|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On April 24 2013 08:52 Rhino85 wrote:
Slightly off topic but do you think any prominent Republican leaders will have a speech addressing immigration issues with the families of the Boston Marathon bombing victims standing behind them?
I don't either but if that made you sick to think about then you know how pro gun owners felt when Obama used that tactic to attack gun rights.
Neither idea sickens me really.
But I'm the weirdo who doesn't want gun control laws just because I don't like property restriction laws.
|
DeepElemBlues, your username doesn't come from the area Deep Ellum in Dallas by chance does it?
|
On April 24 2013 08:59 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 08:50 farvacola wrote:On April 24 2013 08:10 DeepElemBlues wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 24 2013 08:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 07:44 Zealotdriver wrote:On April 24 2013 07:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 24 2013 07:21 Zealotdriver wrote:On April 24 2013 07:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 24 2013 07:05 Zealotdriver wrote:
Based on the broken english and ignorance of government structure and law in general, I'd guess Thieving Magpie is either a troll account, young child, or someone not from the US.
The truth is, you can't just "do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property," as Thieving Magpie would have you believe. Most people in the United States cannot legally even discharge a firearm on their private property, much less "do what the fuck you want", because they reside inside city limits. In rural areas, you still cannot legally "do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property," because things like homicide and illegal hunting are serious crimes. If firearm discharge is legal for the jurisdiction in which your property resides, you can target shoot so long as it doesn't endanger anyone or violate some other law like waste disposal or pollution. I guess that's why only 8/50 states have laws against that... as my link showed. What evidence do you have? Really, you're asking for evidence that homicide is illegal? As far as firearm discharge, municipal codes all over the country prohibit it. Pick a city and look it up. States generally let municipalities decide laws with respect to firearm discharge because they recognize the cultural and physical differences between rural and urban areas. lol At which point did I say murder isn't illegal? People hearing a gunshot in a suburb is assumed to be murder or violence because it isn't normal to hear that. Urban areas have a high density population and so they have a lot of restrictions when it comes to gun use. But they also have a lot of restriction when it comes to vehicle use. Cars are forced to drive slower, go through more stops, there are more police officers waiting to give you tickets, less parking, more fees for vehicle ownership, etc... In more rural areas speed limits are higher, less police are present, less stop signs and more parking. This is the nature of dense populations--dangerous objects gets more regulation be it guns or cars. As I stated in my previous point--firearm discharge is not made illegal by most state laws. Municipal laws differ from area to area and you can literally drive around and depending which road your on you shooting out your window might or might not be illegal--much like depending which road your own driving 55 might or might not be legal. Local laws differ from location to location to maximize safety. The closer people are to each other--the less they like others having guns. The farther they are from each other, they more comfortable they are about guns. It depends on the city council's decision on what that distance should be. That's kind of how municipalities and city ordinances work... Go to city council meetings, you'll see how local laws and practices are decided there. So you concede that your statement that you can "do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property" is incorrect? About as much freedom as you could when doing wheelies in your backyard and revving your engine loudly at night while in suburbia. Sounds like a great way to get the police called on you and have them tell you to stop or they'll arrest you for creating a public nuisance / noise disturbance. Except when the police get called on you for shooting your gun in your backyard, they aren't going to be as nice about telling you to stop or about making you stop as they are telling you to stop or making you stop revving your engine or popping wheelies in your backyard. Especially if it's in an area where it is legal to target shoot in your own backyard, police in those areas figure people should know better than to be shooting off their guns in a manner that pisses off their neighbors. They aren't happy campers if they have to show up and tell you to stop being an asshole with your guns in a place you're lucky enough to get to shoot them off without having to go to a range. Also, private roads have to be marked as such. Do you have anything to say other than sarcastic riffs that turn out to be based on your own ignorance and misconceptions? What makes you think, by any stretch of the imagination, that the majority of gun owners are anything like you? Are you aware of the statistics on those with firearms having their weapons rendered either useless or turned against them? Even if only a small minority of people with guns are dangerously under-trained and stupid, their very presence in the public space warrants systemic monitoring of those with weapons, because, you know, it is pretty easy to kill people with guns. Oh farv. What makes you think, by any stretch of the imagination, that the majority of gun owners are not anything like him? 300+ million guns in the country, around 80 million people living in a household with a gun, and around 75,000 (2010 statistics) injuries and 600 (also from 2010, these numbers on accidental injuries and deaths provided by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence) deaths a year from dumb people (or smart people) accidentally shooting themselves or someone else. So if you're around a gun every single day because at least one is in your home, you have about a .0009% chance each year of getting a new hole somewhere in your body because of dumb (or not, accidents do just happen) gun owners. I don't think I need to do the math to say that your chance of being killed is even more statistically insignificant. So, is it really necessary for there to be "systemic monitoring" of those 80 million people because you know it is pretty easy to kill people with guns? Obviously not. On the other hand, a certain group of people commits the vast majority of gun murders (75%+) and gun violence in general. We would call these people those whose main occupation is committing crimes. Most of those are young black or Hispanic gang members living in cities with very strict gun control and a high level of "systemic monitoring" from local authorities. Yet this systemic monitoring fails to prevent them killing each other by the thousands every year. In many cities this "systemic monitoring" amounts to near-overt racial profiling and heightened targeting of minority areas. Perhaps law-abiding gun owners should be treated with the same kind of government pressure as gang members are. I'm sure that would work. So why should we implement "systemic monitoring" for a problem that doesn't exist in a statistically meaningful sense when "systemic monitoring" already fails at preventing thousands of gun murders a year? Once again, law-abiding citizens should be punished because guns are scary and that's all that matters. While the criminals still do what they do despite facing already strict scrutiny in a gun-hostile (city) political and legal environment. Maybe gun owners wouldn't be so adamant about not giving one step backwards if the arguments advanced for gun control were based more on reality than on "oh it's pretty easy to kill a person with a gun." Yeah, it is. Why doesn't it happen more then? Why do the 80 million people with direct and easy access to guns who have created this wasteland of a .0009% chance of getting shot (even smaller chance if you use all 310+ million people in the US) deserve to have the State come down on them when the few hundred thousand (if even that) responsible for the vast majority of gun injuries and deaths already have the State down on them and they still manage to do it? Face up to the facts farv: there's nothing that will substantially reduce gun violence in this country except spending trillions one way or another to raise the inner cities out of structural poverty, or trying to confiscate nearly all privately held guns. Good luck accomplishing either one, but I think that there is one option there more likely to result in more gun deaths than the other. Guess which now. Your criticism of "systemic monitoring" fails to take into account the possibility that it fails in its current form because it is, you know, not systemic. Every time I read a gun rights advocate point to Chicago like a stupid child in line for the ice cream truck pointing at a Bomb Pop, a angel loses its wings. Every single instance of "failed gun control" can easily be linked to its geographic proximity to easy come, easy go guns. Literally the entire East Coast is less than 5 or 6 hours away from a place where guns are easy to buy (if that), and it doesn't take a genius to see how Illinois shapes up compared to its neighbors in terms of access to weapons. Look, I know its easy to point at urban blacks and hispanics and say, "well look, they're the ones doing all the crime!", but in the end, we can't all be racists. Some of us feel the need to look past the vulgar representation of race in place of poverty and look for the how and why, and with that frame of mind instead of one that puts a piece of metal in a place of prostrate reverence, it is easy to see that spotty, urban centric gun control surrounded by gun country is not a recipe for success. Let's get over that. Pointing out facts is racist? I should have mentioned the white trash meth cookers and people like that with white skin who do their share of murders caused by rival criminals I guess, just to make sure my racism armor had no chinks. But yes Farv let's get to the real questions. Are you willing to admit that anything short of near-total gun confiscation will not do much to reduce gun deaths and injuries? Are you willing to fight - and lose - a civil-war scenario over guns? There are millions of people willing to fight a war to keep their guns, and tens of millions more who would non-violently resist or give aid and comfort to the people violently resisting. What I'm saying is, farv, the truth is harsh, and the truth is that we're generations away from a situation where your perspective on guns can win out without major violence. If that day ever comes. It's not like it's inevitable. Just how far are you willing to go on gun control? My side is willing to go to the cold, dead hands end. Is yours?
There wouldn't even be a gun control debate if things like this didn't get said. You already have guns, no need to sound overtly aggressive and crazy to boot.
|
On April 24 2013 08:59 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 08:50 farvacola wrote:On April 24 2013 08:10 DeepElemBlues wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 24 2013 08:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 07:44 Zealotdriver wrote:On April 24 2013 07:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 24 2013 07:21 Zealotdriver wrote:On April 24 2013 07:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 24 2013 07:05 Zealotdriver wrote:
Based on the broken english and ignorance of government structure and law in general, I'd guess Thieving Magpie is either a troll account, young child, or someone not from the US.
The truth is, you can't just "do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property," as Thieving Magpie would have you believe. Most people in the United States cannot legally even discharge a firearm on their private property, much less "do what the fuck you want", because they reside inside city limits. In rural areas, you still cannot legally "do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property," because things like homicide and illegal hunting are serious crimes. If firearm discharge is legal for the jurisdiction in which your property resides, you can target shoot so long as it doesn't endanger anyone or violate some other law like waste disposal or pollution. I guess that's why only 8/50 states have laws against that... as my link showed. What evidence do you have? Really, you're asking for evidence that homicide is illegal? As far as firearm discharge, municipal codes all over the country prohibit it. Pick a city and look it up. States generally let municipalities decide laws with respect to firearm discharge because they recognize the cultural and physical differences between rural and urban areas. lol At which point did I say murder isn't illegal? People hearing a gunshot in a suburb is assumed to be murder or violence because it isn't normal to hear that. Urban areas have a high density population and so they have a lot of restrictions when it comes to gun use. But they also have a lot of restriction when it comes to vehicle use. Cars are forced to drive slower, go through more stops, there are more police officers waiting to give you tickets, less parking, more fees for vehicle ownership, etc... In more rural areas speed limits are higher, less police are present, less stop signs and more parking. This is the nature of dense populations--dangerous objects gets more regulation be it guns or cars. As I stated in my previous point--firearm discharge is not made illegal by most state laws. Municipal laws differ from area to area and you can literally drive around and depending which road your on you shooting out your window might or might not be illegal--much like depending which road your own driving 55 might or might not be legal. Local laws differ from location to location to maximize safety. The closer people are to each other--the less they like others having guns. The farther they are from each other, they more comfortable they are about guns. It depends on the city council's decision on what that distance should be. That's kind of how municipalities and city ordinances work... Go to city council meetings, you'll see how local laws and practices are decided there. So you concede that your statement that you can "do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property" is incorrect? About as much freedom as you could when doing wheelies in your backyard and revving your engine loudly at night while in suburbia. Sounds like a great way to get the police called on you and have them tell you to stop or they'll arrest you for creating a public nuisance / noise disturbance. Except when the police get called on you for shooting your gun in your backyard, they aren't going to be as nice about telling you to stop or about making you stop as they are telling you to stop or making you stop revving your engine or popping wheelies in your backyard. Especially if it's in an area where it is legal to target shoot in your own backyard, police in those areas figure people should know better than to be shooting off their guns in a manner that pisses off their neighbors. They aren't happy campers if they have to show up and tell you to stop being an asshole with your guns in a place you're lucky enough to get to shoot them off without having to go to a range. Also, private roads have to be marked as such. Do you have anything to say other than sarcastic riffs that turn out to be based on your own ignorance and misconceptions? What makes you think, by any stretch of the imagination, that the majority of gun owners are anything like you? Are you aware of the statistics on those with firearms having their weapons rendered either useless or turned against them? Even if only a small minority of people with guns are dangerously under-trained and stupid, their very presence in the public space warrants systemic monitoring of those with weapons, because, you know, it is pretty easy to kill people with guns. Oh farv. What makes you think, by any stretch of the imagination, that the majority of gun owners are not anything like him? 300+ million guns in the country, around 80 million people living in a household with a gun, and around 75,000 (2010 statistics) injuries and 600 (also from 2010, these numbers on accidental injuries and deaths provided by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence) deaths a year from dumb people (or smart people) accidentally shooting themselves or someone else. So if you're around a gun every single day because at least one is in your home, you have about a .0009% chance each year of getting a new hole somewhere in your body because of dumb (or not, accidents do just happen) gun owners. I don't think I need to do the math to say that your chance of being killed is even more statistically insignificant. So, is it really necessary for there to be "systemic monitoring" of those 80 million people because you know it is pretty easy to kill people with guns? Obviously not. On the other hand, a certain group of people commits the vast majority of gun murders (75%+) and gun violence in general. We would call these people those whose main occupation is committing crimes. Most of those are young black or Hispanic gang members living in cities with very strict gun control and a high level of "systemic monitoring" from local authorities. Yet this systemic monitoring fails to prevent them killing each other by the thousands every year. In many cities this "systemic monitoring" amounts to near-overt racial profiling and heightened targeting of minority areas. Perhaps law-abiding gun owners should be treated with the same kind of government pressure as gang members are. I'm sure that would work. So why should we implement "systemic monitoring" for a problem that doesn't exist in a statistically meaningful sense when "systemic monitoring" already fails at preventing thousands of gun murders a year? Once again, law-abiding citizens should be punished because guns are scary and that's all that matters. While the criminals still do what they do despite facing already strict scrutiny in a gun-hostile (city) political and legal environment. Maybe gun owners wouldn't be so adamant about not giving one step backwards if the arguments advanced for gun control were based more on reality than on "oh it's pretty easy to kill a person with a gun." Yeah, it is. Why doesn't it happen more then? Why do the 80 million people with direct and easy access to guns who have created this wasteland of a .0009% chance of getting shot (even smaller chance if you use all 310+ million people in the US) deserve to have the State come down on them when the few hundred thousand (if even that) responsible for the vast majority of gun injuries and deaths already have the State down on them and they still manage to do it? Face up to the facts farv: there's nothing that will substantially reduce gun violence in this country except spending trillions one way or another to raise the inner cities out of structural poverty, or trying to confiscate nearly all privately held guns. Good luck accomplishing either one, but I think that there is one option there more likely to result in more gun deaths than the other. Guess which now. Your criticism of "systemic monitoring" fails to take into account the possibility that it fails in its current form because it is, you know, not systemic. Every time I read a gun rights advocate point to Chicago like a stupid child in line for the ice cream truck pointing at a Bomb Pop, a angel loses its wings. Every single instance of "failed gun control" can easily be linked to its geographic proximity to easy come, easy go guns. Literally the entire East Coast is less than 5 or 6 hours away from a place where guns are easy to buy (if that), and it doesn't take a genius to see how Illinois shapes up compared to its neighbors in terms of access to weapons. Look, I know its easy to point at urban blacks and hispanics and say, "well look, they're the ones doing all the crime!", but in the end, we can't all be racists. Some of us feel the need to look past the vulgar representation of race in place of poverty and look for the how and why, and with that frame of mind instead of one that puts a piece of metal in a place of prostrate reverence, it is easy to see that spotty, urban centric gun control surrounded by gun country is not a recipe for success. Let's get over that. Pointing out facts is racist? I should have mentioned the white trash meth cookers and people like that with white skin who do their share of murders caused by rival criminals I guess, just to make sure my racism armor had no chinks. But yes Farv let's get to the real questions. Are you willing to admit that anything short of near-total gun confiscation will not do much to reduce gun deaths and injuries? Are you willing to fight - and lose - a civil-war scenario over guns? There are millions of people willing to fight a war to keep their guns, and tens of millions more who would non-violently resist or give aid and comfort to the people violently resisting. What I'm saying is, farv, the truth is harsh, and the truth is that we're generations away from a situation where your perspective on guns can win out without major violence. If that day ever comes. It's not like it's inevitable. Just how far are you willing to go on gun control? My side is willing to go to the cold, dead hands end. Is yours?
Absolutely. Just because gun nuts think their rifles somehow make them Gods among men doesn't mean they won't die like an Iraqi insurgent. I'd gladly pilot a drone come this civil war, and I'll be listening for "Franklin's Tower" through my remote headset.
Oh wait, is this Playschool Brinksmanship with Guns or an actual society? I had forgotten. In any case, bring it on. The Union won once, it'll win again.
|
On April 24 2013 09:01 Born2Run wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 08:59 DeepElemBlues wrote:On April 24 2013 08:50 farvacola wrote:On April 24 2013 08:10 DeepElemBlues wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 24 2013 08:01 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 07:44 Zealotdriver wrote:On April 24 2013 07:34 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 24 2013 07:21 Zealotdriver wrote:On April 24 2013 07:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 24 2013 07:05 Zealotdriver wrote:
Based on the broken english and ignorance of government structure and law in general, I'd guess Thieving Magpie is either a troll account, young child, or someone not from the US.
The truth is, you can't just "do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property," as Thieving Magpie would have you believe. Most people in the United States cannot legally even discharge a firearm on their private property, much less "do what the fuck you want", because they reside inside city limits. In rural areas, you still cannot legally "do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property," because things like homicide and illegal hunting are serious crimes. If firearm discharge is legal for the jurisdiction in which your property resides, you can target shoot so long as it doesn't endanger anyone or violate some other law like waste disposal or pollution. I guess that's why only 8/50 states have laws against that... as my link showed. What evidence do you have? Really, you're asking for evidence that homicide is illegal? As far as firearm discharge, municipal codes all over the country prohibit it. Pick a city and look it up. States generally let municipalities decide laws with respect to firearm discharge because they recognize the cultural and physical differences between rural and urban areas. lol At which point did I say murder isn't illegal? People hearing a gunshot in a suburb is assumed to be murder or violence because it isn't normal to hear that. Urban areas have a high density population and so they have a lot of restrictions when it comes to gun use. But they also have a lot of restriction when it comes to vehicle use. Cars are forced to drive slower, go through more stops, there are more police officers waiting to give you tickets, less parking, more fees for vehicle ownership, etc... In more rural areas speed limits are higher, less police are present, less stop signs and more parking. This is the nature of dense populations--dangerous objects gets more regulation be it guns or cars. As I stated in my previous point--firearm discharge is not made illegal by most state laws. Municipal laws differ from area to area and you can literally drive around and depending which road your on you shooting out your window might or might not be illegal--much like depending which road your own driving 55 might or might not be legal. Local laws differ from location to location to maximize safety. The closer people are to each other--the less they like others having guns. The farther they are from each other, they more comfortable they are about guns. It depends on the city council's decision on what that distance should be. That's kind of how municipalities and city ordinances work... Go to city council meetings, you'll see how local laws and practices are decided there. So you concede that your statement that you can "do what the fuck you want with a gun when in private property" is incorrect? About as much freedom as you could when doing wheelies in your backyard and revving your engine loudly at night while in suburbia. Sounds like a great way to get the police called on you and have them tell you to stop or they'll arrest you for creating a public nuisance / noise disturbance. Except when the police get called on you for shooting your gun in your backyard, they aren't going to be as nice about telling you to stop or about making you stop as they are telling you to stop or making you stop revving your engine or popping wheelies in your backyard. Especially if it's in an area where it is legal to target shoot in your own backyard, police in those areas figure people should know better than to be shooting off their guns in a manner that pisses off their neighbors. They aren't happy campers if they have to show up and tell you to stop being an asshole with your guns in a place you're lucky enough to get to shoot them off without having to go to a range. Also, private roads have to be marked as such. Do you have anything to say other than sarcastic riffs that turn out to be based on your own ignorance and misconceptions? What makes you think, by any stretch of the imagination, that the majority of gun owners are anything like you? Are you aware of the statistics on those with firearms having their weapons rendered either useless or turned against them? Even if only a small minority of people with guns are dangerously under-trained and stupid, their very presence in the public space warrants systemic monitoring of those with weapons, because, you know, it is pretty easy to kill people with guns. Oh farv. What makes you think, by any stretch of the imagination, that the majority of gun owners are not anything like him? 300+ million guns in the country, around 80 million people living in a household with a gun, and around 75,000 (2010 statistics) injuries and 600 (also from 2010, these numbers on accidental injuries and deaths provided by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence) deaths a year from dumb people (or smart people) accidentally shooting themselves or someone else. So if you're around a gun every single day because at least one is in your home, you have about a .0009% chance each year of getting a new hole somewhere in your body because of dumb (or not, accidents do just happen) gun owners. I don't think I need to do the math to say that your chance of being killed is even more statistically insignificant. So, is it really necessary for there to be "systemic monitoring" of those 80 million people because you know it is pretty easy to kill people with guns? Obviously not. On the other hand, a certain group of people commits the vast majority of gun murders (75%+) and gun violence in general. We would call these people those whose main occupation is committing crimes. Most of those are young black or Hispanic gang members living in cities with very strict gun control and a high level of "systemic monitoring" from local authorities. Yet this systemic monitoring fails to prevent them killing each other by the thousands every year. In many cities this "systemic monitoring" amounts to near-overt racial profiling and heightened targeting of minority areas. Perhaps law-abiding gun owners should be treated with the same kind of government pressure as gang members are. I'm sure that would work. So why should we implement "systemic monitoring" for a problem that doesn't exist in a statistically meaningful sense when "systemic monitoring" already fails at preventing thousands of gun murders a year? Once again, law-abiding citizens should be punished because guns are scary and that's all that matters. While the criminals still do what they do despite facing already strict scrutiny in a gun-hostile (city) political and legal environment. Maybe gun owners wouldn't be so adamant about not giving one step backwards if the arguments advanced for gun control were based more on reality than on "oh it's pretty easy to kill a person with a gun." Yeah, it is. Why doesn't it happen more then? Why do the 80 million people with direct and easy access to guns who have created this wasteland of a .0009% chance of getting shot (even smaller chance if you use all 310+ million people in the US) deserve to have the State come down on them when the few hundred thousand (if even that) responsible for the vast majority of gun injuries and deaths already have the State down on them and they still manage to do it? Face up to the facts farv: there's nothing that will substantially reduce gun violence in this country except spending trillions one way or another to raise the inner cities out of structural poverty, or trying to confiscate nearly all privately held guns. Good luck accomplishing either one, but I think that there is one option there more likely to result in more gun deaths than the other. Guess which now. Your criticism of "systemic monitoring" fails to take into account the possibility that it fails in its current form because it is, you know, not systemic. Every time I read a gun rights advocate point to Chicago like a stupid child in line for the ice cream truck pointing at a Bomb Pop, a angel loses its wings. Every single instance of "failed gun control" can easily be linked to its geographic proximity to easy come, easy go guns. Literally the entire East Coast is less than 5 or 6 hours away from a place where guns are easy to buy (if that), and it doesn't take a genius to see how Illinois shapes up compared to its neighbors in terms of access to weapons. Look, I know its easy to point at urban blacks and hispanics and say, "well look, they're the ones doing all the crime!", but in the end, we can't all be racists. Some of us feel the need to look past the vulgar representation of race in place of poverty and look for the how and why, and with that frame of mind instead of one that puts a piece of metal in a place of prostrate reverence, it is easy to see that spotty, urban centric gun control surrounded by gun country is not a recipe for success. Let's get over that. Pointing out facts is racist? I should have mentioned the white trash meth cookers and people like that with white skin who do their share of murders caused by rival criminals I guess, just to make sure my racism armor had no chinks. But yes Farv let's get to the real questions. Are you willing to admit that anything short of near-total gun confiscation will not do much to reduce gun deaths and injuries? Are you willing to fight - and lose - a civil-war scenario over guns? There are millions of people willing to fight a war to keep their guns, and tens of millions more who would non-violently resist or give aid and comfort to the people violently resisting. What I'm saying is, farv, the truth is harsh, and the truth is that we're generations away from a situation where your perspective on guns can win out without major violence. If that day ever comes. It's not like it's inevitable. Just how far are you willing to go on gun control? My side is willing to go to the cold, dead hands end. Is yours? There wouldn't even be a gun control debate if things like this didn't get said. You already have guns, no need to sound overtly aggressive and crazy to boot.
So basically government, police, and criminals should be the only ones with guns? Sounds like a good idea...
|
On April 24 2013 09:01 Born2Run wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 08:59 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Pointing out facts is racist? I should have mentioned the white trash meth cookers and people like that with white skin who do their share of murders caused by rival criminals I guess, just to make sure my racism armor had no chinks.
But yes Farv let's get to the real questions.
Are you willing to admit that anything short of near-total gun confiscation will not do much to reduce gun deaths and injuries?
Are you willing to fight - and lose - a civil-war scenario over guns? There are millions of people willing to fight a war to keep their guns, and tens of millions more who would non-violently resist or give aid and comfort to the people violently resisting.
What I'm saying is, farv, the truth is harsh, and the truth is that we're generations away from a situation where your perspective on guns can win out without major violence. If that day ever comes. It's not like it's inevitable.
Just how far are you willing to go on gun control? My side is willing to go to the cold, dead hands end. Is yours? There wouldn't even be a gun control debate if things like this didn't get said. You already have guns, no need to sound overtly aggressive and crazy to boot.
You maybe right. Our guns quite possibly would have been confiscated by now if there weren't enough of us with his sentiments.
|
United States5162 Posts
I'll unlock this in a little while and then you guys can move on from this stupid shit about civil wars and have an actual discussion.
|
United States5162 Posts
Alright, now can we please have a discussion that isn't framed around 'if you want to take our guns it will be from our cold, dead hands'?
|
On April 24 2013 06:50 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Kmillz you ought to not argue like Sean Hannity. Just saying. Discussions will be more productive.
It would behoove you (and a lot of people in this thread) not to argue like Piers Morgan, you bring up all of the same points he brought up when he got eviscerated in a debate.
If you're going to just make a vague accusation of sounding like a very conservative talking head (hint: I'm not conservative) then at least share your reasoning for the accusation.
|
On April 24 2013 08:59 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Are you willing to fight - and lose - a civil-war scenario over guns? There are millions of people willing to fight a war to keep their guns, and tens of millions more who would non-violently resist or give aid and comfort to the people violently resisting.
What I'm saying is, farv, the truth is harsh, and the truth is that we're generations away from a situation where your perspective on guns can win out without major violence. If that day ever comes. It's not like it's inevitable.
Frankly this part of your comment is sort of strange. Firstly, I think it's just your personal opinion that there are "millions of people willing to fight a war to keep their guns". But just to check, I'll ask on what basis do you make this claim? Was there a big study based on some number of surveys that concluded "there are millions of people willing to fight a war to keep their guns"? Or is this thought just based on how you personally feel about how much gun owners love their guns? Something else?
Secondly, upon taking a moment to imagine that in some hypothetical scenario, there actually are "millions of people [...] fight[ing] a war to keep their guns", I can't help but wonder why the government would allow millions of arms bearing individuals to have their way with federal legislation. When the government angered a large part of the country back around the 1860s-ish due to the direction of its legislation and other government things that pissed off the south, the civil war happened. Hordes of men attempted to fight off the government with a military that was much closer in strength to the government's military at that time. Yet they were destroyed! Would not millions of men -- armed with rifles and other small arms -- face certain doom if they attempted to combat the US government/military for enacting strict gun control/bans?
Once more I want to stress that I just find this part of your comment to sound somewhat strange, so maybe it's me who does not understand properly what you said.
On April 24 2013 10:15 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 06:50 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Kmillz you ought to not argue like Sean Hannity. Just saying. Discussions will be more productive. It would behoove you (and a lot of people in this thread) not to argue like Piers Morgan, you bring up all of the same points he brought up when he got eviscerated in a debate.
Frankly, I'd rather get beaten in a legitimate debate than employ laughing-stock modes of debate such as those employed by Sean Hannity. Responding to points by attacking irrelevant side tangents, like a boss. Just cut down on it, it clusterfucks the place up. Moreover, just for a small laugh, I should remind you that my post in which you thought I was being this "Piers Morgan" guy turned out to have been misread by you -- you even acknowledged this, and apologized  Cheers
|
On April 24 2013 10:33 FallDownMarigold wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 08:59 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Are you willing to fight - and lose - a civil-war scenario over guns? There are millions of people willing to fight a war to keep their guns, and tens of millions more who would non-violently resist or give aid and comfort to the people violently resisting.
What I'm saying is, farv, the truth is harsh, and the truth is that we're generations away from a situation where your perspective on guns can win out without major violence. If that day ever comes. It's not like it's inevitable.
Frankly this part of your comment is sort of strange. Firstly, I think it's just your personal opinion that there are "millions of people willing to fight a war to keep their guns". But just to check, I'll ask on what basis do you make this claim? Was there a big study based on some number of surveys that concluded "there are millions of people willing to fight a war to keep their guns"? Or is this thought just based on how you personally feel about how much gun owners love their guns? Something else? Secondly, upon taking a moment to imagine that in some hypothetical scenario, there actually are "millions of people [...] fight[ing] a war to keep their guns", I can't help but wonder why the government would allow millions of arms bearing individuals to have their way with federal legislation. When the government angered a large part of the country back around the 1860s-ish due to the direction of its legislation and other government things that pissed off the south, the civil war happened. Hordes of men attempted to fight off the government with a military that was much closer in strength to the government's military at that time. Yet they were destroyed! Would not millions of men -- armed with rifles and other small arms -- face certain doom if they attempted to combat the US government/military for enacting strict gun control/bans? Once more I want stress that I just find this part of your comment to sound somewhat strange, so maybe it's me who does not understand properly what you said. Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 10:15 kmillz wrote:On April 24 2013 06:50 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Kmillz you ought to not argue like Sean Hannity. Just saying. Discussions will be more productive. It would behoove you (and a lot of people in this thread) not to argue like Piers Morgan, you bring up all of the same points he brought up when he got eviscerated in a debate. Frankly, I'd rather get beaten in a legitimate debate than employ laughing-stock modes of debate such as those employed by Sean Hannity. Responding to points by attacking irrelevant side tangents, like a boss. Just cut down on it, it clusterfucks the place up. Cheers
You, me, and most people in this thread are guilty of this, so don't pretend like you are immune to moments where you get stuck on one piece of an argument and lose sight of the point.
|
Unfortunately I'm not sure the guilt is equally spread :/ Anyway, back to gun talk!
|
On April 23 2013 13:33 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 13:27 Myrddraal wrote:On April 23 2013 13:01 Sermokala wrote:On April 23 2013 12:48 FallDownMarigold wrote:
On the topic of using "right to bear arms to keep the gov. at bay" stuff, I wonder... If the US government decided one day, "let's murder the US civilian population in order to do evil stuff and profit and bad stuff dictators Illuminati etc", would it matter whether or not the US civilian population had unlimited access to handguns and rifles of their choosing? Would it matter if gun control had already been imposed, causing a decrease in the civilian population's access to, say, assault rifles?
Speaking of "SCOTUS", there is this one guy who works there who makes a pretty strong point: The amount of sophistication and firepower required to thwart or even stall a modern government armed with tanks and jet fighter-bombers would be highly unusual in society at large. No amount of rifles/handguns would matter. US citizens armed with unlimited handguns and rifles of their choosing would fare no better against the US military vs. US citizens armed with a limited array of handguns and shotguns, or even US citizens restricted to knives and baseball bats.
The notion that unrestricted gun control is necessary in order to empower the ability to form effective militias to counter tyranny is absolutely laughable in this day and age. The fact that you think tanks jet fighter-bombers would have an impact on a country as large population wise and geographically wise shows how ignorant you are on it. From whence shall we expect this approach of danger? Shall some giant military force materialize out of nowhere and subjugate out lands? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia...could not by force take a drink from the Mississippi or hope to hold the Rockies in the trial of a thousand years. the US military is a lot smaller in actual manpower these days then it ever was in proportion to the population. Us having Guns would make a huge difference when soldiers march down main street. They can't afford to have a tank roll next to them and wouldn't be many of them marching anyway. A few thousand people with pistols or long rifles against a dozen or so soldiers would make a huge difference on what they have. This whole argument is moot anyway. You need to put forward an argument to justify taking away our guns. I don't need to have an argument to keep them. And until someone finally puts forward an actual argument to tell a country guy why he needs to lose his freedoms because of city problems gun control might become at thing again in the USA. Well at least we agree on some things. Using the second amendment as an argument for gun control or gun regulation is moot because nobody is trying to take away your guns they are simply trying to put in place laws that make it more difficult for the wrong people to have access to guns. As people have already stated guns are already controlled to some extent, so whether you like it or not, gun control is a thing in the USA. I wouldn't really be so keen on saying that there is any gun control in the USA. Not even by comparison to other countries there really isn't that much out there that stops me in anyway on getting my hands on a ton of firepower I have no need for. fill out a form here, get a stamp there, buy my local sheriff a drink, and I can get anything I have money for. Is that good I think? God no but gun control supporters have been beaten back generation after generation in america so that their only hope is in extreme thoughts and minimal actions.
On April 23 2013 13:41 Fruscainte wrote:
"Shall not be infringed"
It's like a cake. It started in 1934 with the National Firearms Act where you asked for half of our cake and we gave it to you. Then in 1938 you wanted another quarter of the cake, so we gave it to you in the form of the Federal Firearms Act. Then in 1968 you took another eighth of the cake with the Gun Control Act. In 1986 you began taking down the last scraps of the cake, leaving us with what is now just crumbs with the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act. And then you grabbed a little scraper and began scraping up the crumbs with the 1990 Crime Control Act and 1994 Brady Handgun Act.
Now we're left sitting here with just a handful of crumbs left, and what do you people do?
"Waaah gun owners won't concede anything! They're unreasonable! We just want to pass some minor legislation! Gun legislation is inevitable and we just want a little bit, why don't you learn to compromise?!"
I'm getting conflicting messages here. Which is it, is it the current level of control doing essentially nothing, or is it taking every little scrap of your cake?
"Shall not be infringed" Do you honestly think for a second that that is a good idea in the slightest? Yes, why not let the gangs have machine guns and rocket launchers, wouldn't want to go against the second amendment right? Let's just let criminals and psychopaths have access to whatever they want, wouldn't want to encroach on their freedom, it will be okay though, everyone will still be safe because they can equip themselves just as easily, it will truly be a utopia to behold! I'm sorry but if that is your idea of cake, then perhaps you would be better off living in some places in Africa, where none of these silly laws and regulations will hold you back.
As for what "we people" are doing, "I" am not doing anything, I am merely interested in the logical and ethical discussion on how accessible something as powerful as a gun should be to people and every time another shooting happens I have a look at this thread and see people spouting the same selfish bullshit along the lines of "You can't take away my guns!". Try to look beyond yourself, and see that innocent lives are being taken away unjustly which is part of the price to pay for your freedoms. If you really can't stand the idea of giving up a small part of your freedom or privacy on the off chance that it may save someone else's life, then I don't understand how you can claim to support the nation whose constitution you fight so hard to protect.
|
On April 24 2013 10:39 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Unfortunately I'm not sure the guilt is equally spread :/ Anyway, back to gun talk!
You do realize that you accusing me of sounding like Sean Hannity is just as productive as me "sounding like Sean Hannity" whatever the hell that means, right? So, yeah, if it isn't "equally" spread it definitely at the very least affects you at times.
Anyways, as far as millions of people willing to fight a war to keep their guns, I don't know if there was a study done or anything to back that up, but I think that depends on how much is at stake and what you mean by "war". I can almost guarantee you there will be millions that won't give their weapons up easily, as far as how much resistance they would give is just too uncertain to say for sure.
|
On April 24 2013 10:15 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 06:50 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Kmillz you ought to not argue like Sean Hannity. Just saying. Discussions will be more productive. It would behoove you (and a lot of people in this thread) not to argue like Piers Morgan, you bring up all of the same points he brought up when he got eviscerated in a debate. If you're going to just make a vague accusation of sounding like a very conservative talking head (hint: I'm not conservative) then at least share your reasoning for the accusation.
Off-topic, but I don't remember an argument that Morgan got 'eviscerated' in.
To be fair, Morgan dragged out the most cartoonish and craziest of Yosemite Sams to 'argue' with. All I remember was a carousel of obnoxious angry guys yelling at an obnoxious smug guy.
|
On April 24 2013 10:43 Myrddraal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 13:33 Sermokala wrote:On April 23 2013 13:27 Myrddraal wrote:On April 23 2013 13:01 Sermokala wrote:On April 23 2013 12:48 FallDownMarigold wrote:
On the topic of using "right to bear arms to keep the gov. at bay" stuff, I wonder... If the US government decided one day, "let's murder the US civilian population in order to do evil stuff and profit and bad stuff dictators Illuminati etc", would it matter whether or not the US civilian population had unlimited access to handguns and rifles of their choosing? Would it matter if gun control had already been imposed, causing a decrease in the civilian population's access to, say, assault rifles?
Speaking of "SCOTUS", there is this one guy who works there who makes a pretty strong point: The amount of sophistication and firepower required to thwart or even stall a modern government armed with tanks and jet fighter-bombers would be highly unusual in society at large. No amount of rifles/handguns would matter. US citizens armed with unlimited handguns and rifles of their choosing would fare no better against the US military vs. US citizens armed with a limited array of handguns and shotguns, or even US citizens restricted to knives and baseball bats.
The notion that unrestricted gun control is necessary in order to empower the ability to form effective militias to counter tyranny is absolutely laughable in this day and age. The fact that you think tanks jet fighter-bombers would have an impact on a country as large population wise and geographically wise shows how ignorant you are on it. From whence shall we expect this approach of danger? Shall some giant military force materialize out of nowhere and subjugate out lands? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia...could not by force take a drink from the Mississippi or hope to hold the Rockies in the trial of a thousand years. the US military is a lot smaller in actual manpower these days then it ever was in proportion to the population. Us having Guns would make a huge difference when soldiers march down main street. They can't afford to have a tank roll next to them and wouldn't be many of them marching anyway. A few thousand people with pistols or long rifles against a dozen or so soldiers would make a huge difference on what they have. This whole argument is moot anyway. You need to put forward an argument to justify taking away our guns. I don't need to have an argument to keep them. And until someone finally puts forward an actual argument to tell a country guy why he needs to lose his freedoms because of city problems gun control might become at thing again in the USA. Well at least we agree on some things. Using the second amendment as an argument for gun control or gun regulation is moot because nobody is trying to take away your guns they are simply trying to put in place laws that make it more difficult for the wrong people to have access to guns. As people have already stated guns are already controlled to some extent, so whether you like it or not, gun control is a thing in the USA. I wouldn't really be so keen on saying that there is any gun control in the USA. Not even by comparison to other countries there really isn't that much out there that stops me in anyway on getting my hands on a ton of firepower I have no need for. fill out a form here, get a stamp there, buy my local sheriff a drink, and I can get anything I have money for. Is that good I think? God no but gun control supporters have been beaten back generation after generation in america so that their only hope is in extreme thoughts and minimal actions. Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 13:41 Fruscainte wrote:
"Shall not be infringed"
It's like a cake. It started in 1934 with the National Firearms Act where you asked for half of our cake and we gave it to you. Then in 1938 you wanted another quarter of the cake, so we gave it to you in the form of the Federal Firearms Act. Then in 1968 you took another eighth of the cake with the Gun Control Act. In 1986 you began taking down the last scraps of the cake, leaving us with what is now just crumbs with the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act. And then you grabbed a little scraper and began scraping up the crumbs with the 1990 Crime Control Act and 1994 Brady Handgun Act.
Now we're left sitting here with just a handful of crumbs left, and what do you people do?
"Waaah gun owners won't concede anything! They're unreasonable! We just want to pass some minor legislation! Gun legislation is inevitable and we just want a little bit, why don't you learn to compromise?!"
I'm getting conflicting messages here. Which is it, is it the current level of control doing essentially nothing, or is it taking every little scrap of your cake? "Shall not be infringed" Do you honestly think for a second that that is a good idea in the slightest? Yes, why not let the gangs have machine guns and rocket launchers, wouldn't want to go against the second amendment right? Let's just let criminals and psychopaths have access to whatever they want, wouldn't want to encroach on their freedom, it will be okay though, everyone will still be safe because they can equip themselves just as easily, it will truly be a utopia to behold! I'm sorry but if that is your idea of cake, then perhaps you would be better off living in some places in Africa, where none of these silly laws and regulations will hold you back. As for what "we people" are doing, "I" am not doing anything, I am merely interested in the logical and ethical discussion on how accessible something as powerful as a gun should be to people and every time another shooting happens I have a look at this thread and see people spouting the same selfish bullshit along the lines of "You can't take away my guns!". Try to look beyond yourself, and see that innocent lives are being taken away unjustly which is part of the price to pay for your freedoms. If you really can't stand the idea of giving up a small part of your freedom or privacy on the off chance that it may save someone else's life, then I don't understand how you can claim to support the nation whose constitution you fight so hard to protect.
Just because your completely ignorant about the subject doesn't mean you get to just blame every mass shooting on people that don't agree with you. Your entire post is just hate filled stawmans with blind ignorance.
Your post is literally the opposite of Logical and ethical discussion in every possible way. You have so much hate for people you don't know and you don't understand because they don't follow your worldview exactly. You are a perfect embodiment of what you hate.
|
On April 24 2013 10:51 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2013 10:15 kmillz wrote:On April 24 2013 06:50 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Kmillz you ought to not argue like Sean Hannity. Just saying. Discussions will be more productive. It would behoove you (and a lot of people in this thread) not to argue like Piers Morgan, you bring up all of the same points he brought up when he got eviscerated in a debate. If you're going to just make a vague accusation of sounding like a very conservative talking head (hint: I'm not conservative) then at least share your reasoning for the accusation. Off-topic, but I don't remember an argument that Morgan got 'eviscerated' in. To be fair, Morgan dragged out the most cartoonish and craziest of Yosemite Sams to 'argue' with. All I remember was a carousel of obnoxious angry guys yelling at an obnoxious smug guy.
Well, he goes on a 5 minute tangent about "do you think we should be allowed to own tanks" in one debate with these 2 women and just doesn't let it go, and even when they give him an answer (which is, some people own tanks, fighter jets, etc. etc. and how often do you hear them in the news committing crimes? so yes) he still keeps going on about it just because he isn't hearing the answer he wants to hear. It was just really annoying. Then he goes on and on about 10 round magazines being the limit, and just doesn't seem to let things go and keeps trying to argue the same points over and over again despite already getting a reasonable answer.
|
Serm, come on. I read his post and am having a hard time finding where he shows that he his completely ignorant, strawman filled, blind, ignorant, opposite of logical and ethical, filled with so much hate, doesn't understand, and the embodiment of what he hates. In fact I almost thought you were a troll account upon reading that response, heh.
I think you're being very hard on him for no reason, when instead you could pick out some of his points with which you disagree, and elaborate on why you disagree. Maybe even just pick one of them. Literally 
|
On April 24 2013 10:43 Myrddraal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 13:33 Sermokala wrote:On April 23 2013 13:27 Myrddraal wrote:On April 23 2013 13:01 Sermokala wrote:On April 23 2013 12:48 FallDownMarigold wrote:
On the topic of using "right to bear arms to keep the gov. at bay" stuff, I wonder... If the US government decided one day, "let's murder the US civilian population in order to do evil stuff and profit and bad stuff dictators Illuminati etc", would it matter whether or not the US civilian population had unlimited access to handguns and rifles of their choosing? Would it matter if gun control had already been imposed, causing a decrease in the civilian population's access to, say, assault rifles?
Speaking of "SCOTUS", there is this one guy who works there who makes a pretty strong point: The amount of sophistication and firepower required to thwart or even stall a modern government armed with tanks and jet fighter-bombers would be highly unusual in society at large. No amount of rifles/handguns would matter. US citizens armed with unlimited handguns and rifles of their choosing would fare no better against the US military vs. US citizens armed with a limited array of handguns and shotguns, or even US citizens restricted to knives and baseball bats.
The notion that unrestricted gun control is necessary in order to empower the ability to form effective militias to counter tyranny is absolutely laughable in this day and age. The fact that you think tanks jet fighter-bombers would have an impact on a country as large population wise and geographically wise shows how ignorant you are on it. From whence shall we expect this approach of danger? Shall some giant military force materialize out of nowhere and subjugate out lands? Never. All the armies of Europe and Asia...could not by force take a drink from the Mississippi or hope to hold the Rockies in the trial of a thousand years. the US military is a lot smaller in actual manpower these days then it ever was in proportion to the population. Us having Guns would make a huge difference when soldiers march down main street. They can't afford to have a tank roll next to them and wouldn't be many of them marching anyway. A few thousand people with pistols or long rifles against a dozen or so soldiers would make a huge difference on what they have. This whole argument is moot anyway. You need to put forward an argument to justify taking away our guns. I don't need to have an argument to keep them. And until someone finally puts forward an actual argument to tell a country guy why he needs to lose his freedoms because of city problems gun control might become at thing again in the USA. Well at least we agree on some things. Using the second amendment as an argument for gun control or gun regulation is moot because nobody is trying to take away your guns they are simply trying to put in place laws that make it more difficult for the wrong people to have access to guns. As people have already stated guns are already controlled to some extent, so whether you like it or not, gun control is a thing in the USA. I wouldn't really be so keen on saying that there is any gun control in the USA. Not even by comparison to other countries there really isn't that much out there that stops me in anyway on getting my hands on a ton of firepower I have no need for. fill out a form here, get a stamp there, buy my local sheriff a drink, and I can get anything I have money for. Is that good I think? God no but gun control supporters have been beaten back generation after generation in america so that their only hope is in extreme thoughts and minimal actions. Show nested quote +On April 23 2013 13:41 Fruscainte wrote:
"Shall not be infringed"
It's like a cake. It started in 1934 with the National Firearms Act where you asked for half of our cake and we gave it to you. Then in 1938 you wanted another quarter of the cake, so we gave it to you in the form of the Federal Firearms Act. Then in 1968 you took another eighth of the cake with the Gun Control Act. In 1986 you began taking down the last scraps of the cake, leaving us with what is now just crumbs with the Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act. And then you grabbed a little scraper and began scraping up the crumbs with the 1990 Crime Control Act and 1994 Brady Handgun Act.
Now we're left sitting here with just a handful of crumbs left, and what do you people do?
"Waaah gun owners won't concede anything! They're unreasonable! We just want to pass some minor legislation! Gun legislation is inevitable and we just want a little bit, why don't you learn to compromise?!"
I'm getting conflicting messages here. Which is it, is it the current level of control doing essentially nothing, or is it taking every little scrap of your cake? "Shall not be infringed" Do you honestly think for a second that that is a good idea in the slightest? Yes, why not let the gangs have machine guns and rocket launchers, wouldn't want to go against the second amendment right? Let's just let criminals and psychopaths have access to whatever they want, wouldn't want to encroach on their freedom, it will be okay though, everyone will still be safe because they can equip themselves just as easily, it will truly be a utopia to behold! I'm sorry but if that is your idea of cake, then perhaps you would be better off living in some places in Africa, where none of these silly laws and regulations will hold you back. As for what "we people" are doing, "I" am not doing anything, I am merely interested in the logical and ethical discussion on how accessible something as powerful as a gun should be to people and every time another shooting happens I have a look at this thread and see people spouting the same selfish bullshit along the lines of "You can't take away my guns!". Try to look beyond yourself, and see that innocent lives are being taken away unjustly which is part of the price to pay for your freedoms. If you really can't stand the idea of giving up a small part of your freedom or privacy on the off chance that it may save someone else's life, then I don't understand how you can claim to support the nation whose constitution you fight so hard to protect.
“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”Benjamin Franklin
The same argument could be made for the 4th amendment. Thousand if not hundreds of thousands of criminals have been set free due to the 4th amendment. These criminals have gone on to kill,rape etc. Should we suspend the 4th Amendment in order to protect society.
Above someone mentioned that Americans with guns would not be up to the task of dealing with a modern military. Have you not considered Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
|
On April 24 2013 10:59 FallDownMarigold wrote:Serm, come on. I read his post and am having a hard time finding where he shows that he his completely ignorant, strawman filled, blind, ignorant, opposite of logical and ethical, filled with so much hate, doesn't understand, and the embodiment of what he hates. In fact I almost thought you were a troll account upon reading that response, heh. I think you're being very hard on him for no reason, when instead you could pick out some of his points with which you disagree, and elaborate on why you disagree. Maybe even just pick one of them. Literally
Alright for you I'll break his post down piece by piece.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
