Now I'm not going to repeat myself any more, because you are continually throwing up this irrelevant smokescreen about whether or not I managed to encapsulate the substance of every post in my one (which was never my intention), rather than addressing the substance of what I said, which still remains valid. I cannot be any clearer than that.
Yes, because why would you want to hear the entire side of someone's argument, and maybe learn something... when you can just pick part pieces and try to fit it to your agenda and ignore the pieces that don't? I see your point. How narrow minded of me to want to understand "the big picture".
Thanks you for illustrating my point yet again.
You are not interested in addressing anything that challenges your dogma. I presented you with the big picture, you called it wacky. I had a point to make on just a particular point of you position, and rather than answering it, you simply hide behind some vacuous defence that unless I address everything in every post - even if not relevant to my point - that you won't answer. Pathetic. All the more so since you have answered virtually nothing of substance that I have asked you and only confined yourself to the parts of my posts that are convenient for you to answer. In other words, doing exactly what you condemn everyone else for doing.
I'm done. You are either incapable or unwilling to engage in reasonable discussion. Either way, it's not worth the effort.
Post edited by wolfamongwolves on
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
Never argue with idiots, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
That's enough, I'm convinced, you win, I have to work. I'm completely wrong, everyone else is completely right. So there is no need for any more posts, because I completely agree with you. I'm going to ignore my history lessons, my political science lessons, and common sense. I was wrong... All guns are bad, all government is good. We must remove all guns from the world, because they are the problem, not the people who use them. All Americans should all give up our constitutional right to bear arms. There is no need for them, all the bad people were in history, and that will never happen again.
A poor girl is dead and you have successfully used the tragedy to push your anti-gun agenda. God be with her family during these tough times.
THey fail to realize that there are messed up people out there and they will commit crimes no matter what is against the law, As i pointed out in the other thread the US is about even with the UK in crime... we have more gun crime, well because we have more guns.
THey fail to realize that there are messed up people out there and they will commit crimes no matter what is against the law, As i pointed out in the other thread the US is about even with the UK in crime... we have more gun crime, well because we have more guns.
Ok, now END OF THREAD.
I believe that is what is commonly known as "shooting yourself in the foot"...
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
THey fail to realize that there are messed up people out there and they will commit crimes no matter what is against the law, As i pointed out in the other thread the US is about even with the UK in crime... we have more gun crime, well because we have more guns.
Ok, now END OF THREAD.
I believe that is what is commonly known as "shooting yourself in the foot"...
haha, yes that does look bad now that i read what I wrote...
My point all along is that GUN BANS is not going to stop cirminals comitting gun crimes, it will only harm law abiding citizens. Now gun regulations on the other hand, i am in agreeance with, they do need to be changed. but I have been debating people who want GUN BANS, which is not a solution.
I don't know why gun ownership is treated differently than something like a driver's license. Make people take tests, learn the dangers, safe gun storage, etc...
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
I don't know why gun ownership is treated differently than something like a driver's license. Make people take tests, learn the dangers, safe gun storage, etc...
I agree... But people will always need something to blame.
I don't know why gun ownership is treated differently than something like a driver's license. Make people take tests, learn the dangers, safe gun storage, etc...
I agree... But people will always need something to blame.
I don't like guns and think they do more harm then good in our world, especially in the hands of private citizens. However, if we have them in society, they should be regulated like other dangerous materials.
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
History is made up, and NEVER repeats. We should ignore history. All guns are bad. All government is good. Government is not to ever be feared because everyone in every country in all of history (not that history matters) were run by good people with good intentions. People do not kill people, guns kill people. All people on welfare just fell on hard times, and we should help them. If anyone disagrees with you, they are irrational. All is well, All is well, All is well.
MG, nothing you say is going to change their minds on this issues, you can point to every fact and stat but they will ignore it. They will continue to blame the object insead of the person, which pretty much sumes up their political idelogy. THey fail to realize that there are messed up people out there and they will commit crimes no matter what is against the law, As i pointed out in the other thread the US is about even with the UK in crime... we have more gun crime, well because we have more guns.
I don't know which is worse ...blaming America for their love of guns or blaming them for their use of them. What I mean is, if its the gun people blame then you're all up in a fuss, but I'm not sure if that's much better than blaming the person... in which case the blame must be on your culture...
I don't know which is worse ...blaming America for their love of guns or blaming them for their use of them. What I mean is, if its the gun people blame then you're all up in a fuss, but I'm not sure if that's much better than blaming the person... in which case the blame must be on your culture...
Except nobody here's saying it's an either/or scenario. No one's said that the person is innocent and that the gun is to blame, but gun laws in the U.S undoubtedly contributed to this massacre, just as U.S gun laws also contributed to every other massacre on U.S soil involving firearms.
I don't know which is worse ...blaming America for their love of guns or blaming them for their use of them. What I mean is, if its the gun people blame then you're all up in a fuss, but I'm not sure if that's much better than blaming the person... in which case the blame must be on your culture...
Except nobody here's saying it's an either/or scenario. No one's said that the person is innocent and that the gun is to blame, but gun laws in the U.S undoubtedly contributed to this massacre, just as U.S gun laws also contributed to every other massacre on U.S soil involving firearms.
Yeah, I realise that... I guess what I meant was, which is worse having a culture that is obsessed with guns or the gun itself. Heidijam goes on about how its the people who use the gun, not the machine, but if you have so many people who are using it "irresponsibly" ...then what does that say for your society?
I dont think i'm articulating my thoughts properly haha.
I don't know which is worse ...blaming America for their love of guns or blaming them for their use of them. What I mean is, if its the gun people blame then you're all up in a fuss, but I'm not sure if that's much better than blaming the person... in which case the blame must be on your culture...
Except nobody here's saying it's an either/or scenario. No one's said that the person is innocent and that the gun is to blame, but gun laws in the U.S undoubtedly contributed to this massacre, just as U.S gun laws also contributed to every other massacre on U.S soil involving firearms.
Yeah, I realise that... I guess what I meant was, which is worse having a culture that is obsessed with guns or the gun itself. Heidijam goes on about how its the people who use the gun, not the machine, but if you have so many people who are using it "irresponsibly" ...then what does that say for your society?
I dont think i'm articulating my thoughts properly haha.
while that is true, that can be said about something else that is used everyday by more people..Cars...Cars kill people every day on the roads, and are often used completely irresponsibly, yet would you call them dangerous? should they be banned, should we put governors in them to control speeds? should we force them to go no more than 15 miles an hour? you pass a test to get a driver's license, you pass a test to carry a concealed weapon, how is it different? you get cleared by a background check to get a gun in the first place. any dipstick who has a good day can get a drivers license...I passed a commercial driver's license test the day after I got my permit and spent 2 hours driving it before I was licensed to drive a semi...tell me that isn't dangerous as hell...
All things used irresponsibly can be dangerous, but you cannot punish the VAST majority because of the irresponsible use by the minority.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
You are not interested in addressing anything that challenges your dogma. I presented you with the big picture, you called it wacky. I had a point to make on just a particular point of you position, and rather than answering it, you simply hide behind some vacuous defence that unless I address everything in every post - even if not relevant to my point - that you won't answer. Pathetic. All the more so since you have answered virtually nothing of substance that I have asked you and only confined yourself to the parts of my posts that are convenient for you to answer. In other words, doing exactly what you condemn everyone else for doing.
I'm done. You are either incapable or unwilling to engage in reasonable discussion. Either way, it's not worth the effort.
Wow, in addition to harping on small pieces that aren't meant to stand on their own, you are really good at projecting your behaviors on me. I'm glad you’re done, because honestly I don't think you are capable of having a reasonable discussion. That's too bad, we could discuss dogs....
MG – “I like Chocolate Labs, they are adorable as puppies”
Wolfamongwolves - “See you do like chocolate!”
MG- “I’m actually allergic to it, I can’t eat the stuff, and I didn’t say that”
Wolfamongwolves – “Yes you did, I don’t need to take in to account everything you said”
Conservative mindset: Liberals love to see 9 year old girls shot and killed because it gives them a chance to take away your freedoms.
Federal Judge John Roll, a Republican recommended for the bench by Sen. John McCain and nominated by President George H. W. Bush, was among six citizens murdered by a psychopath in Tucson on Saturday. Democrat Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was among 14 wounded, and her recovery prospects are promising.
These deaths and injuries are an incalculable tragedy, and equally so are the deaths and injuries of thousands of other violent crime victims each year.
Rep. Giffords is a moderate Democrat and a self-described "strong supporter of the Second Amendment." That notwithstanding, the Democrat Party has already undertaken to convert the Tucson crisis into political fodder for "gun control" and "hate speech" legislation, and a "national conversation" with the objective of silencing conservative political speech.
A gun did not commit the Tucson attack, as the Left would like you to believe; the perpetrator was a mentally deranged 22-year-old, Jared Lee Loughner, who chose to use a gun rather than some other method to orchestrate his mayhem.
What do we know about the motivation of this killer? Former classmate Caitie Parker described Loughner as "left wing" and "a pothead." Though Loughner listed Hitler's "Mein Kampf" and Marx's "Communist Manifesto" among his favorite books, it is unlikely that these Leftist texts, or any other Leftist political propaganda, drove him to mass murder.
According to his friend Bruce Tierney, Loughner fixated on Giffords after she was confused by a question he posed in a previous public forum about government manipulation of grammar. "How do you know words mean anything?" he asked.
Her confusion was understandable.
Though there is not a shred of evidence linking Loughner's actions to political rhetoric, Democrats seized the day by invoking Barack Hussein Obama's former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's Rule 1: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."
Their first order of business was to focus on Sarah Palin -- specifically a political map from her SarahPAC website that identified vulnerable Democrat districts with crosshairs. One of those districts was Giffords' 8th Congressional District in southern Arizona.
Liberals argued that such imagery contributed to the violence in Tucson.
It turns out, of course, that Democrats have used much more inflammatory graphics, such as a "Heartland Strategy map on the official Democrat Leadership Council's website, which identified "enemy lines."
Then Democrats went after conservative media commentators like Rush Limbaugh and websites like PatriotShop.US, accusing us of inciting violence with "hate speech."
When asked if the Tea Party movement is an instigator, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) said, "For a while, you've been feeding this hatred, this division ... you feed it, you encourage it. ... Some of the extreme right wing has made demonization of elected officials their priority."
However, a quick search of comments by Democrat leaders and liberal media talkingheads reveals a hefty strain of hypocrisy. Of course, were it not for double standards, liberals wouldn't have any at all.
At a Democrat fundraiser, Obama had this to say about countering his Republican adversaries: "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." He identified Republicans as "hostage takers," later saying, "I don't want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry. I'm angry!" I didn't consider any of this to be hate speech, just a clarification of how seriously and how far Democrats are willing to take the political fight.
Recently, Joe Biden remarked, "If I hear one more Republican tell me about balancing the budget, I am going to strangle them." Biden didn't mean that literally, of course, and yet we're being asked to believe that Sarah Palin "crosshairs" map was somehow an incitement for the targeted assassination of Gabrielle Giffords.
In a New York Times op-ed this week, former Demo Rep. Paul Kanjorski declared, "It is incumbent on all Americans to create an atmosphere of civility and respect in which political discourse can flow freely, without fear of violent confrontation." This would be the same Rep. Kanjorski who had these words for a then-Florida gubernatorial candidate Rick Scott: "They ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him."
Ah, yes, "civility and respect."
A few other rhetorical examples: From the official Democrat Party website: "The Democratic National Committee plans to target Republican John McCain." From the website of Former Demo Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, "Once again, the Republican Leadership has launched an attack on working families. The target this time is one of the cornerstones of protection for American workers." From the website of Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), "It Really Is Time For Americans To Take Up Pitchforks."
Headlines from Leftmedia sources: "Democrats Launch Website Targeting 'Republican Lies'" (Washington Post); "A coalition known as Americans United for Change is targeting Republican senators" (NPR); "Obama administration officials said they were targeting Republican Senators" (CNN); "Dems Play Hardball: Target Republican Senators" (Huffington Post); "In the meantime, Obama will continue to target Republicans" (CBS); "I have to tell you, Rush Limbaugh is looking more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody's going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he's going to explode like a giant blimp" (MSNBC's Chris Matthews).
The Media Research Center has compiled numerous other violent threats issued by high-visibility liberals against conservatives.
No doubt clueless as to these many examples of Leftist "incitement," the celebrities piled on: "Hanoi Jane" Fonda, who infamously posed on an NVA antiaircraft gun only yards from where North Vietnamese prison guards were torturing American POWs, summed up the situation thusly: "Progressive Arizona Rep Gabrielle Giffords is shot. In her ads, Sarah Palin had her targeted in a gun site (sic). Inciting to violence." Thanks for your input, Jane.
Oh, and there was another Leftist celebrity who chimed in this week. Fidel Castro wrote in an op-ed, "The Tea Party, constituted by the most reactionary and politically backward elements of society ... in the midst of the crisis and disappointment over the promises that Obama has been unable to fulfill, will take the country into the abyss."
And speaking of op-eds, consider how The New York Times opined on two tragedies.
In 2009, after Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 people and wounded 30 others at Ft. Hood, all the while yelling "Allahu Akbar," Times' editors wrote: "In the aftermath of this unforgivable attack, it will be important to avoid drawing prejudicial conclusions from the fact that Major Hasan is an American Muslim whose parents came from the Middle East. President Obama was right when he told Americans, 'we don't know all the answers yet' and cautioned everyone against 'jumping to conclusions.'"
This week after the Tucson attack, that same Times opined, "It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman's act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members. But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge. Many on the right have exploited the arguments of division, reaping political power by demonizing immigrants, or welfare recipients, or bureaucrats. They seem to have persuaded many Americans that the government is not just misguided, but the enemy of the people. ... Now, having seen first hand the horror of political violence, Arizona should lead the nation in quieting the voices of intolerance, demanding an end to the temptations of bloodshed, and imposing sensible controls on its instruments."
Never let a serious crisis go to waste.
Crisis response, Part 1: Pennsylvania Demo Rep. Robert Brady is proposing "hate speech" legislation outlawing "language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a member of Congress."
Crisis response, Part 2: California Demo Sen. Barbara Boxer says, "I believe we should look at sensible gun laws again. Now, I'm not saying that these sensible gun laws would have stopped this killer, but I do know this: It should not be easy for a killer to obtain a weapon that could kill or wound 20 people."
Crisis response, Part 3: New Jersey Demo Sen. Frank Lautenberg announced that he is working with New York Demo Rep. Carolyn McCarthy on legislation that would ban the manufacture and sale of high-capacity magazines like those used in Tucson. According to McCarthy, "My staff is working on looking at the different legislation fixes that we might be able to do and we might be able to introduce as early as [Monday]."
Since alcohol-related auto wrecks kill far more Americans than sociopaths with guns, perhaps McCarthy and Lautenberg will soon be out with legislation requiring a five-day waiting period to buy a beer, and of course, no hi-capacity six-pack purchases will be allowed.
Oh, did I mention that alcohol is a determinant in more than 70 percent of violent crimes?
For the record, I fully support your individual right to possess, transport and consume alcohol, but I also support the notion that you have an individual responsibility in society not to endanger others by driving in public after using it. Some quick facts about criminals who use guns: The annual murder rate per 100,000 people on the European continent is 5.4, while in the United States, it is 5.6 (Bureau of Justice Statistics). However, if you're not involved with drug users or gangbangers, your chances of being murdered drop to par with the more "civilized" Western European nations, about 1.5 per 100,000.
As for Leftist attempts to disarm Americans, no amount of "gun control" will stop criminals from committing violent crimes against innocent men, women and children, though, arguably, gun restrictions can increase the violent crimes. The U.S. city with the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, Washington, D.C., has the highest murder rate at 24 per 100,000. The state with the most unrestrictive gun regulations, Vermont, has the lowest murder rate at 0.48 per 100,000.
Violence is a cultural problem, not a "gun problem."
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat - it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable. When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... And that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
haha, yes that does look bad now that i read what I wrote...
My point all along is that GUN BANS is not going to stop cirminals comitting gun crimes, it will only harm law abiding citizens. Now gun regulations on the other hand, i am in agreeance with, they do need to be changed. but I have been debating people who want GUN BANS, which is not a solution.
A knee jerk reaction would be to say that was bad. Again, a lefty would like to look at just that statement and say “GOTCHA”, but that is all they ever do. They can’t articulate an argument on their own, so they wait to pick apart what you say. But it’s really no different than saying:
There are more car accidents in countries where there are more cars. (Does that mean they are worse drivers?)
More Americans are killed by polar bears in Alaska than any other state. (Does that mean there is a polar bear problem in Alaska?)
Like I said earlier to 'the gun is civilization'... The very gun that allows a man to defend himself against a bunch of drunks with baseball bats also allows a man to murder 6 innocent individuals going to see their congresswoman.
Believe me, when I was growin up, I thought the worst thing you could turn out to be was normal, So I say freaks in the most complementary way. Here's a song by a fellow freak - E.V
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
I'm sorry but this entire paragraph is one of the most ridiculous thing I have ever read.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
I'm sorry but this entire paragraph is one of the most ridiculous thing I have ever read.
In most other countries apart from the US gun laws prevent the type of ownership issues that USA has.
If arguments about gun ownership being what prevents crime are true why arnt countries like Australia drowning in waves of crime. seeing as we have nothing to defend ourselves with.
I think its an excuse to make some people feel powerful.
I ask the question
if at the rally where these people were killed uf everyone pulled their own weapon out of their pants and started blatting away how many more would have died
why do these redneck americans who feel the need to own arsenals of weapons to defend themselves call Iraqi and afgani citizens terrorists when they shoot back at foreign invaders.
same thing isnt it
maybe that burgular was bringing freedom to your ipod
haha, yes that does look bad now that i read what I wrote... My point all along is that GUN BANS is not going to stop cirminals comitting gun crimes, it will only harm law abiding citizens. Now gun regulations on the other hand, i am in agreeance with, they do need to be changed. but I have been debating people who want GUN BANS, which is not a solution.
A knee jerk reaction would be to say that was bad. Again, a lefty would like to look at just that statement and say “GOTCHA”, but that is all they ever do. They can’t articulate an argument on their own, so they wait to pick apart what you say. But it’s really no different than saying:
There are more car accidents in countries where there are more cars. (Does that mean they are worse drivers?)
More Americans are killed by polar bears in Alaska than any other state. (Does that mean there is a polar bear problem in Alaska?)
Etc, etc.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
why do these redneck americans who feel the need to own arsenals of weapons to defend themselves call Iraqi and afgani citizens terrorists when they shoot back at foreign invaders.
same thing isnt it
maybe that burgular was bringing freedom to your ipod
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
why do these redneck americans who feel the need to own arsenals of weapons to defend themselves call Iraqi and afgani citizens terrorists when they shoot back at foreign invaders.
same thing isnt it
maybe that burgular was bringing freedom to your ipod
gotta point out that not all gun owners are rednecks ( im talking about redneck gun owners)
"we have more gun crime, well because we have more guns."
I agree that it "looks" bad. But that doesn't mean that it is bad. Looks can be deceiving. I'm not so sure you understand what per capita means. Or maybe your English just isn't great? Start by showing me where HeidiJam says the words "per capita" or talks about a concept that is "per capita" in the above quote. When you can't find that, come back and apologize. What Heidijam said is directly relatable to my analogies. (more cars = more car accidents)
haha, yes that does look bad now that i read what I wrote... My point all along is that GUN BANS is not going to stop cirminals comitting gun crimes, it will only harm law abiding citizens. Now gun regulations on the other hand, i am in agreeance with, they do need to be changed. but I have been debating people who want GUN BANS, which is not a solution.
A knee jerk reaction would be to say that was bad. Again, a lefty would like to look at just that statement and say “GOTCHA”, but that is all they ever do. They can’t articulate an argument on their own, so they wait to pick apart what you say. But it’s really no different than saying:
There are more car accidents in countries where there are more cars. (Does that mean they are worse drivers?)
More Americans are killed by polar bears in Alaska than any other state. (Does that mean there is a polar bear problem in Alaska?)
Like I said earlier to 'the gun is civilization'... The very gun that allows a man to defend himself against a bunch of drunks with baseball bats also allows a man to murder 6 innocent individuals going to see their congresswoman.
But you are not looking at it from the reverse angle. Take away the guns, that lefty nut job finds another method to murder 6 innocents. Maybe it's with his car or a bomb. Maybe even more are hurt. But the innocent man is left open to crime, because criminals know he is defenseless.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
I'm sorry but this entire paragraph is one of the most ridiculous thing I have ever read.
Did you form that opinion on your own,or did CNN tell you to say that?
So, if the 'lefty nut job' thought about killing a mass amount of people, why didntt he use a bomb or a car in the first place? I remember ONE bomb that killed a mass amount of people recently. But I remember dozens of accounts with guns in the last year alone. Is it maybe because guns are easier to get? easier to hide? easier to kill quickly with? I think so. He doesnt use abomb because they're pretty hard to make compared to getting a gun. I dont like the attitude of, "well they're gonna do it anyways, so we shouldnt do anything." that doesnt solve anything. Unless you dont think there's a problem. Thats what its begining to look like to me. These arguments are making me think that some people are OK with innocent people getting gunned down. And I formed all those opinions on my own, imagine that.
Like I said earlier to 'the gun is civilization'... The very gun that allows a man to defend himself against a bunch of drunks with baseball bats also allows a man to murder 6 innocent individuals going to see their congresswoman.
But you are not looking at it from the reverse angle. Take away the guns, that lefty nut job finds another method to murder 6 innocents. Maybe it's with his car or a bomb. Maybe even more are hurt. But the innocent man is left open to crime, because criminals know he is defenseless.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
I'm sorry but this entire paragraph is one of the most ridiculous thing I have ever read.
Did you form that opinion on your own,or did CNN tell you to say that?
This is terrible logic. How is injury even close in comparison to death?! This comment is laughable and ridiculous. Its almost as if this person got confused and decided to argue against guns here. I might have been brainwashed into saying this from too much CNN though.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
I'm sorry but this entire paragraph is one of the most ridiculous thing I have ever read.
Did you form that opinion on your own,or did CNN tell you to say that?
