Allegro.cc - Online Community
Post Reply

Allegro.cc Forums » Allegro.cc Comments » Thread locks too soon

rss feed Print
Thread locks too soon
Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

Reply 2800! Time to start a new page! Enough of guns and politics already.

raynebc
Member #11,908
May 2010

bamccaig said:

Sources please.

The estimated number of defensive uses even outweighs the criminal use of guns. From what I can find, the full report is behind a paywall, but it's easily found referenced by third parties:
https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/15941-cdc-study-ordered-by-obama-contradicts-white-house-anti-gun-narrative

I'm not religious, but your atheist jab is dumb and unnecessary.

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

Wow. What did I miss. :o :o :o

Let's all calm down and agree that abortion should be illegal!

;D

Also, fun gun fact (didn't we already discuss this in THIS thread?): Most guns in the USA are actually owned by a few rich collectors. Just like most TIGERS IN THE WORLD are actually in captivity... in Texas.

https://www.care2.com/causes/theres-more-captive-tigers-in-texas-than-in-the-wild.html

But you don't hear every day about "OMG, we need TIGER CONTROL because the streets run red with the blood of tiger claws."

It's a luxury good. A collectors item.

Most crimes are commited with SMALL ARMS because ... they're easy to hide. (Durr, really?) Meanwhile, all this legislation deals with "assault weapons" because the entire liberal gun control platform is "OMG, guns are scary." Which is also why the entire assault weapons ban had an "unmeasurable impact on crime" and yet liberals are trying to bring it back! You know, after this thing called "science" showed it had no impact. They would rather feel like they're making an impact than actually make an impact. Science deniers!

I'd vote liberal if they didn't have insane policies regarding guns, freedom of speech, and immigration. ::) I'm 100% pro-environment and pollution controls, and 100% for regulation of important industries, pro-gay-marriage, pro-weed. But every damn day, I have to wake up to headlines of some liberal jack!@# telling us that that someone is a "nazi enabler" for telling a joke, or grandstanding a bunch of kids in front of a camera to toke our heart strings.

Rule 1 in politics: If someone has a kid on camera, they're !@#! manipulating you. Because if they had the high ground, they wouldn't need the kid.

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

Rule 1 in politics: If someone has a kid on camera, they're !@#! manipulating you.

{"name":"fist-pump-baby-lets.png","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/b\/8\/b8c8877a9638e4df2a90813a3c56bb0e.png","w":476,"h":314,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/b\/8\/b8c8877a9638e4df2a90813a3c56bb0e"}fist-pump-baby-lets.png

If nobody owned guns, no one would need to own a gun to defend themself. :P

If people weren't stupid whores, nobody would need abortions.

If wages were fair unions wouldn't be necessary.

Etc...

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

I think you'd agree that if everybody had tigers we'd need to pass laws to regulate them. I'm assuming that wasn't really an argument, and just an interesting anecdote. If there was constant maulings and killings involving tigers we'd consider banning them. Honestly, we probably should anyway because it's not a redeeming life for the animal in captivity. They might as well be extinct if their only way to survive is in small enclosures or cages being spoon fed already dead meat. They may technically be alive, but that doesn't mean they're living.

I don't think science can quite be used to properly assess the harm that guns cause to a society. The scientific method doesn't really apply to society because you cannot control the variables. It doesn't even apply to the human body because for the most part you cannot control the variables. There's always too much going on. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't still try to do science on these things, but you have to be very disciplined in interpreting the results. You can never be certain of anything, but you can conclude that there's a chance of this or that. Basically, every study has to recommend further studies. Talk about a cash cow. But still, well thought out studies are still beneficial. You might not know what is, but sometimes you can still know what is not.

As for gun control, it's not about taking guns away from law abiding citizens. It's about limiting the availability of guns for criminals. I'm not talking about the liberal agenda. I'm talking about what should be done. Fuck the politics. I'm talking real world practical value. And the easiest and perhaps only practical way to do that is to limit the availability of guns for everyone. If you have any other ideas to limit the availability of guns for criminals then I'm listening and I'm sure any other sensible people would listen. You can't deny that there's a problem when nearly every criminal in America has easy access to guns. The odds of encountering such crime are relatively low in middle class neighborhoods, but still probably higher than you're comfortable with, but it's getting so that only the elite can afford to be middle class, and there are still millions and millions of people in the lower classes that have to live amongst this all day every day. The laws shouldn't just protect the wealthy. They should protect the poor too. And while there's a lot of crime in poverty and therefore there's justification for self-defense, I'd rather you tried to address poverty instead by re-balancing the system so that there was less poverty, less crime, and no more need for everybody to own guns. If you want to play with guns then allow licensed gun clubs with strict security to permit day trips or something. There's no need to bring them home.

