Shooting in Conn. School

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized"


Any reason the NRA is not out in full force trying to overturn warrant-less wire taps, unmanned drones, and indefinite detention? I mean if the whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to protect us against the government taking over it is sure doing a lousy job. Maybe because the NRA only cares about selling more guns and not actual "freedom".
 
The National Rilfe Association only works towards firearms? Weird.

Great post though. Wonderful follow up to the post two slots above saying that a tyrannical government doesn't exist.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']The National Rilfe Association only works towards firearms? Weird.

Great post though. Wonderful follow up to the post two slots above saying that a tyrannical government doesn't exist.[/QUOTE]

So then you agree it is only about selling guns and nothing about government and freedom.
 
[quote name='4thHorseman']Dont understand why you need a gun? You mean to fight the tyrannical dystopian government that doesnt exist? Because that tends to be the excuse that goes hand in hand with the second amendment argument...[/QUOTE]

"tyrannical dystopian government" :lol:

Because it is General Zod, Xenu and Zardoz that they are worried about?

Despots and tyrants can come from any ideological bent, and have. Everyone hates a despot, until it's their despot- many have been elected and were not just popular, but celebrated. Need they be from some fictional distopian despotic regime, bow before a tetragrammaton or have dragons?

I am every-bit as afraid of some dim-witted, Jebus loving, salt-of-the-earth, reactionary having the unilateral authority to indefinitely detain, imprison and dispatch with extreme prejudice without due process and/or oversight (as long as it complies with some amorphous/ambiguous definition of terrorism) as I am afraid of progressive cult of personality incarnate having it.

. . but hey as long as it is done in the name of a polite and civilized society and whatever it takes to be safe.
 
Nah, you just have every moron on fox news comparing Obama to Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Chavez etc.

Which you know, is totally realistic. Tyrants often times submit themselves to elections and debates. Look at that gigantic margin Obama won the election by, total dictator, right?

I swear that the national intelligence in this country has lowered in the last decade. To think that a channel like fox news even exists in this country is a sad statement about us all.
 
[quote name='Clak']Nah, you just have every moron on fox news comparing Obama to Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Chavez etc.

Which you know, is totally realistic. Tyrants often times submit themselves to elections and debates. Look at that gigantic margin Obama won the election by, total dictator, right?

I swear that the national intelligence in this country has lowered in the last decade. To think that a channel like fox news even exists in this country is a sad statement about us all.[/QUOTE]

There is something wrong with this country when a President can kill any US citizen simply by pointing a finger. There is something wrong when our own government killed almost 200 children on a foreign soil without any consequences. Obama is no Hitler but everything he does will play in favor for future presidents who hunger for power.
 
[quote name='mrsilkunderwear']There is something wrong with this country when a President can kill any US citizen simply by pointing a finger. There is something wrong when our own government killed almost 200 children on a foreign soil without any consequences. Obama is no Hitler but everything he does will play in favor for future presidents who hunger for power.[/QUOTE]

I'm not a big fan of Obama, but I hardly think the President can kill any US citizen. Just those of a select group. It's like those coupons that exclude half the menu.
 
First of all Obama has already order and executed a American and his son without any conviction of due process. Sure its not like Obama is gunning down any american, but his policy sets a bad very bad precedent for future POTUS
 
We were killing children on foreign soil long before Obama was elected. Hell, before many of us were even alive. If you want to bitch about it, better make a list.
 
[quote name='Clak']We were killing children on foreign soil long before Obama was elected. Hell, before many of us were even alive. If you want to bitch about it, better make a list.[/QUOTE]

"both sides do it."
 
[quote name='4thHorseman']Dont understand why you need a gun? You mean to fight the tyrannical dystopian government that doesnt exist? Because that tends to be the excuse that goes hand in hand with the second amendment argument...[/QUOTE]

It doesn't matter why you think people need a gun or not. It isn't yours, or the governments business unless the government has just cause. Determining that .0001% of the guns in America were the cause of death of 30,000 Americans last year, is not just cause to think you need to take away the other 299,970,000 guns. Actually I think that is a pretty damn good rate.

Does it matter why video games need to exist? They are simply for entertainment and have no value.

What about excessively fast cars? Why would someone need these?

What about alcohal? How many lives would be saved if we banned that? Why do we need it?

What about swimming pools and public water sources? Thousands drown each year, and 5000+ children 14 and under are hospitalized each year. Stop them from swimming!!!

I could go on and on but the point is, the government cannot protect everyone from everything. The more it tries, the more it will erode our individual rights (as it is currently doing) in a vain attempt to "protect the greater good".
 
[quote name='h3llbring3r']"tyrannical dystopian government" :lol:

Because it is General Zod, Xenu and Zardoz that they are worried about?

Despots and tyrants can come from any ideological bent, and have. Everyone hates a despot, until it's their despot- many have been elected and were not just popular, but celebrated. Need they be from some fictional distopian despotic regime, bow before a tetragrammaton or have dragons?

I am every-bit as afraid of some dim-witted, Jebus loving, salt-of-the-earth, reactionary having the unilateral authority to indefinitely detain, imprison and dispatch with extreme prejudice without due process and/or oversight (as long as it complies with some amorphous/ambiguous definition of terrorism) as I am afraid of progressive cult of personality incarnate having it.

. . but hey as long as it is done in the name of a polite and civilized society and whatever it takes to be safe.[/QUOTE]

The problem that emerges from this mindset is the inflexibility of people to discuss issues or make compromises. It involves a thorough lack of curiosity and a belief in the inherent wrongness of the other side (in order to otherwise justify the unwillingness to compromise).

Thus, any discussion of gun control is overreacted to as "OBANNA GRANNIN MAH GUNS, HE SOCIALISM HITLERS!" That's not sensible. It's reactionary, and it's predicated on the idea that there's no way you would ever concede that the other side has any good points. Moreover, it has to resort to false accusations ("gun grab!") to have any foundation to stand on.

This is the same reason I read a bunch of right-wingers freaking out yesterday because city council in a town I grew up in proposed a toll for a bridge that (1) has been in need of substantial repair for over a decade now and (2) there's no funding for said repair. The people don't want to pay to fix it, they don't want to pay to build a new bridge, they don't want to go into debt for either. The irony is that a toll system is, in its own way, a consumption tax - or, in other words, Neal Boortz's bullshit "FairTax" in practice. Yet they don't want it. They hear "new tax" and stop all reasoning at that point, hands over their ears chanting la-la-la-i-can't-hear you.

If you truly believe that any gun control is fascist totalitarianism and aren't just being silly for its own sake, your viewpoint is why politics in the modern US is so disgusting.

This is politics in the 21st century.
 
[quote name='Knoell']It doesn't matter why you think people need a gun or not. It isn't yours, or the governments business unless the government has just cause. Determining that .0001% of the guns in America were the cause of death of 30,000 Americans last year, is not just cause to think you need to take away the other 299,970,000 guns. Actually I think that is a pretty damn good rate.

Does it matter why video games need to exist? They are simply for entertainment and have no value.

What about excessively fast cars? Why would someone need these?

What about alcohal? How many lives would be saved if we banned that? Why do we need it?

What about swimming pools and public water sources? Thousands drown each year, and 5000+ children 14 and under are hospitalized each year. Stop them from swimming!!!

I could go on and on but the point is, the government cannot protect everyone from everything. The more it tries, the more it will erode our individual rights (as it is currently doing) in a vain attempt to "protect the greater good".[/QUOTE]


I agree with what you are saying here for the most part. The only real issue I have is we cannot even have a conversation about any limitation on guns currently being sold. Why is it we accept certain guns as "o.k." for society to have while others are not deemed acceptable? I am not against gun ownership but I have no problem talking about limits on how many and what kind you are allowed to have. THAT conversation is just shouted down time and again by assuming limits means taking all the guns away.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The problem that emerges from this mindset is the inflexibility of people to discuss issues or make compromises. It involves a thorough lack of curiosity and a belief in the inherent wrongness of the other side (in order to otherwise justify the unwillingness to compromise).

Thus, any discussion of gun control is overreacted to as "OBANNA GRANNIN MAH GUNS, HE SOCIALISM HITLERS!" That's not sensible. It's reactionary, and it's predicated on the idea that there's no way you would ever concede that the other side has any good points. Moreover, it has to resort to false accusations ("gun grab!") to have any foundation to stand on.

This is the same reason I read a bunch of right-wingers freaking out yesterday because city council in a town I grew up in proposed a toll for a bridge that (1) has been in need of substantial repair for over a decade now and (2) there's no funding for said repair. The people don't want to pay to fix it, they don't want to pay to build a new bridge, they don't want to go into debt for either. The irony is that a toll system is, in its own way, a consumption tax - or, in other words, Neal Boortz's bullshit "FairTax" in practice. Yet they don't want it. They hear "new tax" and stop all reasoning at that point, hands over their ears chanting la-la-la-i-can't-hear you.

If you truly believe that any gun control is fascist totalitarianism and aren't just being silly for its own sake, your viewpoint is why politics in the modern US is so disgusting.

This is politics in the 21st century.[/QUOTE]

The problem with your theory that they won't ban guns is that you aren't looking at the statistics.

The statistics show that pistols are the weapon that are used in the vast majority of shootings.

You want to ban assault weapons to solve the gun violence issue.

Gun violence issue still exists because you did not ban the weapon that is actually used.

You make the same case for pistols, that tens of thousands are dying each year (god forbid another school shooting) and we need to do something.

You ban pistols.

Thats an extremely to the point timeline, and certain things would probably happen in between (banning extended magazines), and it may take years, but look at England they said the same thing.

It is the inevitable result in gun control. You cannot have gun control without controlling the guns. People against gun control see this and are nipping it in the bud.
 
Why do some people only count deaths from firearms? Great news, survivors! You don't get counted in the debate. Now it looks like there are fewer incidents. Free crab rangoon for everyone!*

*With purchase of regular priced entree.

Not being serious, just curious. If you're going to talk statistics, it would be nice to not ignore some.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The problem that emerges from this mindset is the inflexibility of people to discuss issues or make compromises. It involves a thorough lack of curiosity and a belief in the inherent wrongness of the other side (in order to otherwise justify the unwillingness to compromise).

Thus, any discussion of gun control is overreacted to as "OBANNA GRANNIN MAH GUNS, HE SOCIALISM HITLERS!" That's not sensible. It's reactionary, and it's predicated on the idea that there's no way you would ever concede that the other side has any good points. Moreover, it has to resort to false accusations ("gun grab!") to have any foundation to stand on.

This is the same reason I read a bunch of right-wingers freaking out yesterday because city council in a town I grew up in proposed a toll for a bridge that (1) has been in need of substantial repair for over a decade now and (2) there's no funding for said repair. The people don't want to pay to fix it, they don't want to pay to build a new bridge, they don't want to go into debt for either. The irony is that a toll system is, in its own way, a consumption tax - or, in other words, Neal Boortz's bullshit "FairTax" in practice. Yet they don't want it. They hear "new tax" and stop all reasoning at that point, hands over their ears chanting la-la-la-i-can't-hear you.

If you truly believe that any gun control is fascist totalitarianism and aren't just being silly for its own sake, your viewpoint is why politics in the modern US is so disgusting.

This is politics in the 21st century.[/QUOTE]It's like I've said before, poeple will complain about the state of roads in their area, and immediately switch to complaining aobut how high taxes are. Then when you mention that the roads are paid for using money from taxes, it's like you just dropped a logic bomb and they can't compute.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The problem that emerges from this mindset is the inflexibility of people to discuss issues or make compromises. It involves a thorough lack of curiosity and a belief in the inherent wrongness of the other side (in order to otherwise justify the unwillingness to compromise).

Thus, any discussion of gun control is overreacted to as "OBANNA GRANNIN MAH GUNS, HE SOCIALISM HITLERS!" That's not sensible. It's reactionary, and it's predicated on the idea that there's no way you would ever concede that the other side has any good points. Moreover, it has to resort to false accusations ("gun grab!") to have any foundation to stand on.

This is the same reason I read a bunch of right-wingers freaking out yesterday because city council in a town I grew up in proposed a toll for a bridge that (1) has been in need of substantial repair for over a decade now and (2) there's no funding for said repair. The people don't want to pay to fix it, they don't want to pay to build a new bridge, they don't want to go into debt for either. The irony is that a toll system is, in its own way, a consumption tax - or, in other words, Neal Boortz's bullshit "FairTax" in practice. Yet they don't want it. They hear "new tax" and stop all reasoning at that point, hands over their ears chanting la-la-la-i-can't-hear you.

If you truly believe that any gun control is fascist totalitarianism and aren't just being silly for its own sake, your viewpoint is why politics in the modern US is so disgusting.

This is politics in the 21st century.[/QUOTE]

I wonder which of your rights you'd be willing to give up in the name of security theater.

If only you were as interested in drone control as you were in gun control. Won't somebody think of the children?

http://droneswatch.org/2013/01/20/list-of-children-killed-by-drone-strikes-in-pakistan-and-yemen/
 
One of these days I'll get around to asking it of someone face to face, but I'd love to ask a gun rights supporter why, if the 2nd amendment is all about private gun ownership, was the little preamble about militias thrown in? If it was meant to be interpreted to mean private citizens can all own guns, why doesn't it just say that? Why the part about militias at all? Are we to assume the authors were just being long winded? Seems to me that they're ignoring an important part of the amendment, like someone reading A Christmas Carol and glossing over the part about Scrooge being a cheap old bastard.
 
[quote name='ID2006']Why do some people only count deaths from firearms? Great news, survivors! You don't get counted in the debate. Now it looks like there are fewer incidents. Free crab rangoon for everyone!*

*With purchase of regular priced entree.

Not being serious, just curious. If you're going to talk statistics, it would be nice to not ignore some.
[/QUOTE]

It appears that number is somewhere around 200,000 people each year in the US.
 
[quote name='ID2006']Why do some people only count deaths from firearms? Great news, survivors! You don't get counted in the debate. Now it looks like there are fewer incidents. Free crab rangoon for everyone!*

*With purchase of regular priced entree.

Not being serious, just curious. If you're going to talk statistics, it would be nice to not ignore some.
[/QUOTE]

And amount of time handling guns. Sure, cars cause lots of deaths, but 250 million people drive like 15,000 miles a year. At 32k fatal crashes, it's like 117 million miles driven per fatality.

In comparison, 10,800,000 guns sold, and 30,000+ deaths, it's like 1 death per 360 guns sold*.

*I know the comparison isn't quite fair, unless you know the amount of time people handle guns a year.
 
[quote name='Clak']One of these days I'll get around to asking it of someone face to face, but I'd love to ask a gun rights supporter why, if the 2nd amendment is all about private gun ownership, was the little preamble about militias thrown in? If it was meant to be interpreted to mean private citizens can all own guns, why doesn't it just say that? Why the part about militias at all? Are we to assume the authors were just being long winded? Seems to me that they're ignoring an important part of the amendment, like someone reading A Christmas Carol and glossing over the part about Scrooge being a cheap old bastard.[/QUOTE]


Read up.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/kreca/kreca9.1.1.html
 
[quote name='Clak']One of these days I'll get around to asking it of someone face to face, but I'd love to ask a gun rights supporter why, if the 2nd amendment is all about private gun ownership, was the little preamble about militias thrown in? If it was meant to be interpreted to mean private citizens can all own guns, why doesn't it just say that? Why the part about militias at all? Are we to assume the authors were just being long winded? Seems to me that they're ignoring an important part of the amendment, like someone reading A Christmas Carol and glossing over the part about Scrooge being a cheap old bastard.[/QUOTE]

So you will be ok with Militias running around with a bunch of guns, but not private gun owners? Gotcha.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']I wonder which of your rights you'd be willing to give up in the name of security theater.[/quote]

We should eliminate the police entirely. Only sure-fire way to halt a police state, yes? Would you agree that we should not have the police? Let's have that discussion.

Not kidding.

If only you were as interested in drone control as you were in gun control.
Click to expand...

drones are used in citizen->citizen killings in the US? or did you have a point here?
 
[quote name='elessar123']And amount of time handling guns. Sure, cars cause lots of deaths, but 250 million people drive like 15,000 miles a year. At 32k fatal crashes, it's like 117 million miles driven per fatality.

In comparison, 10,800,000 guns sold, and 30,000+ deaths, it's like 1 death per 360 guns sold*.

*I know the comparison isn't quite fair, unless you know the amount of time people handle guns a year.[/QUOTE]

Why only guns sold? Are only new guns handled?

Around an estimated 300,000,000 guns in the US. 30,000 deaths (that is accidents + suicide + homicide). Add in the 70,000+ injuries.

.03% of guns have blood on them each year.

Noone tells you that gun related fatalities are a nearly 40 year low either.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Why only guns sold? Are only new guns handled?

Around an estimated 300,000,000 guns in the US. 30,000 deaths (that is accidents + suicide + homicide). Add in the 70,000+ injuries.

.03% of guns have blood on them each year.

Noone tells you that gun related fatalities are a nearly 40 year low either.[/QUOTE]

Because number of guns isn't the number of guns handled.

And you can't count total guns per death this year. It's 300,000,000 guns at 100,000 injuries+deaths, plus (total guns the year before / injuries the year before), and the year before that, etc. Thus, I used a figure quantifiable to one year.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']We should eliminate the police entirely. Only sure-fire way to halt a police state, yes? Would you agree that we should not have the police? Let's have that discussion.[/QUOTE]

The police as they are now? Yes.




[quote name='mykevermin']
drones are used in citizen->citizen killings in the US? or did you have a point here?[/QUOTE]

So you're cool with people being murdered, as long as it's the state doing the killing?

Seems like you're willing to argue anything as long as the end game = more power to the state. Anything other than that, you couldn't care less, no matter how many people are killed. Of course, this is all a different story when your guy isn't in office...
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']I agree with what you are saying here for the most part. The only real issue I have is we cannot even have a conversation about any limitation on guns currently being sold. Why is it we accept certain guns as "o.k." for society to have while others are not deemed acceptable? I am not against gun ownership but I have no problem talking about limits on how many and what kind you are allowed to have. THAT conversation is just shouted down time and again by assuming limits means taking all the guns away.[/QUOTE]

Honestly what would you like to limit? Extended magazines? These account for a very very very small percentage of the shootings. Yes I guess stopping any shooting is great, but would that limit be effective?
 
[quote name='elessar123']Because number of guns isn't the number of guns handled.

And you can't count total guns per death this year. It's 300,000,000 guns at 100,000 injuries+deaths, plus (total guns the year before / injuries the year before), and the year before that, etc. Thus, I used a figure quantifiable to one year.[/QUOTE]

Show me a statistic on guns handled instead of just picking a number of "guns purchased". I know someone that bought a gun last year and hasn't used it yet, and I have also shot a few of my brothers guns at a range last year, that he hadn't purchased last year. You are just making numbers up now.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Show me a statistic on guns handled instead of just picking a number of "guns purchased". I know someone that bought a gun last year and hasn't used it yet, and I have also shot a few of my brothers guns at a range last year, that he hadn't purchased last year. You are just making numbers up now.[/QUOTE]

I already put a disclaimer in my original post about the unfair comparison. And I showed why your stats don't work. I'm making up no numbers. Learn to read.

I don't understand you uber gun enthusiasts.
 
[quote name='elessar123']I already put a disclaimer in my original post about the unfair comparison. And I showed why your stats don't work. I'm making up no numbers. Learn to read.

I don't understand you uber gun enthusiasts.[/QUOTE]

Why am I an "uber gun enthusiast"?
 
[quote name='Clak']It's like I've said before, poeple will complain about the state of roads in their area, and immediately switch to complaining aobut how high taxes are. Then when you mention that the roads are paid for using money from taxes, it's like you just dropped a logic bomb and they can't compute.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps what doesn't compute is the idea that we have to raise taxes to pay for the road repairs instead of trimming the budget elsewhere to pay for them.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']The police as they are now? Yes.[/quote]

Sweet hedge. What do you mean "as they are now"? Should we go pre-LEAA? Pre-OJP? Should we eliminate uniformed officers altogether, and get all posse comitatus?

Get specific. Stand for something.

So you're cool with people being murdered, as long as it's the state doing the killing?
Click to expand...

straw man *and* putting words in my mouth, layered with sheets of false dichotomy. that is one *suh-weeeet* cake you baked, my friend.

Seems like you're willing to argue anything as long as the end game = more power to the state.
Click to expand...

This discussion started with my argument that a hyper-reactionary zealousness to jump to the very end of the slippery slope is why we can't have any reasonable political discourse. Your rebuttal is to jump to the very, very, very end of the slippery slope. Cooooooooooooooooool.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Sweet hedge. What do you mean "as they are now"? Should we go pre-LEAA? Pre-OJP? Should we eliminate uniformed officers altogether, and get all posse comitatus?

Get specific. Stand for something.
[/QUOTE]

Seems a bit off topic, no? Go start a thread about police and I'll be glad to oblige you.

[quote name='mykevermin']
straw man *and* putting words in my mouth, layered with sheets of false dichotomy. that is one *suh-weeeet* cake you baked, my friend.[/QUOTE]

How else could I interpret that? Your comment seemed to reflect your disinterest in those killed by drones because it wasn't perpetrated by civilians on civilians. How much time to you spend in here dictating what everyone else should be allowed to own based on the actions of .00000000001% of the population vs how much time you spend deriding this administration for its use of murdering civilians with drones? Something tells me those numbers will be a wee bit lopsided.


[quote name='mykevermin']
This discussion started with my argument that a hyper-reactionary zealousness to jump to the very end of the slippery slope is why we can't have any reasonable political discourse. Your rebuttal is to jump to the very, very, very end of the slippery slope. Cooooooooooooooooool.[/QUOTE]

Yes yes, I get it, slippery slope, false dichotomy, straw men, blah blah blah, oh goodie, you don't actually have to address anything. You win!
 
you don't actually have to address anything.
Click to expand...

This comment comes in the same post as these gems:

Your comment seemed to reflect your disinterest in those killed by drones because it wasn't perpetrated by civilians on civilians.
Click to expand...

*looks at thread topic*

and, then, the coup de grace, said without a shred of irony:

Seems a bit off topic, no?
Click to expand...

pathetic.
 
Unlike you (STATIST TOTALITARIANZ OMG DEY TUK UR GUNZ!!!!), I have an open mind. Sell me on how overseas drone strikes are even remotely germane to the topic at hand. Give it a go. I'll wait over here.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Unlike you (STATIST TOTALITARIANZ OMG DEY TUK UR GUNZ!!!!), I have an open mind. Sell me on how overseas drone strikes are even remotely germane to the topic at hand. Give it a go. I'll wait over here.[/QUOTE]

The killing of civilians = the killing of civilians. It matters not who is behind the trigger. Again, how much time do you spend here promoting the safety of one set of civilians and how much do you spend on the other? It clearly shows that you don't really care about safety, only pushing an agenda.

So are you denying being a statist? Alright then, who will enforce any new gun restrictions and who should people depend on for protection if not themselves?
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']The killing of civilians = the killing of civilians.[/quote]

It's self-evident to you, clearly. I get that. It's not self-evident to me, so help me understand. This is not an explanation.

A life's a life, yes? I have to at least thank you for that, as now I have the Disrupt song of the same name stuck in my head, and it's a classic. But, by this logic (the taking of a life is detestable in any circumstance, therefore I should be fighting overseas drone strikes instead of supporting gun control), you (as someone against drone strikes) should be in support of gun control, against fly swatters, against vivisection, vegan, avoid walking on grass in order to avoid taking the lives of innocent insects, etc.

See what reducto ad absurdum does to conversations? You're reinforcing my point, dear friend.

It matters not
Click to expand...

You trying to be Yoda or Thoreau? Either way, try again. You took two sentences as an "explanation," and then decided to shift and attack. I'm very willing to hear your side; you seem reluctant to speak your side.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']It's self-evident to you, clearly. I get that. It's not self-evident to me, so help me understand. This is not an explanation.

A life's a life, yes? I have to at least thank you for that, as now I have the Disrupt song of the same name stuck in my head, and it's a classic. But, by this logic (the taking of a life is detestable in any circumstance, therefore I should be fighting overseas drone strikes instead of supporting gun control), you (as someone against drone strikes) should be in support of gun control, against fly swatters, against vivisection, vegan, avoid walking on grass in order to avoid taking the lives of innocent insects, etc.

See what reducto ad absurdum does to conversations? You're reinforcing my point, dear friend.



You trying to be Yoda or Thoreau? Either way, try again. You took two sentences as an "explanation," and then decided to shift and attack. I'm very willing to hear your side; you seem reluctant to speak your side.[/QUOTE]

I don't know if I have the energy to make it any clearer for you. If you don't see the killing of kids with drones in the same vein as the killing of kids with guns then I guess there's no helping you. Either that, or you're being purposely obtuse, which I suspect is the case. Flyswatters? Grass? Ha, you accuse me of so much while engaging in hyperbole. Ridiculous. Just be upfront about your agenda.
 
[quote name='Temporaryscars']I don't know if I have the energy to make it any clearer for you.[/quote]

You didn't have the energy the last two opportunities you had, so why would the future be any different? You've offered up precisely *two* sentences attempting to explain, so any talk of "energy" is a deflection from the actual matter: you have no point to articulate.

If you don't see the killing of kids with drones in the same vein as the killing of kids with guns then I guess there's no helping you.
Click to expand...

kids? I thought we were speaking of "civilians." What prompted your sudden shift in focus here?

This thread is about discussing whether or not gun control measures should be considered as policy in order to reduce the remarkable difference in murder rates in the United States when compared to other nations. I'm asking you to explain how casualties that result from US military strategy abroad are related. You dodge. Clumsily, I might add.

Just be upfront about your agenda.
Click to expand...

I WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS AND MONEY AND GIVE THEM TO POOR GAY SECULARISTS.

(komrade.)
 
Back on topic, since we all know temp won't actually stand for his own argument and bother to explain it...

Are any of you familiar with the PROMISE Act? Any thoughts on what it proposes?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']This thread is about discussing whether or not gun control measures should be considered as policy in order to reduce the remarkable difference in murder rates in the United States when compared to other nations.[/QUOTE]

No, it isn't. There have been plenty of topics that have spun out of the original topic - and gun control measures are one of them - but this thread is about a shooting at a school that ended with a bunch of folks dead.
 
A) Myke has shown too many times that he has no self control.
B) The reply was for anyone who read Myke's incorrect statement - or anyone who thinks they get to be the sole individual to determine the course of a topic.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Perhaps what doesn't compute is the idea that we have to raise taxes to pay for the road repairs instead of trimming the budget elsewhere to pay for them.[/QUOTE]

Or the idea that somehow the roads were repaired with less money 15 years ago, but we simply don't have enough money today without raising taxes? They are right, it doesn't compute.
 
[quote name='Knoell']Or the idea that somehow the roads were repaired with less money 15 years ago, but we simply don't have enough money today without raising taxes? They are right, it doesn't compute.[/QUOTE]

Why can't I buy a gallon of gas in 2013 for the same price I paid in 1998?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top