Remember me
▼ Content

Venus is hotter than Mercury?!?



Page 12 of 12<<<101112
13-08-2019 00:19
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Answer these questions:
1) Are you claiming that no Mexican criminals have come to the US?
2) Are you claiming that there aren't any Mexican rapists that have come to the US?
3) Are you claiming that NONE of the Mexicans that come to the US are good people?
Please, be honest and answer these.

1- No, stupid question, humans have criminals among them everywhere so that statement has no meaning
2- Same answer
3- Same answer

Just as I thought. You are in complete agreement with Trump, and then bash him as if he had said something he didn't say.

Somebody sure did a number on you.

tmiddles wrote: Are you claiming he's not preaching that Mexicans bring MORE crime than average?

Trump has never addressed this but the data sure bear this out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDdkkTLCUUQ&t=199s

tmiddles wrote: That it represents an increase in crime to have immigrants coming it?

As it turns out, yes. Am I now a racist for pointing this out?

tmiddles wrote: So according to Trump many countries owe us money going back many years for NATO:

Many countries are in arrears.

tmiddles wrote: Go ahead. Should they allow guns in bars?

Who are "they"?

In any event, the right of We the People to bear arms shall not be infringed.

tmiddles wrote:You don't think security has prevented violence? They fail once and security is pointless?

You EVADED the question. The answer is a number.

How many of the deaths in Florida did the bouncers prevent?

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-08-2019 05:10
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
And of course the court determines what is constitutional so you'd accept their interpretation over your own?

WRONG. No court has the authority to interpret or change the Constitution of the United States. See Article III of that document.


Am I correct in understanding that you think the court should not alter or distort the constitution in any way but follow it. By interpret I meant follow it/ read it's meaning. There are situations where there are conflicts between principles within the Constitution (not the constitutions fault) but you need a "Judge" quite literally to parse things sometimes.
13-08-2019 05:46
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Are you claiming he's not preaching that Mexicans bring MORE crime than average?

Trump has never addressed this but the data sure bear this out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDdkkTLCUUQ&t=199s


We were talking about Mexicans not illegal immigrants. In fact TRUMP was talking about Mexicans too. "Mexico does not send their finest" If he meant "illegal immigrants" he could have said that. Did he mean Russian Mafia too?

So is the crime rate higher for Mexican immigrants? Valid data set please.


IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: So according to Trump many countries owe us money going back many years for NATO:

Many countries are in arrears.


Which ones and how much? Valid data set please

IBdaMann wrote:
You EVADED the question. The answer is a number.
How many of the deaths in Florida did the bouncers prevent?
.


How many deaths were prevented by not allowing people into bars with weapons?

Really?

You want a number?

No different than saying "It doesn't really matter that we have police", "How many crimes aren't committed because we have police? I want a number"

I supposed we need a valid data set too? Maybe we should call people who weren't stabbed by the knives that weren't in the bar to follow up? Be extra sure.
13-08-2019 14:05
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
tmiddles wrote:How many deaths were prevented by not allowing people into bars with weapons?

No.

How many of the shooting deaths in the Florida bar were prevented by the bouncers?

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-08-2019 14:15
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:How many deaths were prevented by not allowing people into bars with weapons?

No.

How many of the shooting deaths in the Florida bar were prevented by the bouncers?

.


Oh! ha ha OK that's a real question. I was like WTF???

As you know there was an armed security guard, an off duty cop, who exchanged gunfire with the shooter right away, with more cops arriving in the first 5 minutes.

I guess the attacker won? But it was a shootout with guns.

Not some guy with a billy club blowing a whistle as he's gunned down.

All of the attackers guns were legal.

I'm sure if more lethal weapons were legal he would have had them.
13-08-2019 15:22
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
tmiddles wrote:As you know there was an armed security guard,

... who did not prevent any of the 49 deaths.

tmiddles wrote: an off duty cop, who exchanged gunfire with the shooter right away, with more cops arriving in the first 5 minutes.


From CNN pseudo-reporting: Mateen carried an assault rifle and a pistol into the packed Pulse club about 2 a.m. Sunday and started shooting, killing 49 people and wounding at least 53, officials said. After a standoff of about three hours, while people trapped inside the club desperately called and messaged friends and relatives, police crashed into the building with an armored vehicle and stun grenades and killed Mateen.


tmiddles wrote: I guess the attacker won? But it was a shootout with guns.

Nope. Read the above reporting. It was a crowd of defenseless people armed only with their cell phones desperately texting versus one, single criminal. If those people had had guns along with their cell phones, there would not have been the 49 deaths.

One more time, to close out your point, if guns had been allowed in that bar, 49 people who are now dead would be alive, and 53 people who were injured, would not have been injured.

Ergo, yes, guns should be allowed in bars *or* you don't value human life. Which one is it?


tmiddles wrote: All of the attackers guns were legal.

Irrelevant. All of the victims' defenselessness was mandatory.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-08-2019 18:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
And of course the court determines what is constitutional so you'd accept their interpretation over your own?

WRONG. No court has the authority to interpret or change the Constitution of the United States. See Article III of that document.


Am I correct in understanding that you think the court should not alter or distort the constitution in any way but follow it.

They are REQUIRED to follow it. They have absolute NO authority over it.
tmiddles wrote:
By interpret I meant follow it/ read it's meaning.

They do not have authority to 'read it's meaning'. They do not have the authority to interpret the Constitution. See Article III of that document.
tmiddles wrote:
There are situations where there are conflicts between principles within the Constitution (not the constitutions fault) but you need a "Judge" quite literally to parse things sometimes.

No judge has that authority. See Article III of the Constitution of the United States.


The Parrot Killer
13-08-2019 18:51
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Are you claiming he's not preaching that Mexicans bring MORE crime than average?

Trump has never addressed this but the data sure bear this out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDdkkTLCUUQ&t=199s


We were talking about Mexicans not illegal immigrants. In fact TRUMP was talking about Mexicans too. "Mexico does not send their finest" If he meant "illegal immigrants" he could have said that. Did he mean Russian Mafia too?

So is the crime rate higher for Mexican immigrants? Valid data set please.


IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: So according to Trump many countries owe us money going back many years for NATO:

Many countries are in arrears.


Which ones and how much? Valid data set please

IBdaMann wrote:
You EVADED the question. The answer is a number.
How many of the deaths in Florida did the bouncers prevent?
.


How many deaths were prevented by not allowing people into bars with weapons?

Really?

You want a number?

No different than saying "It doesn't really matter that we have police", "How many crimes aren't committed because we have police? I want a number"

I supposed we need a valid data set too? Maybe we should call people who weren't stabbed by the knives that weren't in the bar to follow up? Be extra sure.


A reasonable request. He wants a number. Provide it.


The Parrot Killer
13-08-2019 18:52
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8697)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:How many deaths were prevented by not allowing people into bars with weapons?

No.

How many of the shooting deaths in the Florida bar were prevented by the bouncers?

.


Oh! ha ha OK that's a real question. I was like WTF???

As you know there was an armed security guard, an off duty cop, who exchanged gunfire with the shooter right away, with more cops arriving in the first 5 minutes.

I guess the attacker won? But it was a shootout with guns.

Not some guy with a billy club blowing a whistle as he's gunned down.

All of the attackers guns were legal.

I'm sure if more lethal weapons were legal he would have had them.


Why do you think criminals care what weapon is 'legal'?

ALL weapons are legal!


The Parrot Killer
14-08-2019 00:11
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
Into the Night wrote:

Why do you think criminals care what weapon is 'legal'?

ALL weapons are legal!


The classic unlimited powers of the criminal argument of the NRA. And yet all of these mass shootings involve legal guns. Bump stocks instead of real machine guns and so on. The proof is in the news. Making things illegal is effective.p
14-08-2019 03:12
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
tmiddles wrote:The classic unlimited powers of the criminal argument of the NRA.

So you're a "blame the NRA for the problems I cause" kind d of guy. Interesting.

tmiddles wrote:And yet all of these mass shootings involve legal guns.


Nope. All of these mass shootings involve defenseless victims.

tmiddles wrote:Making things illegal is effective.p

Nope. Making more defenselessness zones will effectively increase the incidence of mass shootings. You have to hate human life to want that.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-08-2019 03:18
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
IBdaMann wrote:
So you're a "blame the NRA for the problems I cause" kind d of guy.


The NRA doesn't always say stupid nonsense. The notion that criminals can get any gun regardless of what's illegal is stupid though.

Omar Mateen had exactly the arsenal we made legal as a country, nothing more.
14-08-2019 05:56
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
tmiddles wrote: The notion that criminals can get any gun regardless of what's illegal is stupid though.

... because you think the 2nd Amendment is a stupid notion ... which is rather un-American of you.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-08-2019 06:16
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: The notion that criminals can get any gun regardless of what's illegal is stupid though.

... because you think the 2nd Amendment is a stupid notion ... which is rather un-American of you.


I think a simple shotgun is ideal for home defense and a poor choice for a mass murderer.

Outlawing weapons based on their potential to serve a mass murderer or kill police is good policy.

Hopefully nonlethal weapons will continue to develop. It's very easy to imagine there could be something more effective than a gun to stop someone.
14-08-2019 06:27
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1326)
tmiddles wrote:I think a simple shotgun is ideal for home defense


For who's home? Yours? Mine? IBdaMann's? ITN's?

Ever seen inside a cop car? Quite an arsenal in there, a weapon for each situation and it is the cops choice of weapon to best handle the threat he/she was called upon to neutralize or eliminate.

As a law abiding citizen of sound mind, why do you think I should only be allowed the shotgun that you think is best for my property?


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
Edited on 14-08-2019 06:28
14-08-2019 06:34
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
tmiddles wrote:I think a simple shotgun is ideal for home defense and a poor choice for a mass murderer.

So you recognize the subjective nature of "preference" for self defense purposes, hence the need for each individual to make his or her own determination as to what is needed ... or should the government mandate my order at a restaurant?

tmiddles wrote:Outlawing weapons based on their potential to serve a mass murderer or kill police is good policy.

Mandating the defenselessness of We the People by outlawing the firearms We the People determine we need is a very bad policy ... akin to creating defenselessness zones and increasing the incidence of mass shootings.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-08-2019 06:46
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1326)
tmiddles wrote:I think a simple shotgun is ideal for home defense


Gosh, I forgot to ask a few questions about shotgun home defense...

1 is there a length limit on my shotgun? Sawed off to any length?

2 what's the max number of shells allowed?

3 Can I use slugs?

4 Can I use buckshot?

5 What choke is allowed?

6 How many ounces of power are allowed?

7 Are reloads acceptable within you loading guidelines?

8 Are scopes legal or only open sights?

9 Is lead shot OK or do I need to use steel shot over open water?

10 My kid really loves cracking off 3 1/2 inchers. Are these legal in self defense
or will we need to stick to standard 2 3/4?

11 How much powder is legal in each shell?

12 Are rapid fire modifications going to be legal?

13 Who will enforce your shotgun guidelines?


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
14-08-2019 06:51
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
GasGuzzler wrote:
As a law abiding citizen of sound mind, why do you think I should only be allowed the shotgun that you think is best for my property?


IBdaMann wrote:
Mandating the defenselessness of We the People by outlawing the firearms We the People determine we need


And should you be allowed a gatlin gun? RPG? Armor piercing bullets so a cops bullet proof vest won't save them?

You all pretend at this but you don't actually spell out what regulation you thing there ought to be. No regulations is insane to most people (sudanese warlords excepted).

No regulations at all? OK someone wants a tank.

Do you realize how defenseless you are against a tank with all the favorite guns in the world?

3 min video of stolen tank rampage, 1995. Just the driving around is devastation everyone is helpless to stop.
https://youtu.be/XnUoUKEIGoo

First comment is great!:
If every American had a tank then this wouldn't happen.

This is the problem when guys like you are used as the poster children for climate denial. You are in favor of insane policies that get people killed so why would someone trust your opinion on any government policy?

Denial of proven stats (murder rates correlating with guns in a country) and adamant that no matter what the government shouldn't be allowed to do anything.
14-08-2019 06:52
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
GasGuzzler wrote:
tmiddles wrote:I think a simple shotgun is ideal for home defense


Gosh, I forgot to ask a few questions about shotgun home defense...

1 is there a length limit on my shotgun? Sawed off to any length?

2 what's the max number of shells allowed?

3 Can I use slugs?

4 Can I use buckshot?

5 What choke is allowed?

6 How many ounces of power are allowed?

7 Are reloads acceptable within you loading guidelines?

8 Are scopes legal or only open sights?

9 Is lead shot OK or do I need to use steel shot over open water?

10 My kid really loves cracking off 3 1/2 inchers. Are these legal in self defense
or will we need to stick to standard 2 3/4?

11 How much powder is legal in each shell?

12 Are rapid fire modifications going to be legal?

13 Who will enforce your shotgun guidelines?


What if you coat your shot/slugs in rat poison (an anticoagulant) to ensure your targets bleed to death if you don't kill them outright, might you have to pay a fine?

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-08-2019 06:56
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1326)
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
tmiddles wrote:I think a simple shotgun is ideal for home defense


Gosh, I forgot to ask a few questions about shotgun home defense...

1 is there a length limit on my shotgun? Sawed off to any length?

2 what's the max number of shells allowed?

3 Can I use slugs?

4 Can I use buckshot?

5 What choke is allowed?

6 How many ounces of power are allowed?

7 Are reloads acceptable within you loading guidelines?

8 Are scopes legal or only open sights?

9 Is lead shot OK or do I need to use steel shot over open water?

10 My kid really loves cracking off 3 1/2 inchers. Are these legal in self defense
or will we need to stick to standard 2 3/4?

11 How much powder is legal in each shell?

12 Are rapid fire modifications going to be legal?

13 Who will enforce your shotgun guidelines?


What if you coat your shot/slugs in rat poison (an anticoagulant) to ensure your targets bleed to death if you don't kill them outright, might you have to pay a fine?

.


Excellent question.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
14-08-2019 06:58
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
12 Are rapid fire modifications going to be legal?

What if you coat your shot/slugs in rat poison (an anticoagulant) to ensure your targets bleed to death


I think you should go to prison for that. Self defense does not entitle you to torture or murder anyone unnecessarily.

So did George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin seem like gun policy paying off?
14-08-2019 07:01
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1326)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
As a law abiding citizen of sound mind, why do you think I should only be allowed the shotgun that you think is best for my property?


IBdaMann wrote:
Mandating the defenselessness of We the People by outlawing the firearms We the People determine we need


And should you be allowed a gatlin gun? RPG? Armor piercing bullets so a cops bullet proof vest won't save them?

You all pretend at this but you don't actually spell out what regulation you thing there ought to be. No regulations is insane to most people (sudanese warlords excepted).

.

No regulations at all? OK someone wants a tank.

Do you realize how defenseless you are against a tank with all the favorite guns in the world?

3 min video of stolen tank rampage, 1995. Just the driving around is devastation everyone is helpless to stop.
https://youtu.be/XnUoUKEIGoo

First comment is great!:
If every American had a tank then this wouldn't happen.

This is the problem when guys like you are used as the poster children for climate denial. You are in favor of insane policies that get people killed so why would someone trust your opinion on any government policy?

Denial of proven stats (murder rates correlating with guns in a country) and adamant that no matter what the government shouldn't be allowed to do anything.

Hey, don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

However, just not a lot of tank assaults on the streets lately, so for my home, my family, my budget, I will decide what best suites me and my layout.

When there is an uptick in cannon fire, then I will decide if I need an upgrade


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
Edited on 14-08-2019 07:02
14-08-2019 07:06
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
GasGuzzler wrote:not a lot of tank assaults on the streets lately,


Not a lot of attacks with any weapon that's not legal.
14-08-2019 07:09
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1326)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:not a lot of tank assaults on the streets lately,


Not a lot of attacks with any weapon that's not legal.


I'll tell you the same thing I tell my kids.

Don't give me a problem, I got plenty of those. Give me a solution.

What's yours? Spell it out. You want every gun gone?

You gonna take my kids air gun too? He dropped a duck off our pond last fall at 75 yards. I witnessed it...and helped him eat it.
He could kill you with a well place shot with it.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
Edited on 14-08-2019 07:14
14-08-2019 07:16
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1326)
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:not a lot of tank assaults on the streets lately,


Not a lot of attacks with any weapon that's not legal.


...but I missed a better point here. Making a few or all weapons illegal doesn't solve a damn thing.

I will believe you when all the cocaine is off the streets. That shit is illegal too ya know.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
14-08-2019 07:23
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
GasGuzzler wrote:
What's your? Spell it out. You want every gun gone?


Guns that are well suited to defending against a single intruder/attacker are different from guns designed for offense against a crowd or assault team.

Handguns, long guns, shotguns, and single shot anything where the risk of bullets going through walls is mitigated should be legal.

Machine guns, high capacity magazines, armor piercing rounds and explosives should be illegal.

I also realize how passionate many people are about having a gun. These tend to be people who are political opponents but I have no desire to antagonize anyone.

It would just be too painful for many in the country if guns were illegal.

I think the need is emotional and philosophical more than practical but I don't believe in having laws beyond what's truly important.

There should be a very high bar to what the government is allowed to prohibit.
14-08-2019 07:24
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
GasGuzzler wrote:
I will believe you when all the cocaine is off the streets. That shit is illegal too ya know.


I think if guns were totally illegal there would be plenty because people love them so much.

But since you get to have a lot of guns the enthusiast can live without a machine gun or RPG.

The criminal has to settle for what the marketplace has supplied so those illegal guns aren't to be had.
14-08-2019 15:00
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
tmiddles wrote:So did George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin seem like gun policy paying off?

George Zimmerman was not required to be defenseless in the face of a violent criminal.

So did Trayvon Martin attacking George Zimmerman with intent to kill seem like something you want to protect?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-08-2019 15:19
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
tmiddles wrote: I think if guns were totally illegal there would be plenty because people love them so much.

That's how you can recognize the hoplophobes and the gun cravens ... they cannot address the topic rationally, they need to speak in terms of others "loving their guns" and "clinging to their guns."

tmiddles wrote: But since you get to have a lot of guns the enthusiast can live without a machine gun or RPG.

Once again, your incapacitating fear of firearms gives you away. When you pretend to speak about what others "need" or "don't need" you aren't telling us anything about others ... you are speaking volumes about yourself. You are broadcasting what you fear, which turns out to be law abiding citizens who happen to have the inanimate objects you irrationally fear.

tmiddles wrote: The criminal has to settle for what the marketplace has supplied so those illegal guns aren't to be had.

This is the tell-tale sign of your irrational fear. You lash out at law abiding citizens for the actions of criminals, and your intense sense of helplessness to stop criminals manifests itself in the form of a fear of inanimate objects which, in your mind, become symbols of criminals. You then treat law abiding citizens who have firearms as criminals who need to be regulated and monitored and confined to where they can be watched.

Of course you treat the NRA, who advocates that law abiding citizens be treated as law abiding citizens, as some sleazy defense attorney for the obviously guilty.

Somebody really did a number on you.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-08-2019 02:45
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
IBdaMann wrote: they cannot address the topic rationally, they need to speak in terms of others "loving their guns" and "clinging to their guns."
.


The constant fear of home invasion burglary and zombie apocalypse do look silly from the outside. All while people also die from their own guns.



But I don't think it's that important honestly.

Those who are deathly afraid of guns need to relax too.

It's reasonable for people to have a gun for protection.
I do believe the 2nd amendment was written in view of a government keeping it's populace defenseless (against the government) as England tried to do. But that's not what the amendment says and it should be respected.
If people want to get the 2nd amendment repealed that's what they should have to do to make all guns illegal. I would consider that to be a really obnoxious attack on 1/2 the country by the other 1/2. I would actively oppose it.

It is very important to keep the law confined to guns appropriate to self defense and hunting without including weapons that pose an undue threat in the hands of a mass murderer, those who want to attack police and so on.

No armor piercing bullets, no bazookas, no tanks.
15-08-2019 04:31
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
tmiddles wrote:It is very important to keep the law confined to guns appropriate to self defense and hunting without including weapons that pose an undue threat in the hands of a mass murderer, those who want to attack police and so on.

No armor piercing bullets, no bazookas, no tanks.

This is an entirely reasonable concern and it is completely appropriate for a community to engage in a discussion about preventing crime/atrocities/violence.

With that in mind, it is not the place of the law to prevent criminal activity but rather to define it and to enable the administration of justice. Prevention can only occur from human activity and it befalls on the community to decide how they want to effect such, e.g. establish neighborhood watch, hire security patrols, pay more in taxes for greater police presence, conspicuous surveillance cameras, etc... A big item on that list is for people to be armed and to be responsible for deterrence and for their own defense ... one of the reasons encapsulated in the 2nd Amendment.

As for the law, that is the place for the people to express which crime they abhor by increasing penalties for the commission of those crimes. If you are banning firearms from law abiding citizens then you are inappropriately using the law in the manner of a tyrannical government.

The answer is to delineate the concerns, e.g. use of armor piercing bullets, bazookas or tanks in the commission of a crime, and to define a penalty fitting for the act. That way you can criminalize and punish what you abhor without going Stalin on law abiding citizens.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-08-2019 04:52
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
IBdaMann wrote:
The answer is to delineate the concerns, e.g. use of armor piercing bullets, bazookas or tanks in the commission of a crime,


Yes that is key it should be based on reality.

I can make jokes about RPGs because there aren't any.

I know full well if you banned all guns in the country tomorrow in short order criminals would have a huge advantage as guns would be easy to get and law abiding citizens would then be easy to overpower.

Stricter bans might works in some countries, the UK, because it's really hard to get a gun, and not in other, Venezuela, because it's not.

Any ideal someone has has to be considered in view of reality. Government policy on vehicle emissions, privacty laws, all of it.
15-08-2019 05:06
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4328)
tmiddles wrote: I can make jokes about RPGs because there aren't any.

Role-playing games went out of fashion a couple of decades back. Penalties for playing them definitely should be increased.

tmiddles wrote: Stricter bans might works in some countries, the UK, because it's really hard to get a gun, and not in other, Venezuela, because it's not.

Stricter bans can work in those countries because those people don't strive to American exceptionalism. They don't have America's Bill of Rights. They exist at the pleasure of their governments. They ask permission from the government to exist.

We Americans don't put up with that chit. The government exists to serve We the People.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-08-2019 05:20
tmiddles
★★★☆☆
(666)
IBdaMann wrote:
Stricter bans can work in those countries because those people don't strive to American exceptionalism.


I recommend an Amazon show PATRIOT in which, (I'm not ruining anything) at one point the guy needs to get a gun in France, it's pretty funny and I think based at least in part on reality.
Page 12 of 12<<<101112





Join the debate Venus is hotter than Mercury?!?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Is Venus Relevant to Earth?3723-07-2019 04:32
Medieval warm period was way hotter than today's climate. 1 C hotter globally. So why IPCC do not ack019-04-2019 16:33
Why Americans Might Never Notice Climate Change's Hotter Weather2212-03-2019 23:21
The hotter the classroom, the lower the test scores, research finds106-03-2019 21:58
You can't heat a hotter surface using a colder gas.6703-09-2017 10:18
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact