Defend your right to own a car.

[.blank cd]

Why don't you just cut the bullshit already and address the issue and what you believe instead of side-stepping with political correctness and medical definitions? How many people do you know that identify their ailments and symptoms with proper medical terminology? Probably less than 1% of people you know, or the entire population for that matter. For all intents and purposes the term "abortion" as far as the vast majority of the adult population is concerned refers to the intentional termination of a pregnancy by the mother, and the unintentional loss of a pregnancy is considered a miscarriage. Quit playing with semantics and step into the realm of reality and address the issue at a level that most voters will understand and get off your intellectual high horse with this "well strictly according to the medical definition" crap. After all, the manority of the electorate you are dealing with cares more about Angeline Jolie's double mastectomy and how fat Kim Kardashian looks this week than the fact that Benghazi is a clusterfuck, the fed govt has flexed it's political muscle through the IRS and the EPA while seizing press phone records to "investigate a leak".

That's the whole fucking problem. You shouldn't have to dumb shit down for any average voter. It should be the other way around. Economics and policy are incredibly complex systems that can't be and are not solved with "common sense". People go to college for YEARS to get an understanding of only parts of that system.

If you want to oppose abortion, make an effort to learn what an abortion actually is

If you want to oppose raising taxes, make an effort to understand what taxes are and what the effects of raising and lowering taxes are

If you want to oppose gun control, make an effort to understand what gun control is. Etc. ad nauseum.

The fact that there are Ivy League graduates even suggesting any of these solutions implies that there's more to the issue than some elaborate scheme to kill babies/global domination/illuminati/socialistcommunistmuslimatheistkenyan gun grab.

This is the realm of reality. It doesn't matter how many of your typical honey boo boo watching, Kardashian idolizing, Bieber listening, coors light drinking, NASCAR racing, flag waiving, simple fucks think abortion is just killing babies. Abortion is never going to be black and white like that. Neither is any other political issue, and I vehemently oppose the systematic dumbing down of America and its education system in order to hide the real issues. It's not worth having an opinion if its based in ignorance.

[BanginJimmy]

That's the whole fucking problem. You shouldn't have to dumb shit down for any average voter. It should be the other way around. Economics and policy are incredibly complex systems that can't be and are not solved with "common sense". People go to college for YEARS to get an understanding of only parts of that system.

If you want to oppose abortion, make an effort to learn what an abortion actually is

If you want to oppose raising taxes, make an effort to understand what taxes are and what the effects of raising and lowering taxes are

If you want to oppose gun control, make an effort to understand what gun control is. Etc. ad nauseum.

The fact that there are Ivy League graduates even suggesting any of these solutions implies that there's more to the issue than some elaborate scheme to kill babies/global domination/illuminati/socialistcommunistmuslimatheistkenyan gun grab.

This is the realm of reality. It doesn't matter how many of your typical honey boo boo watching, Kardashian idolizing, Bieber listening, coors light drinking, NASCAR racing, flag waiving, simple fucks think abortion is just killing babies. Abortion is never going to be black and white like that. Neither is any other political issue, and I vehemently oppose the systematic dumbing down of America and its education system in order to hide the real issues. It's not worth having an opinion if its based in ignorance.

Irony at its finest.

Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk 2.

[BanginJimmy]

Wiki definitely agrees with my definition, since that's where I got it.

"An abortion can occur spontaneously, in which case it is usually called a miscarriage, or it can be purposely induced."

So since abortions are also spontaneous miscarriages, using the medical definition of abortion--and I'm just stabbing in the dark here--MOST abortions are kinda medical complications.

Well then lets break it down dumbo style so no one gets confused between an abortion and a miscarriage. Only a very small percentage of purposefully induced abortions are health related.

Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk 2.

[David88vert]

Wiki definitely agrees with my definition, since that's where I got it.

"An abortion can occur spontaneously, in which case it is usually called a miscarriage, or it can be purposely induced."

So since abortions are also spontaneous miscarriages, using the medical definition of abortion--and I'm just stabbing in the dark here--MOST abortions are kinda medical complications.

How many women have you met that lost their baby unintentionally, and called it an abortion instead of calling it a miscarriage? I haven't met a single one yet.
Miscarriage is commonly used if it was an unintentional loss, which the mother did not choose to have happen.
Abortion is commonly used if the mother chose to end the pregnancy.
You are just trying to play with semantics. Everyone in normal society understands the usage and its connotation of both words.

[Sinfix_15]

That's the whole fucking problem. You shouldn't have to dumb shit down for any average voter. It should be the other way around. Economics and policy are incredibly complex systems that can't be and are not solved with "common sense". People go to college for YEARS to get an understanding of only parts of that system.

If you want to oppose abortion, make an effort to learn what an abortion actually is

If you want to oppose raising taxes, make an effort to understand what taxes are and what the effects of raising and lowering taxes are

If you want to oppose gun control, make an effort to understand what gun control is. Etc. ad nauseum.

The fact that there are Ivy League graduates even suggesting any of these solutions implies that there's more to the issue than some elaborate scheme to kill babies/global domination/illuminati/socialistcommunistmuslimatheistkenyan gun grab.

This is the realm of reality. It doesn't matter how many of your typical honey boo boo watching, Kardashian idolizing, Bieber listening, coors light drinking, NASCAR racing, flag waiving, simple fucks think abortion is just killing babies. Abortion is never going to be black and white like that. Neither is any other political issue, and I vehemently oppose the systematic dumbing down of America and its education system in order to hide the real issues. It's not worth having an opinion if its based in ignorance.

Here you go again with your self righteous ego. Nobody here is confused..... everyone understands. You arent talking over anyone's head. It's just that you distort reality to suit your own agenda. You sit here and act as if an abortion is a medical procedure a doctor performs to save a woman's life.... it isnt.... if you think it is, then you need to get your fucking head checked. You see the world through your rose colored liberal glasses and in that world, you bend reality to suit your needs. You are the idiot here................................

how many people have to confirm it before you realize it? No matter how hard you try to be politically correct, no matter what sources you cite or how many big words you use...... it's painfully obvious that you simply do not understand. You are completely lacking of all common sense. You continuously get beat over the head with facts and none of it seems to soak in.

[Sinfix_15]

Every single person in this thread is in agreement about what an abortion is but 1. That 1 person is the one saying everyone else doesnt understand.

[David88vert]

Every single person in this thread is in agreement about what an abortion is but 1. That 1 person is the one saying everyone else doesnt understand.

That's a symptom of NPD. I suggested that he see a professional about that.

[.blank cd]

Every single person in this thread is in agreement about what an abortion is but 1. That 1 person is the one saying everyone else doesnt understand.

So then, every person in this thread, go inform your local medical professional that abortion only means what it means to everyone else. I dont care. But you'll probably get laughed at

It doesnt matter what the colloquial term for abortion is. If you plan on having a serious discussion about it, learn what it really means.

I bet you if you polled this forum and the american population, they'd think the national debt is the same thing as your negative bank account balance. Just because thats what everyone in this forum and across the nation think it is, doesnt mean thats what it actually is.

[Browning151]

That's the whole fucking problem. You shouldn't have to dumb shit down for any average voter. It should be the other way around. Economics and policy are incredibly complex systems that can't be and are not solved with "common sense". People go to college for YEARS to get an understanding of only parts of that system.

You don't have to dumb something down to the point of stupidity to put it into terms that people can understand. Whether you like it or not, not everyone has a college education and can understand every little nuance of every little problem. I suppose you've never had to have something simplified for you so that you could gain an understanding of it right? I guess not since you seem to present yourself as an all-knowing political genius around here.


If you want to oppose abortion, make an effort to learn what an abortion actually is

If you want to oppose raising taxes, make an effort to understand what taxes are and what the effects of raising and lowering taxes are

If you want to oppose gun control, make an effort to understand what gun control is. Etc. ad nauseum.

You should probably take your own advice when you take a stand supporting these things.


The fact that there are Ivy League graduates even suggesting any of these solutions implies that there's more to the issue than some elaborate scheme to kill babies/global domination/illuminati/socialistcommunistmuslimatheistkenyan gun grab.

Who said that abortion was some elaborate scheme to kill babies? I must have missed that.


This is the realm of reality. It doesn't matter how many of your typical honey boo boo watching, Kardashian idolizing, Bieber listening, coors light drinking, NASCAR racing, flag waiving, simple fucks think abortion is just killing babies. Abortion is never going to be black and white like that. Neither is any other political issue, and I vehemently oppose the systematic dumbing down of America and its education system in order to hide the real issues. It's not worth having an opinion if its based in ignorance.

It's already been covered, but how many women do you know that refer to miscarriages as "spontaneous abortion?" I've never met one, not a single fucking one. You can repeat the medical definition until you are blue in the face, that doesn't change the fact that perception of abortion is the voluntary termination of pregnancy, otherwise it is a miscarriage. Your perceived intellectual superiority isn't going to change that.

As far as the systematic dumbing down of America and our education system, that's a whole other thread that I'm pretty sure has been gone over here before. I can certainly go start another education thread if you'd like to have that debate though.

[David88vert]

So then, every person in this thread, go inform your local medical professional that abortion only means what it means to everyone else. I dont care. But you'll probably get laughed at

It doesnt matter what the colloquial term for abortion is. If you plan on having a serious discussion about it, learn what it really means.

I bet you if you polled this forum and the american population, they'd think the national debt is the same thing as your negative bank account balance. Just because thats what everyone in this forum and across the nation think it is, doesnt mean thats what it actually is.

How about you go tell the Mayo Clinic that they don't know what abortion is.

"Medical abortion is a procedure that uses various medications to end a pregnancy." - Mayo Clinic - Medical abortion: Ending pregnancy with medication - MayoClinic.com (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/medical-abortion/MY00819)

So that you don't try to play on semantics....

You can also inform the University of Maryland and the US National Library of Medicine.

"A surgical abortion is a procedure that ends a pregnancy by removing the fetus and placenta from the mother's womb (uterus)." - University of Maryland Medical Center - http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/002912.htm#ixzz2Tw9ank1d

"Surgical abortion is a procedure that ends a pregnancy by removing the fetus and placenta from the mother's womb (uterus). Surgical abortion is not the same as miscarriage. Miscarriage is when a pregnancy ends on its own before the 20th week." - US National Library of Medicine - Abortion - surgical: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002912.htm)

Notice that they say that the procedure ends the pregnancy - not that the child was already dead (miscarriage).

Now, go tell them that they are wrong, and that you know better - and show them your medical degree also. It is probably in the same drawer that holds your degrees in science and psychology - you know, the drawer that doesn't exist.

Let me quote someone here: "If you plan on having a serious discussion about it, learn what it really means." - YOU

[.blank cd]

How about you go tell the Mayo Clinic that they don't know what abortion is.

"Medical abortion is a procedure that uses various medications to end a pregnancy." - Mayo Clinic - Medical abortion: Ending pregnancy with medication - MayoClinic.com (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/medical-abortion/MY00819)

So that you don't try to play on semantics....

You can also inform the University of Maryland and the US National Library of Medicine.

"A surgical abortion is a procedure that ends a pregnancy by removing the fetus and placenta from the mother's womb (uterus)." - University of Maryland Medical Center - Abortion - surgical (http://www.umm.edu/ency/article/002912.htm#ixzz2Tw9ank1d)

"Surgical abortion is a procedure that ends a pregnancy by removing the fetus and placenta from the mother's womb (uterus). Surgical abortion is not the same as miscarriage. Miscarriage is when a pregnancy ends on its own before the 20th week." - US National Library of Medicine - Abortion - surgical: MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002912.htm)

Notice that they say that the procedure ends the pregnancy - not that the child was already dead (miscarriage).

Now, go tell them that they are wrong, and that you know better - and show them your medical degree also. It is probably in the same drawer that holds your degrees in science and psychology - you know, the drawer that doesn't exist.

Let me quote someone here: "If you plan on having a serious discussion about it, learn what it really means." - YOUNone of those definitions are wrong.

[David88vert]

None of those definitions are wrong.

I know that. You were the one that kept bringing up the removal of an already dead fetus as being abortion. You also stated that miscarriage was abortion by definition.

[.blank cd]

I know that. You were the one that kept bringing up the removal of an already dead fetus as being abortion. You also stated that miscarriage was abortion by definition.
It is

[David88vert]

It is

Go tell that to the Mayo Clinic, the University of Maryland Medical Center, and the US National Library of Medicine.

Have you ever noticed that "spontaneous abortion" always has quotes around it, yet medical and surgical do not?

You keep attempting to use a failed argument that women somehow would not be able to get an abortion in situations of miscarriage, or where their health was at risk, but this couldn't be further from the truth. The fact is that there have always been stated exceptions, and health of the mother, and cases of rape have been considered exceptions. Dead fetus removal would not be at risk either. The only question is whether or not a mother could choose to end the pregnancy due to her not wanting the baby. Any other discussion is a waste of time and serves only to create tangents.

[.blank cd]

You keep attempting to use a failed argument that women somehow would not be able to get an abortion in situations of miscarriage, or where their health was at risk, but this couldn't be further from the truth. The fact is that there have always been stated exceptions, and health of the mother, and cases of rape have been considered exceptions. Dead fetus removal would not be at risk either. The only question is whether or not a mother could choose to end the pregnancy due to her not wanting the baby. Any other discussion is a waste of time and serves only to create tangents.Im not using any failed argument. If a bill is proposed that doesn't put those situations at risk, then it doesn't. Thats fine. Whoop-de-doo. But I'm not opposed to letting a woman choose what she wants to do in any other situation either. And I wouldn't support anything that removes that choice from her in any situation.

I am opposed to the "name" of the bill, as with a lot of bills, it uses politically and emotionally charged nomenclature (it probably wouldn't have been voted on if it were the "Intact Dilation and Extraction" act) to receive support.

As far as from a personal moral standpoint, abortion in any situation would probably be the last option I would consider if I were a woman faced with that decision, dependent upon the circumstances, but I will NEVER be in that situation, so I can't necessarily be sure of what I would do. Judging abortion solely by its gruesomeness or obscenity falls short of judging it dispassionately, and I'll never judge something or base my opinion on something based on emotions alone.

[David88vert]

Im not using any failed argument. If a bill is proposed that doesn't put those situations at risk, then it doesn't. Thats fine. Whoop-de-doo. But I'm not opposed to letting a woman choose what she wants to do in any other situation either. And I wouldn't support anything that removes that choice from her in any situation.

Ok, so you support women having the choice no matter what. Why do you not support the average American in having a choice as to whether they want to own an assault style weapon or not?


I am opposed to the "name" of the bill, as with a lot of bills, it uses politically and emotionally charged nomenclature (it probably wouldn't have been voted on if it were the "Intact Dilation and Extraction" act) to receive support.

I agree on this. Politics plays a role in these naming conventions.


As far as from a personal moral standpoint, abortion in any situation would probably be the last option I would consider if I were a woman faced with that decision, dependent upon the circumstances, but I will NEVER be in that situation, so I can't necessarily be sure of what I would do. Judging abortion solely by its gruesomeness or obscenity falls short of judging it dispassionately, and I'll never judge something or base my opinion on something based on emotions alone.

If the majority of women getting abortions had the same outlook as you on the above bolded part, this discussion would not even be in the public eye.

[.blank cd]

Ok, so you support women having the choice no matter what. Why do you not support the average American in having a choice as to whether they want to own an assault style weapon or not?I do. But I kinda don't really have that choice to begin with. I can't go out and get an YF22, or an F-118 or an M1 Abrahms. We decided as a nation that weapons like that are an aspect of commerce we can regulate if its in the interest of national safety and security. And if I can still buy one after they've been regulated, I guess I still have that choice. And if the right is to "bear arms", even if assault weapons were gone, I could still "bear arms"


If the majority of women getting abortions had the same outlook as you on the above bolded part, this discussion would not even be in the public eye.Female psychology is different than men's, and that has to play a role. So I, as a man, look at abortion inherently different than a woman. So we can look to science to remove that variable for legislating our safest and best options. Roe v. Wade has got it pretty figured out, and I would doubt that any new scientific evidence and information is going to overturn that decision.

[Sinfix_15]

I do. But I kinda don't really have that choice to begin with. I can't go out and get an YF22, or an F-118 or an M1 Abrahms. We decided as a nation that weapons like that are an aspect of commerce we can regulate if its in the interest of national safety and security. And if I can still buy one after they've been regulated, I guess I still have that choice. And if the right is to "bear arms", even if assault weapons were gone, I could still "bear arms"



Law abiding citizens being armed is only a national security risk in the eyes of a tyrannical government. Citizens being armed improves national security.

[.blank cd]

Law abiding citizens being armed is only a national security risk in the eyes of a tyrannical government. Citizens being armed improves national security.Is there ANY legislation being proposed that effectively disarms Americans? Yes or No?

[David88vert]

I do. But I kinda don't really have that choice to begin with. I can't go out and get an YF22, or an F-118 or an M1 Abrahms. We decided as a nation that weapons like that are an aspect of commerce we can regulate if its in the interest of national safety and security. And if I can still buy one after they've been regulated, I guess I still have that choice. And if the right is to "bear arms", even if assault weapons were gone, I could still "bear arms"


Tanks and jets are not semi-automatic rifles. Do not confuse the issue.

If you really want a tank, go here: Armor Page 1 (http://armyjeeps.net/armor1.htm) and buy one. They are legal to own.


Female psychology is different than men's, and that has to play a role. So I, as a man, look at abortion inherently different than a woman. So we can look to science to remove that variable for legislating our safest and best options. Roe v. Wade has got it pretty figured out, and I would doubt that any new scientific evidence and information is going to overturn that decision.

The only thing that RvW did scientifically is say that abortions were legal in the early trimesters, right? Only a vague "viability of the fetus" was mentioned, which is hardly a line in the sand, as we now are better prepared to medically care for premature babies, which in theory, would shift viability to an earlier pregnancy date. More importantly, neuroscience has show that fetuses can feel pain, and this scientific argument may be made in the future against RvW. I'd hardly say that RvW has it figured out enough to stand the test of time for another 25 years.

[David88vert]

Is there ANY legislation being proposed that effectively disarms Americans? Yes or No?

I'm only aware of it being at the state level currently - all federal level bills have been defeated for now.
New Jersey
N.J. Assembly plans to send four gun control bills to Christie | NJ.com (http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/05/nj_assembly_plans_to_send_four.html)
New Jersey: Gun Control Package Advancing in Trenton (http://www.ammoland.com/2013/05/new-jersey-democrates-gun-control-package-advancing-in-trenton/#axzz2Tx9ikGAP)
Maryland
O?Malley plans to sign Maryland gun-control, transportation bills Thursday - Washington Post (http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-15/local/39277128_1_maryland-gun-control-transportation-bills-Thursday)

[Sinfix_15]

Is there ANY legislation being proposed that effectively disarms Americans? Yes or No?

Yes.

Democrats will never put forth a bill containing the truth regarding guns. Every bill put forth is intentionally deceptive, with the purpose of either going unnoticed or manipulating the wave of public opinion. The goal is and always has been to limit guns as much as possible anytime the opportunity prevents itself. It's a process that gets easier each time you're successful in any measure.

[.blank cd]

I'm not talking about gun control. I'm talking about legislation that removes ALL guns, everything, from legal gun owners and expressly makes it illegal for anyone to have anything that fires a projectile. Complete disarmament. Where is that? Does this exist?

Not looking for "oh this might turn into a registry/gun grab" kind of legislation.

[David88vert]

I'm not talking about gun control. I'm talking about legislation that removes ALL guns, everything, from legal gun owners and expressly makes it illegal for anyone to have anything that fires a projectile. Complete disarmament. Where is that? Does this exist?

Not looking for "oh this might turn into a registry/gun grab" kind of legislation.

Has any democratic country removed all legal guns and just done it with only one bill, and not stepped removal?

[Sinfix_15]

I'm not talking about gun control. I'm talking about legislation that removes ALL guns, everything, from legal gun owners and expressly makes it illegal for anyone to have anything that fires a projectile. Complete disarmament. Where is that? Does this exist?

Not looking for "oh this might turn into a registry/gun grab" kind of legislation.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6Vt4cmYMzPU/T4XL7M53JBI/AAAAAAAALkY/WlwoUMqh3rw/s1600/fascism-obvious.jpg

[Sinfix_15]

So you're saying i shouldnt be worried until they openly say theyre taking all of my guns in one big swoop?

[.blank cd]

So you're saying i shouldnt be worried until they openly say theyre taking all of my guns in one big swoop?

What would be the benefit of completely disarming American citizens? A measure like that would be astronomically expensive. So why would they do it? There would have to be a reason. I'm being dead serious here. Give me a serious answer.

[.blank cd]

Has any democratic country removed all legal guns and just done it with only one bill, and not stepped removal?

Before I look it up, to my knowledge, no democratic constitutional semi capitalist republic, as developed and industrialized as the United States has ever done it with one bill, or at all.

Same question. What would be the benefit of disarming American citizens. Complete disarmament of a country of our size and power would be incredibly costly and lengthy. What would be the benefit of spending this time and money?

[Sinfix_15]

What would be the benefit of completely disarming American citizens? A measure like that would be astronomically expensive. So why would they do it? There would have to be a reason. I'm being dead serious here. Give me a serious answer.

" If we're ever going to install socialism, we must first disarm anyone who would oppose "


These current scandals should be painfully obvious evidence that our government has no issues with "imposing its will" on american citizens. Disarming them makes that goal easier. This had been said many times throughout history...... every tyrant shared the notion that citizens are easier to control when disarmed. I honestly do not understand how you do not understand this concept? What do you think our founders meant when they said "the government should fear its people".... do you think they meant "fear that you're going to send a letter to your congressmen"

[Sinfix_15]

theoretical question.

I am a celebrity fashion designer who makes fur coats. I am worried that someone is going to attempt to splash me with red paint to protest so i hire security guards to follow me around. How closely should my security detail follow me and how far away from me should they observe to prevent me from being splashed with paint? Answer in terms of a perimeter around me that my security guards would need to defend to keep me out of reach of a potential protester.

[bu villain]

While science may impact the abortion debate, it will never solve it. It is primarily a value judgement. Science can't tell you when an embryo or fetus deserves the same rights as a fully conscious human. Some people talk about the sanctity of life but that is so nebulous a term as to be nearly meaningless. Many people who use such arguments don't believe in the sanctity of life for convicted murderers (despite the number of historical false convictions) or for enemy combatants on a battlefield (despite their political beliefs or whether they hold a gun or not). These debates are usually devoid of much logic.

[Sinfix_15]

While science may impact the abortion debate, it will never solve it. It is primarily a value judgement. Science can't tell you when an embryo or fetus deserves the same rights as a fully conscious human. Some people talk about the sanctity of life but that is so nebulous a term as to be nearly meaningless. Many people who use such arguments don't believe in the sanctity of life for convicted murderers (despite the number of historical false convictions) or for enemy combatants on a battlefield (despite their political beliefs or whether they hold a gun or not). These debates are usually devoid of much logic.

Combatants are choosing their own fate and yes we do value the sanctity of life when it comes to enemy combatants, that's why we allow surrender. Same applies to convicted murderers, if the law is "commit X crime and you get the death penalty" you are deciding the death penalty for yourself when you commit X crime.

So the criminal can chose not to commit a crime, combatants decide their own fate....... what voice or option does the unborn child have?



outside of that i agree. This is 100% a value judgment / social issue.

[bu villain]

Same applies to convicted murderers, if the law is "commit X crime and you get the death penalty" you are deciding the death penalty for yourself when you commit X crime.

Except that it is a known fact that some convicted criminals were actually not guilty of any crime and later exonerated. Honestly I probably shouldn't have made those comparisons because people like to focus on the misalignment of comparisons and ignore the overall point which in this case is that we don't all agree life is an absolute right and we can't even agree when life begins anyways.


what voice or option does the unborn child have?

Your question assumes the unborn child has the capacity to have an opinion either way which clearly fetuses don't.

[Sinfix_15]

Your question assumes the unborn child has the capacity to have an opinion either way which clearly fetuses don't.

Next time i see a 1 year old i'm gonna ask them if they want to live or die.

Call me crazy.... but the answer i'm expecting is "garggglagjasggjggggg aggguugugu"

[bu villain]

Exactly, so why did you ask the nonsensical question "what voice or option does the unborn child have?". They don't get a voice or an option because they aren't capable mentally or physically of having an opinion.

[.blank cd]

" If we're ever going to install socialism, we must first disarm anyone who would oppose "


These current scandals should be painfully obvious evidence that our government has no issues with "imposing its will" on american citizens. Disarming them makes that goal easier. This had been said many times throughout history...... every tyrant shared the notion that citizens are easier to control when disarmed. I honestly do not understand how you do not understand this concept? What do you think our founders meant when they said "the government should fear its people".... do you think they meant "fear that you're going to send a letter to your congressmen"Install socialism. This is about the most serious answer I'll probably get so ill roll with it. Based on your answer (and I would love to hear serious answers for these as well)....

1. What is socialism? Why is it a bad thing? Why is capitalism a good thing?

2. A core change in the operation of the government would obviously require the cooperation of all 3 branches of government. If this level of cooperation is achieved for such an endeavor, what makes you think they need to disarm you to get any further?

3. This level of cooperation to change the fundamentals of government from how it operates now would literally take decades. What makes you think Obama is capable of pulling something like that off in his remaining 3 years, what benefit would he receive from putting such a process in motion? He'd in all likelyhood be dead before it happened.

4. What is the benefit of having unlimited control of American citizens? If its only to "install socialism", and if socialism is such a beneficial endeavor for them, why wait until 2008?

Put your thinking cap on for 20 minutes and humor me.

[.blank cd]

Next time i see a 1 year old i'm gonna ask them if they want to live or die.

Call me crazy.... but the answer i'm expecting is "garggglagjasggjggggg aggguugugu"

Does a 1 year old infant have the same cognitive abilities as a 1 week old fetus?

12wks?

24wks?

36wks?

[Sinfix_15]

Exactly, so why did you ask the nonsensical question "what voice or option does the unborn child have?". They don't get a voice or an option because they aren't capable mentally or physically of having an opinion.

So, why not allow abortions until a kid is 5 years old and can voice an opinion against it??

The question is when do you consider a fetus a living person.

[David88vert]

Before I look it up, to my knowledge, no democratic constitutional semi capitalist republic, as developed and industrialized as the United States has ever done it with one bill, or at all.

Same question. What would be the benefit of disarming American citizens. Complete disarmament of a country of our size and power would be incredibly costly and lengthy. What would be the benefit of spending this time and money?

Those in power have one thing in common in history - they want more power. Throughout history, those in power have continuously developed a fear of losing their power, and have sought out many way s to ensure that their grip on their power remained intact. In many cultures, throughout history, that has been attempted by the removal of weapons from the people. For example, the Japanese had katanagari in the Sengoku and Meiji periods. Lookup Oda Nobunaga and Toyotomi Hideyoshi, both are famous for their attempts to hold onto power.

[Sinfix_15]

Install socialism. This is about the most serious answer I'll probably get so ill roll with it. Based on your answer (and I would love to hear serious answers for these as well)....

1. What is socialism? Why is it a bad thing? Why is capitalism a good thing?

2. A core change in the operation of the government would obviously require the cooperation of all 3 branches of government. If this level of cooperation is achieved for such an endeavor, what makes you think they need to disarm you to get any further?

3. This level of cooperation to change the fundamentals of government from how it operates now would literally take decades. What makes you think Obama is capable of pulling something like that off in his remaining 3 years, what benefit would he receive from putting such a process in motion? He'd in all likelyhood be dead before it happened.

4. What is the benefit of having unlimited control of American citizens? If its only to "install socialism", and if socialism is such a beneficial endeavor for them, why wait until 2008?

Put your thinking cap on for 20 minutes and humor me.

Here you go again on your quest to feel superior.

It doesnt matter what socialism is, whether its good or bad..... it simply doesnt matter............. i know you support socialism. I know that's you're thing..... i honestly done care to continue having this debate with you. Nothing you could ever say would make me agree with this "the world is your family" socialism mentality.

The point is, the government and many governments in the past know that it's more difficult to impose your will on armed citizens. Whether the government wanted to install socialism or make me eat my vegetables..... me being armed puts more significance on "no". It's a pretty simple idea really..... if someone breaks in my house and i walk into the living room and say "no, you cant have my TV", it works differently with and without a gun.

[.blank cd]

The question is when do you consider a fetus a living person.

When it has the ability to live independently from its host.

[Sinfix_15]

When it has the ability to live independently from its host.

Does that include being able to defend itself against a doctor? Because its not independent from it's host until you cut the cord.


Sounds like you agree with partial birth abortion, just like your president. You should start a petition to release Gosnell.

[.blank cd]

Here you go again on your quest to feel superior.

It doesnt matter what socialism is, whether its good or bad..... it simply doesnt matter............. i know you support socialism. I know that's you're thing..... i honestly done care to continue having this debate with you. Nothing you could ever say would make me agree with this "the world is your family" socialism mentality.

The point is, the government and many governments in the past know that it's more difficult to impose your will on armed citizens. Whether the government wanted to install socialism or make me eat my vegetables..... me being armed puts more significance on "no". It's a pretty simple idea really..... if someone breaks in my house and i walk into the living room and say "no, you cant have my TV", it works differently with and without a gun.
Then at this point rational discussion is off the table with you, and its clear that your mission isn't to add to the discourse or understand anything or expand your knowledge, but to oppose anything and everything that doesn't fit into your narrow worldview.

[.blank cd]

Does that include being able to defend itself against a doctor? Because its not independent from it's host until you cut the cord.

What part of "the ability to live independently from its host" was unclear to you?

[Sinfix_15]

Then at this point rational discussion is off the table with you, and its clear that your mission isn't to add to the discourse or understand anything or expand your knowledge, but to oppose anything and everything that doesn't fit into your narrow worldview.

Says the delusional ego-maniac liberal. You say i have a narrow world view but you're steadily on a quest to force yours on others. You dont need a mandate to help others. You can spend your entire life feeding the poor and clothing the homeless...... the point is that you want to force everyone to do it and you want to do it under government authority. Your government realizes that the 2nd amendment.... or the constitution in general, is a big hurdle in that process.

[bu villain]

So, why not allow abortions until a kid is 5 years old and can voice an opinion against it??

Good question that most people don't bother to ask. They just assume their unexplainable disgust gives them the correct answer. Either that or it hurts their head to think about when the correct time to give full rights to a fetus is so they just say it's conception to prevent themselves from having to actually think hard about it.


The question is when do you consider a fetus a living person.

That is one of the important questions but not the only one. Other important ones are "Do all living people have the same rights to life?" and "What are a woman's rights with respect to her own body?"

[David88vert]

When it has the ability to live independently from its host.


With that definition, only a baby fully born would be "independent from its host", as "host" would mean it was inside its mother still. If that is the case, would you support an elective abortion at 8.5 months, since the baby is still inside the mother?

A three week old infant does not have the ability to feed itself, and will die if left alone, so should that be considered "ok to kill"?

[Sinfix_15]

Good question that most people don't bother to ask. They just assume their unexplainable disgust gives them the correct answer. Either that or it hurts their head to think about when the correct time to give full rights to a fetus is so they just say it's conception to prevent themselves from having to actually think hard about it.



That is one of the important questions but not the only one. Other important ones are "Do all living people have the same rights to life?" and "What are a woman's rights with respect to her own body?"

I am pro-choice. How i rationalize that decision is understanding that i do not feel i have a conclusive answer and feel that the decision is better left with the potential mother than it is our government. Morally, i feel it is wrong, but when i remove emotion and weigh the cut and dry pros vs cons of it, i not so decisively decide to be pro-choice.

With that said, people like Blank who mock people for being pro-life and act as if it's a strike against their intelligence to support this cause.... i want to punch them in the face.

[Sinfix_15]

With that definition, only a baby fully born would be "independent from its host", as "host" would mean it was inside its mother still. If that is the case, would you support an elective abortion at 8.5 months, since the baby is still inside the mother?

A three week old infant does not have the ability to feed itself, and will die if left alone, so should that be considered "ok to kill"?

He words it in a "politically correct" way, but that is exactly what they believe...... as long as the baby's head is inside a vagina, it's a lifeless fetus and terminating it is no different than having a mole removed.

[.blank cd]

Says the delusional ego-maniac liberal. You say i have a narrow world view but you're steadily on a quest to force yours on others. You dont need a mandate to help others. You can spend your entire life feeding the poor and clothing the homeless...... the point is that you want to force everyone to do it and you want to do it under government authority. Your government realizes that the 2nd amendment.... or the constitution in general, is a big hurdle in that process.

Gotcha.

[bu villain]

I totally agree that you can be against (most) abortion and very intelligent but unfortunately intellect is not driving much of the discussions on the topic.

[Sinfix_15]

Gotcha.

I wish you did.... but unfortunately you seem to lack the mental capacity to review any ideology that doesnt fall inline with your conjured reality.

[.blank cd]

With that definition, only a baby fully born would be "independent from its host", as "host" would mean it was inside its mother still. If that is the case, would you support an elective abortion at 8.5 months, since the baby is still inside the mother?A fetus has the ability to live outside of its host weeks before it is full term....


A three week old infant does not have the ability to feed itself, and will die if left alone, so should that be considered "ok to kill"?Once the baby is separated from the umbilical cord, the mother is no longer a "host"

[Sinfix_15]

I totally agree that you can be against (most) abortion and very intelligent but unfortunately intellect is not driving much of the discussions on the topic.

Tell that to your pal..... he's the one spouting bumper sticker rhetoric about abortion.

[bu villain]

He words it in a "politically correct" way, but that is exactly what they belief...... as long as the baby's head is inside a vagina, it's a lifeless fetus and terminating it is no different than having a mole removed.

There may be some people who believe that but I think the most common definition of "able to live outside the mother" is closer to 24 weeks. The youngest premature child to survive was at about 22 weeks and that was considered miraculous.

[.blank cd]

I wish you did.... but unfortunately you seem to lack the mental capacity to review any ideology that doesnt fall inline with your conjured reality.

Speaking of mental capacity, did you answer those questions yet? Or were they too difficult for you? Do you not like challenges to your belief system?

[bu villain]

Tell that to your pal..... he's the one spouting bumper sticker rhetoric about abortion.

Ok blank listen up. I'm officially informing you that I believe people can be against (most) abortion and also intelligent. I don't recall you saying they couldn't be both but in case you did, consider yourself disagreed with.... pal!

PS. If you want, we can follow this up with 10 pages of insulting each other.

[Sinfix_15]

There may be some people who believe that but I think the most common definition of "able to live outside the mother" is closer to 24 weeks. The youngest premature child to survive was at about 22 weeks and that was considered miraculous.

I dont think the law should cater to the incompetence of the individual. There's no reason someone should wait that long to decide to get an abortion. "i didnt know i was pregnant" should be looked upon the same way as "i didnt know what the speed limit was" or "i didnt know i couldnt drink this margarita while driving"

[Sinfix_15]

Speaking of mental capacity, did you answer those questions yet? Or were they too difficult for you? Do you not like challenges to your belief system?

It's a different topic. I dont have to prove to you my opinion is correct for me to claim the right to have an opinion. Feel free to start a thread about the pros and cons of socialism. You're ok with the government forcing your beliefs on me, as long as it's your beliefs. If we were sitting here talking about the government forcing you to go to church and believe in jesus, somehow i feel the shoe would be on the other foot.

I dont support the government ruling over me regardless of the cause or it's merits.

[bu villain]

I dont think the law should cater to the incompetence of the individual. There's no reason someone should wait that long to decide to get an abortion. "i didnt know i was pregnant" should be looked upon the same way as "i didnt know what the speed limit was" or "i didnt know i couldnt drink this margarita while driving"

If that is your position to also need to explain why someone shouldn't be able to wait that long either. Keep in mind not everyone agrees that fetuses that young have any rights.

[Sinfix_15]

If that is your position to also need to explain why someone shouldn't be able to wait that long either. Keep in mind not everyone agrees that fetuses that young have any rights.

Well, that's where we need to be directing this conversation as a whole, rather than it being a political punch line. The argument should be based 100% on at what point you believe a fetus is a living person with rights.

Blank believes it's a lifeless lump of tissue until the head pops out. That's fine.... we're all entitled to our opinion. Just own your beliefs and dont disguise them to make them more politically palatable.

[.blank cd]

If that is your position to also need to explain why....

The only "why" he seems interested in is that Obama is for it so it must be bad, so I'm going to oppose it. He refuses to understand his position because its a challenge to his belief system which he feels is me forcing my beliefs on him, which is why he immediately shut down when I asked him what socialism was. He doesn't know and doesn't want to know anything more than Breitbart.com tells him.

Which is assuming he's not a troll playing a caricature of a radically conservative position

[.blank cd]

He could prove me wrong and answer the questions I posed to him. It would blow me the fuck away. But he won't. The answers to those questions would bring about cognitive dissonance.

[Sinfix_15]

The only "why" he seems interested in is that Obama is for it so it must be bad, so I'm going to oppose it. He refuses to understand his position because its a challenge to his belief system which he feels is me forcing my beliefs on him, which is why he immediately shut down when I asked him what socialism was. He doesn't know and doesn't want to know anything more than Breitbart.com tells him.

Which is assuming he's not a troll playing a caricature of a radically conservative position

The irony of this post is overwhelming......................

The only reason i'm "shutting down" is because ive been sitting here trying to decide where i want to go eat for the last 45 minutes, thinking that any minute i am going to make a decision and leave.

You act as if i am someone who hides from my beliefs??? I am open and honest about everything i believe and have no problem stating my position.

It's you........ the "caricature liberal" that refuses to accept that anyone could possibly disagree with your superior wisdom.... oh what dysfunction they must have to not see things your way!

It still makes me giggle that you call me a conservative...................................... ................. maybe you need to be educated on your misuse of terms.

[Sinfix_15]

He could prove me wrong and answer the questions I posed to him. It would blow me the fuck away. But he won't. The answers to those questions would bring about cognitive dissonance.

One of your core problems is that you believe that beliefs are something to be proven right or wrong. This is why you so often make the mistake of thinking that your beliefs are facts.

[Sinfix_15]

Start your socialism thread.... ask any question you wish. I'll gladly answer. Off to eat.

[bu villain]

Well, that's where we need to be directing this conversation as a whole, rather than it being a political punch line. The argument should be based 100% on at what point you believe a fetus is a living person with rights.

It will always be a political punchline because at its core, it is about philosophy and not fact. Sure you can present facts that support your personal philosophy but if you can't agree on the fundamental assumptions (e.g., fetuses deserve to live no matter what) then facts are irrelevant.


Blank believes it's a lifeless lump of tissue until the head pops out. That's fine.... we're all entitled to our opinion. Just own your beliefs and dont disguise them to make them more politically palatable.

I don't get that view from him when reading his posts but I'll let him clarify his own beliefs.

[.blank cd]

One of your core problems is that you believe that beliefs are something to be proven right or wrong. This is why you so often make the mistake of thinking that your beliefs are facts.

I don't think beliefs are something to be proven wrong per say, but, if you tell me you believe 2+2=5, expect your belief to be critically scrutinized.

[.blank cd]

It's you........ the "caricature liberal" that refuses to accept that anyone could possibly disagree with your superior wisdom.... oh what dysfunction they must have to not see things your way!If you believe you're right, back it up. That's all I gotta say. You're within a discussion, what makes you think your beliefs aren't subject to scrutiny?


It still makes me giggle that you call me a conservative...................................... ................. maybe you need to be educated on your misuse of terms.I don't think you're a conservative. I think you're more "liberal" than anyone on this site.

[Sinfix_15]

I don't think beliefs are something to be proven wrong per say, but, if you tell me you believe 2+2=5, expect your belief to be critically scrutinized.

Again..... you distort reality to suit your belief, it's the only thing you're capable of doing. It's how you function and get through life. You believe that your beliefs are "5" and they're not.