Regarding insane liberals, the question really is does the Democrat party and its representatives align with the insane politics of the liberals from the Internet. I'd like to hope that they don't, but I also don't trust Clinton to do anything good. Maybe the next go around you can have Sanders instead and then maybe it would be a sane choice. The funny thing is they had somebody that was sane and most people liked him and instead they gave Clinton the choice. If that's not sabotage/conspiracy I don't know what is.

Append:

Unwanted pregnancies can happen to healthy couples too. There's absolutely nothing wrong with an abortion. Even a newborn baby has no idea what's going on. A painless death at that age (or preferably, 6 months earlier when the "baby" is just a blob) is completely humane to the baby. The only remaining question is the mental health of the parents. And women are insane when it comes to babies. The death of a baby before birth is still crippling to women. There's a valid justification to warn against mental health concerns, but you can still give women and couples (and men!) the choice. Some women or couples may be crippled by the abortion, while others would be perfectly happy and healthy. You could spare a lot of people a terrible life if you just allow their existence to be terminated before it ever begins. Some people are not meant to be parents (or sometimes, just not yet). You shouldn't force them to be just because biology that we can control didn't turn out as they planned.

raynebc
Member #11,908
May 2010

If nobody owned guns, no one would need to own a gun to defend themself.

People that are physically weak or not super proficient in self defense can justifiably need a weapon to protect themselves, even from an unarmed attacker. Even expert fighters will freely admit (and I've heard this in interviews) that they can't expect to reliably fend off a group of attackers with just their bare hands. You're thinking in idealistic terms instead of realistic ones.

bamccaig said:

There's no need to bring them home.

If you can't keep the gun on you, you can't use it for self defense. Your argument seems to favor disallowing the people the means to protect themselves and forcing them to rely on government for protection, even though it cannot be fully counted on. I see this as immoral.

Quote:

There's absolutely nothing wrong with an abortion.

About half the USA disagrees with you. It's no less a human life just because it is inconvenient. I don't buy the argument that just because somebody would have a hard life, it's better for them to have never been allowed to live at all.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

raynebc said:

If you can't keep the gun on you, you can't use it for self defense. Your argument seems to favor disallowing the people the means to protect themselves and forcing them to rely on government for protection, even though it cannot be fully counted on. I see this as immoral.

The point is this is motherfucking 2018. You shouldn't need to walk around with a gun on your hip to be safe. If you do, check your motherfucking society for errors because something is seriously, seriously wrong. Fix society. Guns on your hip is not a solution to the problem. Solve it in a better way. Not everybody can even possibly be proficient with a gun. That's a copout just so you can play with guns, and the rest of the world knows it.

raynebc said:

About half the USA disagrees with you. It's no less a human life just because it is inconvenient. I don't buy the argument that just because somebody would have a hard life, it's better for them to have never been allowed to live at all.

What makes human life special? I assume you have no problem squishing a mosquito or spider (albeit, I try to preserve spiders, but the ones we have here can't seriously harm us).

Append:

Also at what point does it become human life? I slaughter about a billion sperm every month. Is it human life as soon as a sperm attaches to the egg? Does it need to resemble a human, or can it be an alien form nobody would recognize? Should it breath and pump blood on its own, or should it rely on its mother for that still?

l j
Member #10,584
January 2009
avatar

"It's CURRENT_YEAR" is not an argument.

Aaron Bolyard
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

wow I don't agree with a party 100% so I'm not going to vote for them

how juvenile

Guns and abortions are relatively tiny issues. The law is clear on abortion anyway since Roe v Wade and the numerous others; amend the constitution if you want to change it. Re: guns, fight Democrat legislation until it reaches the Supreme Court or whatever. If it's unconstitutional it'll be struck down. (Well, normally it would be, but who knows anymore).

Seriously Democrats suck but they suck in the same way that stubbing your toe sucks, while the Republicans are like you getting a flesh eating disease from cutting your finger. Oh, did you know whataboutism is a Russian propaganda technique? OoooOoooOOOOooh.

I'm further to the left than Noam Chomsky and I'll still be voting straight Democrat. The Democrat Party isn't compromised by Russia and/or colluding so there's that.

Eric Johnson
Member #14,841
January 2013
avatar

Remember when this thread was about threads locking too soon? :P

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

You do all realize all we've done with this thread is prove Matthew right. :P

He knows he doesn't have to do anything, and that his world is perfect just the way it is. :P

@bamccaig

video

raynebc
Member #11,908
May 2010

bamccaig said:

You shouldn't need to walk around with a gun on your hip to be safe.

Edgar took the point to a more extreme position than even you did. He said people don't need to have guns even in their own home. People shouldn't HAVE to have special protection, but the world isn't perfect. The reason some places are dangerous enough that people could need to carry weapons are because of too much crime and not enough policing in some areas of the country.

Quote:

Not everybody can even possibly be proficient with a gun.

Of course some people have ailments or disabilities and won't have the needed mental or physical capability, but most people can be proficient with guns, all it takes is training.

Quote:

What makes human life special?

We are capable of high level, rational thought. Mosquitos are pests that spread disease to hundreds of species. I used to kill spiders, but I don't bother with them anymore as there aren't any truly dangerous varieties of them where I live.

Quote:

Also at what point does it become human life?

Biologically, when the sperm fertilizes an embryo. My pro-life stance is "pragmatic" enough that I don't abhor contraceptives because they still prevent the beginning of an actual pregnancy (the fertilized embryo implants into the uterus). The addition of special requirements to be considered life is foolish. Humans, as with many animals, require substantial care for years after they are born and are not capable of keeping themselves alive.

Aaron's got his tinfoil Russia hat. It's always fun to see crazy partisans.

Eric Johnson
Member #14,841
January 2013
avatar

raynebc said:

The reason some places are dangerous enough that people could need to carry weapons are because of too much crime and not enough policing in some areas of the country.

That's basically every big city. I never go to New Orleans without a weapon for this very reason.

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

Raynebc said:

Edgar took the point to a more extreme position than even you did. He said people don't need to have guns even in their own home. People shouldn't HAVE to have special protection, but the world isn't perfect. The reason some places are dangerous enough that people could need to carry weapons are because of too much crime and not enough policing in some areas of the country.

I don't know about you, but the idea that people are walking around with concealed weapons bothers me. Piss off the wrong person, and BLAM, you're a goner. Background checks are not enough. Training is not enough. Why should I have to carry a gun around just to feel 'safe'? I've received death threats before, and they were by people who had easy access to guns, who said they were going to use one to kill me with. I was stalked and harassed. I never knew who did it, because they did it all under the cover of night. Nothing the police could do about it because I didn't know who it was for sure. I have a pretty damn good idea who was involved, but I couldn't prove anything. For years, I was afraid to leave the house. I was in a crippled mental state, living in fear. We own guns in our household, but what was I supposed to do? Start carrying a gun with me all the time, everywhere I go? That's no way to live.

The point is, I shouldn't have to worry about nutjobs with guns. And the only way to do that is to keep the guns out of their hands. And that means tighter controls on being able to own and carry firearms, and harsher penalties for those who commit crimes using guns. It means we need more resources to combat gangs and thugs. It means we need to do a better job patrolling our borders to keep illegal guns out of our country. At this point, I'm almost in favor of Trump's border wall.

The solution is less guns, not more. :P

raynebc
Member #11,908
May 2010

I don't know about you, but the idea that people are walking around with concealed weapons bothers me.

I'm not bothered by it. Most gun owners are not criminals and there are statistics showing concealed gun carriers are generally among the most law abiding demographic. Lawful gun owners are not a threat. It seems that your personal experiences have made you more fearful and cynical than most, but you having the means to protect yourself may have improved your mental wellbeing. It needn't have been a gun, but other self defense items have their limitations. More guns have not been shown to increase crime, so I don't see the justification to ban them. As I alluded before, the populace being armed is a bigger good than evil.

All things considered, if somebody is always hugely afraid to leave the house, they may be legitimately under that much of a threat, or they may need counseling.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

video

raynebc said:

The reason some places are dangerous enough that people could need to carry weapons are because of too much crime and not enough policing in some areas of the country.

Police do not prevent crime. They merely punish the few offenders they can catch. If you have a crime problem you cannot solve it with police. Police will just produce more crime because instead of rehabilitating people they ruin people's lives. And when your life is ruined there's not much point behaving after that. If society doesn't care about you anymore what reason do you have to care about society?

The reason there's a lot of crime in certain areas is poverty (or wealth, but that's a different kind of crime). America does not distribute its wealth fairly. Everybody knows that. The rich get richer while the poor get poorer. You can work hard, but you need to be wealthy already to be guaranteed a chance at success. Many people work hard and it gets them nowhere. The system isn't designed for every American to be able to get ahead. It doesn't work that away. It won't work that way in capitalism. It can't. One man's great success depends on 20 other men's exploitation.

America has the problem that there are more people able and willing to work than there are good jobs. A lot of places have that problem, but its exacerbated in America due to its geographical size, population, demographics, and history. We suffer some of that in Canada too, and its getting worse. I'm not quite sure why, but I'd be inclined to blame the government turning its back on Canadians to fatten its own pockets. Basically taking a page out of the American government's play book.

Make no mistake, you could quadruple the number of police, but the problem will just get worse. If you want to solve the crime problem you have to have compassion and be willing to help the people that are desperate enough to commit crime.

raynebc said:

Of course some people have ailments or disabilities and won't have the needed mental or physical capability, but most people can be proficient with guns, all it takes is training.

Most people don't have the time to be proficient with guns, can't afford the training (or the guns, or ammo, for that matter), and also don't care to. They just want to live peacefully, have families, and enjoy the bits of life that matter. Before you have children its easy to feel like you're just some kind of awesome soldier and all you need is guns and you can defend yourself from anything, but once you start considering having children that all changes. You realize just how fragile your family is and the last thing you want is to introduce any additional risk into the mix. The world you describe is a world where raising a family would be pretty risky. Families are so much more vulnerable.

You cannot possibly protect every member of your family at all times unless you keep them all locked in a box. And that's no way to live. About 15 years ago I would have sounded a lot like you. But then I grew up. I don't mean that condescendingly. We all experience life in different ways. What I came to realize is that ultimately what will make me happy is having a family, and if I were to hypothetically involve gunfights into the mix then it will end in one of two ways: either I kill the attacker, and his friends/family/gang will learn who I am and possibly seek revenge on me or my extended family so we're never safe, or I only scare/wound him and the attacker himself could eventually come back or get out of prison or call in a hit from prison and the same story. My family is not actually safe. Just because I happen to stop somebody once with a gun doesn't mean I'm safe forever. In fact, it could be just the start of my problems. I prefer to seek out a world in which I don't have to defend myself with a gun. A world in which nobody has reason to target my family. And try to rely on society to curb crime instead of violent police so that we can limit the number of families that do have to put up with that terror.

raynebc said:

We are capable of high level, rational thought.

We are, but fetuses are not. Certainly there would be a point where the fetus begins to develop some kind of thought, but it's impossible to know when and how intelligent it gets. Nobody really remembers birth, and it usually takes a couple of years of development and nurture to achieve a level of recognizable intelligence. Ultimately, humans come into the world stupid, and intelligence develops over time. That's why we require approximately 20 years before we mature, whereas most other species mature in a matter of months or years. Intelligence takes time.

Many other animals appear capable of high level, rational thought. Whales, dolphins, elephants, dogs, crows, octopuses, etc. We don't seem to hesitate to kill them when the ends justify the means. Similarly, if it were a matter of terminating an animal pregnancy nobody would even question it.

That's basically every big city. I never go to New Orleans without a weapon for this very reason.

How many times have you visited New Orleans?
How many times have you visited armed versus unarmed?
How many times have you used your gun in New Orleans for self-defense?

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

wow I don't agree with a party 100% so I'm not going to vote for them

how juvenile

I will never vote for someone who tries to ban art. End of story.

Quote:

The Democrat Party isn't compromised by Russia and/or colluding so there's that.

Yeah, but they are compromised by China. So there's that. ;D

You think I'm kidding, but nope:

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/1996_United_States_campaign_finance_controversy

Read every word of that article because it's damn important.

"That's back in 1996!" they'll say. Yeah, and here's 2018:

One of Senator Diane Feinstein's direct staffers (possibly exposed to classified information) was... a Chinese spy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/explain-the-chinese-spy-sen-feinstein/2018/08/09/0560ca60-9bfd-11e8-b60b-1c897f17e185_story.html

And my argument for guns is the same reason I fight for minorities. (What?!) They're the great equalizer. Women shouldn't have to be afraid of men's superior muscle and genetics when they go out at night. Women should have the ultimate autonomy over their bodies. And disabled people, and women, shouldn't have to go out in fear.

Now, liberals try to say the B.S. argument "If the world WASN'T UNSAFE, they wouldn't NEED guns!" yeah, and when you manage to create a perfect world, we can disarm women. But until then, I'd rather women in the real world not get raped.

Another platform that's TRUE liberal that confuses my liberal compatriats. I'm against illegal immigration. ... I'm FOR legal immigration. I'm FOR allowing more people in. I'm FOR reducing the difficulty to get in. What I'm NOT for? Letting people in illegally, with no paper trail, that then get paid sub-human wages, and literally... raped in the fields. Because no paper trail means there's no one from the government to protect you from being exploited.

https://www.pbs.org/video/frontline-rape-fields-show/

They also get raped on the way over because... once again... there's no government to protect them. So they literally tell their teenage girls to take birth control. Cuz they're gonna get raped. It's not a matter of "if".

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/facing-risk-rape-migrant-women-prepare-birth-control

And those sources are PBS. So if you want to call PBS a right-wing or Russian shill, you might as well call the Earth flat while you're at it.

Call me crazy, but I'm anti-rape. ::)

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

And my argument for guns is the same reason I fight for minorities. (What?!) They're the great equalizer. Women shouldn't have to be afraid of men's superior muscle and genetics when they go out at night. Women should have the ultimate autonomy over their bodies. And disabled people, and women, shouldn't have to go out in fear.

Now, liberals try to say the B.S. argument "If the world WASN'T UNSAFE, they wouldn't NEED guns!" yeah, and when you manage to create a perfect world, we can disarm women. But until then, I'd rather women in the real world not get raped.

Women are not as capable as men are. I know, controversial! And yet, all sports competitions are separated because we ultimately know it's true. Guns will not equalize things. They make them worse. A few women might successfully fend of an attacker with a gun, but if they miss (and they're likely to because it's not a video game) they might just make matters worse.

Instead of expecting women to carry guns to protect themselves I have a crazy idea: maybe, just maybe, they should avoid going out alone and travel with friends or a man to protect them. I know, how condescending. I don't know about your female friends, but the ones I know are mostly still terrified of spiders, moths, bats, ...; pretty much anything that moves. Not unlike children. While I would encourage them all to escape from that bubble of irresponsibility, and endure training to overcome fears and realize their potential, I don't think many of them want to do that because they lose a lot of privileges that way.

Ultimately, their default gender role is to raise children and take care of the home. And there's nothing wrong with that. Many or most of them actually enjoy doing that. It's perhaps what most of them are best suited to do well.

Walking alone at night isn't even something that I'd take likely, even if I have a gun. Unless they have dreams of being Chuck Norris it's probably wiser to just avoid putting themselves into compromising positions. Stay in public areas in daylight, bring a friend with you, if something feels wrong get the Hell out of there as quickly as possible and call for help.

A gun can make things worse just as easily as it can make things go away. And like I said, if you actually connect the gun to a person your name will be public information for his friends or family to look up. If you think the witness protection program can keep every family in the nation anonymous and safe you're sadly mistaken.

What's really neat to see is reaction time simulations where people have to draw a gun and react to something on a projection screen. The vast majority of people cannot react in time to something bad, and often overreact to something innocent. Real life is not a movie. Nothing will teach that faster than actually going out and physically training.

They also get raped on the way over because... once again... there's no government to protect them. So they literally tell their teenage girls to take birth control. Cuz they're gonna get raped. It's not a matter of "if".

And that's a risk that they're willing to take. From what I've heard, rape is a real threat where they're coming from as well so it's probably not a huge surprise when they hear it. If you really care about those girls' well-being though then you'll want to improve the living conditions and economy of Mexico so that they have a chance to live a comfortable life where they're born instead of enduring all of these unimaginable hardships for the chance to raise their children in America. The reason they try to get into America illegally is because the legal process is impractical for them. They wouldn't risk all of these hardships if it wasn't at least believed to be worth it. And there's no shortage of Americans that "made it" that were once illegal aliens. Which is proof that in some cases it can be worth it. There are probably also a lot of cases where it might not have been worth it, but then again things might not be so good where they're coming from either so it might have been worth a shot anyway.

Aaron Bolyard
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

raynebc said:

Aaron's got his tinfoil Russia hat. It's always fun to see crazy partisans.

I was joking but of course you don't miss a chance to insult someone.

I will never vote for someone who tries to ban art. End of story.

???

...

Also I'm for guns because the bourgeois aren't going to take resistance peacefully. You know what would make Republicans make a 180 on gun legislation? If socialists started arming themselves.

Aaron Bolyard
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

I'm magical.

raynebc
Member #11,908
May 2010

There is so much I disagree with in bamccaig's posts I don't have the time to go into major detail. Police deter crime and are not a net evil in society. Equal distribution of wealth is not something to aspire to and is not necessary for people to have good lives. Poverty isn't a good thing, but it's not a valid justification for wronging others. Capitalism isn't perfect, but it's better than all the other alternatives. Having a family to protect is PRECISELY WHY many people own weapons, and this has been the case throughout human history. Nobody can be completely safe at all times, but you can take reasonable means to improve your security. Lock your doors, have a security system, have a weapon for protection if you live in a high crime area. All decent people want a world without evil people, but that can't be attained.

Having intelligent thought is not a requirement for being considered life. I'm speaking in biological terms of what a life is, not philosophical ones. Just because a human isn't fully developed yet doesn't mean it is without value. Killing animals for food and self defense are the most naturally-justified reasons to kill any animal. If you terminated an animal's pregnancy, yes people would question it. It's better to have pets fixed in order to prevent having to control animal population through euthanasia.

Your assumptions seem to be that guns are bad at stopping crime, have no value as a deterrant and require an extremely trained and capable person to use effectively. I disagree with all of those. The suggestion that most women couldn't effectively use them for self defense is ignorant. Travelling in groups is a good idea though, as an attacker will prefer going after somebody with no friends and no weapon. This is another reason concealed carry is a deterrant: A criminal doesn't know who could possibly resist and respond with lethal force.

Quote:

I was joking

I've seen you post many questionable things, especially in this thread. I had no reason to expect you were joking, and I still doubt you truly were. And regarding your post edit trolling, pro second amendment advocates are fine with all law-abiding citizens arming themselves and using guns legally.

Aaron Bolyard
Member #7,537
July 2006
avatar

raynebc said:

I've seen you post many questionable things, especially in this thread. I had no reason to expect you were joking, and I still doubt you truly were. And regarding your post edit trolling, pro second amendment advocates are fine with all law-abiding citizens arming themselves and using guns legally.

I said Republicans would make a 180, not pro-second-amendment advocates.

The the Republican party (not Republicans but the party itself) only has the interests of the very rich in mind. Wedge issues like abortion and guns energize and motivate its very reliable base to vote. But you're all voting against your own interests, unless you're rich.

For example, do you believe the recent tax bill helps or hurts the poor and middle class?

raynebc
Member #11,908
May 2010

The tax cuts are helpful for most Americans, but obviously tax cuts without spending cuts are ultimately a bad thing. Both major parties have severe spending problems.

As for your classification of the RNC as the party of the rich, it's as accurate to label the DNC as the party of racism, based on their long history in this country.

Edgar Reynaldo
Member #8,592
May 2007
avatar

There's enough Republican wool over your eyes to make a sweater raynebc. :P

The tax cuts went to the ultra rich, who don't need any more money. The spending cuts went to the poorest of the poor. Taking away people's insurance. Retirement. Disability. Medicare. Medicaid. Social Security. The Republican party, led by Paul Ryan who wants to go out with a bang, are hell bent on destroying so called 'entitlement' programs. Because it's not like any of those people worked for their money. Or spent their lives unable to work due to disability, mental illness, sickness, etc. It's not like they're taking money away from people who are in the last decades of their lives and have no safety net or ability to work. Retirement comes later and later now. Retire at 70 if you're lucky. Because they were supposed to have taken care of their own savings when most people are lucky if they can even save anything at all.

Shame on you. It's a rotten shame.

As for so called biological life, when does a group of cells become considered a life? Plants are made of cells, but no one gives a shit when you kill a plant. They're alive, but no one has any qualms about killing them. :/ We cut down trees like grass. Who will fight for the right to their lives?

Okay, let's set aside plants for now and move on to the animal kingdom. We slaughter billions of animals raised in cages with literally shitty lives and no one gives a flying fuck. We all go on eating our chicken mcnuggets and our whopppers and God Forbid anyone take away anyone's BACON! I am sure you've eaten eggs before, that have been fertilized. You can tell cuz the baby chicky started to grow. I bet you didn't even flinch though.

What are humans that they are so much more precious than animals? Because we're capable of more? Animals are capable of thought. They have emotions. They experience fear. They don't want to die any more than we do. Humans think they're so fucking wonderful because they've built skyscrapers, and moved mountains with bulldozers, and even managed to get off the surface of this silly sphere. What's so special about that? That we've thrived off the backs of the rest of the inhabitants of the world? Why does that makes us special? Do you know what a parasite is? It thrives off its host to the point of killing it. It spreads until it can't spread anymore, leaving a wake of death. Human life is nothing more than a parasitic infection of the Earth.

And you're worried about killing a fucking fetus. That is barely alive, can't take care of itself, isn't capable of any thought that will ever be remembered, and is nothing more than a bunch of cells dividing mindlessly until it forms an actual living creature.

As for your 'everyone is safer with more guns' mentality, well NO they're NOT. I had easy access to a long barrel revolver after what happened to me, and there were times when I carried it with me when I was outdoors. But I wasn't in a good state of mind to be carrying a gun. I might have ended up shooting someone who was just being an idiot, who wasn't one of the people out to kill me. I was suffering from PTSD, and every little thing that happened triggered it again. I didn't leave the house for 6 years. I was paralyzed with fear, and crippled by thoughts of what might happen to me. My mind had turned on me, and it wasn't until those 6 years later that I was diagnosed with schizophrenia. I got on medication, and it cleared my thoughts, but had multiple problems of its own. It took years and years to get my medication sorted out so that I wasn't suffering from side effects. The only thing that helped was weed, but that has problems of its own too.

Anyway, long story short, it took me 10 years to put my life back together and start functioning normally again. So far nothing has happened, but I still don't want to have to carry around a fucking gun. Give me a phaser anyday. Set to disintegrate. :P

A society that needs its citizens to walk around carrying lethal weaponry should not be considered a society at all. Civilization indeed.

EDIT

raynebc said:

As for your classification of the RNC as the party of the rich, it's as accurate to label the DNC as the party of racism, based on their long history in this country.

We're speaking of the present, not ages past.

TL:DR; What a bunch of shaite.

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

Everyone: In case it wasn't obvious, I argue my points passionately, but at no point do I expect everyone to think like I do or even agree with me. I'm perfectly fine with people disagreeing and I'm fine separating discussions like this, from personal or professional situations like "do you want to play some Steam game co-op?" or "Can you help me with my API?"

bamccaig: Perhaps I didn't explain enough. My "stance" on immigration is that if we want more people here (and that's a fine stance to have), we should do it legally by improving immigration agencies, staff, and laws to help people get in. What we should NOT do is magically screw over everyone who LEGALLY immigrated by letting others jump the line because a sad story ran in a newspaper. The immigrants I know worked their ASSES off to get here and they're completely opposed to letting people have a free pass. It's a slap to the face to everyone who followed the rules.

- People who are illegals but already here should be systematically found and registered, and REQUIRED TO APPLY while given a temporary pass. If they fail (for having crimes, for example), they go. They should pay taxes, and they get all the protections a temporary citizen get. They can call the police when an employer attempts to rape them, for example.

Also, I agree 100% we should be doing everything we can do IMPROVE MEXICO so that Mexicans don't HAVE TO LEAVE.

But new ultra-left / progressives idea that we "abolish ICE", good gosh, that's one of the stupidest policies I've ever heard. The CRIMINALS in MEXICO are the reason Mexicans are leaving. So if we have NO BORDER that means the CRIMINALS COME IN TOO... and continue to rape and murder Mexicans (as well as Americans now). It's absurd. If you want to help fleeing Mexicans, why the hell would you want to let their criminal attackers follow them?!

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

Post Reply


Go to: