DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on January 12, 2013, 09:10:28 PM
-
Ben Shapiro Exposes Piers Morgan in Gun Control Interview - 1/10/13 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObNC4bXTDf0#ws)
-
All we need to do is to control guns the way the Swiss do.
Have a national registry of both gun owners and people who are diagnosed as too nutty to be trusted.
Remove all guns from the households of the insane.
Require that all ammo bought at a gun range be used on that same day at that same gun range.
Breitbart is an idiot, and a dead one.
Who gives a shit what his goons say?
-
Bullying from on top of the graves of the Sandy Hook children.
Gun Control freaks need to man up and amend the constitution. All the rest is just posing.
-
All we need to do is to control guns the way the Swiss do.
Issue military grade assault rifles to almost everyone?
You could talk me into that if you tryed.
-
Breitbart is an idiot, and a dead one.
Are you that desperate to feel the need to point out that Andrew Breitbart the
founder of Breitbart.com passed away....as if that is in any way connected to the subject
of this thread?
Who gives a shit what his goons say?
Oh I suppose about 2 million people a month do....since Breitbart.com reaches over 2.1 million monthly.
http://www.quantcast.com/breitbart.com (http://www.quantcast.com/breitbart.com)
-
Saw it......almost felt sorry for Piers.........almost
-
I bet Spongebob has Dumbart beat.
The popularity of some political nut does not prove he is right. Two million in a nation of 310 million does not sound that impressive. Hitler got a higher percentage when he ran for Chancellor, and Jimmy Carter did even better than that.
Lenin, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, even Pol Pot all had many fans.
-
As does Obama
-
While you do not seem to have any.
Certainly more people voted for Prsodent Obama than have ever listened to breitbart, so if popularity is your criteria, then breibart loses.
You have been hoisted upon your own petard.
Enjoy the view.
-
While you do not seem to have any.
I've got plenty, thank you very much. But more to the point, as you can see, your effort to link Breibert to anyone everyone bad, simply because they had "fans", can be turned right around on your fella
Certainly more people voted for Prsodent Obama than have ever listened to breitbart, so if popularity is your criteria, then breibart loses.
Since Breibert never ran for president, it never was. But those other folks you referenced, "kinda did", in their own ways. You know, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot. So, I guess your fella has more in common with them than Breibert ever did
You have been hoisted upon your own petard. Enjoy the view.
Right back atcha 8)
-
Surrender Your Guns_ Surrender Your FREEDOM_ _Don_t let history repeat itself. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiS7m2TRUKs#ws)
-
The popularity of some political nut does not prove he is right.
Nice change of the subject...but of course you had to
when I destroyed your earlier premise
"who gives a shit what his goons say"
when I showed MILLIONS do!
-
Stupid gun nuts.
They are more a threat to our liberty than confiscating each and every one of their toys would be.
Not that anyone will do that, but still. The more guns are in the country, the more people will be shot with guns.
-
The more guns are in the country, the more people will be shot with guns.
This cannot be a fact .
Suppose we disarmed the policemen , there would be hundreds of thousands less guns and very likly more shooting maliciously.
This should sound rediculous to you as it does to me , so why does disarming all the responsible people in the country sound rediculous to me and not to you?
-
touche', Plane
-
(http://westernrifleshooters.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/150685_536915816327863_442418347_n.jpg?w=500)
-
Yeah, right.
Any day not the same thing is sure to happen in Canada, Australia, Spain and Norway.
Gun nuts are paranoid.
-
No, just constitutionally protected
-
And raving paranoid.
-
Yeah, right.
Any day not the same thing is sure to happen in Canada, Australia, Spain and Norway.
Gun nuts are paranoid.
Do you consider Russia or Germany nor even Turkey were uncivilised at the time of these great massacres?
What is there about the USA that makes a great massacre impossible?
I also note that you include Spain in you list of countrys where large scale killing seems unlikely, but didn't Spain suffer a devestating war in the thirtys , that was a dress rehersal of WWII?
Paranoia is supposed to be unreasonable or exaggerated fealing of threat, but what have we got that these people didn't have preceding their periods of suffering?
-
Spain had a Civil War from 1936 to 1939. The right wing (royalists, church, fascists) and a renegade part of the army, along with Moroccan colonial mercenaries, attacked the democratically elected government of the Republic. The Spanish Civil War was about a lot of things, but it was NOT about gun control. There were elements of the armed forces and the police on both sides and there were plenty of guns. The Nazi and Italian Fascists had a major air force and better tanks and that is why they won.
It is pretty close to impossible that another civil war could occur in Spain today.
The NRA gun nuts may have a few assault rifles and millions of pistols, but they could never defeat the weapons that the US government has today: drones, cruise missiles, RPGs, heat rays, sleeping gas and lots of other stuff. No group of civilians is going to beat the US military with puny rifles and pistols. You are living in a dream world if you think so.
-
The assumption that US military personnel would raise arms against their fellow citizens is not a lock.
-
Spain had a Civil War from 1936 to 1939........................................
It is pretty close to impossible that another civil war could occur in Spain today.
Why?
Have they learned something in particular since then?
Fascism and Communism took over pretty modern and civilised countrys.
-
The NRA gun nuts may have a few assault rifles and millions of pistols, but they could never defeat the weapons that the US government has today: drones, cruise missiles, RPGs, heat rays, sleeping gas and lots of other stuff. No group of civilians is going to beat the US military with puny rifles and pistols. You are living in a dream world if you think so.
Oh really?
You are the one living in a dream world.
Look at history....it is full of stronger wills defeating superior military hardware.
The Vietnamese "won" against a much stronger, better equipped American military, the Taliban will probably "win" against a much stronger better equipped American military, the Syrian rebels have held their own against a much stronger better equipped military of Assad, even the warlords in Somalia faired pretty well against a stronger better equipped US military. Go see "Blackhawk Down"! The US had to muster everything it had to deal with a much less well equipped enemy in Iraq after Saddam was removed. Relative military power is hardly a reliable predictor of war outcomes. Mujahideen in Afghanistan handed the Soviet Union military defeat. The Israelis with a much stronger military were basically forced to leave Lebanon. Hell the United States was founded upon a weaker military declaring independence from a stronger military. Of course the weaker enemy in all the above cases was not totally unarmed, but the point is they did not have nearly the military resources but still won.
-
Actually, WWII taught a whole lot of people a lot of lessons. The EU would have been unimaginable in 1939. The end of colonialism would have been opposed by nearly every country at that time.
The Constitution does not say there is a ban on registering guns. The declared purpose it to keep a"well regulated militia". I suggest that no militia of any sort can be regulated, well or otherwise, unless you know who is actually a member of it and what their arms are.
Again, it is really really stupid to believe that a ragtag mob of clowns with pistols and tricked out rifles have any chance of overthrowing the government. At most, they could scurry off to Galt's Gulch or somewhere like that and pretend to be partisans until the drones found them.
The military has a gas that can put everyone to sleep. The Russians used it in that Moscow theater against a bunch of Chechen kidnappers. Your puny NRA has no hope of doing more against the government or any other invader for more than a few rather comical hours.
If you like the muy macho feeling that all this crap gives you, there are now TWO versions of "Red Dawn" that you can watch, in which the Nicaraguans and then the North Korean invaders are defeated.
There are many really stupid people in the unregulated phony militia of gun nuts. Watching them strut and blather is rather like enjoying the antics of your choice trio of Shemp, Moe, Curly Joe, Joe and Larry.
Russia in 1917 was not any sort of modern or civilized country. Germany and Italy were cast into bankruptcy by WWI. The set of circumstances that caused the Fascist and Communist takeovers were unique to their times.
The closest thing to the Fascists in this country are the Teabaggers, a bunch of morons so stupid they are unaware that they are simply being used by the Kochs and other parts of the Oligarchy.
-
Hell the United States was founded upon a weaker military declaring independence from a stronger military. Of course the weaker enemy in all the above cases was not totally unarmed, but the point is they did not have nearly the military resources but still won.
==========================================================
Wave your flag, toot your horn, but the actual fact is that the American Revolution was won when the French blockaded Yorktown and trapped Cornwallis.
George Washington would be the first to admit that.
The civil war that you seem to carve between the citizens of the US and its government would not be a case of invaders vs. the citizens. Everyone fighting would be a citizen.
Observe that the Confederacy LOST their war defending their home turf and "peculiar institution".
I do not see even a remote possibility that such a conflict will ever take place.
I propose you buy a couple of six packs and watch BOTH versions of "Red Dawn" until your silly macho bellicose urges subside. It can't be doing you any good.
-
The Constitution says the THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP and BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. And the Supreme court has validated that.
Registering every weapon so that the Federal Government knows precisely who owns one is the foot in the door for subsequent confiscation, and would have NOT prevented what happened at Sandy Hook. You may want a bloodless coup if the Government ever goes Stalinisque, but with the 2nd amendment, that won't happen, regardless of how better armed the military is. And as Bt referenced, I doubt very seriously the military is simply going to take orders and start gunning down its own citizens.
And then, there's that obsession with you and strutting. Really, what's that all about? :o
-
Really, what's that all about?
========================
Watching you strut.
It is really quite humorous.
Like watching Shemp enter stage right with a very long plank.
Like watching Larry wheel out a rack of pies.
-
Hmmmm....so you've been stalking me, "watching me" strut? I guess its a good thing I'm armed
-
I did not mean the guns of the police, of course.
However, if there were zero guns, no one would ever be shot with a gun.
There are no Romulan disruptors , and behold that no one has ever been shot with a Romulan disruptor, even if they are the most pusillanimous Faelirh ch'susse-thrai.
I would not bother to watch sirs do anything. His strutting is obvious from the silly stuff he posts.
-
Ahhh, it's the ol "obvious" tactic. When unable to support claim, insert "obvious". That 99% wrong just keeps getting higher and higher. How does one "strut" on the internet?? :o Oh wait, is this one of those things, like code words, that only hard core liberals can decipher?? Merely owning a gun is tantamount to "strutting"? Again, this obsession you have with strutting, is indeed fascinating
-
Hmmmm....so you've been stalking me, "watching me" strut? I guess its a good thing I'm armed
SIRS....it is looking more and more like that XO just may have a "man crush" on you!
The dude is obsessed with you!
-
Constant jabbering about your stupid sidearms and how you "choose" to carry it about is verbal strutting, so far as I am concerned.
You are not threatened by anyone here, nor are you defending any right by constantly blathering about how cool you are to run about with a gun. It's like a neck tattoo. Dumb, useless and silly, and not even ornamental. On the contrary.
-
Constant jabbering about your stupid sidearms and how you "choose" to carry it about is verbal strutting, so far as I am concerned.
Well, thank you for your concern. Fact is however I don't go around "jabbering about stupid sidearms" or that I'm legally able to carry one. "Strutting" is far more analogus to someone wanting others to be impressed with them, like a lot of hollywood celebs or certain liberal professors. I have no such mandate, nor do I claim to be "cool" in exercising a legal right. Nor does anyone outside of my immediate family know I have a CCW, so hardly some fella wanting to impress everyone else that I carry. You folks know, only because you don't know where I live or who I am. But your erroneous concern is duly noted, as is your fascination with strutting
-
I did not mean the guns of the police, of course.
However, if there were zero guns, no one would ever be shot with a gun.
There are no Romulan disruptors , and behold that no one has ever been shot with a Romulan disruptor, even if they are the most pusillanimous Faelirh ch'susse-thrai.
I would not bother to watch sirs do anything. His strutting is obvious from the silly stuff he posts.
Guns have been with us for a long time.
But murder did not grow more common when guns were introduced , back when .
With fewer guns , but no fewer murderers, there would be just as much violent death, at least.
But if all the reduction in guns was from the hands of the responsible and sober , and none of the reduction was from the hands of the malicious and crazy, then fewer guns could very well cause a greater number of shootings.
-
The murder rate is declining, mostly because the population is aging. The number of massacres, however, is rising.
You can speculate about some faraway place in the Land of Nevernever where guns are like magic wands and we all ride pink flying unicorns, but the more guns there are, the more likely it is that some crazed nutcase, like the Sandy Hill guy will grab a gun and go a-hunting.
I don't think that a lot can come of legislation that will stop the massacres, but I do think we could do more. The idea that somehow gun nuts owning more and more guns will make us safer is ridiculous. Eventually, the gun nut dies and the guns are still quite deadly and could end up in the hands of mass murderers.
When several of the dolts on my block get drunk on July 4th and New Years, they think it is fun to go outside and shoot off their guns. If there were fewer guns and/or ammo were expensive, they would not do this.
-
The murder rate is declining, mostly because the population is aging. The number of massacres, however, is rising.
You can speculate about some faraway place in the Land of Nevernever where guns are like magic wands and we all ride pink flying unicorns, but the more guns there are, the more likely it is that some crazed nutcase, like the Sandy Hill guy will grab a gun and go a-hunting.
I don't think that a lot can come of legislation that will stop the massacres, but I do think we could do more. The idea that somehow gun nuts owning more and more guns will make us safer is ridiculous. Eventually, the gun nut dies and the guns are still quite deadly and could end up in the hands of mass murderers.
When several of the dolts on my block get drunk on July 4th and New Years, they think it is fun to go outside and shoot off their guns. If there were fewer guns and/or ammo were expensive, they would not do this.
No matter how well you might craft a law, your neighborhood dolts will have their guns.
-
Judging by the increase of gun sales nationwide, the mere talk of restrictive gun laws is producing results opposite of the stated goals.
-
Judging by the increase of gun sales nationwide, the mere talk of restrictive gun laws is producing results opposite of the stated goals.
If the stated goal is saving lives , and if having more responsible people armed saves lives, then the goal can be reached via a trip through the Antipodes.
-
I was just checking out Turner Sporting goods. Never felt the need to do it before. Now.....its's different
-
I suppose that many gun nuts fascinated with their trendy assault rifles figure that they can have TWO of these and register only ONE,and then when the evil mini Hitlers come to take it away, they will still have one left to stroke and get off on.
The number of gun owners and the number of NRA members is not really growing. What is happening seems to be that the same gun nuts are stockpiling weapons, as though TWO assault rifles will make them twice as safe and perhaps they can overthrow the tyrannical government twice as easily.
It is just basic math. Even chimpanzees know that two is twice as much as one. When you get up to distinguishing four from five, it is higher math for most of the lower primates.
-
Wow....talk about paranoia :o
-
So remind me.....during Fast and Furious.
Did Obama make the Mexican drug cartels get universal
background checks before giving them their guns?
-
IIRC, that would be a no
-
I suppose that many gun nuts fascinated with their trendy assault rifles figure that they can have TOW of these...........................
Man a TOW would be a lot of fun , but the ammo is prohibitively expensive.
TOW Missile vs. T-72 Tank (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUMxZ34Ptco#)