My belief system doesn't seek to prove your beliefs wrong or force my beliefs on you, i simply want the right to live my way and not be inhibited by you. Your belief system requires the acceptance of even those who chose not to accept. I've said this before...... pretty ironic for an atheist.

[Sinfix_15]

If you believe you're right, back it up. That's all I gotta say. You're within a discussion, what makes you think your beliefs aren't subject to scrutiny?

I don't think you're a conservative. I think you're more "liberal" than anyone on this site.

Scrutinizing beliefs is pointless..... On what grounds do you base your scrutiny??????? Can a christian tell you what is right and wrong based on their beliefs? based on their beliefs they can "prove" to you that theyre right. Based on your beliefs you can "prove" to them that you are also right..... what purpose does it serve???????

I dont seek to prove you wrong.... though it's often a effortless task, i seek to coexist with you, which isnt and will never be possible as long as your beliefs seek to legislate my life decisions.

[Sinfix_15]

If you believe you're right, back it up. That's all I gotta say. You're within a discussion, what makes you think your beliefs aren't subject to scrutiny?

I don't think you're a conservative. I think you're more "liberal" than anyone on this site.

You're contradicting yourself. oh wait..... i've already covered this previously..... you adjust "reality" as needed to suit your argument of the moment.

[.blank cd]

My belief system doesn't seek to prove your beliefs wrong or force my beliefs on youSo, what you're saying is, your beliefs are your own and aren't subject to critical scrutiny. No matter what those beliefs are?

[Sinfix_15]

So, what you're saying is, your beliefs are your own and aren't subject to critical scrutiny. No matter what those beliefs are?

Why do we have freedom of religion? why dont we just get together, sort it out and decide which religion is right and then everyone be that religion? real question, why dont we do that?

[.blank cd]

Scrutinizing beliefs is pointless..... On what grounds do you base your scrutiny??????? Can a christian tell you what is right and wrong based on their beliefs? based on their beliefs they can "prove" to you that theyre right. Based on your beliefs you can "prove" to them that you are also right..... what purpose does it serve???????Then what's the point of coming in here and discussing them? If you're not open to new ideas, then remove yourself from the discussion. No one else here shares in your belief that Obama is a socialistmarxistkenyanmuslimcommunist. You are the only one, and you're not gonna convince anyone else otherwise. I made it easy for you.

[.blank cd]

If believing in the evil government theory works for you, then fine. But stop posting and forcing your beliefs on me unless you want them scrutinized.

[Sinfix_15]

Then what's the point of coming in here and discussing them? If you're not open to new ideas, then remove yourself from the discussion. No one else here shares in your belief that Obama is a socialistmarxistkenyanmuslimcommunist. You are the only one, and you're not gonna convince anyone else otherwise. I made it easy for you.

Why deny that Obama is a socialist? that's why you support him..... claim your beliefs.


Some things are up for discussion, some are not......

you see, that's the difference in a republic and a democracy..... In a republic, i have rights that the majority can not take away from me. In a democracy, everything is subject to a vote..... as someone wise once said " a democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner ".... There was a point in time where democrats believed that your freedom was something they were entitled to vote on.

Everything you have in this world is attributed to the wonderful capitalist republic that we both call our home, even though you seek to change everything great that made it what it is today.

[Sinfix_15]

If believing in the evil government theory works for you, then fine. But stop posting and forcing your beliefs on me unless you want them scrutinized.

The government has recently admitted to it's "evil". It's no longer a theory.

You stand with tyrants as long as tyrants support your beliefs.

[.blank cd]

Why deny that Obama is a socialist? that's why you support him..... claim your beliefs.You made the claim that Obama is a socialist. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You do not wish to indulge in that evidence so the discussion is over.


Everything you have in this world is attributed to the wonderful capitalist republic that we both call our home, even though you seek to change everything great that made it what it is today.If that's what you believe.

[.blank cd]

The government has recently admitted to it's "evil". It's no longer a theory.

You stand with tyrants as long as tyrants support your beliefs.

That's your belief and you're entitled to it.

[Sinfix_15]

You made the claim that Obama is a socialist. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You do not wish to indulge in that evidence so the discussion is over.

If that's what you believe.


I pledge allegiance to the Flag,
of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands,
One Nation, under God
Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All.

It's not a belief, it's a fact, boy.

[.blank cd]

I pledge allegiance to the Flag,
of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands,
One Nation, under God
Indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for All.Written by a socialist.


It's not a belief, it's a fact, boy.Im gonna help you out with how a typical rational discussion goes. This right here is the point where you've stated your belief as a fact. At this point you should present your evidence of this fact, or else, its still a belief. Once you present this evidence, it is you presenting me with your belief. I have the option to either accept your evidence or rebut it with my own evidence to the contrary. Once I rebut your evidence with evidence to the contrary, you have the option to accept this evidence, or withdrawal.

You've stated that it is a fact that Obama is a socialist. I've asked for evidence. Your move.

[Sinfix_15]

Written by a socialist.

This right here is the point where you've stated your belief is a fact. At this point you should present your evidence of this fact, or else, its still a belief. Once you present this evidence, it is you presenting me with your belief. I have the option to either accept your evidence or rebut it with my own evidence to the contrary. Once I rebut your evidence with evidence to the contrary, you have the option to accept this evidence, or withdrawal.

My evidence that the unites states is a republic is that the united states calls it'self a republic.

Would you also like evidence that the name of the unites states is "the united states"? If so, given adequate time to prepare, i believe i can make that point.

[Sinfix_15]

You're going to great lengths to distort my comment about "beliefs", further proving that you're nothing more than an open book to me. I've labeled you correctly from day one. You are exactly as advertised.


God is real. Prove me wrong......

[.blank cd]

My evidence that the unites states is a republic is that the united states calls it'self a republic.

Would you also like evidence that the name of the unites states is "the united states"? If so, given adequate time to prepare, i believe i can make that point.I know what the United States calls itself.

All I want is evidence to the fact you stated. "Obama is a socialist", lets see the evidence. If you can provide convincing evidence, I'll believe you.

[.blank cd]

You're going to great lengths to distort my comment about "beliefs", further proving that you're nothing more than an open book to me. I've labeled you correctly from day one. You are exactly as advertised.Havent distorted anything actually.



God is real. Prove me wrong......The burden of proof rests on the person making the claim. You've now made the claim god is real. The burden of proof rests on you. Your move.

[Sinfix_15]

Havent distorted anything actually.


The burden of proof rests on the person making the claim. You've now made the claim god is real. The burden of proof rests on you. Your move.

Thank you for clarifying what a belief is...... now you can drop your charade and quit being a douche. You cant prove god isnt real anymore than i can prove that he is........ but we believe what we believe.

Now lets apply this logic towards our political beliefs. You seem to have a habit of thinking yours are concrete facts.....