But seriously, do you agree with what this Major is saying here in this paragraph? That dying is somehow comparable to serious injury? What sense does this make at all? he says it is fallicious to say that lethal gun confronataions that would otherwise result in injury have anything to compare with overwhelming injury? You gotta question this guys motives if he seriouslty believes this.
Comments
Thanks you for illustrating my point yet again.
You are not interested in addressing anything that challenges your dogma. I presented you with the big picture, you called it wacky. I had a point to make on just a particular point of you position, and rather than answering it, you simply hide behind some vacuous defence that unless I address everything in every post - even if not relevant to my point - that you won't answer. Pathetic. All the more so since you have answered virtually nothing of substance that I have asked you and only confined yourself to the parts of my posts that are convenient for you to answer. In other words, doing exactly what you condemn everyone else for doing.
I'm done. You are either incapable or unwilling to engage in reasonable discussion. Either way, it's not worth the effort.
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
Not End of thread yet! close, but:
Ok, now END OF THREAD.
I believe that is what is commonly known as "shooting yourself in the foot"...
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
My point all along is that GUN BANS is not going to stop cirminals comitting gun crimes, it will only harm law abiding citizens. Now gun regulations on the other hand, i am in agreeance with, they do need to be changed. but I have been debating people who want GUN BANS, which is not a solution.
Except nobody here's saying it's an either/or scenario. No one's said that the person is innocent and that the gun is to blame, but gun laws in the U.S undoubtedly contributed to this massacre, just as U.S gun laws also contributed to every other massacre on U.S soil involving firearms.
I dont think i'm articulating my thoughts properly haha.
while that is true, that can be said about something else that is used everyday by more people..Cars...Cars kill people every day on the roads, and are often used completely irresponsibly, yet would you call them dangerous? should they be banned, should we put governors in them to control speeds? should we force them to go no more than 15 miles an hour? you pass a test to get a driver's license, you pass a test to carry a concealed weapon, how is it different? you get cleared by a background check to get a gun in the first place. any dipstick who has a good day can get a drivers license...I passed a commercial driver's license test the day after I got my permit and spent 2 hours driving it before I was licensed to drive a semi...tell me that isn't dangerous as hell...
All things used irresponsibly can be dangerous, but you cannot punish the VAST majority because of the irresponsible use by the minority.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Wow, in addition to harping on small pieces that aren't meant to stand on their own, you are really good at projecting your behaviors on me. I'm glad you’re done, because honestly I don't think you are capable of having a reasonable discussion. That's too bad, we could discuss dogs....
MG – “I like Chocolate Labs, they are adorable as puppies”
Wolfamongwolves - “See you do like chocolate!”
MG- “I’m actually allergic to it, I can’t eat the stuff, and I didn’t say that”
Wolfamongwolves – “Yes you did, I don’t need to take in to account everything you said”
Federal Judge John Roll, a Republican recommended for the bench by Sen. John McCain and nominated by President George H. W. Bush, was among six citizens murdered by a psychopath in Tucson on Saturday. Democrat Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was among 14 wounded, and her recovery prospects are promising.
These deaths and injuries are an incalculable tragedy, and equally so are the deaths and injuries of thousands of other violent crime victims each year.
Rep. Giffords is a moderate Democrat and a self-described "strong supporter of the Second Amendment." That notwithstanding, the Democrat Party has already undertaken to convert the Tucson crisis into political fodder for "gun control" and "hate speech" legislation, and a "national conversation" with the objective of silencing conservative political speech.
A gun did not commit the Tucson attack, as the Left would like you to believe; the perpetrator was a mentally deranged 22-year-old, Jared Lee Loughner, who chose to use a gun rather than some other method to orchestrate his mayhem.
What do we know about the motivation of this killer?
Former classmate Caitie Parker described Loughner as "left wing" and "a pothead." Though Loughner listed Hitler's "Mein Kampf" and Marx's "Communist Manifesto" among his favorite books, it is unlikely that these Leftist texts, or any other Leftist political propaganda, drove him to mass murder.
According to his friend Bruce Tierney, Loughner fixated on Giffords after she was confused by a question he posed in a previous public forum about government manipulation of grammar. "How do you know words mean anything?" he asked.
Her confusion was understandable.
Though there is not a shred of evidence linking Loughner's actions to political rhetoric, Democrats seized the day by invoking Barack Hussein Obama's former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's Rule 1: "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste."
Their first order of business was to focus on Sarah Palin -- specifically a political map from her SarahPAC website that identified vulnerable Democrat districts with crosshairs. One of those districts was Giffords' 8th Congressional District in southern Arizona.
Liberals argued that such imagery contributed to the violence in Tucson.
It turns out, of course, that Democrats have used much more inflammatory graphics, such as a "Heartland Strategy map on the official Democrat Leadership Council's website, which identified "enemy lines."
Then Democrats went after conservative media commentators like Rush Limbaugh and websites like PatriotShop.US, accusing us of inciting violence with "hate speech."
When asked if the Tea Party movement is an instigator, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) said, "For a while, you've been feeding this hatred, this division ... you feed it, you encourage it. ... Some of the extreme right wing has made demonization of elected officials their priority."
However, a quick search of comments by Democrat leaders and liberal media talkingheads reveals a hefty strain of hypocrisy. Of course, were it not for double standards, liberals wouldn't have any at all.
At a Democrat fundraiser, Obama had this to say about countering his Republican adversaries: "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." He identified Republicans as "hostage takers," later saying, "I don't want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry. I'm angry!" I didn't consider any of this to be hate speech, just a clarification of how seriously and how far Democrats are willing to take the political fight.
Recently, Joe Biden remarked, "If I hear one more Republican tell me about balancing the budget, I am going to strangle them." Biden didn't mean that literally, of course, and yet we're being asked to believe that Sarah Palin "crosshairs" map was somehow an incitement for the targeted assassination of Gabrielle Giffords.
In a New York Times op-ed this week, former Demo Rep. Paul Kanjorski declared, "It is incumbent on all Americans to create an atmosphere of civility and respect in which political discourse can flow freely, without fear of violent confrontation." This would be the same Rep. Kanjorski who had these words for a then-Florida gubernatorial candidate Rick Scott: "They ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him."
Ah, yes, "civility and respect."
A few other rhetorical examples: From the official Democrat Party website: "The Democratic National Committee plans to target Republican John McCain." From the website of Former Demo Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, "Once again, the Republican Leadership has launched an attack on working families. The target this time is one of the cornerstones of protection for American workers." From the website of Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), "It Really Is Time For Americans To Take Up Pitchforks."
Headlines from Leftmedia sources: "Democrats Launch Website Targeting 'Republican Lies'" (Washington Post); "A coalition known as Americans United for Change is targeting Republican senators" (NPR); "Obama administration officials said they were targeting Republican Senators" (CNN); "Dems Play Hardball: Target Republican Senators" (Huffington Post); "In the meantime, Obama will continue to target Republicans" (CBS); "I have to tell you, Rush Limbaugh is looking more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody's going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he's going to explode like a giant blimp" (MSNBC's Chris Matthews).
The Media Research Center has compiled numerous other violent threats issued by high-visibility liberals against conservatives.
No doubt clueless as to these many examples of Leftist "incitement," the celebrities piled on: "Hanoi Jane" Fonda, who infamously posed on an NVA antiaircraft gun only yards from where North Vietnamese prison guards were torturing American POWs, summed up the situation thusly: "Progressive Arizona Rep Gabrielle Giffords is shot. In her ads, Sarah Palin had her targeted in a gun site (sic). Inciting to violence." Thanks for your input, Jane.
Oh, and there was another Leftist celebrity who chimed in this week. Fidel Castro wrote in an op-ed, "The Tea Party, constituted by the most reactionary and politically backward elements of society ... in the midst of the crisis and disappointment over the promises that Obama has been unable to fulfill, will take the country into the abyss."
And speaking of op-eds, consider how The New York Times opined on two tragedies.
In 2009, after Nidal Malik Hasan killed 13 people and wounded 30 others at Ft. Hood, all the while yelling "Allahu Akbar," Times' editors wrote: "In the aftermath of this unforgivable attack, it will be important to avoid drawing prejudicial conclusions from the fact that Major Hasan is an American Muslim whose parents came from the Middle East. President Obama was right when he told Americans, 'we don't know all the answers yet' and cautioned everyone against 'jumping to conclusions.'"
This week after the Tucson attack, that same Times opined, "It is facile and mistaken to attribute this particular madman's act directly to Republicans or Tea Party members. But it is legitimate to hold Republicans and particularly their most virulent supporters in the media responsible for the gale of anger that has produced the vast majority of these threats, setting the nation on edge. Many on the right have exploited the arguments of division, reaping political power by demonizing immigrants, or welfare recipients, or bureaucrats. They seem to have persuaded many Americans that the government is not just misguided, but the enemy of the people. ... Now, having seen first hand the horror of political violence, Arizona should lead the nation in quieting the voices of intolerance, demanding an end to the temptations of bloodshed, and imposing sensible controls on its instruments."
