Hey, anti-gunners, 'Bush's Brain' agrees with you!

Page 3 of 4 [ 53 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

heavenlyabyss
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Sep 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,393

24 Jun 2015, 6:37 am

Dillogic wrote:

Fugu wrote:

i'm on the left and i think having a militarized police force is a bad idea as well, please don't paint everyone with your stupid caricature.

Nearly everyone doesn't equate to everyone.

Though question: do you support police defending you from genuine criminals with a sidearm (say, someone is going to kill you and super trooper jumps in to save the day)? Do you support the military defending you from genuine threats?

If yes, you love weapons all the same; the difference being you have someone kill your food for you.

This doesn't make any sense at all. It's possible to be grateful that someone saved your life while simultaneously hating the fact that violence was necessary.

There is such a thing as being conflicted. As others have pointed out in other threads, police are responsible for the deaths of many innocent civilians and in no way do I glorify them even if they sometimes do get it right and save the people they are sworn to protect.

Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

24 Jun 2015, 8:50 am

Karl Rove is a joke in the Republican party, he'll probably endorse Hilary once Jeb loses the nomination. Rove isn't particularly ideological, its a power trip and a game to him mostly and the reality is there isn't much different from a "moderate" republican and "moderate" democrat.

The 2nd Amendment is there tho to provide us the tools to overthrow a tyrannical government that infringes upon our rights, that is the entire purpose of the 2nd Amendment and what gives our constitution teeth. I think the populace should have the same access to weapons that our cops and soldiers have like they do in Switzerland. That purpose is incompatible with regulation and our constitution is clear that our right to own and bare arms shall not be infringed as in at all.

We need to actually try to tackle the issues behind the violence in this country, trying to take away the tools won't change anything and history is evidence to that. Our country does not know how to handle poverty or our mental health system and ends up throwing these people onto the streets or prison, actually try to fix that and our country would be a much safer place.

AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

24 Jun 2015, 8:58 am

sly279 wrote:

Fugu wrote:

What I was replying to doesn't deserve any better of a response.

considering that hitler was pro-gun rights, your response is just really asinine.

pro gun

omg then why did he ban and take them all away in german empire? lets ask all the jews, oh wait he killed them afterwards.

and it wasn't all at once, it was slow, first it was guns are dangerous so you need to register them then it was they so dangerous we need to take them away from you.

Yep.

NationalReview.com wrote:

...The time had come to launch a decisive blow to the Jewish community, to render it defenseless so that its 'ill-gotten' property could be redistributed as an entitlement to the German 'Volk.' The German Jews were ordered to surrender all their weapons, and the police had the records on all who had registered them. Even those who gave up their weapons voluntarily were turned over to the Gestapo.

This took place in the weeks before what became known as the Night of the Broken Glass, or Kristallnacht, occurred in November 1938. That the Jews were disarmed before it, minimizing any risk of resistance, is the strongest evidence that the pogrom was planned in advance. An incident was needed to justify unleashing the attack.

That incident would be the shooting of a German diplomat in Paris by a teenage Polish Jew. Hitler directed propaganda minister Josef Goebbels to orchestrate the Night of the Broken Glass. This massive operation, allegedly conducted as a search for weapons, entailed the ransacking of homes and businesses, and the arson of synagogues.

SS chief Heinrich Himmler decreed that 20 years be served in a concentration camp by any Jew possessing a firearm. Rusty revolvers and bayonets from the Great War were confiscated from Jewish veterans who had served with distinction. Twenty thousand Jewish men were thrown into concentration camps, and had to pay ransoms to get released...

NationalReview.com: "How the Nazis Used Gun Control" (December 2, 2013)
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/3 ... p-halbrook

_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)

lostonearth35
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Jan 2010
Age: 51
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,913
Location: Lost on Earth, waddya think?

24 Jun 2015, 4:37 pm

The US won't ban guns and yet they ban things like Kinder's Surprise eggs because they think OMG like our little children might swallow the toys inside them. They ban children watching superhero movies, playing baseball, or holding hands at schools. Why is banning guns such a big deal when they've banned so many other things for the most stupid reasons?

:thumbdown:

AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

24 Jun 2015, 4:48 pm

lostonearth35 wrote:

It might be because firearm-related deaths among "little children" are, while terrible, statistically insignificant compared to a constitutionally enumerated right.

Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

24 Jun 2015, 6:04 pm

heavenlyabyss wrote:

This doesn't make any sense at all. It's possible to be grateful that someone saved your life while simultaneously hating the fact that violence was necessary.

That's what you call hypocrisy. Thankful for the savior is thankful for the violence; you can't be thankful for violence if you hate that it had to be used without being a hypocrite. I'm thankful for the antibiotic that stopped the infection, but I hate that the infection had to be stopped to save me.

The only way you can absolve from that hypocrisy is to let the criminal murder you, as you show that you're disproving of violence in all forms (whether by the criminal or savior).

AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

24 Jun 2015, 6:36 pm

Dillogic wrote:

...The only way you can absolve from that hypocrisy is to let the criminal murder you, as you show that you're disproving of violence in all forms (whether by the criminal or savior).

Last words: "So, there!"

It amazes me when I meet people who hesitate when I ask "in a violent crime, either the victim or the perpetrator will die. If you are the victim, who should die?" Looooong silence. Sheez!

Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

24 Jun 2015, 9:58 pm

Raptor wrote:

Fugu wrote:

Raptor wrote:

Fugu wrote:

Raptor wrote:

Lintar wrote:

Very smart man, Karl Rove.

You see, if someone as far to the Right as Mr. Rove can eventually see the light, then there is hope for all who believe in this non-existent 'right to bear arms'. Yes, get rid of the silly Second Amendment, you will be thankful afterwards.

