.
Your point has merit in drawing attention to the mentality rather than the object. A disturbed mental state is certainly by definition required for such an event. But so equally is a gun -- you cannot have a shooting without a gun. So clearly both are required.
The underlying root cause goes back to a collective mental state, i.e. the national gun fetish. A gun cannot kill without some wacko wielding it. But the wacko who does so chooses that method because of the cultural obsession with that instrument, which as an endless diarrhea of TV cop shows and movies and sensationalist media all remind us daily, is a remarkably efficient way to blow people away from a distance. If that's what one's mental state demands.
The problem lies not in our guns but in ourselves. To our own cultural icon we are underlings.
I wouldn't go so far as to say we have a gun fetish. To me that's something people say when someone like me gets adamant about being allowed to have one. But that doesn't constitute a fetish. While I have a few guns, I'm not enamored with guns. I don't even think the Loughners and Lanza's of the world are enamored with guns. I think they were enamored with hurting people. I would grant you that their mental condition probably left them more suscieptible and influenced by media portrayal of them.
Your point has merit in drawing attention to the mentality rather than the object. A disturbed mental state is certainly by definition required for such an event. But so equally is a gun -- you cannot have a shooting without a gun. So clearly both are required.
The underlying root cause goes back to a collective mental state, i.e. the national gun fetish. A gun cannot kill without some wacko wielding it. But the wacko who does so chooses that method because of the cultural obsession with that instrument, which as an endless diarrhea of TV cop shows and movies and sensationalist media all remind us daily, is a remarkably efficient way to blow people away from a distance. If that's what one's mental state demands.
The problem lies not in our guns but in ourselves. To our own cultural icon we are underlings.
I wouldn't go so far as to say we have a gun fetish. To me that's something people say when someone like me gets adamant about being allowed to have one. But that doesn't constitute a fetish. While I have a few guns, I'm not enamored with guns. I don't even think the Loughners and Lanza's of the world are enamored with guns. I think they were enamored with hurting people. I would grant you that their mental condition probably left them more suscieptible and influenced by media portrayal of them.
Uhh.... hello? Look around you...
Btw AFAIK neither Loughner nor Lanza (nor Holmes, Klebold, etc etc etc) had a history of "hurting people". What was much more in their history is a feeling of powerlessness. There's a clue right there.
I do get it. You're just a really shitty problem solver. Taking guns away from people that aren't dangerous doesn't prevent what Adam Lanza did. Not only should he have not had a gun, I would debate his mother shouldn't have either. Those two people however have nothing to do with the literally millions of other responsible gun owners.
That is it in a nutshell. Liberals like Joe and Candy are convinced that the solution to mass shootings is taking guns away from people who aren't shooting anyone. They can't explain it, they don't have an argument for it other than just assuming it's true. But they believe it as strongly as water is wet.
I heard an interesting commentary on this debate a few days ago that I found had merit. The common denominator in all these mass shootings is not guns. The commonality in all these mass shootings is a PERSON with a history of mental issues. Lanza, Loughner, etc. All were screwed up in the head. So was the gal who went on a rampage with here car in DC recently. You'll notice the media isn't covering this and people like Joe aren't screaming for the ban of cars. Same type of situation, she just used a car instead of a gun. Anyway, way back in the day it used to be legal to commit people involuntarily to a mental health care facility. I believe it was Kennedy that made that illegal, so now people can only voluntarily commit themselves. That needs to be the national focus. What do we do with these people with sever mental illness that are a danger to themselves and society? No one seems to want to talk about that.
The underlying root cause goes back to a collective mental state, i.e. the national gun fetish
