RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment ***

RE: ***Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment *** (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

butternutsquash -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/9/2013 7:57:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie Didn't you post earlier that if you already have your gun out, the other person is likely to pull theirs out and shoot you before you can pull the trigger? "If you pull a gun on somebody, that person is likely to pull out his own gun and shoot your ass". (Post 1009) Why yes, yes you did. But now the story has changed, and the 2nd person to draw gets shot... And you claim to have proven these contradictory predictions with links to studies, not a single one of which has any singular predictive value. Hmmm. Puny god. Either is likely to be the case simply because moral inhibitions put you at a disadvantage. If you are actually a real live sociopath who lacks respect for human life, you might actually have an advantage if you are carrying a gun. However, if you are such a sociopath, I would personally blow your brains out myself because you are unfit to live. Go take your fucking gun, and blow your brains out, you useless cunt. You are unfit to live. You are a useless asshole who uses brazenly distorted logic to support his bullshit beliefs. You are a liability to the human race, fuckhead.

butternutsquash -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/9/2013 7:58:15 AM)
KILL THE LIBERTARIANS! SHOVE THEM INTO A FURNACE, AND MAKE THEM PAY! SCUM OF THE EARTH! VERMIN!

butternutsquash -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/9/2013 8:19:07 AM)
The kinds of circumstances under which you would actually have a use for a gun are most likely extremely limited. Although you would be glad to have it under those circumstances, it is stupid to carry one of those ridiculous things around on a regular basis. It is simply stupid. It is a liability. If there were an outbreak of rabies in your area, you might want to carry a gun. If your area were struck by a hurricane and there were looters breaking into houses in your area, you might want to have a handgun within reach. If there had been a rash of home-invasions resulting consistently in injury or death to the occupants, having a properly maintained handgun in a touch-pad safe next to your bed might be a good idea. BUT FOR GOD SAKE, DON'T CARRY ONE AROUND WITH YOU EVERYWHERE YOU GO. IT MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE A PARANOID, DANGEROUS FREAK, AND IT DOES MORE HARM TO YOU THAN GOOD. YOU MIGHT BE TOO MENTALLY DEFICIENT TO UNDERSTAND THIS, BUT IT HAPPENS TO BE A FACT. DON'T SLEEP WITH A GUN UNDER YOUR PILLOW OR MATTRESS: IT IS UNNECESSARILY DANGEROUS AND STUPID. Let me repeat it: guns might have their uses. The problem is that there has been a rash of people who are severely uneducated about them, and they have some really stupidly romantic ideas about them. There has been a rash of people who think they are going to be everybody's hero and shoot up the bad guys or something, and they don't seem to understand that this is not how it works in real life. People need to stop living in fantasy-land. I grew up with guns. My father taught me the proper handling and use of a gun when I was a fucking toddler. I am more familiar with the damn things than the majority of human beings. I have a large number of guns in my house, mostly shotguns and rifles and one revolver. However, I would not carry one with me in a high-crime area. It would be a liability. It is something that could be stolen from me and used against an innocent person. I don't have any illusion that I would be able to whip out a gun in time to shoot a mugger: in real life, a mugging is something that happens very very fast, and you are normally too confused and scared to actually react intelligently. You suddenly have a gun pressed into your stomach or kidney as you get out of your car, you are being shoved around violently, the mugger takes what he can, and he runs off into the night. You will not have time to react. On the off chance that you were to reach for your weapon, odds of him shooting you and leaving your body twitching on the ground are a lot higher than the odds of you shooting the bad guy dead and going home covered in glory as some kind of hero out of your stupid macho fantasies. By the way, if you were to shoot a fleeing mugger after being robbed, which you might actually do out of anger, you could be sent to prison for homicide or manslaughter. Being, in your own mind, "the good guy," does not put you above the law. Shooting someone's misguided teenage child when you don't have to is an evil act. Again, a gun is, under most circumstances, a liability. YOU ARE NOT SPECIAL. YOU ARE A DELUSIONAL TWIT. AN IDIOT WITH A GUN IS JUST A BIGGER IDIOT.

HunterCA -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/9/2013 9:17:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: butternutsquash quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA Found your link to a two page report. I didnt look at references. The report stated this: Quality Child Care Cuts Crime Powerful evidence from one study after another proves that high quality care in the first years of life can greatly reduce the risk that today’s babies and toddlers will become tomorrow’s violent teens and adults.1 My question is wouldn't the highest quality child care be a parent at home with the child? Depends on the parent. Some parents are so abusive that the child goes to school mainly to get away from them. quote: I think it's obvious that early care is vitally important for a child. But, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that is what a child gets when raised by a parent rather than a stranger? We've been having strangers half-raise our children since we started putting them through institutionalized formal education. quote: Why are we even considering having strangers raise child? http://www.wral.com/neighbors-rally-for-victims-of-oakwood-home-invasion/12436352/ Because I don't want to find myself taking the charity of strangers after some uneducated vermin break down my door, shoot me through the spine, and gleefully rape my wife as I lie there with the life flowing out of my body. And therein lies the problem with typical liberal thinking. I think we've discovered that having strangers raise kids is a problem, so why do we do in? It's stupid but that is the program now so we continue. I say no, we've determined it fails, we can stop now. We can stop the government monopoly on education. Before the Johnson " Great Society" we didn't have 75 percent illigitamcy rates. We've discovered that sort of social program tears families up. We could stop it now because we know its wrong, but we don't because that's the program now and we can't change. I say bullshit to that. These are perfect examples of social programs that wreck havoc that we should stop and bring about personal responsibility. This is a perfect example where liberals set up programs that devastate and lay waste to the countryside and after they find the devastation and waste all they want to do is more social programs which bring about more devastation. I say we just stop devastating the countryside. Instead of putting little children in government camps we put liberals there so they can feed off each other instead of the rest of society.

butternutsquash -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/9/2013 9:29:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA quote: ORIGINAL: butternutsquash quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA Found your link to a two page report. I didnt look at references. The report stated this: Quality Child Care Cuts Crime Powerful evidence from one study after another proves that high quality care in the first years of life can greatly reduce the risk that today’s babies and toddlers will become tomorrow’s violent teens and adults.1 My question is wouldn't the highest quality child care be a parent at home with the child? Depends on the parent. Some parents are so abusive that the child goes to school mainly to get away from them. quote: I think it's obvious that early care is vitally important for a child. But, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that is what a child gets when raised by a parent rather than a stranger? We've been having strangers half-raise our children since we started putting them through institutionalized formal education. quote: Why are we even considering having strangers raise child? http://www.wral.com/neighbors-rally-for-victims-of-oakwood-home-invasion/12436352/ Because I don't want to find myself taking the charity of strangers after some uneducated vermin break down my door, shoot me through the spine, and gleefully rape my wife as I lie there with the life flowing out of my body. And therein lies the problem with typical liberal thinking. I think we've discovered that having strangers raise kids is a problem, so why do we do in? It's stupid but that is the program now so we continue. I say no, we've determined it fails, we can stop now. I have supplied evidence that you are mistaken. I cannot control whether or not you accept that evidence, but I have done my due. I'm done.

EdBowie -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/9/2013 10:03:20 AM)
Before Johnson implemented the Great Society, the White House commissioned a study that reported a strong predictor of poverty and crime was absentee fathers. When it came time, LBJ made sure that the programs had a penalty for both parents living at the same address. Things that make you go 'Hmmmmmm'. quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA quote: ORIGINAL: butternutsquash quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA Found your link to a two page report. I didnt look at references. The report stated this: Quality Child Care Cuts Crime Powerful evidence from one study after another proves that high quality care in the first years of life can greatly reduce the risk that today’s babies and toddlers will become tomorrow’s violent teens and adults.1 My question is wouldn't the highest quality child care be a parent at home with the child? Depends on the parent. Some parents are so abusive that the child goes to school mainly to get away from them. quote: I think it's obvious that early care is vitally important for a child. But, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that is what a child gets when raised by a parent rather than a stranger? We've been having strangers half-raise our children since we started putting them through institutionalized formal education. quote: Why are we even considering having strangers raise child? http://www.wral.com/neighbors-rally-for-victims-of-oakwood-home-invasion/12436352/ Because I don't want to find myself taking the charity of strangers after some uneducated vermin break down my door, shoot me through the spine, and gleefully rape my wife as I lie there with the life flowing out of my body. And therein lies the problem with typical liberal thinking. I think we've discovered that having strangers raise kids is a problem, so why do we do in? It's stupid but that is the program now so we continue. I say no, we've determined it fails, we can stop now. We can stop the government monopoly on education. Before the Johnson " Great Society" we didn't have 75 percent illigitamcy rates. We've discovered that sort of social program tears families up. We could stop it now because we know its wrong, but we don't because that's the program now and we can't change. I say bullshit to that. These are perfect examples of social programs that wreck havoc that we should stop and bring about personal responsibility. This is a perfect example where liberals set up programs that devastate and lay waste to the countryside and after they find the devastation and waste all they want to do is more social programs which bring about more devastation. I say we just stop devastating the countryside. Instead of putting little children in government camps we put liberals there so they can feed off each other instead of the rest of society.

EdBowie -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/9/2013 10:10:43 AM)
If by 'sociopath', you are referring to the fact that police and military have to overcome the natural reluctance to pull the trigger in a life or death situation, that's true. And, the chances of suicide are greatly increased in my profession, carrying a gun for a living does increase the odds. The chances of you screwing up the courage and crawling out from behind the safety of your Mommy's computer to carry out your threat to kill me or anyone else, are far less than the chances of the studies you keep citing being valid predictors of any single future incident. But keep up the impotent and cowardly bluster, it's almost amusing. quote: ORIGINAL: butternutsquash quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie Didn't you post earlier that if you already have your gun out, the other person is likely to pull theirs out and shoot you before you can pull the trigger? "If you pull a gun on somebody, that person is likely to pull out his own gun and shoot your ass". (Post 1009) Why yes, yes you did. But now the story has changed, and the 2nd person to draw gets shot... And you claim to have proven these contradictory predictions with links to studies, not a single one of which has any singular predictive value. Hmmm. Puny god. Either is likely to be the case simply because moral inhibitions put you at a disadvantage. If you are actually a real live sociopath who lacks respect for human life, you might actually have an advantage if you are carrying a gun. However, if you are such a sociopath, I would personally blow your brains out myself because you are unfit to live. Go take your fucking gun, and blow your brains out, you useless cunt. You are unfit to live. You are a useless asshole who uses brazenly distorted logic to support his bullshit beliefs. You are a liability to the human race, fuckhead.

butternutsquash -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/9/2013 10:13:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie Before Johnson implemented the Great Society, the White House commissioned a study that reported a strong predictor of poverty and crime was absentee fathers. When it came time, LBJ made sure that the programs had a penalty for both parents living at the same address. Things that make you go 'Hmmmmmm'. I'm really not sure what you are getting at, here. A penalty for what? It's not clear what you mean here, but it sounds like some idiotic political demonization that has no basis except in your imagination. Cite where you find this in an actual legislative bill.

Hillwilliam -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/9/2013 10:15:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: butternutsquash . However, if you are such a sociopath, I would personally blow your brains out myself because you are unfit to live. Go take your fucking gun, and blow your brains out, you useless cunt. You are unfit to live. You are a useless asshole who uses brazenly distorted logic to support his bullshit beliefs. You are a liability to the human race, fuckhead. Why is it that this flies but the word "Teabagger" can get one mod spanked?[8\|]

butternutsquash -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/9/2013 10:19:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie If by 'sociopath', you are referring to the fact that police and military have to overcome the natural reluctance to pull the trigger in a life or death situation, that's true. That natural resistance is what makes a gun genuinely either useless or dangerous to most people. As you most likely are aware, a criminal is not as likely to have any such compunction. quote: But keep up the impotent and cowardly bluster, it's almost amusing. Actually, I do it specifically for my own amusement. The point of targeting it at you, in particular, is that I know that you're too thick to actually be affected by it. That's what distinguishes me from a bully.

EdBowie -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/9/2013 10:20:01 AM)
No, you back up your counter assertion by producing a factual link proving that a household on public assistance is rewarded with higher benefits if there is a working father in the household. But you won't, because you are a pathological liar, who is simply trolling for an excuse to yell insults and death threats from behind the safety of their keyboard. quote: ORIGINAL: butternutsquash quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie Before Johnson implemented the Great Society, the White House commissioned a study that reported a strong predictor of poverty and crime was absentee fathers. When it came time, LBJ made sure that the programs had a penalty for both parents living at the same address. Things that make you go 'Hmmmmmm'. I'm really not sure what you are getting at, here. A penalty for what? It's not clear what you mean here, but it sounds like some idiotic political demonization that has no basis except in your imagination. Cite where you find this in an actual legislative bill.

butternutsquash -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/9/2013 10:21:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: butternutsquash . However, if you are such a sociopath, I would personally blow your brains out myself because you are unfit to live. Go take your fucking gun, and blow your brains out, you useless cunt. You are unfit to live. You are a useless asshole who uses brazenly distorted logic to support his bullshit beliefs. You are a liability to the human race, fuckhead. Why is it that this flies but the word "Teabagger" can get one mod spanked?[8\|] HAHAHA! THIS IS AN UNMODERATED DISCUSSION! The rules spelt out at the top were highly specific, and I am taking them for a lovely, lovely joy-ride.

HunterCA -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/9/2013 10:29:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: butternutsquash quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA quote: ORIGINAL: butternutsquash quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA And therein lies the problem with typical liberal thinking. I think we've discovered that having strangers raise kids is a problem, so why do we do in? It's stupid but that is the program now so we continue. I say no, we've determined it fails, we can stop now. I have supplied evidence that you are mistaken. I cannot control whether or not you accept that evidence, but I have done my due. I'm done. No, what you've done is to amply demonstrate that liberal socialist crap feel good policies have layed waste to our society and that delusional liberal idiots want to continue with liberal socialist crap feel good policies to try and fix it instead of just simply admitting they were wrong in the first place. And frankly, god help the nutsackers try to get that agenda through.

EdBowie -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/9/2013 10:38:49 AM)
Quite specifically. So murder isn't an illegal activity on your planet? quote: ORIGINAL: butternutsquash quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: butternutsquash . However, if you are such a sociopath, I would personally blow your brains out myself because you are unfit to live. Go take your fucking gun, and blow your brains out, you useless cunt. You are unfit to live. You are a useless asshole who uses brazenly distorted logic to support his bullshit beliefs. You are a liability to the human race, fuckhead. Why is it that this flies but the word "Teabagger" can get one mod spanked?[8\|] HAHAHA! THIS IS AN UNMODERATED DISCUSSION! The rules spelt out at the top were highly specific, and I am taking them for a lovely, lovely joy-ride.

Hillwilliam -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/9/2013 10:52:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: butternutsquash quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: butternutsquash . However, if you are such a sociopath, I would personally blow your brains out myself because you are unfit to live. Go take your fucking gun, and blow your brains out, you useless cunt. You are unfit to live. You are a useless asshole who uses brazenly distorted logic to support his bullshit beliefs. You are a liability to the human race, fuckhead. Why is it that this flies but the word "Teabagger" can get one mod spanked?[8\|] HAHAHA! THIS IS AN UNMODERATED DISCUSSION! The rules spelt out at the top were highly specific, and I am taking them for a lovely, lovely joy-ride. Self Defense to 2nd Amendment and will be unmoderated with the following exceptions: 1. Illegal activities - Learn to fucking read junior.

butternutsquash -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/9/2013 11:00:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie No, you back up your counter assertion by producing a factual link proving that a household on public assistance is rewarded with higher benefits if there is a working father in the household. So you are talking about some kind of public assistance program issued under LBJ. It's kind of hard to make a counter-assertion, though, because it's unclear to me what you are actually talking about. I did a Google search, and I eventually found an article that sounds vaguely like it addresses what you are talking about. http://www.theroot.com/articles/politics/2011/06/welfare_myths_white_house_seeks_to_debunk_ones_about_fathers.html I am not an expert on welfare policy, though. In fact, whether you believe it or not, I actually have a pretty spartan idea of what constitutes good welfare policy. As someone who has actually slept outside in subfreezing weather and lived for long periods without central heating, I am very skeptical of the idea that a single, non-disabled adult under 60 actually needs an insulated residence equipped with full climate control or three square meals a day. For them, I think we should bring back workhouses. Married couples and especially neonates are a different matter. quote: who is simply trolling for an excuse to yell insults and death threats from behind the safety of their keyboard. I'm actually every bit as arrogant in real life as I am from behind a keyboard. Look, dude, you said that you found my raging to be amusing. Obviously, you were bluffing, so I'm going to just cool the afterburners.

butternutsquash -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/9/2013 11:03:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie Quite specifically. So murder isn't an illegal activity on your planet? quote: ORIGINAL: butternutsquash quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: butternutsquash . However, if you are such a sociopath, I would personally blow your brains out myself because you are unfit to live. Go take your fucking gun, and blow your brains out, you useless cunt. You are unfit to live. You are a useless asshole who uses brazenly distorted logic to support his bullshit beliefs. You are a liability to the human race, fuckhead. Why is it that this flies but the word "Teabagger" can get one mod spanked?[8\|] HAHAHA! THIS IS AN UNMODERATED DISCUSSION! The rules spelt out at the top were highly specific, and I am taking them for a lovely, lovely joy-ride. It was obviously a brazenly empty quasi-threat intended for rhetoric. You have validated this in your own responses.

butternutsquash -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/9/2013 11:14:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Learn to fucking read junior. There is nothing illegal about hurling empty threats over the Internet, dick. It's also pretty clear that they are intended for rhetorical purposes. http://www.justanswer.com/criminal-law/6ce6u-someone-gives-verbal-death-threat-offense.html Quite frankly, I have been on a lot of different forums before, and one of the most idiotic things about them is that we're not allowed to scream verbal abuse at people who really are lying assholes, and nothing is ever done about the lying assholes. They provoke you to the point that you finally tell them that they are full of shit, then they report you, and then you're banned, leaving the asshole in place. Nobody ever quite comprehends that putting in reports to the moderators when you don't get your way is a sleazy and cowardly way of handling things. Therefore, forums remain full of nothing but utter retards, and the discussion remains counter-productive. Now, I have a chance to tell these kinds of shitheads exactly what I think of them and their mothers, and I am going to milk this shit for everything it's worth.

Hillwilliam -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/9/2013 11:25:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: butternutsquash quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Learn to fucking read junior. There is nothing illegal about hurling empty threats over the Internet, dick. It's also pretty clear that they are intended for rhetorical purposes. http://www.justanswer.com/criminal-law/6ce6u-someone-gives-verbal-death-threat-offense.html Once again, you're full of shit. http://www.examiner.com/article/threatening-people-over-the-internet-is-illegal By the way, that's Federal law with a penalty of 1-5. Use of the internet to threaten “the person of another” constitutes a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875 ( interstate communication of threat to injure) If it is communicated interstate, federal jurisdiction is created. As you're in the US, (Charlotte to be exact) it applies. Of course as you just admitted it's just empty threats, that just makes you another self-admitted young blowhard typing from mama's basement.

butternutsquash -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/9/2013 12:35:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: butternutsquash quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Learn to fucking read junior. There is nothing illegal about hurling empty threats over the Internet, dick. It's also pretty clear that they are intended for rhetorical purposes. http://www.justanswer.com/criminal-law/6ce6u-someone-gives-verbal-death-threat-offense.html Once again, you're full of shit. http://www.examiner.com/article/threatening-people-over-the-internet-is-illegal By the way, that's Federal law with a penalty of 1-5. Use of the internet to threaten “the person of another” constitutes a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875 ( interstate communication of threat to injure) If it is communicated interstate, federal jurisdiction is created. As you're in the US, (Charlotte to be exact) it applies. Of course as you just admitted it's just empty threats, that just makes you another self-admitted young blowhard typing from mama's basement. It was obviously not serious in its intent, so you really don't have a leg to stand on, there. http://statutes.laws.com/north-carolina/Chapter_14/GS_14-277_1 There has to be reasonable suspicion on the part of the person hearing the threat that it might actually be carried out. I have no way of knowing the place of residence of anyone here, and the person that I was addressing has already stated clearly his belief that I am unlikely to carry it out. You have to read the full law. Legally, my remarks here easily fall under the category of protected speech. If the person I was talking to hadn't scoffed, it might have been a different story but still probably not. And "mama's basement"? Dude, you're really desperate.

Page: << < prev 57 58 [59] 60 61 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625