Shapiro wiped the floor with him.
58 Dead, 500 Plus Wounded
- Thread starter CherubRam
- Start date
Stop acting like they will be used for everything.
You only need it for a mow down.
The need for one just might arise any day now.
Be prepared is a pretty good motto to have.
jsanford108
New member
58 Dead, 500 Plus Wounded
I would say that claiming I "moved the goal posts" is misrepresenting. If you notice the data I utilized, the phrasing is "violent crime." Sure, Barbarian first "used murder rates," but that was not his point, as evidenced by his conclusion. So, I never moved goal posts; I addressed the issue that Barbarian chose, based on his false conclusion.
Second, why do statistics presented by yourself consistently highlight Bush Sr, yet no mention of Bush Jr? Interesting when one examines those statistics.
You are right. Numbers don't lie. It is people with agendas who do. They twist statistics, leave out statistics that disprove them, make up false statistics, generate false conclusions, etc.
(I am not defending Republicans. I am not defending Democrats. I was simply addressing the false conclusion put forth by Barbarian, in relation to reality.)
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
I would say that claiming I "moved the goal posts" is misrepresenting. If you notice the data I utilized, the phrasing is "violent crime." Sure, Barbarian first "used murder rates," but that was not his point, as evidenced by his conclusion. So, I never moved goal posts; I addressed the issue that Barbarian chose, based on his false conclusion.
Second, why do statistics presented by yourself consistently highlight Bush Sr, yet no mention of Bush Jr? Interesting when one examines those statistics.
You are right. Numbers don't lie. It is people with agendas who do. They twist statistics, leave out statistics that disprove them, make up false statistics, generate false conclusions, etc.
(I am not defending Republicans. I am not defending Democrats. I was simply addressing the false conclusion put forth by Barbarian, in relation to reality.)
Sent from my iPhone using TOL
Followed by a prosecution for maiming or killing the innocent people you're more likely to hit with that little control and in a panicked situation.
When has it?
That's being worse prepared at the risk of others.
Last edited:
Jgarbage points out
How disgusting that is of you. Will you say anything to smear your President?
58 Dead, 500 Plus Wounded
I'm sure there is nobody more disappointed than "The Donald" that the Las Vegas shooter didn't have Muslim connections1
Mr. Trump has been uncharacteristically subdued about the Las Vegas shooting, one of the deadliest in American history. He has said little about it on Twitter and deflected questions about the killer’s motives, in contrast to previous mass shootings, which have drawn quick, furious reactions from him
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/04/us/politics/trump-las-vegas-mass-shooting.html
I don't know why he's responded like a president this time, but I'll give him full credit for doing it. He did it right this time, and he deserves our thanks for doing the job for which he was elected.
How many of you who want machine guns to protect themselves have actually fired one?
How many of you have carried one- and its ammunition?
How many of you have served in military combat units?
Show of hands, please.
You don't have to get one if you don't want one.
Me. Me. Me.
Also, when I was a child my grandfather, who was a lifetime gunsmith, had countless guns we grandchildren were allowed to handle and ask questions about. We got to shoot automatic.
Freaking useless.
So I knew in the army when we first were able to shoot automatic that I didn't care much. Most others were excited. But sure enough, everyone was committed to semi-auto after that exercise. If you had a situation where one would have to use automatic, it was because you were being overrun and automatic was a last effort before the knives come out.
That being said. If someone wants to buy an automatic, trying to stop them would be worse than letting the few people that want them have them. The current regulations against autos could be softened and little would change except that good people wouldn't be made into criminals just for possession of an inanimate object.
Beyond that, all humans have a right to defend themselves, and guns are important to that right. Any weapon that can be directed at a single person should be available.
I used to think that registration would be OK as long as the government didn't use it to take away a person's guns or make it harder to acquire a gun. But now that we see the government salivating over registration so they can eventually take away every owner's gun, or at the very least single out groups so they can't get guns, registration was never a good idea.
Registration is a bad idea as demonstrated by Nazi Germany where gun laws were relaxed, but Jews were kept from being able to buy through red tape that was applied unjustly throughout the population.
But that is the take away on the gun issue. Humans have a right to defend themselves, regardless what any document states, so they should be allowed to freely buy and sell guns and ammo. Sometimes there will be crazy people that shoot other people, but there will be less people killed if they are allowed to defend themselves.
Last edited:
:BRAVO:
Right. It's useless for personal defense in any reasonable scenario outside of a war zone. Worse, that use could easily become something worse for people in the vicinity who aren't engaged or involved. It's a public safety issue. I think anyone with a lick of sense can see that, which is why Nihilo likely isn't answering my question relating to RPGs.
How? How would it be worse to put reasoned limits on weapons than to deny a few people who want them to have them?
An argument for making all of us safer isn't inherently an argument against the right. It's against an unfettered right that isn't found in the exercise of any other.
Show me a government declaration of an intent to "take away every owner's gun." :nono:
You can't deny a person or people what they have a legal right to possess. The conversation is really about that, but people who have left any real and constructive conversation out of their ideological wheelhouse run to the extremes to make it about something else. It isn't.
The problem is that there were plenty of guns squirreled away and registration had no real impact on what happened to the Jews. You could have given them machine guns and it still would have ended badly. The Jews were victims because they lived in a paranoid military state that had been sold on the idea of Jews as their enemy.
Registration is about information, not confiscation.
That's a false dichotomy. It's not every kind of weapon or a want of safety. In fact, every kind of weapon being available makes us all less safe. Intelligent regulation and restriction can actually accomplish what most people who aren't employed by the arms industry or haven't been brainwashed by its rhetoric want.
I've never been in the military.
I've fired and owned their semi auto versions.
What an odd question, I owned one so yes I carried it around I guess. I didn't take it to the park with me. The semi auto and it's ammo weigh the same as the full auto version. The only difference is a switch and some small parts.
"Donald J" doesn't need me to "smear" him, he's already plummeted the depths of "disgusting" in his own words - bragging sbout his exploits with women on the "access Hollywood tape!
Then there is the small matter of Trump "trash talking" about the Khans, a Muslim American "gold-star" family who lost their son in combat - something this Commander-and-Chief spent 5 deferments trying to avoid!
Last edited:
Because they are so easy to make. You'd need a police state to stop people from having automatic weapons.
There is a better way.
Consider; if we wanted to stop the immigration problem, all we would have to do is allow a great deal more immigrants into the country in an easier way. The easier way would be to identify the people coming in. They could do it at the boarder gate. Then, anyone trying to get over the wall could be shot without question.
That is such a close analogy it's almost an example.
It's either unfettered or it doesn't exist. One either has the right to defend themself or they don't. Everything else is just the transition to the right being suppressed completely.
It's similar to babies being murdered at sometime other than when a human begins existence. Any other arbitrary point means the baby can be murdered anytime before birth as our country as aptly demonstrated. And you think it will stop at murdering babies in the womb?
Every single crazy person that murders people with a gun will logically create a cry for another step closer to a police state. The only ONLY logical end is a police state. And police states murder more people than crazy people.
“I don’t know enough details to tell you how we would do it or how it would work, but certainly the Australia example is worth looking at,” Hillary Clinton. Australia went waaaaaaayyyyyy beyond bump stocks, silencers, and magazine capacities. Where, exactly, is the line drawn on what and who can keep their guns. Please be exact (even if Hillary doesn't know the details, you need to in order to support your argument).
“People with possible ties to terrorism who are not allowed on a plane shouldn’t be allowed to buy a gun,” Obama said, referring to 'no fly, no buy' legislation pending on Capitol Hill that would prevent any suspected terrorists on no-fly lists from buying firearms.
Except Obama was lying. It's not just suspected terrorists like his listeners were assuming that would get on the 'no fly' list, but anyone the government didn't like. Like people that didn't vaccinate their children, or people that got caught uttering hate speech.
What? 'No fly' for speech?... that would never happen. Just like Christians wouldn't lose their businesses because they don't want to support perversion. or
| A California bill — passed by the state senate and recommended for passage by an assembly committee — would authorize jail for nursing home staff who “willfully and repeatedly fail to use a resident’s preferred name or pronouns” - Washington Post Aug 18, 2017 |
So, yeah, there is plenty of documentation that the end game isn't known. And if the end game isn't known, it's a politicians favorite game called the slippery slope.
Sure you can. The assault weapons ban limited magazines to 10 rounds. A former coworker had his rifle confiscated when an officer broke his magazine and muscled an 11th round in. He lost another rifle due to not having it in a case when the officer found it in his trunk.
Yeah, silly rules absolutely do deny a person what they have a legal right to possess.
No. The conversation is simply that humans have the right to defend themselves and guns are an important part of defending one's self.
The point is that despite the loosening of gun laws, they were in reality tightened on Jews. Registration is always a bad idea.
Registration is never a necessary thing unless the government wants to keep confiscation in their back pocket for when they need it. In general or for a particular set of people even if they are innocent. Registration is just another way to create criminals out of innocent people.
Of course. But you created a straw man to make this claim. Will you realize you created a straw man and apologize or confess you didn't realize you created a straw man?
Individuals can defend themselves reliably with a weapon that can be brought to bear against a single other human. If it can do such, it should be freely allowed.
You've been brainwashed by gun control rhetoric. If you want to enact "Intelligent regulation" of guns you might as well enact an "Intelligent point at which a person begins" because the latter has been proven to be so effective at saving babies.
Blalblabarian observes:I've heard that they even sometimes didn't reveal that a shooter was a Methodist, or a Baptist, or a Catholic. Either they were covering something up, or they didn't find it to be a factor in the crime.One of those. (sarcasm goes right over Stipe's head)Sorry, forgot my Warning For The Humor-Impaired. Actually, Stipe, police never include the religion of a shooter, unless they think it's a key to the shooting itself. I'll try to warn you when I use humor in the future.lain:
So you made something up, got called on it and suddenly it's someone else's fault?
Typical Blablabarian.
Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
Than every other Western industrial nation?
Which nations?
Sent from my SM-A520F using TOL mobile app
People break all sorts of laws, but it's still better to have them.
Seems like the better way would be to penalize employers of people who aren't properly documented. If there's no opportunity there's not much incentive. And you don't have to shoot anyone for wanting a better life.
That's simply not true of any right. They're all subject to balancing.
No one is arguing that you can't defend yourself.
No, we've been balancing rights from the beginning and we still have them.
I've already presented some fairly concrete ideas. I'm open to intelligent discussion on what appears to work elsewhere.
Your coworker wasn't denied the right to own a firearm. He just had to follow the law. So if it's supposed to be in a case you put it in a case, etc.
Since most of us who favor restrictions aren't arguing about whether you have the right to defend yourself or to own a gun, but about what is reasonable and balances the safety of others in the consideration THAT is the conversation.
Registration is about information. You have to create this notion of a Nazi like police state (which gets its power from what majority again?) to begin to fashion a largely imaginative paranoia to avoid it. Better to avoid that effort. It lacks legs.
Re: carrying RPGs or Bazookas and how that reads into Yor's and Nihilo's problematic stance
I did no such thing. You said the right must be unfettered (see: bold above) or it isn't a right at all. I unfettered it. And the moment I do your position becomes as obviously absurd as it actually is. That's the problem and it's yours, not mine.
That's your fetter. Now we're just negotiating price.
Not really. I own guns. I am intimately familiar with their safe use and lethality. Where this nation is at present is irresponsible and dangerous. It's time to recognize that we don't live in the 18th century and that some of the changes have impacted this debate.
I've long advocated the protection of the unborn via two completely rational arguments in extension of right and logical necessity.
Last edited: