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 1:02:52 PM)
And also, I am the only person in the last several pages who has been providing scientific evidence for his claims. Citing John Lott, who is a proven hack and utterly discredited, doesn't count as "scientific evidence," so I have truly been running a one-man show, here. I have brought some legitimacy to this fucking discussion to offset the bullshit and the lies. If you don't like the fact that your side has been getting their asses handed to them, then that's your problem, asshole. The wonderful thing about an unmoderated discussion is that you can tell an asshole that he is an asshole. You can tell a washed-up, old fuckhead who is trying to use a gun as a prosthetic to compensate for his shrinking penis a washed-up, old fuckhead who is trying to use a gun as a prosthetic to compensate for his shrinking penis. This shit is wonderful. This fully offsets years of frustration. This is the best thing that has happened for my mental health in years and years.

EdBowie -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/9/2013 1:03:16 PM)
If you are a mod or admin, as some people suspect, then you've got every way of finding my real name and email address.... While I doubt your courage for a face to face confrontation, I don't doubt for a second that your 'I'm above the law' attitude plus being coddled here wouldn't encourage to you act out some harmful fantasies in real life, given a chance. quote: ORIGINAL: butternutsquash 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.

EdBowie -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/9/2013 1:06:43 PM)
More lies. You are not the only person here who has cited research from peer reviewed criminological journals that has been thoroughly vetted and replicated. quote: ORIGINAL: butternutsquash And also, I am the only person in the last several pages who has been providing scientific evidence for his claims. Citing John Lott, who is a proven hack and utterly discredited, doesn't count as "scientific evidence," so I have truly been running a one-man show, here. I have brought some legitimacy to this fucking discussion to offset the bullshit and the lies. If you don't like the fact that your side has been getting their asses handed to them, then that's your problem, asshole. The wonderful thing about an unmoderated discussion is that you can tell an asshole that he is an asshole. You can tell a washed-up, old fuckhead who is trying to use a gun as a prosthetic to compensate for his shrinking penis a washed-up, old fuckhead who is trying to use a gun as a prosthetic to compensate for his shrinking penis. This shit is wonderful. This fully offsets years of frustration. This is the best thing that has happened for my mental health in years and years.

butternutsquash -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/9/2013 1:24:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie More lies. You are not the only person here who has cited research from peer reviewed criminological journals that has been thoroughly vetted and replicated. quote: ORIGINAL: butternutsquash And also, I am the only person in the last several pages who has been providing scientific evidence for his claims. Citing John Lott, who is a proven hack and utterly discredited, doesn't count as "scientific evidence," so I have truly been running a one-man show, here. I have brought some legitimacy to this fucking discussion to offset the bullshit and the lies. If you don't like the fact that your side has been getting their asses handed to them, then that's your problem, asshole. The wonderful thing about an unmoderated discussion is that you can tell an asshole that he is an asshole. You can tell a washed-up, old fuckhead who is trying to use a gun as a prosthetic to compensate for his shrinking penis a washed-up, old fuckhead who is trying to use a gun as a prosthetic to compensate for his shrinking penis. This shit is wonderful. This fully offsets years of frustration. This is the best thing that has happened for my mental health in years and years. You ain't got shit, and you don't want the truth. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/gun_violence_research_nra_and_congress_blocked_gun_control_studies_at_cdc.html However, I am a strong believer in education. I truly believe in the power of the individual who goes into the world armed with legitimate knowledge. I think that it trumps all other means of resolving any problem.

Yachtie -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/9/2013 1:33:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: butternutsquash However, I am a strong believer in education. [8\|] [sm=popcorn.gif] Really?

BamaD -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/9/2013 1:53:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: butternutsquash quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: butternutsquash quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD I don't suppose this has occurred to you but once you are in a mugging you are totally involved, and to base your actions on the assumed good intention of the criminal is tantamount to suicide, but to each their own. "Good intentions" is your term. What I am saying is that, if someone is holding you up with a gun, he most likely doesn't want to kill you, or you would already be dead. He wants your money. If you do something to make him panic or the gun goes off by accident while you're struggling, congratulations: you're dead, and all you've accomplished is to ruin the asshole's day by becoming an item on his rap sheet. Most of the time, if you are being held at gunpoint or knifepoint by an armed robber, the robber's intent is to 1) get something in the deal and 2) get away as quickly as possible. If the thug thinks you are wasting his time, he might kill you just so he can get away quicker. The vermin is simply not worth your time, and he's certainly not worth your life. Like if you don't carry any money. And no matter how you spin it you are arguing to depend on a lack of malice on his part. Victimhood is not a plan it's what you get when the plan fails. LOOK. IF YOU PULL A GUN ON SOMEONE WHO ALREADY HAS A GUN TRAINED ON YOU, THE MOTHERFUCKER IS GOING TO SHOOT YOU. WHAT PART OF THIS DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND, YOU FUCKING RETARDED MORON? YOU ARE FUCKING DENSE. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17922-carrying-a-gun-increases-risk-of-getting-shot-and-killed.html#.Un4yXvnDyQw REALITY HAS NEVER BEEN ON YOUR SIDE HERE. YOU HAVE SPENT YOUR LIFE BELIEVING SHIT. REALITY IS THAT YOUR OWN KID IS MORE LIKELY TO BE KILLED, YOU DUMB SHIT. http://news.discovery.com/human/life/more-guns-in-us-homes-more-kids-getting-shot-131026.htm IT IS NOT THAT YOU ARE REALLY THIS STUPID. YOU ARE JUST AN ASSHOLE. You ever hear of situational awareness? It keeps you from being in the helpless situation that you assume will always happen. I Have taught half a dozen kids firearms safety none of whom have done anything unsafe with a firearm. Your profanity only proclaims your ignorance.

BamaD -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/9/2013 1:59:36 PM)
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. If the parents live together they are disqualified for much of the help, my sister ran up against this.

HunterCA -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/9/2013 1:59:59 PM)
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 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. I do have to agree with this. But, butternutsquash, LBJ did two large pieces of legislation. He did the Civil Rights stuff and he implemented the "Great Society". Liberals call Roosevelt's social security crap the first leg, the Great Society the second leg and when they get socialized medicine it will be the third leg. What the Great Society actually did was create all of the ghettos of the 80's and 90's and totally destroyed the black family structure by making welfare rules that penalized intact families. So all of the studies you cite about kids not being raised properly are a product of 60's era social welfare programs. What nutsackers want is to admit we erred and get rid of that horrible legislation and replace it with something that works and what liberals want, and you have been espousing is to fix the problems old social welfare programs created with new social welfare programs. For instance your head start shit that raises kids for parents who don't want to be bothered.

BamaD -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/9/2013 2:03:03 PM)
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. I have noticed that moments you seem lucid followed by absurd rants, this only makes sense if your dad goes away from the computer and you start typing.

BamaD -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/9/2013 2:07:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: butternutsquash 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. Of course there is no chance you would carry out your threats, most of the people you threatened would simply remove you from the gene pool.

HunterCA -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/9/2013 2:17:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: butternutsquash And also, I am the only person in the last several pages who has been providing scientific evidence for his claims. Citing John Lott, who is a proven hack and utterly discredited, doesn't count as "scientific evidence," so I have truly been running a one-man show, here. I have brought some legitimacy to this fucking discussion to offset the bullshit and the lies. If you don't like the fact that your side has been getting their asses handed to them, then that's your problem, asshole. The wonderful thing about an unmoderated discussion is that you can tell an asshole that he is an asshole. You can tell a washed-up, old fuckhead who is trying to use a gun as a prosthetic to compensate for his shrinking penis a washed-up, old fuckhead who is trying to use a gun as a prosthetic to compensate for his shrinking penis. This shit is wonderful. This fully offsets years of frustration. This is the best thing that has happened for my mental health in years and years. Actually, everything you say here is not true. You see, as with most liberals, your study authors believe that all bad actions of people are the result of economic injustice or prejudice. So they consider any study that doesn't weight for those factors to be invalid. They also take that prejudice into their study and actually unbalance their data with those prejudices. Hence, your guys didn't like Lott because he didnt weigh his findings with crack cocaine sales. Crack being the double liberal thing because it tends to be a black inner city thing. But, and as a person trained in science I can assure you, observing facts, correlating them and reporting them is actually scientific and that is what Lott did. What your guys did was then take that information and add their bullshit bias. In fact, if you go back to some of your original posts that was the sort of thing you bitched about. You bitched it didn't weigh law enforcement dollars available and other such bullshit. The funny thing is, people like me have been saying for years at least the politically correct socialist assholes can only operate in the liberal arts and they can't affect science which is based in observable facts. But lately, that wis becoming wrong. There's now a great deal of pressure in the hard sciences to become politically correct. It's being argued to them to ignore any science that disputes the politically correct theory...as was prevalent in both the Soviet Union and Mao's china. So, you don't even realize when you cop this whole I've study these thighs for a long time attitude that you've been studying junk science meant to produce the desired outcome. We really aren't impressed with that science. I prefer my science to be observable and duplicatable.

HunterCA -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/9/2013 2:18:50 PM)
Or, in other words butterscotch, you haven't been running the whole show, you've been one of Stalins useful idiots running a side show.

HunterCA -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/9/2013 2:23:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: butternutsquash quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie More lies. You are not the only person here who has cited research from peer reviewed criminological journals that has been thoroughly vetted and replicated. quote: ORIGINAL: butternutsquash And also, I am the only person in the last several pages who has been providing scientific evidence for his claims. Citing John Lott, who is a proven hack and utterly discredited, doesn't count as "scientific evidence," so I have truly been running a one-man show, here. I have brought some legitimacy to this fucking discussion to offset the bullshit and the lies. If you don't like the fact that your side has been getting their asses handed to them, then that's your problem, asshole. The wonderful thing about an unmoderated discussion is that you can tell an asshole that he is an asshole. You can tell a washed-up, old fuckhead who is trying to use a gun as a prosthetic to compensate for his shrinking penis a washed-up, old fuckhead who is trying to use a gun as a prosthetic to compensate for his shrinking penis. This shit is wonderful. This fully offsets years of frustration. This is the best thing that has happened for my mental health in years and years. You ain't got shit, and you don't want the truth. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/12/gun_violence_research_nra_and_congress_blocked_gun_control_studies_at_cdc.html However, I am a strong believer in education. I truly believe in the power of the individual who goes into the world armed with legitimate knowledge. I think that it trumps all other means of resolving any problem. Don't even tell me you are quoting something from Slate...jees lord help this person.

butternutsquash -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/9/2013 2:40:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You ever hear of situational awareness? It keeps you from being in the helpless situation that you assume will always happen. http://www.uwplatt.edu/~wiegmake/Intro_Files/CJ%20-%20paper%20example.pdf quote: I Have taught half a dozen kids firearms safety none of whom have done anything unsafe with a firearm. http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/public/2013/08/12/concealed-carry-accidental-shooting.html quote: Your profanity only proclaims your ignorance. http://www.debate.org/opinions/are-people-who-swear-more-honest

HunterCA -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/9/2013 2:47:03 PM)
Rachel Maddow thinks Slate is way too biased and leftist.

butternutsquash -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/9/2013 2:54:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA You see, as with most liberals, your study authors believe that all bad actions of people are the result of economic injustice or prejudice. Nothing in the university studies that I have cited here, except for those that supported early childhood education, said anything about socioeconomic standing.

HunterCA -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/9/2013 3:01:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: butternutsquash quote: ORIGINAL: HunterCA You see, as with most liberals, your study authors believe that all bad actions of people are the result of economic injustice or prejudice. Nothing in the university studies that I have cited here, except for those that supported early childhood education, said anything about socioeconomic standing. The gun studies you posted that you said trumped Lott was completely socioeconomic. Didnt you read them?

butternutsquash -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/9/2013 3:15:36 PM)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014481889800012X http://www.nasponline.org/resources/crisis_safety/Youth_Gun_Violence_Fact_Sheet.pdf I have argued with you all I'm going to, having gotten behind on my work. It has been an enjoyable discussion, though, and thank you for your input. Goodbye.

Yachtie -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/9/2013 3:22:30 PM)
Interesting debate on Concealed carry laws decrease crime, if anyone is interested.

HunterCA -> RE: *Unmoderated Gun rights debate - Self Defense to 2nd Amendment * (11/9/2013 3:39:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: butternutsquash http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S014481889800012X http://www.nasponline.org/resources/crisis_safety/Youth_Gun_Violence_Fact_Sheet.pdf I have argued with you all I'm going to, having gotten behind on my work. It has been an enjoyable discussion, though, and thank you for your input. Goodbye. Enjoyed it as well butternutsquash. See you around.

Page: << < prev 58 59 [60] 61 62 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625