New Zealand's semi-automatic rifle ban

How is taking a RIGHT away from a law abiding citizen, about safety??

But upon more consideration, is it safe to say that you want to take cars away from others; just because some drink and drive??

And what about children / should we remove the right for people to have children; because some people abuse children??

Where does your hypocrisy, regarding "safety", reach it's limits??
He is intentionally trying his best to ignore this argument. He is chanting like a religious fanatic.

Gun control, the Church of Global Warming, the Church of Green, and the Church of the Ozone Hole ALL stem from the Church of Karl Marx. All of these religions are fundamentalist in nature. They ignore anything that goes against their religion.
 
WRONG. The United States is a federated republic. It has constitutions. New Zealand is a "constitutional monarchy". It has no effective constitution. It is an oligarchy. That oligarchy can change it's "constitution" on a whim at any time.

I wonder where Stone ran off to; but seeing as how he failed so miserably in his attempt(s), maybe he needed time in his safe place to recuperate and do his daily affirmation.

095ea45e2311cd42867eb1923bf858c3.gif
 
You're resorting to acting rude because you can't address the points. How typical.

Non-sequitur fallacy. Insult fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.

You are not making any points. Fallacies are invalid arguments simply by their own construct. They are errors in logic, just like a math error.
 
It's apparent that Stone cares nothing about this supposed "safety" issue of his; because he's obviously OK with people having cars, even though people drive drunk, and he doesn't care about the safety of children, seeing as how some people abuse them and the idea of refusing to allow law abiding citizens to have them, doesn't fit his agenda.

But he says he wants to have a discussion. :facepalm:

095ea45e2311cd42867eb1923bf858c3.gif

Quite right. He is lying. He doesn't want to have a discussion. He wants to prove his religion. He cares not for anyone's opinions or arguments other than his own chanting. He is a member of the Church of Gun Control, and through it, a member of the Church of Karl Marx.
 
I wonder where Stone ran off to; but seeing as how he failed so miserably in his attempt(s), maybe he needed time in his safe place to recuperate and do his daily affirmation.

095ea45e2311cd42867eb1923bf858c3.gif

Oh, he'll be back. He must continue to try to prove his religion. Nothing will stop that. No argument we make will stop that. Fundamentalism of this sort does not need to retreat to a 'safe place'. It will, however, try to censor any opposing view to 'silence the devil'. To them this is a victory.
 
He is intentionally trying his best to ignore this argument. He is chanting like a religious fanatic.

Gun control, the Church of Global Warming, the Church of Green, and the Church of the Ozone Hole ALL stem from the Church of Karl Marx. All of these religions are fundamentalist in nature. They ignore anything that goes against their religion.

Scope of the Child Abuse Issue

Every year more than 3.6 million referrals are made to child protection agencies involving more than 6.6 million children (a referral can include multiple children).

BUT

There were 39,773 gun deaths in 2017, up by more than 1,000 from the year before. Nearly two-thirds were suicides.

The United States has one of the worst records among industrialized nations – losing on average between four and seven children every day to child abuse and neglect.
 
WRONG. The United States is a federated republic. It has constitutions. New Zealand is a "constitutional monarchy". It has no effective constitution. It is an oligarchy. That oligarchy can change it's "constitution" on a whim at any time.

A country can be a mostly free first world country even if they are an oligarchy. I'd argue that America is also an oligarchy, but that's another discussion.
Anyway, the argument from the gun nuts is that if a country has gun control, the government will take away all their freedom. So when exactly is the New Zealand government, now with stricter gun control, going to turn New Zealand into Stalinist Russia?
 
Non-sequitur fallacy. Insult fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.

You are not making any points. Fallacies are invalid arguments simply by their own construct. They are errors in logic, just like a math error.

I know saying someone is acting rude isn't an argument. I'm saying that if you're not making an argument, and you're just acting rude, it's because you don't have an argument to make.
 
I know saying someone is acting rude isn't an argument. I'm saying that if you're not making an argument, and you're just acting rude, it's because you don't have an argument to make.

Just wanted to know, Biatch, are you really so scared of these questions that you need to stay in your safe place??

How is taking a RIGHT away from a law abiding citizen, about safety??

But upon more consideration, is it safe to say that you want to take cars away from others; just because some drink and drive??

And what about children / should we remove the right for people to have children; because some people abuse children??

Where does your hypocrisy, regarding "safety", reach it's limits??
 
Just wanted to know, Biatch, are you really so scared of these questions that you need to stay in your safe place??

Not at all. I find this discussion itself very interesting. I just find flame wars boring. If you'd like a flame war, check out the flame wars section of the board.
 
Not at all. I find this discussion itself very interesting. I just find flame wars boring. If you'd like a flame war, check out the flame wars section of the board.

You started the fucking flame war, you fucking idiot, or did you conveniently forget how rude you were (seeing as how "rude" is subjective).

Just admit it, I've destroyed your attempt at claiming you're concerned about "safety" and instead you just can't abide the FACT that law abiding citizens are not criminals; but you want to treat them like "possible criminals".

Just admit it, biatch.

095ea45e2311cd42867eb1923bf858c3.gif
 
A country can be a mostly free first world country even if they are an oligarchy. I'd argue that America is also an oligarchy, but that's another discussion.
Anyway, the argument from the gun nuts is that if a country has gun control, the government will take away all their freedom. So when exactly is the New Zealand government, now with stricter gun control, going to turn New Zealand into Stalinist Russia?

I reject the idea of a 'first world' and a 'third world' (is there a 'second' world') country. I reject oligarchies. They are not free. The United States is a federated republic. Any oligarchies that exist within it are illegal. Yes, that includes the EPA, the BATF, the CPC, portions of the FAA, portions of the FCC, the Federal Reserve, an a whole host of other departments and divisions that are illegally created by Congress. They had no authority to do so.

New Zealand is already not free. They have taken further freedoms by instituting gun control laws.
 
I know saying someone is acting rude isn't an argument. I'm saying that if you're not making an argument, and you're just acting rude, it's because you don't have an argument to make.

At you least you admitted to the insult fallacy. You also admitted that you have no argument to make.
 
If you find flame wars boring, why are you flaming?

Not flaming anyone. But if someone is being rude and ignoring points, I'm going to let them know that's why I've lost interest.
There are plenty of other people on this board that are just hear to fight. USFREEDOM911 can reply to any of them.
 
Back
Top