DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Yes it did, since I aced technical writing in college, so it helps me to know when your grammar is especially crappy. Did you learn it in college?
Liberal gun bullshit
- Thread starter Rune
- Start date
Paul Siraisi
Verified User
I can't say I agree with Rune's hatefulness, but the basic point is on target. Even gun owners can see reason when they're not being pounded on by people who may be less reasonable than even they are.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Prune's just mad at life because he's borderline retarded. Even CCCC rejected him.
Maybe you should use your vast skills to point out the multitude of grammatical errors in my post.
I can't see any reason you replied, or any reason in your post for that matter. Perhaps you could try again, in english this time? Or not.
Last edited:
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
perhaps you could try english as well. just a thought.
Wentworth didn't.
Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
b..bb...bbbut he claims to have an IQ in the 99th percentile and claims to be too smart for mensa
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Some people think boning another man in the ass is a mental disease
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Because we always have to establish a limit on anything. We do not have unlimited resources. If we lived in a fantasy world where we shit golden eggs, maybe we wouldn't need to establish these limits, but we don't. Who decides? Your elected representatives. But regardless, someone has to determine the limit of what we can spend per person on treatment and care. It simply can't be limitless, we are broke as it is, and having to borrow the money from China to do anything. China also doesn't have a limitless supply of resources.
It's incredibly more difficult, and it should NOT be! THAT is part of the problem here. Once was a time, this monster would have NOT been outside of an institution. Look, I dealt with this first hand with a relative, I know how impossible it is. Basically, if an adult person does not wish to be held, you can't hold them! If they pose a threat to themselves or others, they can be held for like 72 hrs, until a doctor makes and evaluation, and unless he sees them to be a threat to others or themselves, they have to be released. The problem is, AZ hadn't threatened anyone until he mowed down the children and his mom.
I get what you're saying and where you're coming from, but we simply do not have unlimited resources to do unlimited care.
It doesn't matter, she has the Constitutional right to bear arms. The guns did not commit this crime!
It has nothing to do with politics. We ALL oppose 20-year-olds shooting up elementary schools. It's universal!
Agreed, but there is no way to completely eliminate it. We can have the national debate on the myriad of things society should do to help prevent these things, but that includes way more than gun control, or even mental health treatment. It involves restoration of morality and values that we've lost through generations, and I don't know if we can ever get that back again.
Canceled.2014.1
New member
"Because we always have to establish a limit on anything. We do not have unlimited resources." But when they do that with Obama's universal healthcare plan, conservatives scream about "death panels".
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
That's because in a government-run system like Obamacare, rationing becomes reality, and you will essentially have death panels. We needed insurance reforms, we needed tort reforms, but what we've done is shift the burden from the private sector to the public sector and nothing more, and the result will be rationing of health care, including mental health care as well.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
I would add that we should also protect our children by hiring a bodyguard for each school, their job would be to protect kids from something like this, not to tell on them for "bad things" they do, just to protect the treasure of their lives from madmen.
Basically, this is a two-level thing... protect the kids, and help the nutters before they go nitro all over the mall.
And if you have a mall with signs telling people they can't have guns then you better hire people to protect the patrons, because IMO you have taken the responsibility of protection away from the patron and put it firmly on your own shoulder with that requirement....
Canceled.2014.1
New member
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
My wife has never been real fond of guns; but she's lightened up a little, the longer we're married.
We had a "discussion" one time, about what if someone broke into our home while everyone was sleeping.
I aksed her should I do; if we flip on the lights and some criminal had one of our children and was holding a knife to the childs neck.
I'm holding my gun and the criminal says put the gun down or the kid dies.
Her response was for me to put the gun down.
I asked her what do we do now, seeing as how the criminal has our kid and the gun?
She had no answer.
I told her what my response would be and that would be to tell the criminal that they had one chance to get out of this alive and that would be to releae my child, put down the knife, and lay down on the floor.
I would also tell him that if he hurts my kid, in any way, I'm going to kill him.
What I wouldn't tell him is that I"m a pretty good shot and the longer he waits, the more chance there is, that I'm going to shoot him in the head.
Bfgrn
New member
You miss the point of my historical context. There is no way some doomsday prepper nut like SmarterthanYou can claim our founding fathers would support citizens owning assault weapons.
And reasonable gun control regulations are all liberals have ever proposed. But when you have doomsday prepper nuts like Smarterthan on the right, there is no such thing as reasonable.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
Uhhh....
Sounds like they wanted us to have battleships, among other things.
It'd be reasonable if it was constitutional (see above, and all USSC decisions) AND had an effect on crime. Since it meets neither of those criteria, and never will, it is therefore unreasonable.
Bfgrn
New member
The vast majority of liberals and Democrats have turned reasonable into a character flaw the right has used to their advantage. Conservatism can best be described as insecurity fueled by fear and mass paranoia.
Last edited:
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Part I
First of all, Gore didn’t lose the 2000 election. This is a very important fact since we are enumerating the reasons he lost an election that he won. He won the popular vote and Florida was stolen, and that theft was codified by the Brooks Brothers Riot and Fox News. So let’s correct that error first.
The reasons why the election was close enough for Bush to steal are myriad. Some voters were no doubt influenced by the Assault Weapons ban and feared (more on why they fear later) Gore was going to “take their guns”. Some voters were disgusted with Bill Clinton’s sexual exploits. Some voters were just tired of Clinton. Some voters were heavily influenced by the beltway media’s determination, early on, that Bush was the “cool kid” and Gore the boorish nerd. Some voters were mistakenly convinced that Gore was a serial liar by this same, criminal, media. (Love Story, invented the internet, etc).
It has been very convenient for the Gun Lobby that this “Gore lost because of guns” mythology has taken hold.
Further, even if Gore had lost the election (he didn’t) and even if he had lost it on account of gun control, we need to stop pretending that everything stopped in November of 2000. We are not frozen in time. If Al Gore had run on legalizing gay marriage in 2000, he would have assuredly lost, and on that issue. Today, it is 12 years later and a majority of Americans now support marriage equality. Things change, opinions are fluid, we move forward. We are not frozen in time.
Speaking of which…we come to the founders. Some say that the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct. Well, that is bullshit. First of all the founders never meant for their words to be “sacrosanct”. I believe that anyone reading the Federalist Papers and other writings of the Founders can only conclude they were providing a blueprint and that they did not know if it would be successful or even last. But none of them thought they were writing a bible. If we believed the Founders to possess unquestionable wisdom then we would still have slavery and the 3/5’s clause.
I would love to have a real conversation in this country over what “a well regulated militia” means. It was not until 2008 when a right wing Supreme Court (who are not the Founders btw) ruled that the 2nd amendment protected an individual’s “right to bear arms”. No such ruling on the meaning of the 2nd amendment had been issued before. Even with this radical right wing interpretation of the 2nd amendment currently (currently being operative, anyone remember Plessey v Ferguson? Yeah) having been ruled on, this ruling does not preclude regulations.
All of our rights are subject to regulation, even the First Amendment. This idea that there is something so sacred about the 2nd Amendment, is nonsense. Pure, stuff and nonsense. For a long time in our history, the 2nd Amendment was viewed as restrictive rather than descriptive. The radical 2008 decision ruled that it is descriptive. But this ruling must not stand, and I believe, long term, will not stand. And Americans need to have a discussion on just what a “well regulated militia” means in today’s world. For we live in the present.
First of all, Gore didn’t lose the 2000 election. This is a very important fact since we are enumerating the reasons he lost an election that he won. He won the popular vote and Florida was stolen, and that theft was codified by the Brooks Brothers Riot and Fox News. So let’s correct that error first.
The reasons why the election was close enough for Bush to steal are myriad. Some voters were no doubt influenced by the Assault Weapons ban and feared (more on why they fear later) Gore was going to “take their guns”. Some voters were disgusted with Bill Clinton’s sexual exploits. Some voters were just tired of Clinton. Some voters were heavily influenced by the beltway media’s determination, early on, that Bush was the “cool kid” and Gore the boorish nerd. Some voters were mistakenly convinced that Gore was a serial liar by this same, criminal, media. (Love Story, invented the internet, etc).
It has been very convenient for the Gun Lobby that this “Gore lost because of guns” mythology has taken hold.
Further, even if Gore had lost the election (he didn’t) and even if he had lost it on account of gun control, we need to stop pretending that everything stopped in November of 2000. We are not frozen in time. If Al Gore had run on legalizing gay marriage in 2000, he would have assuredly lost, and on that issue. Today, it is 12 years later and a majority of Americans now support marriage equality. Things change, opinions are fluid, we move forward. We are not frozen in time.
Speaking of which…we come to the founders. Some say that the 2nd amendment is sacrosanct. Well, that is bullshit. First of all the founders never meant for their words to be “sacrosanct”. I believe that anyone reading the Federalist Papers and other writings of the Founders can only conclude they were providing a blueprint and that they did not know if it would be successful or even last. But none of them thought they were writing a bible. If we believed the Founders to possess unquestionable wisdom then we would still have slavery and the 3/5’s clause.
I would love to have a real conversation in this country over what “a well regulated militia” means. It was not until 2008 when a right wing Supreme Court (who are not the Founders btw) ruled that the 2nd amendment protected an individual’s “right to bear arms”. No such ruling on the meaning of the 2nd amendment had been issued before. Even with this radical right wing interpretation of the 2nd amendment currently (currently being operative, anyone remember Plessey v Ferguson? Yeah) having been ruled on, this ruling does not preclude regulations.
All of our rights are subject to regulation, even the First Amendment. This idea that there is something so sacred about the 2nd Amendment, is nonsense. Pure, stuff and nonsense. For a long time in our history, the 2nd Amendment was viewed as restrictive rather than descriptive. The radical 2008 decision ruled that it is descriptive. But this ruling must not stand, and I believe, long term, will not stand. And Americans need to have a discussion on just what a “well regulated militia” means in today’s world. For we live in the present.