0
   

The Communist Origin of the Modern Conservative Movement VI

 
 
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Nov, 2019 05:42 pm
@hightor,
Do I have a right to stop you from robbing me or injuring me, or both?
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 Nov, 2019 05:46 pm
@Glennn,
Do what you have to do, comrade.
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Nov, 2019 05:50 pm
@hightor,
But I asked you whether or not I have the right to stop you. So what about it?

And what's with calling me comrade?
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Thu 7 Nov, 2019 07:42 pm
@Glennn,
Quote:
But I asked you whether or not I have the right to stop you.

And I answered you. Obviously, in a situation where you're physically threatened the motivations for rapid response and accompanying neural pathways evolved long before anyone ever made up the idea of "rights". It's not a matter of having them or not having them; "rights" don't even come into play.
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Nov, 2019 08:10 pm
@hightor,
Rights don't come into play? If someone enters my home to assault and rob me, did he have a right to do so? And do I have a right to immobilize them?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Nov, 2019 08:48 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:
However, both the concept of "natural rights" and government are artificial constructs devised by human beings.

That does not make them any less valid.


hightor wrote:
There is no such thing as "natural law", we simply apply this term to our social customs because to admit that the whole enterprise is phony would undermine the forces of social control and cultural legitimacy.

The whole enterprise isn't phony. Lawful government is a good thing.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 7 Nov, 2019 08:49 pm
@hightor,
hightor wrote:
Obviously, in a situation where you're physically threatened the motivations for rapid response and accompanying neural pathways evolved long before anyone ever made up the idea of "rights". It's not a matter of having them or not having them; "rights" don't even come into play.

They come into play in the courtroom if a prosecutor tries to prosecute you for defending yourself.
0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  3  
Reply Fri 8 Nov, 2019 12:40 am
@Baldimo,
At this point you are like most republicans, “hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.” On the evening news they reported about an FBI study of 41 school shootings in the last ten years but you don’t see that as a problem that is crying out for a solution. Not only that you want to throw road blocks to stop the obvious solution. “If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem.”
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Guns take ten times as many lives as they save. If the guy was beating her husband all she needed was a base ball bat and he would not been beating anyone. A hand gun would have stopped the intruder because he was distracted beating her husband. He could not beat her husband and hold a gun. What she didn’t need was a gun capable of slaughtering 50 people. Usually people armed like that sell drugs for a living.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We are not worried about the majority of mass shootings we are worried about the majorities of massacres.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You are still basing your black is white and white is black argument on one lame court decision. If the founding fathers had intended the bill of rights to be a bill of restrictions on the government, they would have named it the bill of restrictions. A right to privacy is something granted to a citizen. Would the government be prevented from doing the census? Because it actually restricted from asking anything. Sorry, but when you try to do things upside down and backwards it won’t work.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We all know who was responsible for the lock up chants to start with. Trump used them to cheat his way into the Whitehouse. Free speech has limits and they are trying to stop lying to win an election. The Republicans posted that the election was on Nov 5 when in fact it was on the Nov 4 to suppress voter turnout in certain communities. Since social media can be used to selectively bombard specific voters with false information many social media sites are just refusing all political adds. Other right-wing nut jobs, like Trumps good buddy, posting that no children were killed at Sandy Hook that it was done with actors got himself banned. This is Putin method to create an alternate universe of lies so no one will know what the truth is. Trying to intimidate political candidates by death threats is a popular political game. I came to work one morning and the mayor’s car was in the grease bay with the bomb squad going over it with a fine- tooth comb. Threats are a crime and the law should be enforced. If someone threatens a congressman or his family that is not free speech.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The founding fathers in their wisdom realized the future might be far different so they built into the constitution ways to modify that document. I don’t believe we will be joining the European Union any time soon.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
At this point it is hard to get two people to agree on anything let alone millions. So, you believe the government should be violently overthrown by right wing nuts. Iraq was bombed back to stone age and Iraq had far more than a 100- times the casualties we suffered. History has taught us one thing, to defeat a country is one thing but it is much harder to occupy a country.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What we are left from the founding father is the actual writing it is a nice history lesson to find out what their intensions were but the actual writing prevails. We already have another way to remove a tyrannical government it is called voting them out.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Then the converted semi-automatics used in the North Hollywood shootout were assault weapons but the day before they were converted, they were just a regular semi-automatic rifle.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The full-automatic assault weapon does not require the trigger to be pulled each time, one pull of trigger will fire the entire magazine. It loads automatically and it fires automatically. The semi-automatic version loads automatically also.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If you have to pull the trigger it is a semi-automatic.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The death toll is terrible but the children that were wounded and survive will have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and even those who come to school everyday wondering whether this will be the day a mass murder shows up with an assault weapon will be scared for life.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We all realize that gun nuts are inviting trouble into their lives. “you live with a gun you die by the gun but the rest of us do not want to invite the additional risk into our lives. The gun nuts are always going to shoot each other as long as there are guns but the massacres are another matter. They require assault weapons.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There have been 41 school shooting in the last ten years according to the FBI. How many other massacres have taken place at all other locations?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Since the only requirement to mass shooting is that four or more people be shot how do you figure a domestic dispute where four people are shot is not a mass shooting. If the same man shoots four strangers it is a mass shooting but if the victims are related it is not. Nonsense. There is nothing in the definition of mass shootings that makes an exception for relatives.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Murder is simply the killing of a human being whether you like it or not.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You would have a bunch kids with immature brains and no impulse control running around with guns. What do you think is going to happen? Just exactly what happened at a college last year. One kid gets beat up then he goes and gets his gun and starts blowing others away with it. The kid had to go back to his car to get his gun if he had it on him far more would be dead. If guns are killing people the answer is not more guns. More guns more deaths of all kinds, murders, suicides and accidental shootings. There should be an equation showing how many deaths per gun so that we would know how many more deaths to expect if the number of guns is increased.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Your source only cited the school massacres done in 2018 not the top ten massacres. My figure was not just school shootings it was the top ten highest body count massacres. All you have to is a search for the top ten mass murders and it will show you that assault weapons are made for massacres.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The killing of a human being is the killing of a human being. To be sure suicides are a subset of murders just as those killed with guns would be another subset but they are all murders.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
A suicide is a murder of a human being, someone who died of cancer would not be a murder.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Again, you can have a subset but the bank robbery was one thing the shoot out was another. What is a mass shooting? Any shooting where four or more people are wounded. There were 20 wounded and two killed it was a mass shooting.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The bank robbery was already completed when the mass shooting took place. So, if they shot people in the bank it is a mass shooting but if they are on the outside of the bank it is not a mass shooting? That does not make sense. Four people shot it is a mass shooting. What is next? It is only a mas shooting if it is done by men named Smith?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I gave you the direct quote from the Wikipedia article that said they had several converted assault weapons that were full-automatic. Read it and weep.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Read the full article about the North Hollywood shootout on Wikipedia don’t skim through it read it. You will find it is there.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It is a pretty simple concept if you only pull the trigger once and it empties the magazine it is automatic. My wife’s car is an automatic. You put it in drive and you don’t need to shift it. My Z is standard and I have to shift six times. The semi-automatic assault weapon chambers shells automatically but it is not an automatic.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Columbine did take place in 1999 but only the sale of assault weapons was banned the ones already out there were not confiscated. Thus, it was an easy matter for the Columbine shooters to get their dads assault weapons. Gun violence may have been down but massacres went up.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The increase in massacres is traceable back to the expiration of the assault weapon ban. On the all-time high list 3 of the top 5 of the highest body count massacres occurred in the last three years. The deadliest massacre 10 years ago left just 16 dead.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Shelby Mustangs of 20 years ago would be far faster than the four- cylinder Mustangs of today. The AR-15 was designed in the middle of the 20th century and firing rate is no doubt about the same today.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Baldimo
 
  2  
Reply Fri 8 Nov, 2019 09:55 am
@hightor,
Quote:
Duh...overturned by rightist courts stocked by conservative presidents.

Is that your excuse for the lame decisions made by the 9th Circuit? It actually has nothing to do with "rightist courts", the SC wasn't "stacked" with rightist judges during the Obama years, yet they still had more overturned cases than any other court. Count it be because that court doesn't rule on the Constitution and instead rules on liberal ideology?

Quote:
Self defense isn't a "right" — it's an instinct shared with many other animals. "Flight or fight" are natural reactions which help to insure the survival of individuals and species as a whole. There are no "natural rights"; the very idea is itself is the product of human beings, not nature.

This is the best you can do, "fight or flight"? You have no right to protect yourself and your family?

Quote:
No need to insult the OP, comrade.

Here comes Hightor, the savior of Zardoz to play his white knight.

Quote:
These "rights" you believe in aren't "naturally occurring" — they're an artifice of human society. They weren't floating around in the ether, waiting for the hominid line to evolve into Homo sapiens. That's just another variety of religious thinking.

This looks like another attempt from a leftist to undermine modern day society. We do actually have natural rights, why is it you leftists are always looking for a way to control society that falls outside the realm of our Constitution?

Quote:
You're the one whose projecting, comrade.

Wrong, it's on point. He comes up with all of these violent ways for people to be hurt, and yet is it nothing more than leftist projection. He talk about the mass amounts of crime committed by NRA members and yet it is actually not that group of people committing the crimes. Yes, projection of what he would do if he had a gun.

Quote:
Apparently you're not mature enough to realize that there are different meanings of the word"parasite".

It has nothing to do with "maturity" and everything to do with not seeing babies as humans. If it isn't a human, then they feel no guilt when they kill it, hence the term parasite. No one uses the term parasite as a good term, it is packed with negative connotations.

Quote:
The scientific term is neutral.

Except it isn't being used as a "scientific" term, it's being used as a degrading term to allow for the killing of unborn babies.

Quote:
A living organism whose existence is dependent on a host body is a "parasite". A fetus can be likened to a parasite because its survival is dependent on the environment of the mother's womb and nutrients provided by the mother through the umbilical cord.

This terminology is only used by hardcore abortion activists, normal people do no describe babies as parasites.

Quote:
It has nothing to do with "hating babies". Try to look at things more objectively and less emotionally.

Parasite is an emotional word. Would you think it was a good thing to call poor people a parasite on taxpayers? After all, they can't exist unless the host body, the taxpayer, provides for them.

Quote:
No, to the extent that they exist at all they are simply an outgrowth of social evolution which people agree to observe.

People have natural Rights. No amount of "socialist" talk is going to change the fact we have natural rights as people. If you want, we could change our Constitution to only apply to US citizens... since it's just a social construct, we can decide who gets those rights since no one is has them naturally. From this point forward, the Constitution only applies to US citizens.

Quote:
"Every year, worldwide, about 42 million women with unintended pregnancies choose abortion, and nearly half of these procedures, 20 million, are unsafe. Some 68,000 women die of unsafe abortion annually, making it one of the leading causes of maternal mortality (13%). Of the women who survive unsafe abortion, 5 million will suffer long-term health complications. Unsafe abortion is thus a pressing issue." source

I don't care what happens world wide, I'm concerned with the US and what happens in our borders. Try to stick to the topic at hand.

Quote:
Nowhere did he claim that. It was one non-exclusive example. Sheesh.

Actually, yes he did.
Quote:
Somebody has to pay it and it isn’t going to be that 18-year prostitute.

If that isn't what he meant, then how come he didn't mention someone else other than a hooker?

Quote:
And you, comrade, are pathetic to read.

It's pathetic that Zardoz has to have you to protect him from his on words. He fails at all points to provide any proof of his claims and then expects me to do his homework for him.


Baldimo
 
  2  
Reply Fri 8 Nov, 2019 10:03 am
@hightor,
Quote:
That's about the stupidest post you ever made. Do you really think that those gangbangers are registered Democrats working as agents of the "progressive cause" or "Never Trumpers"?

Zardoz tried to claim that the majority of crime in the US comes from Republicans. I challenged his BS and you are again protecting his false claims. The point I made stands, the majority of crime in the US comes from the biggest cities, which are controlled by the Dems. No GOP politician has been in charge of those area's for decades.

Quote:
It's not "funny" it's just pathetic. You and Trump just happen to believe the same discredited conspiracy theory.

I was talking about it long before Trump ever said anything. Zardoz knows what I'm talking about even if he won't admit it. I told him about a year ago that there was a connection between the Ukraine and the DNC. Durham's report will have the facts of the case. Remember, unlike the Mueller Report, this one has already been referred for criminal investigation, meaning they found criminal behavior, someone is going to jail and it isn't going to be Trump. Comey, Clapper and others are in trouble.

Quote:
So what? Some rinky-dink company wants to get some cred in the gas industry so they hire an American with a famous name and ties to the White House. He doesn't have to do anything. His mere presence helps land the firm lucrative contracts which would more than cover his salary. $50.000 is chump change. Not that I'm surprised, but you're pathetically ignorant of how the real world of gangster capitalism works.

It's good to know you approve of corruption from the left. Quid pro Joe... is guilty of stopping an investigation by threatening to withhold military funds unless the Prosecutor who was investigating his sons company was fired... yet Trump asking about that corruption being investigated is bad... only in the leftist world does this happen.


Baldimo
 
  2  
Reply Fri 8 Nov, 2019 01:05 pm
@Zardoz,
Quote:
At this point you are like most republicans, “hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.”

We don't see guns as evil, people are evil. inanimate objects have no desire or ambitions and can't be evil. People are the issue, not the guns. Millions of people own guns and if they were as violent as you claim they are, we would have a yearly death toll well above where it currently sits, at about 11000-13000 per year.

Quote:
On the evening news they reported about an FBI study of 41 school shootings in the last ten years but you don’t see that as a problem that is crying out for a solution.

As usual, I did a search for the claim you made and I can't find it on Google. 41 school shootings years? That is actually way lower than the #'s given over the last couple of years. Last year by mid-year they tried to claim that there were over 200 school shootings... this is why you can't trust the numbers released by anti-gun groups, they just make it up to fit their propaganda.

Quote:
Not only that you want to throw road blocks to stop the obvious solution. “If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem.”

Road blocks to protect my Constitutional Right. We should have learned our lesson after 9-11, we don't give up our Rights because bad things happen.

Quote:
Guns take ten times as many lives as they save.

No they don't. The 2013 CDC study disproves this claim. 500,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year. Even at the low number, it is magnitudes more people saved then killed with guns in crimes. Considering there are only about 12k murders per year, you would be wrong.

Quote:
If the guy was beating her husband all she needed was a base ball bat and he would not been beating anyone.

She was 8 months pregnant and there were 2 guys, and both the dudes had guns. The Ar15 was the great equalizer for this couple. Based on your wants, they would both had been dead along with their unborn baby.

Quote:
A hand gun would have stopped the intruder because he was distracted beating her husband.

There were 2 people who invaded their home, both were armed with handguns.

Quote:
He could not beat her husband and hold a gun.

I guess you have never heard of the term "pistol whipped." You can beat someone with a gun in your hand, you beat them with the gun. You just can't get any of this right can you.

Quote:
What she didn’t need was a gun capable of slaughtering 50 people. Usually people armed like that sell drugs for a living.

You actually have zero right to decide what that family uses for self-defense. 2 armed men were beating her husband, she was 8 months pregnant and you wanted her to try and stop 2 men with a baseball bat? You have more respect for the lives of crooks then you do for innocent civilians.

Quote:
Usually people armed like that sell drugs for a living.

You made this same claim about the guy who defended his home with an AR15 when 3 armed men broke into his house. You sure like to brand law biding citizens as drug dealers. He wasn't a drug dealer and he was cleared of all crimes. I'd say you should feel ashamed of yourself, but liberals feel no shame.

Quote:
You are still basing your black is white and white is black argument on one lame court decision.

Lame court decision could apply to all SC rulings you don't like.

Quote:
If the founding fathers had intended the bill of rights to be a bill of restrictions on the government, they would have named it the bill of restrictions.

No, they named it correctly. It was to spell out the Rights of Citizens and the restrictions on the govt. You have utter failed to understand what Liberty and Freedom really are and what the purpose of govt is. It's biggest purpose is to protect the Rights of the individual, not place restrictions on what they can do, that isn't freedom or liberty.

Quote:
A right to privacy is something granted to a citizen.

Rights are not granted, they already exist. What the govt grants it can take away, that isn't liberty or freedom.

Quote:
Would the government be prevented from doing the census?

The Census is actually listed in the Constitution as something the govt has to do. It's original purpose was to determine how many Reps a given state would receive.

Quote:
We all know who was responsible for the lock up chants to start with.

Well it wasn't Trump. It was actually a guy named Michael Stoker.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-hillary-clinton-michael-stoker-epa-lock-her-up-chant-a8362566.html

Quote:
Trump used them to cheat his way into the Whitehouse.

He didn't cheat his way into the WH, he won fair and square. If the left looses, they always think someone cheated.

Quote:
Free speech has limits and they are trying to stop lying to win an election.

Sorry to tell you, but lying is part of free speech, as long as you aren't lying to the FBI or other LEO investigators. Democrats stand in Congress and lie to the American people everyday. They even lie to win elections, as pointed out by Harry Reid when he was confronted by a news reporter about lying about Romney's taxes. His response to the reporter? "It worked didn't it." So save your claims about lies for someone else, the left has no moral ground to stand on, actually neither party has a moral leg to stand on, they all lie. It's part of being a politician.

Quote:
The Republicans posted that the election was on Nov 5 when in fact it was on the Nov 4 to suppress voter turnout in certain communities.

Do you have any proof of this claim?

Quote:
Since social media can be used to selectively bombard specific voters with false information many social media sites are just refusing all political adds.

The only one I know about so far is Twitter. No other social media sites have said they will block political advertisements.

Quote:
Other right-wing nut jobs, like Trumps good buddy, posting that no children were killed at Sandy Hook that it was done with actors got himself banned.

Alex Jones was a Trump supporter, but they are not friends.

Quote:
This is Putin method to create an alternate universe of lies so no one will know what the truth is. Trying to intimidate political candidates by death threats is a popular political game. I came to work one morning and the mayor’s car was in the grease bay with the bomb squad going over it with a fine- tooth comb. Threats are a crime and the law should be enforced. If someone threatens a congressman or his family that is not free speech.


Quote:
This is Putin method to create an alternate universe of lies so no one will know what the truth is.

You mean like Harry Reid standing on the floor of the Senate and lying about Romney's taxes? The MSM spreading the fake story about the Russian pee tapes? Those types of lies?

Quote:
Trying to intimidate political candidates by death threats is a popular political game.

You mean like a Bernie supporter showing up at the Congressional Baseball practice and shooting at several members of congress? How about Rand Pauls neighbor who attacked him and broke several of his ribs? How about Right of center people going to restaurants and being harassed and yelled at until they left a restaurant?

Quote:
Threats are a crime and the law should be enforced. If someone threatens a congressman or his family that is not free speech.

Except that female politician wasn't talking about threats, she was talking about people being critical of them or making fun of them. Nothing close to what you just claimed.

Quote:
At this point it is hard to get two people to agree on anything let alone millions.

That just isn't the case, plenty of people agree on things. You are talking about political opposites, and that is where it is hard to get agreement. The DNC and the GOP general don't agree on anything, but you can bet a majority of the people in those groups agree on things.

Quote:
So, you believe the government should be violently overthrown by right wing nuts.

That isn't even close to what I said. I said we have the right to overthrow the govt, that was the primary reason for the 2nd Amendment. Once again, read the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers for a better understanding of the 2nd Amendment.

Quote:
Iraq was bombed back to stone age and Iraq had far more than a 100- times the casualties we suffered.

It doesn't change the fact that the left was screaming at the top of their lungs to get our guys out of those countries so that no more of our soldiers died.

Quote:
What we are left from the founding father is the actual writing it is a nice history lesson to find out what their intensions were but the actual writing prevails.

You can't remove the intentions from the actual writing, they are one in the same and work together.

Quote:
We already have another way to remove a tyrannical government it is called voting them out.

If they are truly tyrannical, ballots won't make them leave, force will be required, that's where the 2nd Amendment comes in. It's also why the left doesn't like the 2nd Amendment, they know it is their ideology that would lead to tyranny in this country. If you really thought it was the right wing that would do this, you would support the 2nd Amendment.

Quote:
Then the converted semi-automatics used in the North Hollywood shootout were assault weapons but the day before they were converted, they were just a regular semi-automatic rifle.

Well, they still wouldn't be assault rifles, they still don't have a selective fire switch. They are illegally converted semi-auto rifles, not "assault rifles." Assault is actually an action, so they would be better called "defensive rifles". Just like they are called for LEO and other federal agencies.

Quote:
The full-automatic assault weapon does not require the trigger to be pulled each time, one pull of trigger will fire the entire magazine. It loads automatically and it fires automatically. The semi-automatic version loads automatically also.

Why are you repeating what I said? Is it an attempt to be correct about guns for once?

Quote:
The death toll is terrible but the children that were wounded and survive will have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and even those who come to school everyday wondering whether this will be the day a mass murder shows up with an assault weapon will be scared for life.

I feel bad for those kids, but I'm not giving up my Rights for their feelings. That isn't how our Constitution works.

Quote:
We all realize that gun nuts are inviting trouble into their lives. “you live with a gun you die by the gun but the rest of us do not want to invite the additional risk into our lives.

Gun nuts? You mean people who like guns and know more about them than you do? If you don't want the additional risk in your life, then don't buy a gun. Me owning a gun does nothing to put your life in danger, unless you had plans to assault me. By the way, the probability study you are referring to is bogus and doesn't represent the actual facts and stats about guns. It was a scare tactic and nothing more.

Quote:
The gun nuts are always going to shoot each other as long as there are guns but the massacres are another matter. They require assault weapons.

How many times do you have to be wrong? Gun owners aren't running around shooting each other. You want to confuse the drug dealers and gang-bangers with the average gun owner. The stats and facts don't agree with your propaganda.

Quote:
There have been 41 school shooting in the last ten years according to the FBI. How many other massacres have taken place at all other locations?

I did a search for this claim and can't find any news story backing your claim. What channel did you watch this on? Are you going to claim again that not all stories on the TV make it to the internet? You would be lying again. The sites make money off of people visiting their webpages, the story will be there, just provide some info so the story can be found.

Quote:
Since the only requirement to mass shooting is that four or more people be shot how do you figure a domestic dispute where four people are shot is not a mass shooting.

That is not the only requirement for a mass shooting. Family murders are not mass shootings, mass shootings generally take place in public spaces and usually don't have another crime in connection with them. You are trying to use the most basic and generic definition of what a mass shooting is. The only reason for this is to make "mass shootings" seem more frequent than they really are, this is the very definition of propaganda.
Quote:
prop·a·gan·da
/ˌpräpəˈɡandə/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.


Quote:
Murder is simply the killing of a human being whether you like it or not.

No, as you pointed out yesterday, it is the killing of another human being. Suicide isn't murder.

Quote:
You would have a bunch kids with immature brains and no impulse control running around with guns.

This is the second time you have told this lie. No one has said arm kids, we have said train the adults and arm them to protect their students. Why do you keep lying about what is actually said?

Quote:
Your source only cited the school massacres done in 2018 not the top ten massacres.

You never mentioned the top 10 until todays post. What source of mine are you talking about? This is where it would be nice of you to actually quote what you are talking about.

Quote:
My figure was not just school shootings it was the top ten highest body count massacres. All you have to is a search for the top ten mass murders and it will show you that assault weapons are made for massacres.

Once again, you have never mentioned the "top 10", that's something you started last night. Till this point, you have only mentioned Las Vegas, Sandyhook, Pulse and Columbine.

Quote:
The killing of a human being is the killing of a human being. To be sure suicides are a subset of murders just as those killed with guns would be another subset but they are all murders.

No, suicide is not a subset of murder. Stop trying to change the meanings of words to fit your propaganda.

Quote:
Again, you can have a subset but the bank robbery was one thing the shoot out was another.

They are the same thing, they robbed a bank and then tried to escape, the shootout was due to their attempted escape, which failed.

Quote:
I gave you the direct quote from the Wikipedia article that said they had several converted assault weapons that were full-automatic. Read it and weep.

I never disputed that they had converted rifles, I dispute your claim that this was a mass shooting, it was a bank robbery.

Quote:
Columbine did take place in 1999 but only the sale of assault weapons was banned the ones already out there were not confiscated.

True, but this actually has nothing to do with the Columbine shooting.

Quote:
Thus, it was an easy matter for the Columbine shooters to get their dads assault weapons. Gun violence may have been down but massacres went up.

You make up so much **** and try to push it as truth. They didn't take anything from their dad's, they went and bought their own guns.

Quote:
Gun violence may have been down but massacres went up.

Massacres went up during the assault weapons ban? How can that be, the weapons were banned...

Quote:
The increase in massacres is traceable back to the expiration of the assault weapon ban.

No it isn't, that's the anti-gun propaganda talking.

Quote:
On the all-time high list 3 of the top 5 of the highest body count massacres occurred in the last three years. The deadliest massacre 10 years ago left just 16 dead.

You keep coming up with different size lists... why is that?









0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Fri 8 Nov, 2019 01:10 pm
@Baldimo,
I'm not going devote the time needed to comment on everything you say. But you consistently exhibit a tendency to develop your argument to a certain point and then, when you think you've justified what you already believe, you consider the point proven and ignore the holes in your logic or the facts you've ignored:
Quote:
...the majority of crime in the US comes from the biggest cities, which are controlled by the Dems.

That's because — duh — there are more people in the biggest cities. In addition, the manufacturing base which once attracted people to those urban areas has disappeared, leaving poverty-stricken neighborhoods with poor schools and little hope of economic improvement. It's not because those people are "Democrats", it's because they're poor. The people committing street crime don't care about voting; they're out to get what they can more directly. BTW, I don't know of any statistics which break down the political affiliation of criminals.
Quote:
I was talking about it long before Trump ever said anything.

The discredited conspiracy theory emerged in 2016. I doubt you knew about it before Trump.
Quote:
In an April 2017 interview with The Associated Press, President Trump suddenly began talking about the hack of the Democratic National Committee a year earlier, complaining that the F.B.I. had not physically examined the compromised server.

“They brought in another company that I hear is Ukrainian-based,” the president said.

“CrowdStrike?” the surprised reporter asked, referring to the California cybersecurity company that investigated how Russian government hackers had stolen and leaked Democratic emails, disrupting Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

“That’s what I heard,” Mr. Trump resumed. “I heard it’s owned by a very rich Ukrainian; that’s what I heard.”

source

Quote:
It's good to know you approve of corruption from the left.

I never said anything about "corruption from the left". I referred to the corrupt practices exhibited by "gangster capitalism". The families of prominent political officials should be barred from holding these sorts of jobs — including the Biden and Trump families. However, it has been going on for a long time and is still legal.
Quote:
Joe... is guilty of stopping an investigation by threatening to withhold military funds unless the Prosecutor who was investigating his sons company was fired...

That prosecutor was neither effective, nor was he actively investigating Burisma. Biden was given the job of coordinating Ukraine policy and one of his tasks was to persuade their government to clean out the old corrupt practices and the influence of oligarchs left over from the previous regime. Trump, on the other hand, was using a shadow state department to threaten withholding promised military aid to a foreign power in order to secure dirt on a domestic political rival. It no longer surprises me that you can't discern any difference because you're simply reading from the administration's playbook.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Fri 8 Nov, 2019 01:30 pm
@Baldimo,
Quote:
...the SC wasn't "stacked" with rightist judges during the Obama years, yet they still had more overturned cases than any other court.

Remember G.W. Bush? He was a conservative and he placed a lot of conservative judges in the judiciary. His father put the ultra-conservative Thomas on the SC.
Quote:
You have no right to protect yourself and your family?

Self-protection is an instinctual response. People engaged in self-defense before we even had language, let alone the concept of "rights".
Quote:
We do actually have natural rights...

Where do these "rights" exist? The concept simply describes widely-shared social conventions dressed up to appear "special".
Quote:
No one uses the term parasite as a good term, it is packed with negative connotations.

As I explained yesterday, scientifically the term is neutral, neither good nor bad.
Quote:
Except it isn't being used as a "scientific" term, it's being used as a degrading term to allow for the killing of unborn babies.

You're using it that way because you can't wrap your head objectively around the concept.
Quote:
Would you think it was a good thing to call poor people a parasite on taxpayers?

It's neither good nor bad. It's stretching the meaning of the term though, referring to society rather than living organisms.
Quote:
I don't care what happens world wide, I'm concerned with the US and what happens in our borders.

Um, the USA is included in the "world".
Quote:
It's pathetic that Zardoz has to have you to protect him from his on words.

I'm not "protecting" anyone. I'm criticizing your method of debate, just as I do on other threads.
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Nov, 2019 02:36 pm
@hightor,
Quote:
Remember G.W. Bush? He was a conservative and he placed a lot of conservative judges in the judiciary. His father put the ultra-conservative Thomas on the SC.

Clinton and Obama both put judges on the Benches, that still doesn't explain the most over turned circuit court in the land. It seems like you are reaching for a way to say the 9th Circuit would always be correct if it wasn't for those darn conservatives.

Quote:
Self-protection is an instinctual response. People engaged in self-defense before we even had language, let alone the concept of "rights".

So then as I said before, that means the right to self-defense is a natural right. Thank you for agreeing with me.

Quote:
Where do these "rights" exist? The concept simply describes widely-shared social conventions dressed up to appear "special".

They already existed as noted by the FF as natural rights to all people. The US was the first to write them down and codify them into our nations founding. Are you like Zardoz saying that the only rights we get are those the Govt says we can have?

Quote:
As I explained yesterday, scientifically the term is neutral, neither good nor bad.

You can make that claim all you want to, but it was used as a negative term to encourage the killing of unborn babies. Name a couple of good parasites.

Quote:
You're using it that way because you can't wrap your head objectively around the concept.

There is no objectivity when it comes to calling an unborn baby a parasite. It isn't being used in a scientific way, it's being used in a negative way. Just like how soldiers use negative names against their enemies, it makes it easier to kill something if you don't think of it as human.

Quote:
Um, the USA is included in the "world".

Ya, think. The comment was about women dying in the US prior to abortion being made "constitutional". Instead of trying to back up his claim, you came up with something not related to what we were actually talking about, this is typical leftist debate.

Quote:
I'm not "protecting" anyone. I'm criticizing your method of debate, just as I do on other threads.

Yes, you are trying to protect those on the left who can't hold their own arguments. You are protecting a liar who can't and won't back his own claims.
Zardoz
 
  3  
Reply Fri 8 Nov, 2019 10:00 pm
@oralloy,
The second amendment simply gives you “a right to bear arms” the second amendment does not say the government must pass a litmus test of being justified as serving a compelling government interest.” What they tell people in court is if it isn’t in writing it isn’t there and trying to add it after the fact won’t work. There have been so many massacres in Texas this year that 35% of Republicans want assault weapons banned. “The times they are a changing.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The second only grants you the right to bear arms it does not say a right to military grade weapons you can only get there with an activist judge.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The government can control guns period the only thing the second amendment is forbidden to do is to ban all guns as long as there are guns to bear the second amendment is satisfied.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ There is not a case that involves guns in America that the gun manufactures have not been involved in. The gun manufactures have a vested interest, if guns are banned, they are out of business. Going well? Thirty five percent of republicans in Texas want assault weapons banned. Sixty blood money taking NRA politicians voted out of office in 2018. Keep telling yourself that, the tipping point has been reached.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If government can control guns and we know they can because some guns have already been removed from the market then they can control guns and putting an end to massacres certainly provides a compelling reason.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The gun manufactures always have something to do with gun cases because they have far more to lose than the plaintiff. What do you think it costs to fight a case all the way to the Supreme Court? It will take years and cost millions in legal fees. Do you really think someone making $40,000 a year paid for that?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2019 04:19 am
@Baldimo,
Quote:
So then as I said before, that means the right to self-defense is a natural right.

No, labeling it a "right" just window-dressing applied to a basic instinct. I suppose you could say that a wasp has a "right" to sting you if you threaten its nest but it doesn't really add any information to the description.
Quote:
Name a couple of good parasites.

Still can't quite manage the objectivity to overcome your dualistic thinking, comrade? Scientists eschew subjective terms like "good" and "bad". The truth is that parasites play an important role in the ecosystem as fungi contributing to soil health and the growth of plants. Yeasts are used to prepare some foods. Some parasites are employed as antibiotics and insecticides. There's also a process known as symbiosis where the parasite and the host organism work together for mutual benefit. Some parasites play a useful role in our gut as well.
Quote:
It isn't being used in a scientific way, it's being used in a negative way.

It's being used in a descriptive way to highlight the total dependence of one organism on a host organism. A developing fetus is parasitical in relation to its mother. The parasitical relationship ends at birth.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2019 05:56 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:
No, labeling it a "right" just window-dressing applied to a basic instinct.

"Being a right" means that the government isn't allowed to make that activity illegal.

If it was not counted as a right, the government would be able to outlaw that behavior if it chose to pass a law against it.


hightor wrote:
comrade

Are you calling yourself a communist, or are you calling Baldimo a communist?
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2019 06:05 am
@oralloy,
The government would have an even harder time making instincts illegal!

I don't understand why you poor people insist on equating "comrade" with "communist". Baldimo isn't a commie, he's supporter of Tulsi Gabbard and a fellow progressive.
Glennn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Nov, 2019 12:18 pm
@hightor,
I have a right to defend myself against you if you violate my right to be safe in my house. If you don't believe I have this right, then invade my home and see whose rights are acknowledged in a court of law.

And why did you call me comrade?
0 Replies
 
Zardoz
 
  3  
Reply Sun 10 Nov, 2019 12:25 am
@oralloy,
You really can’t believe that the primitive people of 2600 are still governing us today. Do you believe all the laws of 2600 years ago are binding on us today or do you just get to pick out the ones you like? For instance, one law granted the first turn on his tenet’ bride to the landlord.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If English common law is binding on America today then the brides are going to have to make another stop before their honeymoon. That law is pretty ancient and a study of laws of that time would return some laws you could not even imagine. So, let me get this straight English common law is binding on the United States but not England, English gun laws are far stricter than ours.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I guess it is your dime and you can claim anything but what you can’t do is make it true.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I don’t believe we incorporated all of the English Common Law into our constitution it would have to be book length to do that. The Constitution grants rights it is not a book of laws. For instance, murder was not a violation of the constitution nor was the penalty listed in the constitution. Laws against murder have been borrowed from countries from the beginning of time but they are not binding on us. When the founding fathers decide to make laws, they would look at examples from other countries but no one put a gun to their head and make them take the laws from any other country.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Freedom of religion is a positive statement that allows freedom of religion. It is not a negative statement addressed to the government that forbids them taking action against any religious cult but anyone that feels their freedom of religion has been violated is free to bring a case in court that their rights have been violated.

The freedom of speech is a right and with every right the remedy for a violation is take it to court. If you believe that rights are not positive statement but restrictions on government who would enforce the violation of those none existent negative statements? Should they just imagine how those restrictions are written? The courts can enforce the rights as written but not the imaginary negative restrictions.

The fourth amendment the right to be secure in your own home ….and free from unreasonable searches seizures. The government is still free to search and seize property with the proper paper work. If you don’t believe that just ask people that have their bank account seized for not paying taxes. You can’t enforce an imaginary restriction. The government would be responsible to enforce these imaginary negative statements against itself. How do you think that would work out?

Again, this is the same case the fifth amendment grants the individual the right not to testify against himself. It is a right granted to an individual. How would you right the imaginary negative restriction? How could you enforce because it is from your imagination?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You of course are talking about those rights granted from a fairy tale, from an imaginary superhero. Sorry, but your imaginary superhero can’t grant anything except on the pages of a comic book. There are no preexisting rights, there are only the rights granted by the constitution. You may believe that you that you can say the preexisting rights three times and they will be real but that is not the case.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
But that is all it does, the statement “shall not infringe” does not enlarge “the right to bear arms” it only means that you can not take the guns away from the mentally ill, criminals and the mass murderers.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This is all about assault weapons specifically designed for massacres you can shoot someone just as easy with a shotgun in fact a shotgun would be a far better choice if home protection was the reason for wanting a gun but if you want to kill large numbers of people assault weapons are what you want. When you see 50 people massacred you would realize what the compelling interest is.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The second amendment says not one thing about a compelling government interest. This is the trouble when judges are free to imagine anything they want. The second amendment gives you only the right to bear arms, and as long as you have an arm to bear that right has been granted in full.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
When the second amendment written over 200 years ago it said you only have a right to bear arms.” That did not grant you the right to all of the guns of the future. It was deliberately left open so the government could control dangerous and deadly weapons. You get only what the “right” specifies and the rest is up to the current government. How do we know that is true? Because restrictions have been put on other dangerous and deadly weapons.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You already know there are deadly and dangerous weapons that are no longer sold in America. If those can be banned others can also be banned.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Preexisting rights are no more than a superstition. It requires that you “believe in a supernatural super hero.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And that is all you have “a right to bear arms” and as long as you have an arm to bear that statement is met in full.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There is only the “right to bear arms” it speaks only of the existence of a well-regulated militia it does not change the fact that you are only granted “a right to bear arms.” That is what you get when you start deciding the case on imaginary restrictive statements.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Assault weapons are the problem and getting them off the streets is the only workable solution possible.
The banning of assault weapons would have stopped many of the the massacres.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
We have far too many right-wing nuts today. If they had the military hardware and thought they could take over government we would be in a constant state of civil war. Gay marriage, there would be a war over that. Abortion, there would be a war over that. Being forced to do business with the entire public instead of just those who obey your local religious cult, there would be a war over that.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You need to talk to the North Hollywood bank robbers about how easy it was to convert semi-automatic weapons to full-automatic assault weapons. Funny, look there is ordinary rifle one minute and a full-automatic assault weapon the next. They could not do that if they were not assault weapons to begin with. The trouble is they are dead but is shows the potential that every semi-automatic in America could be converted to full-automatic.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The automatic assault ban has been successful it is the semi-automatics that need to be banned also.
Again, you can see from the North Hollywood bank robbers that the ban did not stop automatic assault weapons from being on the streets. There were 2,000 rounds fired in that battle and 12 civilians were hit. In the Las Vegas Massacre only 1,000 rounds were fired.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No there is no phobia, they fully realize what guns ownership entails. They are fare less likely to commit suicide, blow their children when they come in late, shoot their neighbors in a neighborhood dispute, one ends up dead the other go prison for life, shooting themselves or their family accidentally, murdering their entire family and committing suicide because they were depressed. Why do you think the gun manufactures stopped the CDC from studying gun violence?

See North Hollywood for registered full-automatics
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
They showed the assault weapons being cut up on YouTube seeing is believing.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Assault weapons are available at the corner gun store and that is where the mass murderers in El Paso and Parkland got their assault weapons.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You are right the second amendment will prevail and you will have an “arm” to bear.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The problem with that is most of America’s population is in the city and suburbs not in rural areas.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/16/2019 at 08:32:25