Poll

What is your opinion on the United States' gun laws at present?

They are far too restrictive.
8 (44.4%)
They are a little restrictive.
1 (5.6%)
They are fine as it is.
2 (11.1%)
They are a little relaxed.
1 (5.6%)
They are far too relaxed.
5 (27.8%)
None of the above (please specify)
1 (5.6%)

Total Members Voted: 18

Gun Violence in the United States

  • 407 Replies
  • 28877 Views
*

Scroto Gaggins

  • 671
  • Hobbiton represent
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #240 on: December 01, 2015, 03:42:20 PM »
Reply to my post, maybe?
The fact that the Second Amendment is clearly wrong in one instance?

Reply to your post about regulations?  Sure, I think there should be regulations.  Such as:

Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
Never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to kill.
Keep your finger off of the trigger until you are ready to fire.
Leave your weapon on safe until you are ready to fire.

This seems like reasonable regulations to me.  Oh, wait, this is just common sense.
No, my post(s) about how the Second Amendment is demonstrably wrong on one count, and should therefore not be perceived as infallible in its wisdom.

i.e. It's wrong on one (major) point, so why should its other points be valid

Please, post a concise statement declaring exactly what the 2nd Amendment is wrong about and I will be happy to have a pleasant discussion about it with you.
Sure.
The 2nd Amend. states clearly that the aforementioned "well-regulated militia" is "... necessary to the security of a free state..."
I would like to point out that a militia, well-regulated or otherwise, is not, as the 2nd Amend. claims, necessary to the security of any state, free or otherwise.
Switzerland has a well-regulated militia, it is a secure free state.
Japan does not have a militia, and is a secure free state.
NB: Militia, in this sense, means any form of organised armed citizenry.

As we can see, a well-regulated militia is not necessary to the security of a free state.
Ergo, the 2nd Amend. is wrong in this sense.
Ergo, the 2nd Amend. should not be taken as irrefutably wise.
Ergo, the non-regulation of guns shouldn't be considered wise.
They are taking the hobbits to Isengard.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #241 on: December 01, 2015, 03:44:24 PM »
Reply to my post, maybe?
The fact that the Second Amendment is clearly wrong in one instance?

Reply to your post about regulations?  Sure, I think there should be regulations.  Such as:

Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
Never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to kill.
Keep your finger off of the trigger until you are ready to fire.
Leave your weapon on safe until you are ready to fire.

This seems like reasonable regulations to me.  Oh, wait, this is just common sense.

Yeah joar, the problem is this: people who are inclined to commit violent acts aren't going to just "follow" these rules when they obtain, and use a gun to commit violent acts. Hence the reason for gun control.

People who are inclined to commit violent acts aren't going to follow any rules, laws, or regulations, are they?  You people think you can legislate evil out of the world, one freedom at a time.

Do you not understand what gun control is? It's preventing certain people from buying weapons, which would prevent violent things like mass shootings from happening. Gun control is not people "coming to your house" and "taking your guns for no reason". It's goal is to prevent people who may cause harm using guns from obtaining, and using a gun to commit violent acts. Is it impossible for you to wrap your mind around that!?

Do you agree that making schools "Gun Free Zones" has worked?  Perhaps you would like to pass a "Hugs instead of Guns" law next? 

*

TheEarthIsASphere.

  • 867
  • who fucking cares what shape the earth is lol
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #242 on: December 01, 2015, 03:45:10 PM »
Reply to my post, maybe?
The fact that the Second Amendment is clearly wrong in one instance?

Reply to your post about regulations?  Sure, I think there should be regulations.  Such as:

Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
Never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to kill.
Keep your finger off of the trigger until you are ready to fire.
Leave your weapon on safe until you are ready to fire.

This seems like reasonable regulations to me.  Oh, wait, this is just common sense.

Yeah joar, the problem is this: people who are inclined to commit violent acts aren't going to just "follow" these rules when they obtain, and use a gun to commit violent acts. Hence the reason for gun control.

People who are inclined to commit violent acts aren't going to follow any rules, laws, or regulations, are they?  You people think you can legislate evil out of the world, one freedom at a time.

Do you not understand what gun control is? It's preventing certain people from buying weapons, which would prevent violent things like mass shootings from happening. Gun control is not people "coming to your house" and "taking your guns for no reason". It's goal is to prevent people who may cause harm using guns from obtaining, and using a gun to commit violent acts. Is it impossible for you to wrap your mind around that!?

Do you agree that making schools "Gun Free Zones" has worked?  Perhaps you would like to pass a "Hugs instead of Guns" law next?

Yes.
Yes.
Quā ratiōne nōn redimus ad senectēs societātēs sapientium patrum? Quā ratiōne relinquimus eārum sapientiam?

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #243 on: December 01, 2015, 03:46:57 PM »
Also, when did the legality of a transaction ever prevent a criminal from purchasing a firearm? 

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #244 on: December 01, 2015, 03:49:40 PM »
Do you agree that making schools "Gun Free Zones" has worked?  Perhaps you would like to pass a "Hugs instead of Guns" law next?

Yes.
Yes.

Really, because I am fairly sure that virtually all school shootings were illegal before the first bullet was fired?  It seems that criminals do not follow the law.  Go figure.  ::)

Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #245 on: December 01, 2015, 04:03:17 PM »
Let  me make it real simple for people to comprehend.  While a country is at War its constitution is suspended & admiralty law implamented over the land. Agenda21 is a means to transition to total admiralty, with out the need to invent conflicts every day of the week to keep the lawful constatution of the country shelfed & their profitable dictatorships maintained. Hence disarming the public before they wake up to the fact they have had all their property taken & their lawful constitution & laws of the land repealed.



Quote
While a country is at War its constitution is suspended & admiralty law implamented over the land.

What!!?? No! This is false on all accounts. How retarded are you? Do you even know what admiralty law is? It deals with governing the oceans.



Quote
Hence disarming the public before they wake up to the fact they have had all their property taken & their lawful constitution & laws of the land repealed.

Stop acting like a conspiracy "theorist" and grow up.
You are nothing more then a lying maggot . A paid sock puppet for the agenda21.

Here, I made the effort for you and googled "admiralty law": http://lmgtfy.com/?q=admiralty+law

To quote the top result:

Quote
Admiralty law or maritime law is a distinct body of law that governs maritime questions and offenses. It is a body of both domestic law governing maritime activities, and private international law governing the relationships between private entities that operate vessels on the oceans. It deals with matters including marine commerce, marine navigation, marine salvaging, shipping, sailors, and the transportation of passengers and goods by sea. Admiralty law also covers many commercial activities, although land based or occurring wholly on land, that are maritime in character.

Do your research before you make yourself look even more stupid chrales. Although, I don't really think that it's possible for you to make yourself look even more stupid at this point.
Do your research? [/b] Admiralty law also covers many commercial activities, although land based or occurring wholly on land, that are maritime in character. Is your birth certificate name in all capitals , your bank accounts , your drivers licence.  Your the one looking stupid , but then again your a paid agenda21 sock puppet. So your paid to lie & spread misinformation.
When it comes to Jane's standards .I'm lower then an old stove she has in her garage.
Shannon Noll and Natalie Bassingthwaighte - Don'tů:

Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #246 on: December 01, 2015, 04:05:04 PM »
When it comes to Jane's standards .I'm lower then an old stove she has in her garage.
Shannon Noll and Natalie Bassingthwaighte - Don'tů:

*

TheEarthIsASphere.

  • 867
  • who fucking cares what shape the earth is lol
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #247 on: December 01, 2015, 04:28:09 PM »
http://www.barefootsworld.net/admiralty.html

Uh-huh. Totally looks like a trustworthy site. I'll definitely get all my information from there and not a credible resource at all.
Quā ratiōne nōn redimus ad senectēs societātēs sapientium patrum? Quā ratiōne relinquimus eārum sapientiam?

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #248 on: December 01, 2015, 07:23:49 PM »
Reply to my post, maybe?
The fact that the Second Amendment is clearly wrong in one instance?

Reply to your post about regulations?  Sure, I think there should be regulations.  Such as:

Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
Never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to kill.
Keep your finger off of the trigger until you are ready to fire.
Leave your weapon on safe until you are ready to fire.

This seems like reasonable regulations to me.  Oh, wait, this is just common sense.

Yeah joar, the problem is this: people who are inclined to commit violent acts aren't going to just "follow" these rules when they obtain, and use a gun to commit violent acts. Hence the reason for gun control.

People who are inclined to commit violent acts aren't going to follow any rules, laws, or regulations, are they?  You people think you can legislate evil out of the world, one freedom at a time.

Do you not understand what gun control is? It's preventing certain people from buying weapons, which would prevent violent things like mass shootings from happening. Gun control is not people "coming to your house" and "taking your guns for no reason". It's goal is to prevent people who may cause harm using guns from obtaining, and using a gun to commit violent acts. Is it impossible for you to wrap your mind around that!?

Do you agree that making schools "Gun Free Zones" has worked?  Perhaps you would like to pass a "Hugs instead of Guns" law next?

Yes.
Yes.
I like to point out that every mass shooting happened at a gun-free zone. If someone was armed in those instances then he wouldn't have gone far.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Scroto Gaggins

  • 671
  • Hobbiton represent
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #249 on: December 02, 2015, 01:58:51 AM »
Reply to my post, maybe?
The fact that the Second Amendment is clearly wrong in one instance?

Reply to your post about regulations?  Sure, I think there should be regulations.  Such as:

Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
Never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to kill.
Keep your finger off of the trigger until you are ready to fire.
Leave your weapon on safe until you are ready to fire.

This seems like reasonable regulations to me.  Oh, wait, this is just common sense.
No, my post(s) about how the Second Amendment is demonstrably wrong on one count, and should therefore not be perceived as infallible in its wisdom.

i.e. It's wrong on one (major) point, so why should its other points be valid

Please, post a concise statement declaring exactly what the 2nd Amendment is wrong about and I will be happy to have a pleasant discussion about it with you.
Sure.
The 2nd Amend. states clearly that the aforementioned "well-regulated militia" is "... necessary to the security of a free state..."
I would like to point out that a militia, well-regulated or otherwise, is not, as the 2nd Amend. claims, necessary to the security of any state, free or otherwise.
Switzerland has a well-regulated militia, it is a secure free state.
Japan does not have a militia, and is a secure free state.
NB: Militia, in this sense, means any form of organised armed citizenry.

