Defend the Second Amendment!

Old

You still come across as huffy and still seem to be stamping your foot and demanding you are right and anything else is wrong.

You want everyone to accept your definition as the right one it isn’t its just one definition, get over it.

I’m an atheist I don’t think gods make houses or anything else.

Fine you have ‘faith’ in there been some god or other but that doesn’t mean it exists.

 

You cut and pasted what I said in your own post and now you can’t find it? That’s a good one.

I seem to remember you accusing me of using “pathetic asides and even worse ‘humor’.

And telling me not to “come back with something ‘humorous’”.

Also telling me; “your replies have just become full of snide remarks and what you seem to think of as ‘humorous’ asides”.

But now when you do it, it’s a fine thing.

Great, another of your posts that prove my point, a cut and paste one size fits all answer that does not answer the question you were asked and you can’t see the problem.

Once again, this is the question I you were asked;
Are you one of those that believe that houses construct themselves?

A simple yes or no will do but you can elucidate if you wish.

Is your mind really so small that it can’t even grasp the concept of God let alone his reality.

What you are saying is like asking someone to produce the sun right before you for your examination, as if it wouldn’t instantly incinerate you and yet you think because God, the creator of not only the sun but of all the billions upon billions of stars in the universe, does not present himself to you for examination, sparing you the instant death that would occur, that means he doesn’t exist.

What a fool.

That is why I distinguished the true Almighty God from these other gods by calling him the creator of the universe.

The word god just means a mighty one, of which there are many as you point out, even one’s stomach is called a god but there is only one almighty God.

None of the Hindu gods are the only one.

Oh and if you want to consider yourself a pointless random assembly of evolution, help yourself.

And you call me unoriginal. This is so old it would be hard to throw a rock without hitting an atheist that hasn’t tried to use it over and over again.

You reel off these things as if to say; look God just murdered all these poor innocent people, which were just minding their own business, without so much as a warning. But actually looking into what happened, who they were and what they were doing might… never mind you don’t really care do you?

Your mind is so closed off that it can’t even grasp the concept of God let alone his reality.

You look at God from a man’s viewpoint but God is not a man and he does not have a man foibles and limitations.

If you are murderer, you might be able to hide it from other men but you cannot hide it from God, who can read the hearts.

You think that God, on the spur of the moment, just murdered these people and somehow was so rushed that didn’t even stop to look into their hearts to see if his judgment of them was justified.

If a man kills someone does he have the ability to bring him back to life? God does, ever hear of the resurrection?

 

The second amendment is a sacred part of the American Constitution. When the government takes away guns they take away the power to defend ourselves against that government. Look at Hungary in 1956 for an example. Look at China since the communist take over if you need a bigger example.

 

" humans are gods inventions." Looking at the results of those "inventions, I seriously doubt they/we would qualify for a patent.

 

LOL it must be nice to live behind a shield of blissful leftist ignorance. You are a living breathing stereotype.

Nevermind that it actually is the leftist's interpretation on how an gun-free zone should work. Instead, you try to spin anything you want your own way despite the obvious.

 

Meaningless drivel.

Glad you asked. I went back and reviewed post 85. In hindsight it was easy to see that you only faked your response.

First I asked you about your statement;
“[SIZE=10.5pt]If you have a lot of people killed because there are many guns in circulation ...[/SIZE]”

[SIZE=10.5pt]And I made the counter argument; "perhaps this is not what you were trying to say but I can't remember any one saying; "I killed because there "are many guns in circulation"". There are many reasons for a person to kill another person but the number of "guns in circulation" is not one of them".[/SIZE]

It was easy to see that you didn't even bother to address this comment, even though you try to put on a show like you have addressed all counter arguments.


[SIZE=10.5pt]I then addressed your "relatively frequent call for lessening the "number of guns in circulation"" and mentioned that; "The fact is before guns were invented, mankind demonstrated its ability to kill and murder in great quantities for thousands of years without the use of guns and mankind will continue to do so even if you find some way to “lessen the number of guns in circulation”."[/SIZE]

Please note I was talking about the propensity of all mankind's [SIZE=10.5pt]ability to kill and murder in great quantities for thousands of years without the use of guns and and not specifically about [/SIZE]any one nations propensity to kill and murder.
[SIZE=10.5pt]To this you were dismissive and said; "This has been covered what seems like hundreds of times and is what I term as the natural born killers argument."[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10.5pt]You then went into your song and dance and did your cut and paste one size fits none thing and said; "something I wrote on that subject a while ago" and then posted things like this; "This is the view of many Americans of their fellow citizens - that they’re so violent and murderous that they just want to kill. That it’s not guns that count for the high level of murders but the murderous nature of Americans - that the same amount of carnage would go on because Americans are so bloodthirsty that they would use anything to kill, kill, kill."[/SIZE]

Great, I'm talking about all mankind's [SIZE=10.5pt]ability to kill and murder in great quantities[/SIZE] and you jump in to a tirade about "[SIZE=10.5pt]the view of many Americans of their fellow citizens" being [/SIZE]"[SIZE=10.5pt]that they’re so violent and murderous that they just want to kill" and you don't even see the disconnect. Basically your cut and paste tirade doesn't begin to address my counter argument[/SIZE].

So it seems that you think you have adequately addressed someone's [SIZE=10.5pt]counter argument if you say anything at all about[/SIZE] it. I hate to tell but discussions just don't work that way.

Anything new? Kind of like you who hasn't had anything new to say for years and why you resort to these cut and paste one size fits none posts.

 

Nope that's still you.

Once again it is not my definition, can't you get anything right?

Can't you even get the answer to a simple question right?
You were not asked if you were a atheist or not.
You were not asked if God makes houses or not.
You were simply asked if you think houses construct themselves? Yes or no?
How hard can it be to answer this question?
I mean honestly, you seem to think that you have the answer to all of America's gun woes and you don't even know if houses construct themselves or not.
Unbelievable.

It doesn't mean that he doesn't exist either.

 

All that needs happen is to change his statement to, If you have a lot of people killed by guns because there are many guns in circulation.

And then your response is irrelevant.

 

You don't even answer my questions at all. Once you are shown to be deficient in reason you just start ignoring. Your debate strategy is to confine terms to suit you and it always has been.
You can't even understand a nuanced or comprehensive answer. It is not his deficiency that is apparent here.

 

For instance you regurgitate an argument with Balbus on a point that reason had dispelled as though he wasn't addressing some reasonable argument of yours.

i.e.
mankind demonstrated its ability to kill and murder in great quantities for thousands of years without the use of guns and mankind will continue to do so even if you find some way to “lessen the number of guns in circulation”."

Please note I was talking about the propensity of all mankind's ability to kill and murder in great quantities for thousands of years without the use of guns and and not specifically about any one nations propensity to kill and murder.
To this you were dismissive and said; "This has been covered what seems like hundreds of times and is what I term as the natural born killers argument."
I pointed out to you that it is not possible for man to kill in great numbers without the assistance of weapons. This reasonably short circuits your argument as false.
It is not being dismissive to point to previous arguments or statements. You are complaining because Balbus won't do tricks for you. What would satisfy you in a discussion? HE tells you the argument is called the natural born killers argument, the argument you are making. Well your argument has been demonstrated as a logical fallacy, again.

 

A simple yes or no will do for what? See how you try to define the terms of what is allowable? Thank you for the generosity of allowing us to have our wishes. I think you are the one with the limited ability to grasp concepts. I think you are confused and self contradictory in your concept of god and his reality. And you know what, the subject isn't really appropriate to the subject of this thread. You really shouldn't be accusing others of being small minded.

 

I suppose if your house were a naturally occurring geologic feature like a cave you could say it just appeared.

 

Hell no. Why should I support the second amendment? Children killing each other in middle class schools because their paranoid parents all have guns hidden away in their tidy closets. Young people in the ghetto killing each other because guns are so easy to buy on the streets. And let's not forget my insane aunt (she bought a gun, and is forever bragging about how she will shoot anybody in cold blood if he/she dares to trespass on her property). So that's what it's all come down to: Property before people?

Not really sure that's what the Bill of Rights had in mind. I'd sooner hand over my paycheck than shoot somebody dead. And property can be replaced, but not a human life. Materialism robs the soul much quicker than any so-called thug that deserves to be shot dead in a heartbeat. By a cop or a civilian. Just my two cents.

And even if every U.S. citizen owned a gun or two, the government still has us beat by 500%. So we need to keep our wits about us, and slowly but surely turn the tables on them. I already see progress (slow as hell, but at least it's progress). So onward and upward. People have the power, not slick politicians.

P.S.The OP seems to enjoy stirring the pot, so I bet he's laughing his ass off as he reads these quite heated posts

 

Great, maybe you can talk him into it?

 

So what? We are talking about GUNS not weapons in general.

Before guns there were swords, knives, spears and bow and arrow, all where used to kill millions before guns were made, that is what I was saying. Mankind has does not need GUNS to kill and limiting GUNS will not stop mankind from killing each other.

No it is not but if that is all you do and you add things "This has been covered what seems like hundreds of times" it becomes dismissive.

Actually I'm complaining because all it seems he does is play tricks.

The argument I made is not called the "the natural born killers argument" that is only what Balbas calls it.

Really, by who? Certainly not by you and not by Balbas either.

 

And you wonder why I don't answer all your posts.

 

It's a laughable argument. You are no more going to defend yourself against the "government" than a pile of ants against a boot.
While the Chinese government subjugates the population through threat of force, we are subjugated though social division and manipulation of thought through lies, disinformation and propaganda. You can't fight that with guns. It can only be fought through education and grass roots activism.

Praise the lord and pass the ammunition. See you at wall-mart!

 

I not sure this what we are talking about but yes they do.
But then there other things that make it easier to kill people as well.

Yes they do but I not sure I would say that someone who obtained the Guns and ammunition, drove to a crowded area and started firing into it didn't have time for reflection on what he was doing.
Personally I would say he had thought about it too much.

A bow and arrow and thrown spear are also able to inflict damage beyond arm's length.

Time? I am sure that the death from starvation and small pox of thousands of American Indians took a lot of time but I would guess that most of them would rather have been shot than watch their families die this way.

Speaking of bombs, ever hear of the Boston marathon or suicide bombers? Nether of which took very much time.

Even the military debates the effectiveness of rapid fire weapons. It is hard for even trained solders to hold a rapid fire weapon on target. But when confronted with such weapons they do have an intimidation factor which is one reason the military uses them.

Yes it does but then bombs are even faster and can have a larger area of destruction. IED means improvised explosive device and means you can buy the means to make one off the shelf and there is no identity check or three day waiting period.

The question here is not whether guns are destructive, they are but who do you want to have that destructiveness in their hands?