Reality vs. trump supporters

[rjhenn]

1. Your first sentence is a moot point that is not in contention. As to your second sentence, please document any state militia regulations that allow militia members to have the type of weaponry your describe. If you can't, then you are wrong.

2. Wrong. The gov't can only pass laws at the behest of the people "for the general welfare". This is done through representation and majority vote. A process exists to change unjust laws as decreed by legal precedent and will of the people. This is why some yahoo can't have a .50 caliber machine gun mounted on his roof "for protection", but can have semi-auto pistols and long guns inside the house.

3. there are state militias and there is the National Guard, both clearly defined by law federal and state. "state guard" is your neologism, which is not applicable here.

4. See #3.

5. Again, what Hamilton wrote in his personal papers and what he signed off on vary. You want his papers to be directly interpreted as law, then write your congressman and senator (no sarcasm or cynicism intented).

6. Again, your personal interpretation based on the myopia of what weaponry was originally available to militias in the 1700's. As I documented and pointed out, even then you had regulations in the new states. Weaponry evolved, laws changed, but NOTHING as to what you assert. A matter of fact, a matter of history.

7. They do exists, as I've documented. That they don't fit your personal interpretation is irrelevant.

8. Again, a moot point that is NOT the focus of the discussion here.

9. Again, you keep trying to insert your personal interpretation, which requires the treating a part of a comprehensive paragraph as a non-addendum, which is absurd.

10. See #5. Your repetition won't change historical fact and the logic derived from this fact.

11. Projecting various "what if" scenarios is meaningless, as the historical legal precedents as is contradicts your wants, as I've pointed out several times now.

12. The NRA has become a shill for gun manufacturers selling their product. That the leaderships opposes it's own membership regarding extensive background checks should tell you that.

13. Only from a myopic, predisposed viewpoint. Otherwise, the following points to the contrary:

https://www.sciencealert.com/scientific-evidence-that-stricter-gun-control-works-saves-lives

https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11120184/gun-control-study-international-evidence

As always, your 'study' is focused entirely on gun related deaths. The fact is that while gun control might affect gun related crime, it doesn't appear to have any effect on total crime or total homicide. So the only effect is that just as many people are murdered, but fewer are killed with guns. Now, that's significant if you believe that you're only really dead if you're killed with a gun. If you believe that, then you are totally deranged and there's no point discussing things with you.
Of course, a militia without military grade weapons is a fraud.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
1. Your first sentence is a moot point that is not in contention. As to your second sentence, please document any state militia regulations that allow militia members to have the type of weaponry your describe. If you can't, then you are wrong.

2. Wrong. The gov't can only pass laws at the behest of the people "for the general welfare". This is done through representation and majority vote. A process exists to change unjust laws as decreed by legal precedent and will of the people. This is why some yahoo can't have a .50 caliber machine gun mounted on his roof "for protection", but can have semi-auto pistols and long guns inside the house.

3. there are state militias and there is the National Guard, both clearly defined by law federal and state. "state guard" is your neologism, which is not applicable here.

4. See #3.

5. Again, what Hamilton wrote in his personal papers and what he signed off on vary. You want his papers to be directly interpreted as law, then write your congressman and senator (no sarcasm or cynicism intented).

6. Again, your personal interpretation based on the myopia of what weaponry was originally available to militias in the 1700's. As I documented and pointed out, even then you had regulations in the new states. Weaponry evolved, laws changed, but NOTHING as to what you assert. A matter of fact, a matter of history.

7. They do exists, as I've documented. That they don't fit your personal interpretation is irrelevant.

8. Again, a moot point that is NOT the focus of the discussion here.

9. Again, you keep trying to insert your personal interpretation, which requires the treating a part of a comprehensive paragraph as a non-addendum, which is absurd.

10. See #5. Your repetition won't change historical fact and the logic derived from this fact.

11. Projecting various "what if" scenarios is meaningless, as the historical legal precedents as is contradicts your wants, as I've pointed out several times now.

12. The NRA has become a shill for gun manufacturers selling their product. That the leaderships opposes it's own membership regarding extensive background checks should tell you that.

13. Only from a myopic, predisposed viewpoint. Otherwise, the following points to the contrary:

https://www.sciencealert.com/scienti...ks-saves-lives

https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/111201...ional-evidence

As always, your 'study' is focused entirely on gun related deaths. The fact is that while gun control might affect gun related crime, it doesn't appear to have any effect on total crime or total homicide. So the only effect is that just as many people are murdered, but fewer are killed with guns. Now, that's significant if you believe that you're only really dead if you're killed with a gun. If you believe that, then you are totally deranged and there's no point discussing things with you.
Of course, a militia without military grade weapons is a fraud.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

As always, you ignore what you don't like in favor of your own interpretations and beliefs. Your supposition and conjecture is irrelevant, as the links I provide use comprehensive facts to support their summations....and since the discussion is about gun related crimes and homicides, your screed is irrelevant. As to your last sentence, go back and see how I responded to your compadre on that belief.

 

[rjhenn]

As always, you ignore what you don't like in favor of your own interpretations and beliefs. Your supposition and conjecture is irrelevant, as the links I provide use comprehensive facts to support their summations....and since the discussion is about gun related crimes and homicides, your screed is irrelevant. As to your last sentence, go back and see how I responded to your compadre on that belief.

So you believe that gun related crime and homicide is somehow qualitatively different from other crime and homicide. Just how does that work? Are you somehow more dead if you're killed with a gun instead of a rock? Are you somehow less alive if you defend yourself with a gun, which happens far more often than you will want to believe? You are completely deranged on the subject of guns. No rational thought at all.

And Hamilton merely expressed the contemporary meaning of "well regulated". Which is not what you wish it was. If SCOTUS used their own strict scrutiny standard in 2nd Amendment cases, things would be far different and probably far better. Do you understand what "shall not be infringed" means. It's pretty absolute language.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

Make America Great Again. Dump Trump!

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Hawkeye10]

Make America Great Again. Dump Trump!

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Do it or else the nation burns!

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
As always, you ignore what you don't like in favor of your own interpretations and beliefs. Your supposition and conjecture is irrelevant, as the links I provide use comprehensive facts to support their summations....and since the discussion is about gun related crimes and homicides, your screed is irrelevant. As to your last sentence, go back and see how I responded to your compadre on that belief.

So you believe that gun related crime and homicide is somehow qualitatively different from other crime and homicide. Just how does that work? Are you somehow more dead if you're killed with a gun instead of a rock? Are you somehow less alive if you defend yourself with a gun, which happens far more often than you will want to believe? You are completely deranged on the subject of guns. No rational thought at all.

And Hamilton merely expressed the contemporary meaning of "well regulated". Which is not what you wish it was. If SCOTUS used their own strict scrutiny standard in 2nd Amendment cases, things would be far different and probably far better. Do you understand what "shall not be infringed" means. It's pretty absolute language.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Let's cut through the BS and go to the heart of the matter. Your compadre Anvil Kasseri stated, "Actually statistics are pretty clear that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates."

I provided two links that proved with valid, documented FACTS that PROVED the contrary in no uncertain terms. Now you can't dispute those facts, so what you do is try to substitute/insert your supposition and conjecture as if it's part of the information and conclusion of said links.

It's not, no matter how hard you try, because "what If..." is not the same as what is. That's how I broke it down to your compadre....you taking up the gauntlet is just a regurgitation. What was "written about" as opposed to what the FINAL LAW THAT WAS SIGNED OFF ON are two different things. That you can't accept that is of no consequence. Your pathetic attempts at insult are just a smoke screen to your failed assaults on what I told Kasseri. The objective reader sees your folly.

Now, unless you have a new take on the OP, I'd say we're done here.

 

[Anvil Kasseri]

please document any state militia regulations that allow militia members to have the type of weaponry your describe. If you can't, then you are wrong.

The Second Amendment supersedes any militia regulations that conflict with the right of militiamen to have adequate military weapons.

Wrong. The gov't can only pass laws at the behest of the people "for the general welfare". This is done through representation and majority vote. A process exists to change unjust laws as decreed by legal precedent and will of the people.

Unconstitutional laws are struck down no matter how much public approval they have.

This is why some yahoo can't have a .50 caliber machine gun mounted on his roof "for protection", but can have semi-auto pistols and long guns inside the house.

If we bring back the militia, militiamen will have the right to have machine guns.

there are state militias and there is the National Guard, both clearly defined by law federal and state.

The National Guard is not part of the militia. They are sworn members of a standing army.

If you are counting state guards as militia, where are their weapons? And what of states that do not have a state guard?

"state guard" is your neologism, which is not applicable here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Guard_Association_of_the_United_States

Again, what Hamilton wrote in his personal papers and what he signed off on vary. You want his papers to be directly interpreted as law, then write your congressman and senator (no sarcasm or cynicism intented).

I'm not trying to get his papers interpreted as law. I am merely pointing out the clear meaning of the term "well regulated militia".

Alexander Hamilton used the term in his writing. From his use of the term, it can be clearly seen what the term means.

6. Again, your personal interpretation based on the myopia of what weaponry was originally available to militias in the 1700's. As I documented and pointed out, even then you had regulations in the new states. Weaponry evolved, laws changed, but NOTHING as to what you assert. A matter of fact, a matter of history.

The Founding Fathers made it very clear that one of the things that they intended the Second Amendment to do is ensure that militiamen will always be adequately armed.

Any regulations that interfere with the armament of militiamen are superseded by the Second Amendment.

They do exists, as I've documented. That they don't fit your personal interpretation is irrelevant.

If state guards are the militia, where are their weapons?

And what of states that do not have a state guard?

Again, you keep trying to insert your personal interpretation, which requires the treating a part of a comprehensive paragraph as a non-addendum, which is absurd.

There is reason to believe that they are two separate parts, but for the purposes of our discussion it really shouldn't matter either way.

If you are correct the first half of the Second Amendment is the beginning half of a single statement, that only reinforces the position that the Founding Fathers intended to ensure that militiamen will always have adequate arms.

Your repetition won't change historical fact and the logic derived from this fact.

I'm not trying to change history. I'm merely pointing out that the clear meaning of the term "well regulated militia" is that it refers to a militia that has trained sufficiently enough so that it can fight as a single coherent unit instead of as a bunch of random individuals.

Projecting various "what if" scenarios is meaningless, as the historical legal precedents as is contradicts your wants, as I've pointed out several times now.

Hardly meaningless. The fact that laws are invalid whenever they contradict the Constitution is pretty relevant.

The NRA has become a shill for gun manufacturers selling their product.

Gun manufacturers are represented by the NSSF. What the NRA does is oppose the passage of laws that violate the Second Amendment.

That the leaderships opposes it's own membership regarding extensive background checks should tell you that.

Given the way the background check system has been abused to violate people's civil liberties, it is appropriate that stronger background checks are opposed.

Maybe if in the future the courts do much better at protecting the Second Amendment, one day we can risk it. But not at the present.

Only from a myopic, predisposed viewpoint.

The viewpoint doesn't change anything. Statistics are very clear that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates.

Otherwise, the following points to the contrary:
https://www.sciencealert.com/scientific-evidence-that-stricter-gun-control-works-saves-lives
https://www.vox.com/2016/2/29/11120184/gun-control-study-international-evidence

Neither article says anything about homicide rates.

Rather, they refer to gun death rates, which is a statistic about what sort of weapon someone is murdered with rather than the question of whether they are killed at all.

As always, you ignore what you don't like in favor of your own interpretations and beliefs.

I think it is more that he sees no relevance to gun death statistics.

Why does it matter whether someone is murdered "with a gun" versus "with some other weapon"?

Your supposition and conjecture is irrelevant,

It's not supposition or conjecture. Statistics are very clear that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates.

as the links I provide use comprehensive facts to support their summations....

No one is questioning the validity of those gun death stats.

It's just hard to see why gun death stats matter.

and since the discussion is about gun related crimes and homicides, your screed is irrelevant.

I think the fact that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates is pretty relevant.

On the other hand, I have trouble seeing any relevance to gun death statistics.

I believe that people who are murdered with knives (or with any other weapon) are just as dead as people who are murdered with guns.

Let's cut through the BS and go to the heart of the matter. Your compadre Anvil Kasseri stated, "Actually statistics are pretty clear that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates."
I provided two links that proved with valid, documented FACTS that PROVED the contrary in no uncertain terms.

That is incorrect. Your links referred to gun death rates, and said nothing whatsoever about homicide rates.

 

[rjhenn]

.....

 

[rjhenn]

Let's cut through the BS and go to the heart of the matter. Your compadre Anvil Kasseri stated, "Actually statistics are pretty clear that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates."

I provided two links that proved with valid, documented FACTS that PROVED the contrary in no uncertain terms. Now you can't dispute those facts, so what you do is try to substitute/insert your supposition and conjecture as if it's part of the information and conclusion of said links.

It's not, no matter how hard you try, because "what If..." is not the same as what is. That's how I broke it down to your compadre....you taking up the gauntlet is just a regurgitation. What was "written about" as opposed to what the FINAL LAW THAT WAS SIGNED OFF ON are two different things. That you can't accept that is of no consequence. Your pathetic attempts at insult are just a smoke screen to your failed assaults on what I told Kasseri. The objective reader sees your folly.

Now, unless you have a new take on the OP, I'd say we're done here.

The usual diversion and denial. You are the one who "ignore(s) what you don't like in favor of your own interpretations and beliefs".
Both of your links were only concerned with gun deaths, not total homicide. And countries like Brazil clearly demonstrate the failure of gun control. Brazil has very strict gun laws and in a typical year has twice as many gun homicides as we do, with a fraction of our population.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Let's cut through the BS and go to the heart of the matter. Your compadre Anvil Kasseri stated, "Actually statistics are pretty clear that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates."

I provided two links that proved with valid, documented FACTS that PROVED the contrary in no uncertain terms. Now you can't dispute those facts, so what you do is try to substitute/insert your supposition and conjecture as if it's part of the information and conclusion of said links.

It's not, no matter how hard you try, because "what If..." is not the same as what is. That's how I broke it down to your compadre....you taking up the gauntlet is just a regurgitation. What was "written about" as opposed to what the FINAL LAW THAT WAS SIGNED OFF ON are two different things. That you can't accept that is of no consequence. Your pathetic attempts at insult are just a smoke screen to your failed assaults on what I told Kasseri. The objective reader sees your folly.

Now, unless you have a new take on the OP, I'd say we're done here.

The usual diversion and denial. You are the one who "ignore(s) what you don't like in favor of your own interpretations and beliefs".
Both of your links were only concerned with gun deaths, not total homicide. And countries like Brazil clearly demonstrate the failure of gun control. Brazil has very strict gun laws and in a typical year has twice as many gun homicides as we do, with a fraction of our population.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

As the reader can clearly see, we have another failed right wing wonk who essentially just repeats themselves while ignoring any previous points given by the opposing poster. And then there's the old standby of "it's not me, it's YOU".

Kasseri slunk off to the shadows after getting schooled....you're not even up to snuff to address the response points he abandoned. You're done. You may have the last predictable word.

 

[rjhenn]

As the reader can clearly see, we have another failed right wing wonk who essentially just repeats themselves while ignoring any previous points given by the opposing poster. And then there's the old standby of "it's not me, it's YOU".

Kasseri slunk off to the shadows after getting schooled....you're not even up to snuff to address the response points he abandoned. You're done. You may have the last predictable word.

IOW, you're just another gun hater with no rational arguments, just ignorance, paranoia and wishful thinking.
And let's not forget the diversion and denial.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Anvil Kasseri]

As the reader can clearly see, we have another failed right wing wonk who essentially just repeats themselves while ignoring any previous points given by the opposing poster.

I'm unsure how "him pointing out that your claims are wrong" constitutes "ignoring those points"?

Kasseri slunk off to the shadows

Look again. Post #607.

It took me awhile to get time to post since it was such a long reply, but I did finally get time to reply.

after getting schooled....

Not exactly.

you're not even up to snuff to address the response points he abandoned. You're done.

It appears to me that he is competent to answer. He is correct to note that "gun death stats" have no relation to "homicide stats".

 

[Taichiliberal]

The Second Amendment supersedes any militia regulations that conflict with the right of militiamen to have adequate military weapons.



Unconstitutional laws are struck down no matter how much public approval they have.



If we bring back the militia, militiamen will have the right to have machine guns.



The National Guard is not part of the militia. They are sworn members of a standing army.

If you are counting state guards as militia, where are their weapons? And what of states that do not have a state guard?



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Guard_Association_of_the_United_States



I'm not trying to get his papers interpreted as law. I am merely pointing out the clear meaning of the term "well regulated militia".

Alexander Hamilton used the term in his writing. From his use of the term, it can be clearly seen what the term means.



The Founding Fathers made it very clear that one of the things that they intended the Second Amendment to do is ensure that militiamen will always be adequately armed.

Any regulations that interfere with the armament of militiamen are superseded by the Second Amendment.



If state guards are the militia, where are their weapons?

And what of states that do not have a state guard?



There is reason to believe that they are two separate parts, but for the purposes of our discussion it really shouldn't matter either way.

If you are correct the first half of the Second Amendment is the beginning half of a single statement, that only reinforces the position that the Founding Fathers intended to ensure that militiamen will always have adequate arms.



I'm not trying to change history. I'm merely pointing out that the clear meaning of the term "well regulated militia" is that it refers to a militia that has trained sufficiently enough so that it can fight as a single coherent unit instead of as a bunch of random individuals.



Hardly meaningless. The fact that laws are invalid whenever they contradict the Constitution is pretty relevant.



Gun manufacturers are represented by the NSSF. What the NRA does is oppose the passage of laws that violate the Second Amendment.



Given the way the background check system has been abused to violate people's civil liberties, it is appropriate that stronger background checks are opposed.

Maybe if in the future the courts do much better at protecting the Second Amendment, one day we can risk it. But not at the present.



The viewpoint doesn't change anything. Statistics are very clear that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates.



Neither article says anything about homicide rates.

Rather, they refer to gun death rates, which is a statistic about what sort of weapon someone is murdered with rather than the question of whether they are killed at all.



I think it is more that he sees no relevance to gun death statistics.

Why does it matter whether someone is murdered "with a gun" versus "with some other weapon"?



It's not supposition or conjecture. Statistics are very clear that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates.



No one is questioning the validity of those gun death stats.

It's just hard to see why gun death stats matter.



I think the fact that gun availability has little impact on homicide rates is pretty relevant.

On the other hand, I have trouble seeing any relevance to gun death statistics.

I believe that people who are murdered with knives (or with any other weapon) are just as dead as people who are murdered with guns.



That is incorrect. Your links referred to gun death rates, and said nothing whatsoever about homicide rates.

1. You couldn't provide proof as requested, so your generalization is wrong. Period. Grow up and deal with it.

2. A moot point, as I previously stated, A process exists to change unjust laws as decreed by legal precedent and will of the people. Please learn to read carefully and comprehensively. Your initial whole assertion to which this responds to was wrong. Grow up and deal with it.

3. The title you use is for a non-profit organization, and IS NOT THE NATIONAL GUARD OR A STATE AUTHORIZED MILITIA. As your link stated, it's to "support of regulated state military forces, as established by state governments under the authority of federal law." One does NOT substitute titles erroneously.

4. No matter how you dance, the results are the same. What was "intended" doesn't cut it in the final draft, hence you get this . Curious how folk of your mindset often ignore the FACT that even in the 1700's "militias" had state rules/regulations, and you'd be hard pressed to find a farmer or craftsman owning a canon. See, you've got a right to a weapon as a law abiding citizen. You don't have the "right" to have exactly the same type of weaponry as the military (remember, things evolved from just swords, cross bows, etc.).

5. You seem to have a stock answer that you parrot regardless of what's previously transpired. Been there, done that.

6. See #1 and #3. Remember, YOU incorrectly put a "state guard" on par with a State regulated militia and/or the National Guard. Admit this error, and we can progress to other ideas you may have.

5. Your problem is that you keep treating "belief" as if it's fact from which logic can be automatically deduced. Any high school science teacher, English teacher will tell you different. Your analysis is flawed from the start.

6. You're not "clear" on anything, as you mistakenly belief that your personal beliefs, supposition and conjecture are on par with facts and the logic derived from those facts. We've done this dance....your steps are getting old.

7. You're claiming the laws are invalid are just that...your personal viewpoint, NOT FACT. Again, don't like a law...go through the legal process to change it. Can't get the votes? TFB...go home and sulk with the number of weapons you can legally own (and that's a LOT).

8. The NRA's actions and lobbying go hand in hand with what the NSSF does to promote sales. Case in point: the sunset law of the 1994 AWB regarding Ar-15's and resumption of sales. A matter of fact & history.

9. A lame smoke screen and dodge on your part to deny the FACT that the NRA leadership opposes it's own majority membership regarding background checks...a matter of fact & history. This plays into my assertion regarding the NRA's complicit nature with gun manufacturer's sales.

10. An absurd reply, as myopia does indeed affect how things are perceived. Ask any optometrist or opthamologist.

11. Another absurd reply, as the links SPECIFICALLY review gun related fatalities and homicides. Either you didn't read carefully and comprehensively or you are lying, the latter a bad move as the objective reader can check your claim with a mere click.

12. Possibly the most moronic sentence to date from you, " Why does it matter whether someone is murdered "with a gun" versus "with some other weapon"? BECAUSE IF YOU CAN LESSEN THE NUMBER OF DEATHS WITH BETTER REGULATION OF A WEAPON DESIGN SOLELY TO KILL, THAT IS A GOOD THING. In the last 10 years, you've had mass murders with a specific type of weapon that was UNNECESSARY in the public venue of "personal protection" or "hunting". Not mass stabbings or IED's. Period. Got it now?

13. See #12 and #11. Your denial is irrelevant, you're revisionist/myopic interpretation flawed.

14. YOU questioned those stats, and made an absurd conclusion that denies those facts. See #13.

15. See #14

16. See #15


YOU PICKED UP THE GUANTLET, AND ESSENTIALLY JUST PARROTED YOUR PREVIOUS POST WITHOUT ANY LOGICAL SUPPORT OR YOUR ASSERTIONS (AGAIN). Clearly, you can't debate the issue. In short, your denial and insipid stubbornness is not a valid debate tactic. So I leave you to it.

 

[Taichiliberal]

I'm unsure how "him pointing out that your claims are wrong" constitutes "ignoring those points"?



Look again. Post #607.

It took me awhile to get time to post since it was such a long reply, but I did finally get time to reply.



Not exactly.



It appears to me that he is competent to answer. He is correct to note that "gun death stats" have no relation to "homicide stats".

Like your compadre, you're done.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...ity-vs-trump-supporters&p=3884641#post3884641

 

[Taichiliberal]

Funny how the OP provided a platform to reveal the sheer BS of the Trump Administration, and the Trump chumps run down any avenue to avoid this fact. Currently, Conway has taken a powder claiming family issues taking precedent...as if those issues weren't prevalent these past 3 years! Rats deserting a sinking ship. Good riddance.

 

[rjhenn]

1. You couldn't provide proof as requested, so your generalization is wrong. Period. Grow up and deal with it.

2. A moot point, as I previously stated, A process exists to change unjust laws as decreed by legal precedent and will of the people. Please learn to read carefully and comprehensively. Your initial whole assertion to which this responds to was wrong. Grow up and deal with it.

3. The title you use is for a non-profit organization, and IS NOT THE NATIONAL GUARD OR A STATE AUTHORIZED MILITIA. As your link stated, it's to "support of regulated state military forces, as established by state governments under the authority of federal law." One does NOT substitute titles erroneously.

4. No matter how you dance, the results are the same. What was "intended" doesn't cut it in the final draft, hence you get this . Curious how folk of your mindset often ignore the FACT that even in the 1700's "militias" had state rules/regulations, and you'd be hard pressed to find a farmer or craftsman owning a canon. See, you've got a right to a weapon as a law abiding citizen. You don't have the "right" to have exactly the same type of weaponry as the military (remember, things evolved from just swords, cross bows, etc.).

5. You seem to have a stock answer that you parrot regardless of what's previously transpired. Been there, done that.

6. See #1 and #3. Remember, YOU incorrectly put a "state guard" on par with a State regulated militia and/or the National Guard. Admit this error, and we can progress to other ideas you may have.

5. Your problem is that you keep treating "belief" as if it's fact from which logic can be automatically deduced. Any high school science teacher, English teacher will tell you different. Your analysis is flawed from the start.

6. You're not "clear" on anything, as you mistakenly belief that your personal beliefs, supposition and conjecture are on par with facts and the logic derived from those facts. We've done this dance....your steps are getting old.

7. You're claiming the laws are invalid are just that...your personal viewpoint, NOT FACT. Again, don't like a law...go through the legal process to change it. Can't get the votes? TFB...go home and sulk with the number of weapons you can legally own (and that's a LOT).

8. The NRA's actions and lobbying go hand in hand with what the NSSF does to promote sales. Case in point: the sunset law of the 1994 AWB regarding Ar-15's and resumption of sales. A matter of fact & history.

9. A lame smoke screen and dodge on your part to deny the FACT that the NRA leadership opposes it's own majority membership regarding background checks...a matter of fact & history. This plays into my assertion regarding the NRA's complicit nature with gun manufacturer's sales.

10. An absurd reply, as myopia does indeed affect how things are perceived. Ask any optometrist or opthamologist.

11. Another absurd reply, as the links SPECIFICALLY review gun related fatalities and homicides. Either you didn't read carefully and comprehensively or you are lying, the latter a bad move as the objective reader can check your claim with a mere click.

12. Possibly the most moronic sentence to date from you, " Why does it matter whether someone is murdered "with a gun" versus "with some other weapon"? BECAUSE IF YOU CAN LESSEN THE NUMBER OF DEATHS WITH BETTER REGULATION OF A WEAPON DESIGN SOLELY TO KILL, THAT IS A GOOD THING. In the last 10 years, you've had mass murders with a specific type of weapon that was UNNECESSARY in the public venue of "personal protection" or "hunting". Not mass stabbings or IED's. Period. Got it now?

13. See #12 and #11. Your denial is irrelevant, you're revisionist/myopic interpretation flawed.

14. YOU questioned those stats, and made an absurd conclusion that denies those facts. See #13.

15. See #14

16. See #15


YOU PICKED UP THE GUANTLET, AND ESSENTIALLY JUST PARROTED YOUR PREVIOUS POST WITHOUT ANY LOGICAL SUPPORT OR YOUR ASSERTIONS (AGAIN). Clearly, you can't debate the issue. In short, your denial and insipid stubbornness is not a valid debate tactic. So I leave you to it.

There's no one who treats belief as if it's fact as much as you do. What we both were saying is that your links were only concerned with gun crime and gun homicide, as if those were the only types of violent crime and homicide. You need some evidence that your silly laws reduce all crime and all homicide before you can argue that they make a meaningful difference. Limiting your argument to gun crime and gun homicide is simply an admission that those laws do nothing of consequence.
Nothing but wishful thinking on your part.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Taichiliberal]

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
1. You couldn't provide proof as requested, so your generalization is wrong. Period. Grow up and deal with it.

2. A moot point, as I previously stated, A process exists to change unjust laws as decreed by legal precedent and will of the people. Please learn to read carefully and comprehensively. Your initial whole assertion to which this responds to was wrong. Grow up and deal with it.

3. The title you use is for a non-profit organization, and IS NOT THE NATIONAL GUARD OR A STATE AUTHORIZED MILITIA. As your link stated, it's to "support of regulated state military forces, as established by state governments under the authority of federal law." One does NOT substitute titles erroneously.

4. No matter how you dance, the results are the same. What was "intended" doesn't cut it in the final draft, hence you get this . Curious how folk of your mindset often ignore the FACT that even in the 1700's "militias" had state rules/regulations, and you'd be hard pressed to find a farmer or craftsman owning a canon. See, you've got a right to a weapon as a law abiding citizen. You don't have the "right" to have exactly the same type of weaponry as the military (remember, things evolved from just swords, cross bows, etc.).

5. You seem to have a stock answer that you parrot regardless of what's previously transpired. Been there, done that.

6. See #1 and #3. Remember, YOU incorrectly put a "state guard" on par with a State regulated militia and/or the National Guard. Admit this error, and we can progress to other ideas you may have.

5. Your problem is that you keep treating "belief" as if it's fact from which logic can be automatically deduced. Any high school science teacher, English teacher will tell you different. Your analysis is flawed from the start.

6. You're not "clear" on anything, as you mistakenly belief that your personal beliefs, supposition and conjecture are on par with facts and the logic derived from those facts. We've done this dance....your steps are getting old.

7. You're claiming the laws are invalid are just that...your personal viewpoint, NOT FACT. Again, don't like a law...go through the legal process to change it. Can't get the votes? TFB...go home and sulk with the number of weapons you can legally own (and that's a LOT).

8. The NRA's actions and lobbying go hand in hand with what the NSSF does to promote sales. Case in point: the sunset law of the 1994 AWB regarding Ar-15's and resumption of sales. A matter of fact & history.

9. A lame smoke screen and dodge on your part to deny the FACT that the NRA leadership opposes it's own majority membership regarding background checks...a matter of fact & history. This plays into my assertion regarding the NRA's complicit nature with gun manufacturer's sales.

10. An absurd reply, as myopia does indeed affect how things are perceived. Ask any optometrist or opthamologist.

11. Another absurd reply, as the links SPECIFICALLY review gun related fatalities and homicides. Either you didn't read carefully and comprehensively or you are lying, the latter a bad move as the objective reader can check your claim with a mere click.

12. Possibly the most moronic sentence to date from you, " Why does it matter whether someone is murdered "with a gun" versus "with some other weapon"? BECAUSE IF YOU CAN LESSEN THE NUMBER OF DEATHS WITH BETTER REGULATION OF A WEAPON DESIGN SOLELY TO KILL, THAT IS A GOOD THING. In the last 10 years, you've had mass murders with a specific type of weapon that was UNNECESSARY in the public venue of "personal protection" or "hunting". Not mass stabbings or IED's. Period. Got it now?

13. See #12 and #11. Your denial is irrelevant, you're revisionist/myopic interpretation flawed.

14. YOU questioned those stats, and made an absurd conclusion that denies those facts. See #13.

15. See #14

16. See #15


YOU PICKED UP THE GUANTLET, AND ESSENTIALLY JUST PARROTED YOUR PREVIOUS POST WITHOUT ANY LOGICAL SUPPORT OR YOUR ASSERTIONS (AGAIN). Clearly, you can't debate the issue. In short, your denial and insipid stubbornness is not a valid debate tactic. So I leave you to it.

There's no one who treats belief as if it's fact as much as you do. What we both were saying is that your links were only concerned with gun crime and gun homicide, as if those were the only types of violent crime and homicide. You need some evidence that your silly laws reduce all crime and all homicide before you can argue that they make a meaningful difference. Limiting your argument to gun crime and gun homicide is simply an admission that those laws do nothing of consequence.
Nothing but wishful thinking on your part.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

What you are both doing is just parroting a line that I've disproved factually and logically. This BS about "limiting" the discussion gun crime stats is absurd, as the whole point of gun control is to limit the amount of crimes committed with guns. Your buddy made a statement that was factually and logically proven wrong. Your parroting it does not magically make it so. The chronology of the posts clearly shows both of you can't honestly deal with questions and facts that don't set well with what you believe should be (case in point, #1 above). Essentially, you two are on auto-pilot stubborn. So be it. If Anvil's next response is a rehash of his SOS, I won't bother responding. Same with you.

The OP stands valid....especially since Conway jumps a potentially sinking ship like the rat she is.
This detour you two went down has been deconstructed and proven wrong, as the objective reader can see. Carry on.

 

[rjhenn]

What you are both doing is just parroting a line that I've disproved factually and logically. This BS about "limiting" the discussion gun crime stats is absurd, as the whole point of gun control is to limit the amount of crimes committed with guns. Your buddy made a statement that was factually and logically proven wrong. Your parroting it does not magically make it so. The chronology of the posts clearly shows both of you can't honestly deal with questions and facts that don't set well with what you believe should be (case in point, #1 above). Essentially, you two are on auto-pilot stubborn. So be it. If Anvil's next response is a rehash of his SOS, I won't bother responding. Same with you.

The OP stands valid....especially since Conway jumps a potentially sinking ship like the rat she is.
This detour you two went down has been deconstructed and proven wrong, as the objective reader can see. Carry on.

As the objective reader can see, you are full of it, and madly denying reality in a desperate attempt to save your untenable position. You are the one who "can't honestly deal with questions and facts that don't set well with what you believe should be". If you "limit the amount of crimes committed with guns", but don't change the total amount of crime, have you accomplished anything? Similarly, if you reduce the number of people murdered with guns, but just as many or more get murdered, have you made any actual difference? You clearly don't use facts or logic, as you have none to support your conclusions. All you seem to have is the usual ignorance, paranoia and wishful thinking that's all that we ever see from gun control proponents.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk