Liberal logic

[jknowgood]

 

[gipper]

There are a couple misconceptions in your OP.

1. "Liberal logic" is an oxymoron.

2. Liberals don't realize that not only cops will have guns, should their tyrannical policies be imposed. The political elite, oligarchy, and criminals will too. The rest of us are screwed...including many liberals.

I suspect you agree with this.

 

[Stratford57]

Hillary attracts women (the stupid ones though) by saying: "I'll stand for women!" Nobody knows how, but a lot of dummies believe her. Now here would be Hillary's chance to show how she stands for the women: the wives, mothers and sisters of the cops who were shot on duty, protecting "peaceful protesters". Did Hillary ever say a word of support specifically to those women? Or may be Hillary means she is going to chose herself which women she will stand for?

Just another example of liberal "logic".

 

[IcebergSlim]

There are a couple misconceptions in your OP.

1. "Liberal logic" is an oxymoron.

2. Liberals don't realize that not only cops will have guns, should their tyrannical policies be imposed. The political elite, oligarchy, and criminals will too. The rest of us are screwed...including many liberals.

I suspect you agree with this.

You are addressing a guy who needs to remind himself, and you, of his sexual orientation.....

 

[Moonglow]

There are a couple misconceptions in your OP.

1. "Liberal logic" is an oxymoron.

2. Liberals don't realize that not only cops will have guns, should their tyrannical policies be imposed. The political elite, oligarchy, and criminals will too. The rest of us are screwed...including many liberals.

I suspect you agree with this.

Stop being the poor pussy victim then...

 

[Moonglow]

There are a couple misconceptions in your OP.

1. "Liberal logic" is an oxymoron.

2. Liberals don't realize that not only cops will have guns, should their tyrannical policies be imposed. The political elite, oligarchy, and criminals will too. The rest of us are screwed...including many liberals.

I suspect you agree with this.

You are addressing a guy who needs to remind himself, and you, of his sexual orientation.....

They always have a gun to play with..even if it doesn't fire buwetts...

 

[Iceweasel]

We've always had guns but liberals blame access to guns for the recent problems after many years of enacting liberal policies. It used to be much easier to get guns, you could even mail order them.

We have had federal background checks in place since the 90s but they think background checks will solve the problems.

They believe that having a gun increases your odds of getting shot with your gun is a valid point. Sort of like driving a car increases the odds of you getting into an auto accident.

 

[Crick]

Liberal Logic: cops are racist murderers
Liberal Logic: only cops should have guns

1) Some cops do appear to be racist murderers; they've been caught on video committing racist murders. This is not true of all cops and no one claims that it is. However, you would probably get a higher estimate of the proportion of racist cops from black Americans than you would from white liberal Americans. Since the opinions of black Americans on this topic are often from direct personal experience, I would have to give it some significant authority.

2) The maximal gun-control point of view is that NO ONE should have guns; police, national guard, soldiers, etc. The US should disarm itself. But that is a fairly rare viewpoint. The most popular gun control viewpoint argues that only police and the armed forces should have weapons. That is my viewpoint. I would ban all other private gun ownership. And, as gun-related crime decreased with decreasing numbers of privately held guns, police could begin to reduce the level of arming (think of the UK's constables). I think any of us holding this view or its near relatives would be willing to accept the number of unjustified gun deaths at the hands of police weapons in return for the elimination of the gun violence privately held weapons enable.

 

[Crick]

We've always had guns but liberals blame access to guns for the recent problems after many years of enacting liberal policies. It used to be much easier to get guns, you could even mail order them.

The very limited gun control legislation that has been enacted in the last few decades has produced a very limited beneficial effect. Waiting periods and background checks and more effective law enforcement have reduced the gun homicide rate. But in a country as rife with uncontrolled firearms as is this nation, the current state of controls is akin to a styptic pencil to address an upper leg amputation.

We have had federal background checks in place since the 90s but they think background checks will solve the problems.

Eliminating the loopholes of gun show sales and time limits, yes. And if you approve of background checks, as most Americans do, why would you disapprove of requiring them at shows or not allowing them to be waived after 3 days?

They believe that having a gun increases your odds of getting shot with your gun is a valid point. Sort of like driving a car increases the odds of you getting into an auto accident.

No. Not unless you want to consider people intentionally driving their cars at high speed into bridge abutments, pushing passengers out, running people over or hitting people. A gun's only function is to kill people. That it can be used to intimidate is only due to that fact. It does not have the same value as an automobile and the two are not analogs. A gun in the home is many times more likely to be used by one resident to shoot another than it is to be used to defend the home from some criminal. Even more likely to be used by someone in the home to commit suicide. Buying a gun for the self defense of your home makes about as much sense as buying a 500 lb bomb for the same purpose.

Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives. -Ronald Reagan

Reagan and you are wrong. Read carefully:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The duties of the US government, in order, are:

1) Form a more perfect union
2) Insure domestic tranquility
3) Provide for the common defense
4) Promote the general welfare
5) Secure the blessings of liberty

The first two, ahead of common defense, require the government to exercise control over the lives of its citizens. They're generally known as "laws".

 

[gipper]

We've always had guns but liberals blame access to guns for the recent problems after many years of enacting liberal policies. It used to be much easier to get guns, you could even mail order them.

The very limited gun control legislation that has been enacted in the last few decades has produced a very limited beneficial effect. Waiting periods and background checks and more effective law enforcement have reduced the gun homicide rate. But in a country as rife with uncontrolled firearms as is this nation, the current state of controls is akin to a styptic pencil to address an upper leg amputation.

We have had federal background checks in place since the 90s but they think background checks will solve the problems.

Eliminating the loopholes of gun show sales and time limits, yes. And if you approve of background checks, as most Americans do, why would you disapprove of requiring them at shows or not allowing them to be waived after 3 days?

They believe that having a gun increases your odds of getting shot with your gun is a valid point. Sort of like driving a car increases the odds of you getting into an auto accident.

No. Not unless you want to consider people intentionally driving their cars at high speed into bridge abutments, pushing passengers out, running people over or hitting people. A gun's only function is to kill people. That it can be used to intimidate is only due to that fact. It does not have the same value as an automobile and the two are not analogs. A gun in the home is many times more likely to be used by one resident to shoot another than it is to be used to defend the home from some criminal. Even more likely to be used by someone in the home to commit suicide. Buying a gun for the self defense of your home makes about as much sense as buying a 500 lb bomb for the same purpose.

Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives. -Ronald Reagan

Reagan and you are wrong. Read carefully:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The duties of the US government, in order, are:

1) Form a more perfect union
2) Insure domestic tranquility
3) Provide for the common defense
4) Promote the general welfare
5) Secure the blessings of liberty

The first two, ahead of common defense, require the government to exercise control over the lives of its citizens. They're generally known as "laws".

Apparently, you failed to read the Second Amendment. Take a look at it...you will find that it clearly states the stinking government, which many Americans foolishly love and admire, CANNOT INFRINGE ON THE RIGHT OF ALL AMERICANS TO OWN GUNS.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

There are a couple misconceptions in your OP.

1. "Liberal logic" is an oxymoron.

2. Liberals don't realize that not only cops will have guns, should their tyrannical policies be imposed. The political elite, oligarchy, and criminals will too. The rest of us are screwed...including many liberals.

I suspect you agree with this.

Agreed, it is an oxymoron. In fact, to be a Leftist (I never call them liberals) one must suspend logic and all higher reasoning faculties and base all beliefs on emotions and good intentions, regardless of the outcome.

 

[Brynmr]

 

[Crick]

We've always had guns but liberals blame access to guns for the recent problems after many years of enacting liberal policies. It used to be much easier to get guns, you could even mail order them.

The very limited gun control legislation that has been enacted in the last few decades has produced a very limited beneficial effect. Waiting periods and background checks and more effective law enforcement have reduced the gun homicide rate. But in a country as rife with uncontrolled firearms as is this nation, the current state of controls is akin to a styptic pencil to address an upper leg amputation.

We have had federal background checks in place since the 90s but they think background checks will solve the problems.

Eliminating the loopholes of gun show sales and time limits, yes. And if you approve of background checks, as most Americans do, why would you disapprove of requiring them at shows or not allowing them to be waived after 3 days?

They believe that having a gun increases your odds of getting shot with your gun is a valid point. Sort of like driving a car increases the odds of you getting into an auto accident.

No. Not unless you want to consider people intentionally driving their cars at high speed into bridge abutments, pushing passengers out, running people over or hitting people. A gun's only function is to kill people. That it can be used to intimidate is only due to that fact. It does not have the same value as an automobile and the two are not analogs. A gun in the home is many times more likely to be used by one resident to shoot another than it is to be used to defend the home from some criminal. Even more likely to be used by someone in the home to commit suicide. Buying a gun for the self defense of your home makes about as much sense as buying a 500 lb bomb for the same purpose.

Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives. -Ronald Reagan

Reagan and you are wrong. Read carefully:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The duties of the US government, in order, are:

1) Form a more perfect union
2) Insure domestic tranquility
3) Provide for the common defense
4) Promote the general welfare
5) Secure the blessings of liberty

The first two, ahead of common defense, require the government to exercise control over the lives of its citizens. They're generally known as "laws".

Apparently, you failed to read the Second Amendment. Take a look at it...you will find that it clearly states the stinking government, which many Americans foolishly love and admire, CANNOT INFRINGE ON THE RIGHT OF ALL AMERICANS TO OWN GUNS.

First, this addresses NOTHING I stated in my prior post.

Second, that is not what the Second Amendment says. It says " "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The government wanted citizens armed to DEFEND THE STATE from outside aggressors. It wanted to be able to organize armed militias when such things were needed. It was made irrelevant by the creation of the US armed forces. The Second Amendment should be repealed.

Let me repeat that so you all know exactly where I stand.

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution should be repealed.

 

[Iceweasel]

We've always had guns but liberals blame access to guns for the recent problems after many years of enacting liberal policies. It used to be much easier to get guns, you could even mail order them.

The very limited gun control legislation that has been enacted in the last few decades has produced a very limited beneficial effect. Waiting periods and background checks and more effective law enforcement have reduced the gun homicide rate. But in a country as rife with uncontrolled firearms as is this nation, the current state of controls is akin to a styptic pencil to address an upper leg amputation.

We have had federal background checks in place since the 90s but they think background checks will solve the problems.

Eliminating the loopholes of gun show sales and time limits, yes. And if you approve of background checks, as most Americans do, why would you disapprove of requiring them at shows or not allowing them to be waived after 3 days?

They believe that having a gun increases your odds of getting shot with your gun is a valid point. Sort of like driving a car increases the odds of you getting into an auto accident.

No. Not unless you want to consider people intentionally driving their cars at high speed into bridge abutments, pushing passengers out, running people over or hitting people. A gun's only function is to kill people. That it can be used to intimidate is only due to that fact. It does not have the same value as an automobile and the two are not analogs. A gun in the home is many times more likely to be used by one resident to shoot another than it is to be used to defend the home from some criminal. Even more likely to be used by someone in the home to commit suicide. Buying a gun for the self defense of your home makes about as much sense as buying a 500 lb bomb for the same purpose.

Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives. -Ronald Reagan

Reagan and you are wrong. Read carefully:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The duties of the US government, in order, are:

1) Form a more perfect union
2) Insure domestic tranquility
3) Provide for the common defense
4) Promote the general welfare
5) Secure the blessings of liberty

The first two, ahead of common defense, require the government to exercise control over the lives of its citizens. They're generally known as "laws".

As a lib, your brain simply could not process what it disagreed with. I said we've always had guns and without the problems we have now. What is new is the steady deterioration of culture by leftists.

Furthermore, the government isn't promoting liberty or tranquility by taking my ability to defend my life. AND you completely missed my analogy about cars, even THOUGH it was a simple one! I said libs say you are more likely to get shot with your own gun if you own one. That's like saying you are more likely to get in an auto accident if your drive.

Having something makes it more possible something might go wrong with it is a stupid argument. Get it yet, Poindexter?

 

[Brynmr]

Let me repeat that so you all know exactly where I stand.

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution should be repealed.

And I should win the lotto.

 

[Iceweasel]

We've always had guns but liberals blame access to guns for the recent problems after many years of enacting liberal policies. It used to be much easier to get guns, you could even mail order them.

The very limited gun control legislation that has been enacted in the last few decades has produced a very limited beneficial effect. Waiting periods and background checks and more effective law enforcement have reduced the gun homicide rate. But in a country as rife with uncontrolled firearms as is this nation, the current state of controls is akin to a styptic pencil to address an upper leg amputation.

We have had federal background checks in place since the 90s but they think background checks will solve the problems.

Eliminating the loopholes of gun show sales and time limits, yes. And if you approve of background checks, as most Americans do, why would you disapprove of requiring them at shows or not allowing them to be waived after 3 days?

They believe that having a gun increases your odds of getting shot with your gun is a valid point. Sort of like driving a car increases the odds of you getting into an auto accident.

No. Not unless you want to consider people intentionally driving their cars at high speed into bridge abutments, pushing passengers out, running people over or hitting people. A gun's only function is to kill people. That it can be used to intimidate is only due to that fact. It does not have the same value as an automobile and the two are not analogs. A gun in the home is many times more likely to be used by one resident to shoot another than it is to be used to defend the home from some criminal. Even more likely to be used by someone in the home to commit suicide. Buying a gun for the self defense of your home makes about as much sense as buying a 500 lb bomb for the same purpose.

Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives. -Ronald Reagan

Reagan and you are wrong. Read carefully:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The duties of the US government, in order, are:

1) Form a more perfect union
2) Insure domestic tranquility
3) Provide for the common defense
4) Promote the general welfare
5) Secure the blessings of liberty

The first two, ahead of common defense, require the government to exercise control over the lives of its citizens. They're generally known as "laws".

Apparently, you failed to read the Second Amendment. Take a look at it...you will find that it clearly states the stinking government, which many Americans foolishly love and admire, CANNOT INFRINGE ON THE RIGHT OF ALL AMERICANS TO OWN GUNS.

First, this addresses NOTHING I stated in my prior post.

Second, that is not what the Second Amendment says. It says " "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The government wanted citizens armed to DEFEND THE STATE from outside aggressors. It wanted to be able to organize armed militias when such things were needed. It was made irrelevant by the creation of the US armed forces. The Second Amendment should be repealed.

Let me repeat that so you all know exactly where I stand.

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution should be repealed.

Learn to quote, you dumb asshole.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Liberal Logic: cops are racist murderers
Liberal Logic: only cops should have guns

1) Some cops do appear to be racist murderers; they've been caught on video committing racist murders. This is not true of all cops and no one claims that it is. However, you would probably get a higher estimate of the proportion of racist cops from black Americans than you would from white liberal Americans. Since the opinions of black Americans on this topic are often from direct personal experience, I would have to give it some significant authority.

2) The maximal gun-control point of view is that NO ONE should have guns; police, national guard, soldiers, etc. The US should disarm itself. But that is a fairly rare viewpoint. The most popular gun control viewpoint argues that only police and the armed forces should have weapons. That is my viewpoint. I would ban all other private gun ownership. And, as gun-related crime decreased with decreasing numbers of privately held guns, police could begin to reduce the level of arming (think of the UK's constables). I think any of us holding this view or its near relatives would be willing to accept the number of unjustified gun deaths at the hands of police weapons in return for the elimination of the gun violence privately held weapons enable.

Leftists advance their agenda in stages, it's why they call themselves "progressives". This is the order in which they would enact complete gun control.

1. Require licensing and registration for all guns
2. Restrict gun ownership by requiring evidence of a need for a gun
3. Ban guns completely in urban areas
4. Ban guns for civilian ownership, only cops should have guns
5. Cops should disarm themselves because that works so well in the UK.

No gun grabbing Democrat will admit they want to take away all guns except those of the military and federal agencies for population control purposes. They all deny it, in fact. They're all lying sacks of shit.

 

[gipper]

We've always had guns but liberals blame access to guns for the recent problems after many years of enacting liberal policies. It used to be much easier to get guns, you could even mail order them.

The very limited gun control legislation that has been enacted in the last few decades has produced a very limited beneficial effect. Waiting periods and background checks and more effective law enforcement have reduced the gun homicide rate. But in a country as rife with uncontrolled firearms as is this nation, the current state of controls is akin to a styptic pencil to address an upper leg amputation.

We have had federal background checks in place since the 90s but they think background checks will solve the problems.

Eliminating the loopholes of gun show sales and time limits, yes. And if you approve of background checks, as most Americans do, why would you disapprove of requiring them at shows or not allowing them to be waived after 3 days?

They believe that having a gun increases your odds of getting shot with your gun is a valid point. Sort of like driving a car increases the odds of you getting into an auto accident.

No. Not unless you want to consider people intentionally driving their cars at high speed into bridge abutments, pushing passengers out, running people over or hitting people. A gun's only function is to kill people. That it can be used to intimidate is only due to that fact. It does not have the same value as an automobile and the two are not analogs. A gun in the home is many times more likely to be used by one resident to shoot another than it is to be used to defend the home from some criminal. Even more likely to be used by someone in the home to commit suicide. Buying a gun for the self defense of your home makes about as much sense as buying a 500 lb bomb for the same purpose.

Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives. -Ronald Reagan

Reagan and you are wrong. Read carefully:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The duties of the US government, in order, are:

1) Form a more perfect union
2) Insure domestic tranquility
3) Provide for the common defense
4) Promote the general welfare
5) Secure the blessings of liberty

The first two, ahead of common defense, require the government to exercise control over the lives of its citizens. They're generally known as "laws".

Apparently, you failed to read the Second Amendment. Take a look at it...you will find that it clearly states the stinking government, which many Americans foolishly love and admire, CANNOT INFRINGE ON THE RIGHT OF ALL AMERICANS TO OWN GUNS.

First, this addresses NOTHING I stated in my prior post.

Second, that is not what the Second Amendment says. It says " "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The government wanted citizens armed to DEFEND THE STATE from outside aggressors. It wanted to be able to organize armed militias when such things were needed. It was made irrelevant by the creation of the US armed forces. The Second Amendment should be repealed.

Let me repeat that so you all know exactly where I stand.

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution should be repealed.

WRONG...

The 2A was purposely put in effect to allow Americans the ability to not only protect themselves from foreign attack, but also a tyrannical government. The founders knew full well, unlike you, that a disarmed populace can't fight big government. If the Brits had disarmed Americans, there would have been no American Revolution.

Is this simple logic too difficult for you to comprehend?

You gun grabbers are nothing more the big government dupes. You fail to see the heinous nature of government and the natural right of all human beings to defend themselves.

Your analysis of the 2A is utterly and completely STUPID!!!