Vote democrat for now on

Speaking of not government congrats to NY'ers on their mass civil disobedience in burning their gun registration forms! That was cool!

 

You should probably stop equating the current US government with the concept of government, because you're just making yourself look foolish.

Could you please explain to me the ways in which I am justifying murders for my own personal gain? That is quite an accusation, I think it is reasonable for me to ask you to back that up.

In your answer, please remember that I do not live in the US and am not a US citizen. Even if I did support Obama's foreign policy (I don't), it would not bring me any personal gain.

 

another type of weapons would've been able to slip passed the front door undetected. I don't know that any mental detectors are used, and even if so, a person could force their way through.

And anyway, my post wasn't only talking about that, and you ignored my greater points that criminals get guns anyway. Just like we can't keep drugs away from people, we also can't keep guns away from people. it will just become an all-new product on the criminal market, skyrocket demand and, prices, and none of these guns would have any legal registry at all, so it's obvious prohibition/disarmament is not the answer.

As I already said to fraggle, this is only a comparison of 2 crimes committed on the exact same day, You're not looking at other scenerios. If the guy in Asia, had planned as much as Lanza did, he probably wouldve stabbed them in a more deadly place.

Your argument is that it's "less deadly," but what you're actually saying is it is harder, which may be true- but, that wont stop a criminal! What stops a criminal is equal or greater force. As I said, we wouldn't be having this conversation if a gun-toting citizen saw him walking into a school with an AR.

What you Liberals do is, brand everyone who believes in the right to bear arms as "crazy gun nuts," when it's quite a bit more sensible to have the ability to protect yourselves from violent criminals, than having to run and hide, and, cower under a desk until government arrives to "save you" (20 mins to 3 hours later).

You're not gonna stop criminals by getting guns by passing more laws. You're only gonna make it harder for law abiding citizens to protect themselves from those criminals.

Actually, no it shouldn't! It is a clear violation of our Constitution. You liberals are so stuck on this notion that you can control everything a person does, that you don't even see the many, many, flaws in your argument.


You want to take away guns from citizens to protect people, huh? Why not try taking away Obama's ability to drone strike children, or his NDAA? Cause it's a hypocritical joke. The elite Liberals like Ted Turner support population control, total disarmament and, more government control. And even you home grown Liberals who actually went against Bush are feeding into the exact same propaganda. It's really sad frankly.

Mayor Bloomberg continued it anyway, we're just now phazing it out. And, that's not true, because Obama made it to where anywhere 100 miles from the coast or less, is a "Constitution free" Zone (that's 2/3rds of the whole countries population in that zone)

The president has the Right to murder/detain citizens.

The government can now legally show the public war propaganda to boost support for wars, for the first time since WWII

Citizens today, can be charged a felony charge
Idk how you could possibly say our checks and balances are working!

No, I'm not. I can't show you anything that proves cops systematically rape women, and I dont think that is mandatory for the message I'm trying to convey.

Police lie, they make illegal searches (providing those individuals don't know the Constitution,) they steal drugs from evidence, and many misuse their power.

Just a few, off the top of my head:

That cop started a prostitution ring.

That women was shot for making a wrong turn in DC, in front of her infant.

They shoot dogs when raiding homes, and often raid the wrong homes, or raid homes and find nothing but used pot pipes.

But, it's not just the police department, it is government generally. It is an entity that replaces God on Earth and justifies every inhumanity in it's name.

I disagree. Drugs don't typically make someone commit crimes.In some rare cases, people will get violent with or without drugs, and they have to deal with the consequences of their actions.

I don't like PCP either, but I don't think it leads to criminal activity, and plus, Illegal or not, I have seen it before, and I was around 8-10 kids that all wanted to try it, and I said no, because I didn't want to get violent or something. The point I'm making is that laws don't curb the sale or use of drugs- and even if were morally opposed to something (crack would be my example) freedom allows people to get rehab, and know what they're ingesting and gain real knowledge (not lies) about the chemical. We have tons of "legal" chemicals that are just as dangerous as PCP, but they're meant to mimic marijuana (which is much safer.) So, the drug laws have caused even greater problems and tax burdens on the citizens

Not only that, but we wouldnt be locking peaceful people in prison systems. Even if you don't support drugs, its certainly better this way where the country can make money, than boosting up the criminals and drug cartels like our current laws do.

I think the word "alot" is VERY generous. "Alot," to me would be like the foreign aid to Syrian Rebels, the Aid to Israel, military bases in countries that hate us, that costs 1 million a year, just to keep the lights on. Those are cuts we need.

Obama cut 30K out of 470K of troops, and that's probably just the jobs that got taken by UAV's (Drones) and USV's (underwater drones.) There was no real cuts there.


While we're on the subject of Obama, will you tell me why it's okay for him to kill children with plastic flying death machines, but citizens can have no means of real defense against them?

To me, Liberalism relies on the idea that no part of the government will be corrupt and abuse their power, and that's the ideological part. Scaling back government is not in their dictionary, and that's scary when you take a good look around. Our checks and balances arent working!

 

It's not about the foreign policy, it's about support for an entity that is given power above our Human Rights and in place of God, That is to say, that you think the government is morally justified in killing people, and the other force it commits, because it is for the "Greater good of humanity"

All governments commit murders, thefts, embezzlement and, other crimes. I know you're not American, but look at what you're doing, you're arguing with an American because he opposes a government, so how can you even say you don't support them? IMO, you support the government being in control of everything, which I think would cause greater problems that leftist would claim we need "more government" for.

I mean, with you Leftists it's all "oh without government, who will fix the crumbling roads and bridges?" I just want to shake you guys and yell "No one's fixing the f---ing roads as is, that's why you referred to them as "crumbling" to begin with.. Government did it once, and we're perpetually in their debt for it.

I don't know if Leftists will ever look at government in a cost/benefit ratio. the cost inollars, freedom and, lives is far too much, compared to the alleged "benefits" of force..

 

If the guy in Asia had had a pistol instead of a knife, he 'probably' would have killed more children. If he had had a bushmaster, he 'probably' would have killed even more.

 

You're really good at telling other people what they think. If you tried listening for once, you might actually be worth debating.

But I thought that people killed people. Why don't we just say that if governments kill people, then pencils misspell words?

In Toronto at least, the reason the city is falling apart is because of budget cuts. The budget cuts were a part of a tax reduction plan of the crackhead mayor. All of the idiotic right wingers were soooo happy with their tax breaks (which weren't even breaks-- taxes went up, but at a slightly slower rate), but of course when the water mains broke the unlucky ones had to shell out 10s of thousands that they can't afford.

And now there are underfunded schools which have been damaged by the ice storm (thanks global warming!) and there is no money in the budget to help them, so all of the kids are being crammed into fewer classrooms, and their education is suffering, and it doesn't matter because everyone gets to drink an extra cup of coffee every week for the year.

 

First off we've discussed some of the points you made here before with me in another thread, so I didn't rehash it as we agreed to disagree on those points.


I've taken issue with you making broad statements before, and you tend to criticize federal government, and only state governments on an issue by issue state by state basis, fine okay, I think that's a bit choosy on your part but okay.

Second, I've only advocated stronger back round checks, not gun bans or pulling certain weapons off the market, I might be for slapping on a federal or state tax for certain kinds of guns if they are shown to be statistically used in crimes more. If such a tax were put in place, I would hope those funds go to families who are victims of gun violence.


Third, you narrowly defined your former post, to which I responded, to a scenario were one would have to use a gun to defend his or her family against someone (a corrupt cop is the specific you used) who wants to rape your family. So therefore I specifically asked for you to show that is a statistical scenario one must worry about.


The broader sense of corruption of police, happens, but it's not bad everywhere to the same degree, and the tone of your posts are so accusatory that it sounds like your painting everybody with a broad stroke, in the same way you are accusing Liberals of having a broad stroke of ideology against your views.

I'm respectfully asking you to be more nuanced and specific, and less broad when you drive your points or convey your opinions, it feels sloppy and disrespectful.


----

Also the culture of gang bangers, and the like do not sell stolen weapons to just anybody, for fear of getting caught up in a string operation. You have to be in the inner circle, or go through someone the underground trusts.

Adam Lanza was so socially isolated that he wouldn't have had the social network to get a gun from the black market. These are factors you aren't considering when you make your counterclaim that:

"If you outlaw guns, or take them away, you'll just drive up demand for them more on the illegal markets".


-----------


The fact remains that a long term ban on semi-auto, and automatic weapons has NEVER been tried NATIONWIDE.

(Note: Although I am not for banning them, but for argumentative purposes you are attack a premise that has never truly been tested in the USA, State bans don't work or can't be used as counter examples because the sales on the internet and other states provided loopholes to such bans)

 

I'll also add that I think the liberal point of view is not aiming toward perfection, but ONLY to REDUCE, NOT ELIMINATE, the specific type of crime that are mass shooting events in (malls, schools, ect..)

Not all kinds of gun related crime.


I conceed that gang violence in communities will not be effected by such policy, there's too many firearms in circulation from years past to see any real changes from policy take affect.

 

Let me also add that I didn't approve of the Iraqi war and therefore the domino effect having the Iraqi war had on destabilizing the region of the Middle East.

That being said giving that the first domino was pushed, the job of the executive branch is to guide smoother transitions from administration to administration when it comes to foreign policy.

I am aghast when we hear about civilians who are casualties of war. But casualties of war happen, and sometimes our intelligence just downright gets it wrong. Humans harm other humans that's a fact, and they do so over conflicting ideologies and over natural resources. Until science or God solves the problem of economic scarcity and resource scarcity there will always be tragedies like this. Also those casualties are also often human shields as well, women and children most likely.

America tried an isolationist policy a few centuries ago, the reason we have a standing military today is because we learned that we share a planet and a trade system globally that has painful ripple effects if we don't interfere.

---

Also nobody is talking about replacing the role of God either. You pulled that phrase in a post earlier that seemed random.


---

Also you are making an assumption that the terrorist attack in China didn't have the same effort of planning that Adam Lanza put into his attack.

That's an assumption and you can't make an argument on an assumption like that that counters my point.


You also conceded that there is truth to my claim about the efficacy of weaponry used = the lethal levels of an attack.


Fact: there's a reason wars aren't fought with pencils, or twigs or way past wars using rudimentary technology doesn't get the same kill counts as wars fought with modern weaponry.

It matters, on the street, it matters in the specific crime profile of mass shootings, and in isolated homicidal incidents involving psychopaths.

 

Speaking of psychopaths, this just in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCO5nZgvtbY"]Dmitry Orlov: Ukraine-Crimea Update, U.S. Will Self-Destruct in Near Future Update & More - YouTube

The best evidence of "No, never vote dummacrat again" so far. But it looks like it will end well for those people while we carry on with the obamakerrymccain scumsnail desperate for a war with someone they can destroy our country and try to blame. Look out Israel! That jet's been waiting for something....maybe omuzzy's backup in case he failed to get us again - by now, his co-conspirators know they have to have padded rails and a helmet for the idiot! Ahahaha!

 

25


Stop just telling us we are wrong and start addressing the many outstanding criticisms of your views and above all STOP LYING

 

Back to the trashacrats topic:
Sting! The attorney general of Pennsylvania shut down an investigation of
corrupt elected officials because everyone they caught – on tape – taking
cash and gifts … was a black Democrat.

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, the sting operation began with a deal: A
black lobbyist (who had been accused of fraud and participated in the sting to
gain favorable treatment from the authorities) offered elected officials – black
and white, Democrat and Republican – cash and gifts in exchange for votes.

Over a three-year period, the lobbyist found a handful of politicians willing to
take the deal.

“Sources with knowledge of the sting said the investigation made financial
pitches to both Republicans and Democrats, but only Democrats accepted the
payments,” said the Inquirer.

Furthermore, all the offending Democrats were black, members of the
Philadelphia delegation to the state legislature.

“Four state lawmakers took money,” the newspaper reported. “State Rep.
Ronald G. Waters accepted multiple payments totaling $7,650; State Rep.
Vanessa Brown took $4,000; State Rep. Michelle Brownlee received $3,500;
and State Rep. Louise Bishop took $1,500, said people with knowledge of the
investigation.”

So far, none of the politicians have been charged with wrongdoing.

State Attorney General Kathleen Kane told the Inquirer she stopped the
investigation because it was “poorly conceived, badly managed and tainted by
racism.” She even argued that the sting had specifically targeted African-Americans.

Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams, however, himself a black
Democrat, refuted the accusation.

 

old

Are you saying you want to have guns as protection against black people?

In what way would gun ownership tackle local government corruption?

 

The thread title is about voting democrat, not specifically gun control. They just hijacked the thread and....well, i guess guns are an issue with dems too. Whatever you are on about is a mystery to me and I'll just let you have the thread to argue with other people if they will.

THIS was funny tho: "In what way would gun ownership tackle local government corruption?"

That probably is not the best question to ask Americans. Especially right now - ahahahaha!

 

Old

So you didn’t read the OP? the whole thing is about guns.

So can you please answer the questions?

 

Hers an edited version of something i've posted before -

My theory is that there is a general attitude among many Americans that accepts threat of violence, intimidation and suppression as legitimate means of societal control and this mindset gets in the way of them actually working toward solutions to their social and political problems.

This is because that attitude colours the way they think about and view the world from personal interaction to how they see other countries.
They can come to see the world as threatening, they can feel intimidated and fear that they are or could be the victim of criminal or political suppression.

This attitude can lead to a near paranoid outlook were everything and everyone is seen as a potential threat that is just waiting to attack or repress them. This taints the way they see the government, how criminality can be dealt with, how they see their fellow citizens, differing social classes, differing ethnic groups, and even differing political philosophies or ideas.

Within the framework of such a worldview guns seem attractive as a means of ‘equalising’ the individual against what they perceive as threats, it makes them feel that they are also ‘powerful’ and intimidating and that they too, if needs be, can deal with, in other words suppress the threatening.

The problem is that such attitudes can build up an irrational barrier between reality and myth, between what they see as prudent and sensible and what actually is prudent and sensible.

So in crime (as in many other areas) ‘toughness’ in other words repressive measures are praised while calls for understanding of the social context that leads to criminality are dismissed as soft and ‘giving in’ to the criminals.

Guns are just part of that repressive approach.

I feel that it could be this attitude that marks US culture out, of course not all Americans have this viewpoint and not everyone has it at the same intensity of feeling but I believe enough do to make the viewpoint prevalent.

It is my contention that if this attitude didn’t exist, many social and political problems would be dealt with in a lot more rational and realistic manner and the feeling that weapon ownership was so necessary and desirable would not be so widespread in the US.
As I’ve said many Americans attitude toward guns is just one aspect of a more general attitude of intimidation in US society.

For example the US has the largest prison populations in the world (686 per 100,000) and has one of the highest execution rates in the world (in the company of such countries as China, Iran, Pakistan and now Iraq). It is also about zero tolerance and the three strike rules.

(Switzerland prison population is 83 per 100,000, England and Wales 148 per 100,000. Both countries do not have the death penalty)

To me this seems more about ruling through intimidation and the fear of violence (especially since US prisons are often described as extremely brutal especially compared with those in the UK and Switzerland, - Amnesty International).

But who is this intimidation been directed at?

Guns in the hands of ‘decent’ ordinary citizens are not much use in tackling white collar or computer crime neither is it against the mostly closed worlds of organised crime.

So that leaves street crime, the deterrence being talked about is basically lower class crime the protection being sort is mainly against the lowest level of criminal.

Could it be said that it is about keeping the economic lower orders in their place?

It might be interesting to note that Black households have traditionally had some of the lowest median incomes according to the US census and at the same time although black people only make up around 13 per cent of the US’s population they made up half the prison population in 1999 and in 2000 one in three young black men were either in prison or on probation or parole. Today in the US they make up 41.8% of those on death row.

Now while any group can become involved in criminal activity social, economic and educational backgrounds often have a way of determine the type of crime someone is going to undertake.

And those close to poverty are much more likely to become involved in street crime than white collar or computer crime.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVHrpScqHsg"]Open Carry Chicks Hassled by Power Hungry Cop & AR-15 - YouTube

Our constitution preserves our rights is about all there is to it for me. I think it's different when you live in a place too. It's hard for me to say much about how canadians should think or live? I suppose most likely if I were in canada, I would live like a canadian?
I also have to agree with op that dems encourage people to buy more guns, but that doesn't make them fit to run this theme park. It just means when people think about dems (apparently) it makes them want a gun. I could understand that I guess, but I'm not taking mine off because it's a republican dinner. They can have a cap just as fast as a democrat. You have to be fair.
Ah - your other question. No, unless it's 3 or 4 I don't need a gun to protect myself from most people? When it comes to that you pretty much wouldn't care what color they are?

 

old

You're not another dishonest evader are you?

Once again -

Are you saying you want to have guns as protection against black people?

In what way would gun ownership tackle local government corruption?

 

Maybe if you actually listened to what I'm telling you that I believe, rather than trying to tell me what I believe, we could actually have a worthwhile discussion.

In your opinion, I support that, but in my opinion, I do not. Please stop telling me what I believe and support.

We are fixing the roads here. Just because your country is going to shit doesn't mean the entire concept of people organizing themselves to better society is flawed. It just means that in America, you guys fucked up.

The cost/benefit is pretty clear. Our public health care system spends half as much money per person as your private health care system, yet we have better health outcomes and longer lives here.

I walk the streets here feeling completely safe, no matter the time of day or night. I have no fear of someone coming into my home to harm me. You feel the need to have powerful weapons to protect yourself from everyone else. Who seems more free in this scenario?

 

I already said I don't care what color they are, I would shoot "equally" and gun ownership IS our protection from local or large govt corruption, or at least is supposed to be...wait a little while and we'll see?