As we can see, a well-regulated militia is not necessary to the security of a free state.
Ergo, the 2nd Amend. is wrong in this sense.
Ergo, the 2nd Amend. should not be taken as irrefutably wise.
Ergo, the non-regulation of guns shouldn't be considered wise.
Ahem.
They are taking the hobbits to Isengard.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #250 on: December 02, 2015, 03:04:35 AM »
Ahem.

It might surprise you to know that for much of Japan's written history, civilian conscripts have played a very large role in their ability to wage war.  In fact, after WWII, Japan was forbidden from having a proper military due to the terms of surrender.  However, they were eventually allowed to have a civilian militia in order to protect the peace and for self defense purposes.  This carries on even to today.  Japan does not have an army, navy or air force.  Instead, they have the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force, the Maritime Self-Defense Force, and the Air Self-Defense Force.  So, I am not sure where you are getting your information, but it seems that your sources are wrong. 

*

Scroto Gaggins

  • 671
  • Hobbiton represent
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #251 on: December 02, 2015, 04:07:38 AM »
Ahem.

It might surprise you to know that for much of Japan's written history, civilian conscripts have played a very large role in their ability to wage war.  In fact, after WWII, Japan was forbidden from having a proper military due to the terms of surrender.  However, they were eventually allowed to have a civilian militia in order to protect the peace and for self defense purposes.  This carries on even to today.  Japan does not have an army, navy or air force.  Instead, they have the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force, the Maritime Self-Defense Force, and the Air Self-Defense Force.  So, I am not sure where you are getting your information, but it seems that your sources are wrong.
So you hold that a militia is indeed necessary to the security of any state?
Militia, as I'm sure you are aware, is any fighting force made up of non-professional fighters.
So the founding fathers were of the opinion that the involvement of non-professional soldiers in defence is necessary to the security of a state.
In the case of Japan, their Self-Defence Force is not a militia.
In becoming a member of their armed forces, that becomes your job.
Ergo, you are now a professional.
Ergo, you are not in a militia.

Make no mistake, a militia system can aid in national security, but it is by no means necessary.
And if a militia is not necessary, then the Founding Fathers were wrong.
And if they were wrong on this count, then it seems imprudent to assume wisdom when citing their other point.
They are taking the hobbits to Isengard.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #252 on: December 02, 2015, 05:49:31 AM »
Ahem.

It might surprise you to know that for much of Japan's written history, civilian conscripts have played a very large role in their ability to wage war.  In fact, after WWII, Japan was forbidden from having a proper military due to the terms of surrender.  However, they were eventually allowed to have a civilian militia in order to protect the peace and for self defense purposes.  This carries on even to today.  Japan does not have an army, navy or air force.  Instead, they have the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force, the Maritime Self-Defense Force, and the Air Self-Defense Force.  So, I am not sure where you are getting your information, but it seems that your sources are wrong.
So you hold that a militia is indeed necessary to the security of any state?
Militia, as I'm sure you are aware, is any fighting force made up of non-professional fighters.
So the founding fathers were of the opinion that the involvement of non-professional soldiers in defence is necessary to the security of a state.
In the case of Japan, their Self-Defence Force is not a militia.
In becoming a member of their armed forces, that becomes your job.
Ergo, you are now a professional.
Ergo, you are not in a militia.

Make no mistake, a militia system can aid in national security, but it is by no means necessary.
And if a militia is not necessary, then the Founding Fathers were wrong.
And if they were wrong on this count, then it seems imprudent to assume wisdom when citing their other point.

Well, then, it might surprise you to learn that the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force does, in fact, have reserve components.  These reservists train for 5 to 30 days per year and perform their regular careers while not training.  Sounds like your definition of a militia to me.  Are you ready to admit defeat, or are you going to continue to drag this on? 

*

TheEarthIsASphere.

  • 867
  • who fucking cares what shape the earth is lol
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #253 on: December 02, 2015, 06:38:06 AM »
Ahem.

It might surprise you to know that for much of Japan's written history, civilian conscripts have played a very large role in their ability to wage war.  In fact, after WWII, Japan was forbidden from having a proper military due to the terms of surrender.  However, they were eventually allowed to have a civilian militia in order to protect the peace and for self defense purposes.  This carries on even to today.  Japan does not have an army, navy or air force.  Instead, they have the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force, the Maritime Self-Defense Force, and the Air Self-Defense Force.  So, I am not sure where you are getting your information, but it seems that your sources are wrong.
So you hold that a militia is indeed necessary to the security of any state?
Militia, as I'm sure you are aware, is any fighting force made up of non-professional fighters.
So the founding fathers were of the opinion that the involvement of non-professional soldiers in defence is necessary to the security of a state.
In the case of Japan, their Self-Defence Force is not a militia.
In becoming a member of their armed forces, that becomes your job.
Ergo, you are now a professional.
Ergo, you are not in a militia.

Make no mistake, a militia system can aid in national security, but it is by no means necessary.
And if a militia is not necessary, then the Founding Fathers were wrong.
And if they were wrong on this count, then it seems imprudent to assume wisdom when citing their other point.

Well, then, it might surprise you to learn that the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force does, in fact, have reserve components.  These reservists train for 5 to 30 days per year and perform their regular careers while not training.  Sounds like your definition of a militia to me.  Are you ready to admit defeat, or are you going to continue to drag this on?

If they're part of a government-run military force, then they're part of the military, not a militia. People can have multiple jobs along with an army job, and it's even more common in Japan because they almost never have a need to use their military. That's beside the point though, we aren't arguing about what a militia is, but rather if they're necessary to the "security of a free state", which they aren't.
Quā ratiōne nōn redimus ad senectēs societātēs sapientium patrum? Quā ratiōne relinquimus eārum sapientiam?

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #254 on: December 02, 2015, 06:42:45 AM »
Ahem.

It might surprise you to know that for much of Japan's written history, civilian conscripts have played a very large role in their ability to wage war.  In fact, after WWII, Japan was forbidden from having a proper military due to the terms of surrender.  However, they were eventually allowed to have a civilian militia in order to protect the peace and for self defense purposes.  This carries on even to today.  Japan does not have an army, navy or air force.  Instead, they have the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force, the Maritime Self-Defense Force, and the Air Self-Defense Force.  So, I am not sure where you are getting your information, but it seems that your sources are wrong.
So you hold that a militia is indeed necessary to the security of any state?
Militia, as I'm sure you are aware, is any fighting force made up of non-professional fighters.
So the founding fathers were of the opinion that the involvement of non-professional soldiers in defence is necessary to the security of a state.
In the case of Japan, their Self-Defence Force is not a militia.
In becoming a member of their armed forces, that becomes your job.
Ergo, you are now a professional.
Ergo, you are not in a militia.

Make no mistake, a militia system can aid in national security, but it is by no means necessary.
And if a militia is not necessary, then the Founding Fathers were wrong.
And if they were wrong on this count, then it seems imprudent to assume wisdom when citing their other point.

Well, then, it might surprise you to learn that the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force does, in fact, have reserve components.  These reservists train for 5 to 30 days per year and perform their regular careers while not training.  Sounds like your definition of a militia to me.  Are you ready to admit defeat, or are you going to continue to drag this on?

If they're part of a government-run military force, then they're part of the military, not a militia. People can have multiple jobs along with an army job, and it's even more common in Japan because they almost never have a need to use their military. That's beside the point though, we aren't arguing about what a militia is, but rather if they're necessary to the "security of a free state", which they aren't.

Scrotum Gagger specifically argued that militias are not necessary and specifically pointed to Japan as an example.  He also specifically defined a militia.  I then showed him that Japan does, in fact, have a militia according to his own definition.  Please, keep up with the conversation.  I know you are trying to help your liberal buddy with his losing argument, but you are only making the both of you look dumber. 

*

TheEarthIsASphere.

  • 867
  • who fucking cares what shape the earth is lol
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #255 on: December 02, 2015, 06:49:07 AM »
Ahem.

It might surprise you to know that for much of Japan's written history, civilian conscripts have played a very large role in their ability to wage war.  In fact, after WWII, Japan was forbidden from having a proper military due to the terms of surrender.  However, they were eventually allowed to have a civilian militia in order to protect the peace and for self defense purposes.  This carries on even to today.  Japan does not have an army, navy or air force.  Instead, they have the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force, the Maritime Self-Defense Force, and the Air Self-Defense Force.  So, I am not sure where you are getting your information, but it seems that your sources are wrong.
So you hold that a militia is indeed necessary to the security of any state?
Militia, as I'm sure you are aware, is any fighting force made up of non-professional fighters.
So the founding fathers were of the opinion that the involvement of non-professional soldiers in defence is necessary to the security of a state.
In the case of Japan, their Self-Defence Force is not a militia.
In becoming a member of their armed forces, that becomes your job.
Ergo, you are now a professional.
Ergo, you are not in a militia.

Make no mistake, a militia system can aid in national security, but it is by no means necessary.
And if a militia is not necessary, then the Founding Fathers were wrong.
And if they were wrong on this count, then it seems imprudent to assume wisdom when citing their other point.

Well, then, it might surprise you to learn that the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force does, in fact, have reserve components.  These reservists train for 5 to 30 days per year and perform their regular careers while not training.  Sounds like your definition of a militia to me.  Are you ready to admit defeat, or are you going to continue to drag this on?

If they're part of a government-run military force, then they're part of the military, not a militia. People can have multiple jobs along with an army job, and it's even more common in Japan because they almost never have a need to use their military. That's beside the point though, we aren't arguing about what a militia is, but rather if they're necessary to the "security of a free state", which they aren't.

Scrotum Gagger specifically argued that militias are not necessary and specifically pointed to Japan as an example.  He also specifically defined a militia.  I then showed him that Japan does, in fact, have a militia according to his own definition.  Please, keep up with the conversation.  I know you are trying to help your liberal buddy with his losing argument, but you are only making the both of you look dumber.

Roaj, the point is this: a civilian militia is not necessary to the "security of a free state. I don't care about the context here, and given some of the statements strings of words you've been spewing out, you're only painting an image of yourself as some crazy, extreme right-wing conservative who can't yell anything other than "YER NOT GONNA TAKE ME GUNS FROM MEH HOUSE", and that image doesn't make you look rather "smart". The fact that you even claim yourself to be smart after saying some of those things is completely laughable.
Quā ratiōne nōn redimus ad senectēs societātēs sapientium patrum? Quā ratiōne relinquimus eārum sapientiam?

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #256 on: December 02, 2015, 07:06:46 AM »
I, frankly, do not care what you or anyone else on this forum thinks about me.  Perhaps I am a gun nut.  Or, perhaps I simply chose to defend the Constitution of the United States.  Or, perhaps I simply call people out when they spew bullshit on our forum.  Take your pick.  It matters not to me. 

*

TheEarthIsASphere.

  • 867
  • who fucking cares what shape the earth is lol
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #257 on: December 02, 2015, 07:12:36 AM »
I, frankly, do not care what you or anyone else on this forum thinks about me.  Perhaps I am a gun nut.  Or, perhaps I simply chose to defend the Constitution of the United States.  Or, perhaps I simply call people out when they spew bullshit on our forum.  Take your pick.  It matters not to me.

Good for you. I guess you're one of those people who likes to run around and yell "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALA" whenever someone brings up a touchy subject like gun control.
Quā ratiōne nōn redimus ad senectēs societātēs sapientium patrum? Quā ratiōne relinquimus eārum sapientiam?

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #258 on: December 02, 2015, 07:17:40 AM »
I, frankly, do not care what you or anyone else on this forum thinks about me.  Perhaps I am a gun nut.  Or, perhaps I simply chose to defend the Constitution of the United States.  Or, perhaps I simply call people out when they spew bullshit on our forum.  Take your pick.  It matters not to me.

Good for you. I guess you're one of those people who likes to run around and yell "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALA" whenever someone brings up a touchy subject like gun control.

But, I do respond to every point you and the other liberals bring up on this subject.  It seems that your side is the one ignoring facts and logic.  I am sorry that you are losing another debate, but remember that nobody can win every debate.  Losing only makes you stronger.  It builds character.  Embrace your defeat and grow from it.  And, above all, grow up.  ;D

*

TheEarthIsASphere.

  • 867
  • who fucking cares what shape the earth is lol
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #259 on: December 02, 2015, 07:22:52 AM »
I, frankly, do not care what you or anyone else on this forum thinks about me.  Perhaps I am a gun nut.  Or, perhaps I simply chose to defend the Constitution of the United States.  Or, perhaps I simply call people out when they spew bullshit on our forum.  Take your pick.  It matters not to me.

Good for you. I guess you're one of those people who likes to run around and yell "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALA" whenever someone brings up a touchy subject like gun control.

But, I do respond to every point you and the other liberals bring up on this subject.  It seems that your side is the one ignoring facts and logic.  I am sorry that you are losing another debate, but remember that nobody can win every debate.  Losing only makes you stronger.  It builds character.  Embrace your defeat and grow from it.  And, above all, grow up.  ;D

No, I won't embrace my so-called "defeat" or "win" until we have gun control in place that prevents criminals from obtaining weapons to commit violent acts. Calling what I just said "illogical" is what makes your stance the illogical stance. By saying that gun control do this is "illogical", you're simply saying that you don't care when say, someone shoots up a school full of innocent children, or when someone goes on a mass murder spree killing hundreds of innocent people.

Let me ask you this: if a family member of yours was killed in a mass shooting because some violence-crazed lunatic got ahold of a gun, due to the lack of proper gun control, would you still be anti-gun control?
Quā ratiōne nōn redimus ad senectēs societātēs sapientium patrum? Quā ratiōne relinquimus eārum sapientiam?

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #260 on: December 02, 2015, 07:40:54 AM »
I, frankly, do not care what you or anyone else on this forum thinks about me.  Perhaps I am a gun nut.  Or, perhaps I simply chose to defend the Constitution of the United States.  Or, perhaps I simply call people out when they spew bullshit on our forum.  Take your pick.  It matters not to me.

Good for you. I guess you're one of those people who likes to run around and yell "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALA" whenever someone brings up a touchy subject like gun control.

But, I do respond to every point you and the other liberals bring up on this subject.  It seems that your side is the one ignoring facts and logic.  I am sorry that you are losing another debate, but remember that nobody can win every debate.  Losing only makes you stronger.  It builds character.  Embrace your defeat and grow from it.  And, above all, grow up.  ;D

No, I won't embrace my so-called "defeat" or "win" until we have gun control in place that prevents criminals from obtaining weapons to commit violent acts. Calling what I just said "illogical" is what makes your stance the illogical stance. By saying that gun control do this is "illogical", you're simply saying that you don't care when say, someone shoots up a school full of innocent children, or when someone goes on a mass murder spree killing hundreds of innocent people.

Let me ask you this: if a family member of yours was killed in a mass shooting because some violence-crazed lunatic got ahold of a gun, due to the lack of proper gun control, would you still be anti-gun control?

Oh, the old argumentum ad passiones fallacy that you liberals like to throw around.  I have not seen this one in a while.  Let me flip it around on you.

A friend of mine was run over by a car and died shortly after graduating from high school.  If this happened to someone you knew, would you want to ban all cars? 

*

TheEarthIsASphere.

  • 867
  • who fucking cares what shape the earth is lol
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #261 on: December 02, 2015, 07:47:01 AM »
I, frankly, do not care what you or anyone else on this forum thinks about me.  Perhaps I am a gun nut.  Or, perhaps I simply chose to defend the Constitution of the United States.  Or, perhaps I simply call people out when they spew bullshit on our forum.  Take your pick.  It matters not to me.

Good for you. I guess you're one of those people who likes to run around and yell "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALA" whenever someone brings up a touchy subject like gun control.

But, I do respond to every point you and the other liberals bring up on this subject.  It seems that your side is the one ignoring facts and logic.  I am sorry that you are losing another debate, but remember that nobody can win every debate.  Losing only makes you stronger.  It builds character.  Embrace your defeat and grow from it.  And, above all, grow up.  ;D

No, I won't embrace my so-called "defeat" or "win" until we have gun control in place that prevents criminals from obtaining weapons to commit violent acts. Calling what I just said "illogical" is what makes your stance the illogical stance. By saying that gun control do this is "illogical", you're simply saying that you don't care when say, someone shoots up a school full of innocent children, or when someone goes on a mass murder spree killing hundreds of innocent people.

Let me ask you this: if a family member of yours was killed in a mass shooting because some violence-crazed lunatic got ahold of a gun, due to the lack of proper gun control, would you still be anti-gun control?

Oh, the old argumentum ad passiones fallacy that you liberals like to throw around.  I have not seen this one in a while.  Let me flip it around on you.

A friend of mine was run over by a car and died shortly after graduating from high school.  If this happened to someone you knew, would you want to ban all cars?



Quote
A friend of mine was run over by a car and died shortly after graduating from high school.  If this happened to someone you knew, would you want to ban all cars?

There's a difference between an accidental death and a murder jaor. I'd think you would know that, but apparently not.
Quā ratiōne nōn redimus ad senectēs societātēs sapientium patrum? Quā ratiōne relinquimus eārum sapientiam?

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #262 on: December 02, 2015, 07:52:17 AM »
I, frankly, do not care what you or anyone else on this forum thinks about me.  Perhaps I am a gun nut.  Or, perhaps I simply chose to defend the Constitution of the United States.  Or, perhaps I simply call people out when they spew bullshit on our forum.  Take your pick.  It matters not to me.

Good for you. I guess you're one of those people who likes to run around and yell "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALA" whenever someone brings up a touchy subject like gun control.

But, I do respond to every point you and the other liberals bring up on this subject.  It seems that your side is the one ignoring facts and logic.  I am sorry that you are losing another debate, but remember that nobody can win every debate.  Losing only makes you stronger.  It builds character.  Embrace your defeat and grow from it.  And, above all, grow up.  ;D

No, I won't embrace my so-called "defeat" or "win" until we have gun control in place that prevents criminals from obtaining weapons to commit violent acts. Calling what I just said "illogical" is what makes your stance the illogical stance. By saying that gun control do this is "illogical", you're simply saying that you don't care when say, someone shoots up a school full of innocent children, or when someone goes on a mass murder spree killing hundreds of innocent people.

Let me ask you this: if a family member of yours was killed in a mass shooting because some violence-crazed lunatic got ahold of a gun, due to the lack of proper gun control, would you still be anti-gun control?

Oh, the old argumentum ad passiones fallacy that you liberals like to throw around.  I have not seen this one in a while.  Let me flip it around on you.

A friend of mine was run over by a car and died shortly after graduating from high school.  If this happened to someone you knew, would you want to ban all cars?



Quote
A friend of mine was run over by a car and died shortly after graduating from high school.  If this happened to someone you knew, would you want to ban all cars?

There's a difference between an accidental death and a murder jaor. I'd think you would know that, but apparently not.

What makes you so sure it was an accident?  Do you think murder only happens with a firearm?  A guy in a neighboring city of mine was murdered by an acquaintance of his with a hammer not too long ago.  Should we ban hammers?  Screwdrivers?  Knives?  People have been murdering other people since prehistoric times.  If we banned everything that was ever used to murder someone, we would have nothing left.  :(

*

Luke 22:35-38

  • 3598
  • The earth is a globe, DUH! prove its not
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #263 on: December 02, 2015, 08:12:08 AM »
I, frankly, do not care what you or anyone else on this forum thinks about me.  Perhaps I am a gun nut.  Or, perhaps I simply chose to defend the Constitution of the United States.  Or, perhaps I simply call people out when they spew bullshit on our forum.  Take your pick.  It matters not to me.

Good for you. I guess you're one of those people who likes to run around and yell "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALA" whenever someone brings up a touchy subject like gun control.

But, I do respond to every point you and the other liberals bring up on this subject.  It seems that your side is the one ignoring facts and logic.  I am sorry that you are losing another debate, but remember that nobody can win every debate.  Losing only makes you stronger.  It builds character.  Embrace your defeat and grow from it.  And, above all, grow up.  ;D

No, I won't embrace my so-called "defeat" or "win" until we have gun control in place that prevents criminals from obtaining weapons to commit violent acts. Calling what I just said "illogical" is what makes your stance the illogical stance. By saying that gun control do this is "illogical", you're simply saying that you don't care when say, someone shoots up a school full of innocent children, or when someone goes on a mass murder spree killing hundreds of innocent people.

Let me ask you this: if a family member of yours was killed in a mass shooting because some violence-crazed lunatic got ahold of a gun, due to the lack of proper gun control, would you still be anti-gun control?

Oh, the old argumentum ad passiones fallacy that you liberals like to throw around.  I have not seen this one in a while.  Let me flip it around on you.

A friend of mine was run over by a car and died shortly after graduating from high school.  If this happened to someone you knew, would you want to ban all cars?



Quote
A friend of mine was run over by a car and died shortly after graduating from high school.  If this happened to someone you knew, would you want to ban all cars?

There's a difference between an accidental death and a murder jaor. I'd think you would know that, but apparently not.

I like to point out two things:

1. There's such a thing as road rage
2. One of the reasons some people want to ban guns is because of how "dangerous" they are to the children and will point to cases where children got a hold of a gun and shot someone accidentally.
The Bible doesn't support a flat earth.

Scripture, facts, science, stats, and logic is how I argue.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #264 on: December 02, 2015, 08:18:47 AM »
I, frankly, do not care what you or anyone else on this forum thinks about me.  Perhaps I am a gun nut.  Or, perhaps I simply chose to defend the Constitution of the United States.  Or, perhaps I simply call people out when they spew bullshit on our forum.  Take your pick.  It matters not to me.

Good for you. I guess you're one of those people who likes to run around and yell "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALA" whenever someone brings up a touchy subject like gun control.

But, I do respond to every point you and the other liberals bring up on this subject.  It seems that your side is the one ignoring facts and logic.  I am sorry that you are losing another debate, but remember that nobody can win every debate.  Losing only makes you stronger.  It builds character.  Embrace your defeat and grow from it.  And, above all, grow up.  ;D

No, I won't embrace my so-called "defeat" or "win" until we have gun control in place that prevents criminals from obtaining weapons to commit violent acts. Calling what I just said "illogical" is what makes your stance the illogical stance. By saying that gun control do this is "illogical", you're simply saying that you don't care when say, someone shoots up a school full of innocent children, or when someone goes on a mass murder spree killing hundreds of innocent people.

Let me ask you this: if a family member of yours was killed in a mass shooting because some violence-crazed lunatic got ahold of a gun, due to the lack of proper gun control, would you still be anti-gun control?

Oh, the old argumentum ad passiones fallacy that you liberals like to throw around.  I have not seen this one in a while.  Let me flip it around on you.

A friend of mine was run over by a car and died shortly after graduating from high school.  If this happened to someone you knew, would you want to ban all cars?



Quote
A friend of mine was run over by a car and died shortly after graduating from high school.  If this happened to someone you knew, would you want to ban all cars?

There's a difference between an accidental death and a murder jaor. I'd think you would know that, but apparently not.

I like to point out two things:

1. There's such a thing as road rage
2. One of the reasons some people want to ban guns is because of how "dangerous" they are to the children and will point to cases where children got a hold of a gun and shot someone accidentally.

Just to add to your point, everyday in the US, 300 children are hospitalized for ingesting household poisons.  Why don't we hear the crybaby liberals demanding that bleach should be banned? 

*

Misero

  • 1261
  • Of course it's flat. It looks that way up close.
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #265 on: December 02, 2015, 02:03:00 PM »
Again, oarj, not murder.
(No, whatever FE'r wants to call me an alt, I'm not TheEarthIsRound.)
I am the worst moderator ever.

Sometimes I wonder: "Why am  I on this site?"
Then I look at threads about clouds not existing and I go back to posting and lurking. Lurk moar.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #266 on: December 02, 2015, 03:02:03 PM »
Is the death of a child only wrong when murder is involved?  I know you guys are out of ammo, but please try to at least make reasonable arguments. 

*

Scroto Gaggins

  • 671
  • Hobbiton represent
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #267 on: December 02, 2015, 03:31:35 PM »
Ahem.

It might surprise you to know that for much of Japan's written history, civilian conscripts have played a very large role in their ability to wage war.  In fact, after WWII, Japan was forbidden from having a proper military due to the terms of surrender.  However, they were eventually allowed to have a civilian militia in order to protect the peace and for self defense purposes.  This carries on even to today.  Japan does not have an army, navy or air force.  Instead, they have the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force, the Maritime Self-Defense Force, and the Air Self-Defense Force.  So, I am not sure where you are getting your information, but it seems that your sources are wrong.
So you hold that a militia is indeed necessary to the security of any state?
Militia, as I'm sure you are aware, is any fighting force made up of non-professional fighters.
So the founding fathers were of the opinion that the involvement of non-professional soldiers in defence is necessary to the security of a state.
In the case of Japan, their Self-Defence Force is not a militia.
In becoming a member of their armed forces, that becomes your job.
Ergo, you are now a professional.
Ergo, you are not in a militia.

Make no mistake, a militia system can aid in national security, but it is by no means necessary.
And if a militia is not necessary, then the Founding Fathers were wrong.
And if they were wrong on this count, then it seems imprudent to assume wisdom when citing their other point.

Well, then, it might surprise you to learn that the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force does, in fact, have reserve components.  These reservists train for 5 to 30 days per year and perform their regular careers while not training.  Sounds like your definition of a militia to me.  Are you ready to admit defeat, or are you going to continue to drag this on?

If they're part of a government-run military force, then they're part of the military, not a militia. People can have multiple jobs along with an army job, and it's even more common in Japan because they almost never have a need to use their military. That's beside the point though, we aren't arguing about what a militia is, but rather if they're necessary to the "security of a free state", which they aren't.

Scrotum Gagger specifically argued that militias are not necessary and specifically pointed to Japan as an example.  He also specifically defined a militia.  I then showed him that Japan does, in fact, have a militia according to his own definition.  Please, keep up with the conversation.  I know you are trying to help your liberal buddy with his losing argument, but you are only making the both of you look dumber.
Well, because this argument is about necessity, then I think it's fair to say that the presence of a militia is irrelevant.
Reservists rarely ever participate in active military operations, meaning that the contribution of militias to state defence is limited at best, non-existent at worst, and certainly not necessary.
They are taking the hobbits to Isengard.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #268 on: December 02, 2015, 04:06:25 PM »
Ahem.

It might surprise you to know that for much of Japan's written history, civilian conscripts have played a very large role in their ability to wage war.  In fact, after WWII, Japan was forbidden from having a proper military due to the terms of surrender.  However, they were eventually allowed to have a civilian militia in order to protect the peace and for self defense purposes.  This carries on even to today.  Japan does not have an army, navy or air force.  Instead, they have the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force, the Maritime Self-Defense Force, and the Air Self-Defense Force.  So, I am not sure where you are getting your information, but it seems that your sources are wrong.
So you hold that a militia is indeed necessary to the security of any state?
Militia, as I'm sure you are aware, is any fighting force made up of non-professional fighters.
So the founding fathers were of the opinion that the involvement of non-professional soldiers in defence is necessary to the security of a state.
In the case of Japan, their Self-Defence Force is not a militia.
In becoming a member of their armed forces, that becomes your job.
Ergo, you are now a professional.
Ergo, you are not in a militia.

Make no mistake, a militia system can aid in national security, but it is by no means necessary.
And if a militia is not necessary, then the Founding Fathers were wrong.
And if they were wrong on this count, then it seems imprudent to assume wisdom when citing their other point.

Well, then, it might surprise you to learn that the Japanese Ground Self-Defense Force does, in fact, have reserve components.  These reservists train for 5 to 30 days per year and perform their regular careers while not training.  Sounds like your definition of a militia to me.  Are you ready to admit defeat, or are you going to continue to drag this on?

If they're part of a government-run military force, then they're part of the military, not a militia. People can have multiple jobs along with an army job, and it's even more common in Japan because they almost never have a need to use their military. That's beside the point though, we aren't arguing about what a militia is, but rather if they're necessary to the "security of a free state", which they aren't.

Scrotum Gagger specifically argued that militias are not necessary and specifically pointed to Japan as an example.  He also specifically defined a militia.  I then showed him that Japan does, in fact, have a militia according to his own definition.  Please, keep up with the conversation.  I know you are trying to help your liberal buddy with his losing argument, but you are only making the both of you look dumber.
Well, because this argument is about necessity, then I think it's fair to say that the presence of a militia is irrelevant.
Reservists rarely ever participate in active military operations, meaning that the contribution of militias to state defence is limited at best, non-existent at worst, and certainly not necessary.

I fail to see how you have established a lack of necessity.  Militias have always been around, and continue to exist virtually everywhere even today.  The fact that they still exist speaks for their necessity.  But, let us examine your perception of reservists.  I can assure you that reservists have participated in every major US conflict that I can think of.  You are absolutely wrong in your statement that they rarely participate in military operations.  I was in the USMC reserves, and I know which recent military operations my old unit participated in.  It sounds to me that you started with Petitio Principii, moved to Dicto Simpliciter when you got called out, and are now trying to back out using Non Sequitur arguments.  How many more fallacies are you and your cohorts going to try to pass off as valid debate tactics? 

*

Misero

  • 1261
  • Of course it's flat. It looks that way up close.
Re: Gun Violence in the United States
« Reply #269 on: December 02, 2015, 06:28:52 PM »
Is the death of a child only wrong when murder is involved?  I know you guys are out of ammo, but please try to at least make reasonable arguments.
I'm only saying that it does not pertain to the argument at hand. A death can only be blamed on a person should that person have malicious intent. (Or just complete ineptitude, but that isn't ever the case in shootings).
I am the worst moderator ever.

Sometimes I wonder: "Why am  I on this site?"
Then I look at threads about clouds not existing and I go back to posting and lurking. Lurk moar.