COVID-19 RESOURCES
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Why Liberals Should Love the 2nd Amendment

Liar said:
More to the point, why didn't you harp on his spelling? :cool:

"in"?
Click to expand...
Because he knows how to spell "is."

That was a typographical error.

You spelled "fluorine" or "fluoride" wrong at least five times, indicating the need for your mind to be set right.
 
Frisco_Slug_Esq said:
... napping like a Kennedy...
Click to expand...
Anybody here? Hey, Ol' Man, You home tonight? Can you spare a minute? It's about time we had a little talk. I know I'm a pretty evil fella. Killed people in the war and got drunk and chewed up municipal property and the like. I know I got no call to ask for much but even so, you gotta admit, you ain't dealt me no cards in a long time. It's beginnin' to look like you got things fixed so I can't never win out. Inside, outside, all 'em rules and regulations and bosses. You made me like I am. Just where am I supposed to fit in? Ol' Man, I gotta tell ya. I started out pretty strong and fast. But it's beginnin' to get to me. When does it end? What do ya got in mind for me? What do I do now? All right. All right. (He kneels on his knees and cups his hands in prayer.) On my knees, askin'. (pause) Yeah, that's what I thought. I guess I'm pretty tough to deal with, huh? A hard case. I guess I gotta find my own way. (Police cars drive up in front of the church. Dragline calls out to his friend from the church door) Luke? (Luke looks up and addresses an aside to God) That's your answer ol' Man? I guess you're a hard case too.
 
kbate said:
Why are you not angry about automobiles? 20 times the people are killed by misuse of cars every single year as are killed by guns. 1000 times as many are injured by automobiles/motorcycles/trucks.

We have regulated who may drive. We test drivers. We license and perform safety checks on vehicles.

and till people crash and die.

That alone should prove that regulation and bans will not make any difference in the Gun Violence you claim to abhor.

In truth, you dislike guns because you are liberal and liberals dislike guns because they are the final power of the people. Everything you quote about crime/violence is a lie to cover this fact.

***

You used idiotic logic earlier to accuse me of "end of republic" thinking - which I have not engaged in. I do not believe revolution is imminent or is ever likely in this country. As long as television sates the masses - they will remain docile sheep in the face of a growing police state, and even cheer the loss of their freedoms.

You again use assumptions and a shocking lack of truth in your assertions about criminal use of guns. Gonzale's ex-husband went there to kill. No Gun ban would have made a difference any more than a restraining order (the supposed protection of your mighty protective police) made to him.

Banning guns for the citizens of America - won't stop Mexican and Columbian drug dealers from killing. Bans won't hinder crime at all or bring them to police attention any more than the 20,000 gun laws already in force do. Every state has a speeding law - and still cars drive 20 over that limit. Drunks continue to drive, kids drink and crash - despite MAD and the race for the nation's toughest DWI law.

England is planning to ban pointed steak knives now that banning guns, air-guns and toy guns didn't end violence.

How far do you liberals wish to go in your attempt to create a new peaceful human?
Click to expand...

I AM angry over the misuse of automobiles. Driving a car is the most dangerous thing most of us ever do, but because we do it everyday we take our responsibilities for granted. Familiarity breeds contempt. If I was a traffic court judge, I'd be revoking licenses left and right. But this isn't a valid argument point. The topic at hand was the Second Amendment. We should limit our arguments to that.

And everything I quote about crime and guns is NOT a lie. Its evidentiary support for my arguments. Some of what I say cannot be supported by facts because there are no facts available/possible, which means that it is my opinion. You can disagree with my opinion, but I'm certainly not lying and I take offense at the accusation.

Your "end of the republic" thinking isn't said directly, but it is implied as the obvious corollaries in all of your arguments. If the police have no duties to protect us, then one of the very basic rules that underlies the fabric of our society has been removed. Yet that's exactly what your interpretation of the Gonzales case leads to.

You say "Gonzales went there to kill." You don't know that. I don't know that. We don't know at what point he decided to kill. It could have been before he picked up the kids. It could have been while at the amusement park when he became enraged by his ex-wife's threats of arrest received on his cell phone. We don't know. But you are arguing that the police cannot use their own judgment but instead must immediately jump to "a murder is about to happen" when they have NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT WHATSOEVER. I.e. the parade of horribles. It's paranoid and fearful reasoning. It's akin to saying "every man who ever hits his wife is a murderer."

And as to the rest of your argument, you're saying there is no deterrent effect to passing criminal laws. At all. Wow. First the police have no duty to protect us, and now "criminals" are going to do whatever they want, whenever they want, no matter the circumstances or consequences. That's an awfully cynical and binary view of the world and human nature.
 
statsultan said:
I AM angry over the misuse of automobiles. Driving a car is the most dangerous thing most of us ever do, but because we do it everyday we take our responsibilities for granted. Familiarity breeds contempt. If I was a traffic court judge, I'd be revoking licenses left and right. But this isn't a valid argument point. The topic at hand was the Second Amendment. We should limit our arguments to that.

And everything I quote about crime and guns is NOT a lie. Its evidentiary support for my arguments. Some of what I say cannot be supported by facts because there are no facts available/possible, which means that it is my opinion. You can disagree with my opinion, but I'm certainly not lying and I take offense at the accusation.

Your "end of the republic" thinking isn't said directly, but it is implied as the obvious corollaries in all of your arguments. If the police have no duties to protect us, then one of the very basic rules that underlies the fabric of our society has been removed. Yet that's exactly what your interpretation of the Gonzales case leads to.

You say "Gonzales went there to kill." You don't know that. I don't know that. We don't know at what point he decided to kill. It could have been before he picked up the kids. It could have been while at the amusement park when he became enraged by his ex-wife's threats of arrest received on his cell phone. We don't know. But you are arguing that the police cannot use their own judgment but instead must immediately jump to "a murder is about to happen" when they have NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT WHATSOEVER. I.e. the parade of horribles. It's paranoid and fearful reasoning. It's akin to saying "every man who ever hits his wife is a murderer."

And as to the rest of your argument, you're saying there is no deterrent effect to passing criminal laws. At all. Wow. First the police have no duty to protect us, and now "criminals" are going to do whatever they want, whenever they want, no matter the circumstances or consequences. That's an awfully cynical and binary view of the world and human nature.
Click to expand...
Holy fuck.

You're a meth addict, aren't you?
 
statsultan said:
I AM angry over the misuse of automobiles. Driving a car is the most dangerous thing most of us ever do, but because we do it everyday we take our responsibilities for granted. Familiarity breeds contempt. If I was a traffic court judge, I'd be revoking licenses left and right. But this isn't a valid argument point. The topic at hand was the Second Amendment. We should limit our arguments to that.

And everything I quote about crime and guns is NOT a lie. Its evidentiary support for my arguments. Some of what I say cannot be supported by facts because there are no facts available/possible, which means that it is my opinion. You can disagree with my opinion, but I'm certainly not lying and I take offense at the accusation.

Your "end of the republic" thinking isn't said directly, but it is implied as the obvious corollaries in all of your arguments. If the police have no duties to protect us, then one of the very basic rules that underlies the fabric of our society has been removed. Yet that's exactly what your interpretation of the Gonzales case leads to.

You say "Gonzales went there to kill." You don't know that. I don't know that. We don't know at what point he decided to kill. It could have been before he picked up the kids. It could have been while at the amusement park when he became enraged by his ex-wife's threats of arrest received on his cell phone. We don't know. But you are arguing that the police cannot use their own judgment but instead must immediately jump to "a murder is about to happen" when they have NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT WHATSOEVER. I.e. the parade of horribles. It's paranoid and fearful reasoning. It's akin to saying "every man who ever hits his wife is a murderer."

And as to the rest of your argument, you're saying there is no deterrent effect to passing criminal laws. At all. Wow. First the police have no duty to protect us, and now "criminals" are going to do whatever they want, whenever they want, no matter the circumstances or consequences. That's an awfully cynical and binary view of the world and human nature.
Click to expand...

The police admit they cannot protect us and went to court to gain immunities from that duty.

Criminals continue to obtain guns despite laws that make such illegal.

Criminals murder people despite the law against such.

People speed despite risk of license suspension.

And just because I believe that the people need to retain the power of revolt - does not make revolt likely. Everywhere that people are stripped of weapons - they are soon stripped of freedom. You believe our vote replaces the need for guns - fine, believe that. I do not.

You believe you can legislate people into obedience - but law has (provably) been around since the beginning of written history - and crime still exists. Explain? Why has 5000 years of law not revised man into a peaceful loving being? Perhaps my cynicism of the power of one more gun ban is justified?

The purpose of law is not to deter or prevent crime. It is to punish criminals for their actions. Absent the immediate possibility of a speeding ticket - nearly everyone immediately disobeys that law - and those are the good people who are just going to work in their autos. Perhaps some cynicism about the deterrent power of law is justified?

The courts and system thought enough of the threat to Gonzales to issue a restraining order. They didn't think enough of it to actually do more than issue that piece of paper - trusting in the power of it to deter crime. We know how that turned out. The ultimate in feel good policies. I'd rather they issued a gun.

You accuse me of paranoid and fearful reasoning. Yet you are the one afraid of 100 million American Citizens who have committed no crimes. Afraid enough that you wish to remove their weapons in order to protect you from their unwillingness to use those weapons against you. That is fear.
 
kbate said:
The police admit they cannot protect us and went to court to gain immunities from that duty.

Criminals continue to obtain guns despite laws that make such illegal.

Criminals murder people despite the law against such.

People speed despite risk of license suspension.

And just because I believe that the people need to retain the power of revolt - does not make revolt likely. Everywhere that people are stripped of weapons - they are soon stripped of freedom. You believe our vote replaces the need for guns - fine, believe that. I do not.

You believe you can legislate people into obedience - but law has (provably) been around since the beginning of written history - and crime still exists. Explain? Why has 5000 years of law not revised man into a peaceful loving being? Perhaps my cynicism of the power of one more gun ban is justified?

The purpose of law is not to deter or prevent crime. It is to punish criminals for their actions. Absent the immediate possibility of a speeding ticket - nearly everyone immediately disobeys that law - and those are the good people who are just going to work in their autos. Perhaps some cynicism about the deterrent power of law is justified?

The courts and system thought enough of the threat to Gonzales to issue a restraining order. They didn't think enough of it to actually do more than issue that piece of paper - trusting in the power of it to deter crime. We know how that turned out. The ultimate in feel good policies. I'd rather they issued a gun.

You accuse me of paranoid and fearful reasoning. Yet you are the one afraid of 100 million American Citizens who have committed no crimes. Afraid enough that you wish to remove their weapons in order to protect you from their unwillingness to use those weapons against you. That is fear.
Click to expand...

Excellent arguments. Solid reasoning. I'm not being facetious. Those are all excellent short and to the point statements.

I am fearful of the misuse of guns. Not that they will be used against me, but against a gun owner's family members who if a gun wasn't available would not be on the receiving end of lethal violence, either through a momentary temper or accident.

So let's go back to the Gonzales case. You said that you'd rather the government had issued a gun. To whom? The ex-wife? After all, that's who the restraining order was there to protect. But the ex-husband came and got the kids when she wasn't home. She would have had no opportunity to use the gun to protect her family. The violence was committed against the very young children. So are you saying the court should have given the 8 and 10 year olds guns? Face it, the Gonzales case cannot stand for the proposition that the police have no duty to protect us.

And I just don't buy the argument of "of course we're not going to revolt against the U.S., but we reserve the right to do so." Followed by, "you're never going to get rid of the guns, because criminals will always have them." Since revolting against the government is, de facto, a crime (since the gov't makes the laws and breaking the law is a crime), and since criminals will have guns, then ipso facto, there is no reason to retain the rights to own a gun in order to one day overthrow the gov't. When it comes time to overthrow the gov't then you won't care about the gov't's laws and you can obtain guns illegally.

Ok, that last argument is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but really the "reserve the right to overthrow the gov't" has got to be the least convincing argument for keeping guns around.
 
Byron In Exile said:
They hadn't, to my knowledge, before that. I would send them $25 or $50 sometimes, when I thought what they were doing had merit. Suddenly, I got that letter, and I was floored.

After I sent them that response, a got a sort of form letter which was obviously crafted by some damage-control committee.

And I never got another solicitation from them after that.
Click to expand...

They do some good here and there but they have an agenda all their own - one that I don't subscribe to.
 
Byron In Exile said:
Not into the whole "Liberty" thing, then?
Click to expand...

I like what the ACLU nominally stands for, but I think Slowlane is right. They're very selective in what cases they will and won't take. I may be ignorant of their entire case load, but I don't recall seeing them argue for the right to bear arms, for example, as you posted about in this thread.
 
Peregrinator said:
I like what the ACLU nominally stands for, but I think Slowlane is right. They're very selective in what cases they will and won't take. I may be ignorant of their entire case load, but I don't recall seeing them argue for the right to bear arms, for example, as you posted about in this thread.
Click to expand...

The aclu's claim to fame is no nativity scenes on Government property and no prayer in schools.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Bigtitsbitch1000x
Torture in Russia
Replies
0
Views
137
Bigtitsbitch1000x
Bigtitsbitch1000x
goldytheGoldfish
Where Bus Go?
Replies
2
Views
108
goldytheGoldfish
goldytheGoldfish
Beholders_Eye
"You are visiting from an age registered location where verification is needed to access"
Replies
9
Views
221
Chernosoth
Chernosoth
Bigtitsbitch1000x
Transwomen, how do you experience HRT?
Replies
0
Views
55
Bigtitsbitch1000x
Bigtitsbitch1000x
SayPleasePlease
Tonight the foxes hunt the hounds
Replies
0
Views
52
SayPleasePlease
SayPleasePlease
Back
Top