Never let a serious crisis go to waste.
Crisis response, Part 1: Pennsylvania Demo Rep. Robert Brady is proposing "hate speech" legislation outlawing "language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a member of Congress."
Crisis response, Part 2: California Demo Sen. Barbara Boxer says, "I believe we should look at sensible gun laws again. Now, I'm not saying that these sensible gun laws would have stopped this killer, but I do know this: It should not be easy for a killer to obtain a weapon that could kill or wound 20 people."
Crisis response, Part 3: New Jersey Demo Sen. Frank Lautenberg announced that he is working with New York Demo Rep. Carolyn McCarthy on legislation that would ban the manufacture and sale of high-capacity magazines like those used in Tucson. According to McCarthy, "My staff is working on looking at the different legislation fixes that we might be able to do and we might be able to introduce as early as [Monday]."
Since alcohol-related auto wrecks kill far more Americans than sociopaths with guns, perhaps McCarthy and Lautenberg will soon be out with legislation requiring a five-day waiting period to buy a beer, and of course, no hi-capacity six-pack purchases will be allowed.
Oh, did I mention that alcohol is a determinant in more than 70 percent of violent crimes?
For the record, I fully support your individual right to possess, transport and consume alcohol, but I also support the notion that you have an individual responsibility in society not to endanger others by driving in public after using it.
Some quick facts about criminals who use guns: The annual murder rate per 100,000 people on the European continent is 5.4, while in the United States, it is 5.6 (Bureau of Justice Statistics). However, if you're not involved with drug users or gangbangers, your chances of being murdered drop to par with the more "civilized" Western European nations, about 1.5 per 100,000.
As for Leftist attempts to disarm Americans, no amount of "gun control" will stop criminals from committing violent crimes against innocent men, women and children, though, arguably, gun restrictions can increase the violent crimes.
The U.S. city with the most restrictive gun laws in the nation, Washington, D.C., has the highest murder rate at 24 per 100,000. The state with the most unrestrictive gun regulations, Vermont, has the lowest murder rate at 0.48 per 100,000.
Violence is a cultural problem, not a "gun problem."
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat - it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... And that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)
A knee jerk reaction would be to say that was bad. Again, a lefty would like to look at just that statement and say “GOTCHA”, but that is all they ever do. They can’t articulate an argument on their own, so they wait to pick apart what you say. But it’s really no different than saying:
There are more car accidents in countries where there are more cars. (Does that mean they are worse drivers?)
More Americans are killed by polar bears in Alaska than any other state. (Does that mean there is a polar bear problem in Alaska?)
Etc, etc.
I'm sorry but this entire paragraph is one of the most ridiculous thing I have ever read.
If arguments about gun ownership being what prevents crime are true why arnt countries like Australia drowning in waves of crime. seeing as we have nothing to defend ourselves with.
I think its an excuse to make some people feel powerful.
easy access to weapons means death to more people
if at the rally where these people were killed uf everyone pulled their own weapon out of their pants and started blatting away how many more would have died
same thing isnt it
maybe that burgular was bringing freedom to your ipod
and actually, no, I commend HJ for saying this. It's refreshing. As I actually also did earlier. It's called an adult conversation.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
gotta point out that not all gun owners are rednecks ( im talking about redneck gun owners)
"we have more gun crime, well because we have more guns."
I agree that it "looks" bad. But that doesn't mean that it is bad. Looks can be deceiving. I'm not so sure you understand what per capita means. Or maybe your English just isn't great? Start by showing me where HeidiJam says the words "per capita" or talks about a concept that is "per capita" in the above quote. When you can't find that, come back and apologize. What Heidijam said is directly relatable to my analogies. (more cars = more car accidents)
But you are not looking at it from the reverse angle. Take away the guns, that lefty nut job finds another method to murder 6 innocents. Maybe it's with his car or a bomb. Maybe even more are hurt. But the innocent man is left open to crime, because criminals know he is defenseless.
Did you form that opinion on your own,or did CNN tell you to say that?
This is terrible logic. How is injury even close in comparison to death?! This comment is laughable and ridiculous. Its almost as if this person got confused and decided to argue against guns here. I might have been brainwashed into saying this from too much CNN though.
But seriously, do you agree with what this Major is saying here in this paragraph? That dying is somehow comparable to serious injury? What sense does this make at all? he says it is fallicious to say that lethal gun confronataions that would otherwise result in injury have anything to compare with overwhelming injury? You gotta question this guys motives if he seriouslty believes this.
I think it's a very sad day when CNN is regarded as representing left-wing thought in America.