Hell yeah!
Let's just do away with the whole constitution. Why let those pesky human rights get in the way?

why make an argument when you can just allude to hitler! who needs cogent rational discussion anyway?

What I was replying to doesn't deserve any better of a response.

considering that hitler was pro-gun rights, your response is just really asinine.

Yeah, I see him at the shooting range all the time. :roll:

thanks for your white noise response to my factual statement. seems like that's all you offer to the discussion.

Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

24 Jun 2015, 10:00 pm

AspieUtah wrote:

It might be because firearm-related deaths among "little children" are, while terrible, statistically insignificant compared to a constitutionally enumerated right.

soo... you're saying that you're ok with children dying needlessly as long as you can keep your guns? is that right?

AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

24 Jun 2015, 10:05 pm

Fugu wrote:

AspieUtah wrote:

It might be because firearm-related deaths among "little children" are, while terrible, statistically insignificant compared to a constitutionally enumerated right.

soo... you're saying that you're ok with children dying needlessly as long as you can keep your guns? is that right?

No. Only that it is impossible to eradicate every single crime.

Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

24 Jun 2015, 10:33 pm

AspieUtah wrote:

Fugu wrote:

AspieUtah wrote:

It might be because firearm-related deaths among "little children" are, while terrible, statistically insignificant compared to a constitutionally enumerated right.

soo... you're saying that you're ok with children dying needlessly as long as you can keep your guns? is that right?

No. Only that it is impossible to eradicate every single crime.

so because it's impossible to eradicate crime, that means we should endeavour to make it easier? that's some pretty twisted logic.

Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

24 Jun 2015, 10:44 pm

Fugu wrote:

so because it's impossible to eradicate crime, that means we should endeavour to make it easier? that's some pretty twisted logic.

You only pass legislation that will actually help the violent crime rate.

Focusing on the objects used in violent crime, doesn't actually help the violent crime rate.

There's a chance you might help the "gun crime" rate, but that's a misleading qualifier, as the criminal will replace the "gun" with another weapon (assuming the criminal bothers to try and purchase something legally; no idea why you would if you were a criminal, as you have a far larger selection on the illegal markets).

Social programs, counseling, poverty reduction (not just giving people welfare) and such are what you focus on. You can also use proactive policing, but this is something people all of a sudden don't like.

luan78zao
Velociraptor

Joined: 24 Nov 2014
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 490
Location: Under a cat

25 Jun 2015, 1:14 am

Fugu wrote:

"mommy what does a strawman look like?"

[…]

i'm on the left and i think having a militarized police force is a bad idea as well, please don't paint everyone with your stupid caricature.

Children and beauty pageant contestants are commonly indulged in a little magical thinking. Everybody else needs to own the implications of the policies he advocates.

If you love to eat omelettes, but hate the idea of breaking eggs, you really need to go somewhere and reconcile your clashing premises. Come back when you have something coherent to say.

Governments do not issue hints or suggestions. Every law, edict, regulation, and executive order is ultimately backed by the threat of lethal force. Otherwise nobody would pay much attention to them.

If you favor a tightly regulated, centrally controlled economy, with rules and regulations covering most aspects of human behavior – which is what "leftist" means nowadays – then you favor a large and powerful police force. Who else is going to enforce all those rules and regulations? The unicorns? To be a leftist is to advocate a police state; there is no other way to control the economy.

And those who call for the mass confiscation of privately held firearms are calling for a police state that would make all previous police states look like the Girl Scouts.

_________________
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission – which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." – Ayn Rand

heavenlyabyss
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 9 Sep 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,393

25 Jun 2015, 1:28 am

Police brutality is a major problem in US. I do not support police brutality. To say that I do is putting words in my mouth.

American police kill far more citizens than Japanese police, even though Japan has a much larger population.

America does not have the highest homicide rate in the world but amongst more prosperous countries we rank pretty low. America obviously has a problem with violence.

I believe that much of the problem is that police are so paranoid that everyone could have a gun they end up shooting people. In essence, in some cases, I truly believe that the "gun is pulling the trigger."

Anyway, Im done with the conversation. All you have to do is look up the number of deaths due to gun use in America. If you aren't appalled by it, well, ,I think that says something about you.

Dillogic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,339

25 Jun 2015, 2:01 am

heavenlyabyss wrote:

America does not have the highest homicide rate in the world but amongst more prosperous countries we rank pretty low. America obviously has a problem with violence.

It's your African-American population that makes it so high.

They have 17 murders per 100,000 people compared to around 2 per 100,000 for "white" Americans. So, it ends up around 6 per 100,000 overall (ethnic ratios are why it's not split evenly there; African-Americans make up 14% or so of the population).

The African-Americans need real help in the way of effective social programs (and the removal of gang "culture").

Look at Switzerland with its homogenous society, tons of military gunz, and its less than 1 per 100,000 murder rate; Japan is less than 1 too (why they probably don't have as many policing incidents?).

Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

25 Jun 2015, 2:18 am

heavenlyabyss wrote:

Anyway, Im done with the conversation.

We'll see......

Quote:

All you have to do is look up the number of deaths due to gun use in America. If you aren't appalled by it, well, ,I think that says something about you.

1. It's obviously gun misuse, not gun use.
2. Did you know that deaths from gunshot rank relatively low compared to other causes?

http://infographicjournal.com/u-s-gun-usage-death-statistics/

_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson

Page 3 of 4 [ 53 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4 Next

Jump to:

Hey, anti-gunners, 'Bush's Brain' agrees with you! Post Reply New Topic

Hey, anti-gunners, 'Bush's Brain' agrees with you!