[.blank cd]

Now lets apply this logic towards our political beliefs. You seem to have a habit of thinking yours are concrete facts.....Ok. You've made the claim Obama is a socialist, and you've stated it as a concrete fact. Since the burden of proof rests on you, present the evidence for your claim.

[Sinfix_15]

Ok. You've made the claim Obama is a socialist, and you've stated it as a concrete fact. Since the burden of proof rests on you, present the evidence for your claim.

Raising taxes on people who can "afford to pay a little more" to give it to other people is socialism. Mandating that everyone pay for a healthcare program is socialism. Redistribution of wealth, under any premise what so ever that is not completely voluntary, is socialism.

When i file my taxes at the end of the year and have to pay back more money, yet my coworker of a relative pay grade gets a $7000 return because he claims two kids, that's socialism.

I understand that you can make the argument that every form of government is socialism, IE fire departments, highways, police ect..... i separate public servants from the public. My taxes paying for a cop who protects everyone is not the same as my taxes paying for your section 8 house. Your section 8 house has absolutely no benefit to me what so ever........ "no taxation without representation".

[.blank cd]

Raising taxes on people who can "afford to pay a little more" to give it to other people is socialism. Mandating that everyone pay for a healthcare program is socialism. Redistribution of wealth, under any premise what so ever that is not completely voluntary, is socialism.

When i file my taxes at the end of the year and have to pay back more money, yet my coworker of a relative pay grade gets a $7000 return because he claims two kids, that's socialism.Now we're getting somewhere! Lets go one step at a time to avoid anyone getting confused

For clarity's sake, how did you come to this definition of socialism? In other words, why do you believe that raising taxes is socialism? Simple question, no wrong answer here.

[Sinfix_15]

Now we're getting somewhere! Lets go one step at a time to avoid anyone getting confused

For clarity's sake, how did you come to this definition of socialism? In other words, why do you believe that raising taxes is socialism?

Redistribution of wealth is socialism. Not taxes. It's the reasoning for raising taxes, not the action itself. Call me crazy, but i believe our government can operate on less than a trillion dollars a year......

[Sinfix_15]

Rather than you usual "this is how im superior" argument.... try something different.......................



sell me your ideas....... tell me how your ideas benefit me personally. Give me a scenario in which i personally benefit from your political ideology. "The burden of proof lies with you"

[.blank cd]

Redistribution of wealth is socialism. Not taxes. It's the reasoning for raising taxes, not the action itself...Ok, but how did you know what socialism is? Did someone tell you? Did you read someone's term paper, how did you come to the conclusion that redistribution of wealth is socialism?

[Sinfix_15]

Ok, but how did you know what socialism is? Did someone tell you? Did you read someone's term paper, how did you come to the conclusion that redistribution of wealth is socialism?

Funny.... for someone who throws around the term "strawman" so much............

rather than actually having a conversation about the beliefs we share and how theyre different, you chose to focus on my labeling of said belief and how i decided on that label.....

I honestly dont care what it's called........ socialism, soccer, lasagna..... doesnt matter. It's not the label that offends me..... it's your own ego that leads you to believing it is. That's the way your mind works.... when someone disagrees with you, you subconsciously divert to trying to figure out how they're mistaken.


So, drop the labels....... put down your strawman..... I do not believe taking care of the community is my responsibility. I do not believe in being a part of one big group that collectively takes care of each other. I dont believe people with more should be required to share with people who have less. I believe capitalism rewards people with what they deserve and if you feel you deserve more, the world is full of opportunity for you to go get it for yourself.

[.blank cd]

Funny.... for someone who throws around the term "strawman" so much............

rather than actually having a conversation about the beliefs we share and how theyre different, you chose to focus on my labeling of said belief and how i decided on that label.....

I honestly dont care what it's called........ socialism, soccer, lasagna..... doesnt matter. It's not the label that offends me..... it's your own ego that leads you to believing it is. That's the way your mind works.... when someone disagrees with you, you subconsciously divert to trying to figure out how they're mistaken.


So, drop the labels....... put down your strawman..... I do not believe taking care of the community is my responsibility. I do not believe in being a part of one big group that collectively takes care of each other. I dont believe people with more should be required to share with people who have less. I believe capitalism rewards people with what they deserve and if you feel you deserve more, the world is full of opportunity for you to go get it for yourself.

I'm trying to understand how much you understand what socialism is. Why so defensive? There wasn't a wrong answer. Did you read what the political philosophers who were the first to come up with socialism said about it? They seem to have a different idea of what socialism is. Why is your idea of socialism different than theirs?

You said that socialism is the redistribution of money through taxation, then you said the government could operate on $1T. How do you suppose the government get that money, then operate, without taking that money from someone, then giving it to someone else?

[Sinfix_15]

I'm trying to understand how much you understand what socialism is. Why so defensive? There wasn't a wrong answer. Did you read what the political philosophers who were the first to come up with socialism said about it? They seem to have a different idea of what socialism is. Why is your idea of socialism different than theirs?

You said that socialism is the redistribution of money through taxation, then you said the government could operate on $1T. How do you suppose the government get that money, then operate, without taking that money from someone, then giving it to someone else?

I should get a return on my tax dollars spent. Police is a service, firemen are a service... roads are a service. Even though these are things we are "group buying", i can still see an immediate return on my investment.

Why do they have a different idea about what socialism is??? simple. because they believe in it.... the same way a girl stays with her abusive boyfriend, she interprets the abuse as caring.... from the outside looking in, you may think differently, but her description of what's happening might be different.

I do not have a problem with being taxed. I expect a level of representation for those taxes taken.

Using section 8 housing as an example, this is of no benefit to me what so ever.

[David88vert]

Written by a socialist.


Francis Bellamy was a Baptist Minister and a Christian Socialist.

[David88vert]

I'm trying to understand how much you understand what socialism is. Why so defensive? There wasn't a wrong answer. Did you read what the political philosophers who were the first to come up with socialism said about it? They seem to have a different idea of what socialism is. Why is your idea of socialism different than theirs?

You said that socialism is the redistribution of money through taxation, then you said the government could operate on $1T. How do you suppose the government get that money, then operate, without taking that money from someone, then giving it to someone else?

Who was the true architect of modern socialism (from the economic perspective)? This should be easy for you, since you studied economics.

[bu villain]

My belief system doesn't seek to prove your beliefs wrong or force my beliefs on you, i simply want the right to live my way and not be inhibited by you. Your belief system requires the acceptance of even those who chose not to accept. I've said this before...... pretty ironic for an atheist.

It sounds good, but there is no system in which every person can live the way they want without being influenced by others beliefs. Groups will always have more power to force their beliefs on individuals. Government allows us to determine collectively which freedoms we want to restrict because one person's freedom can result in the denial of another's.


Why do we have freedom of religion? why dont we just get together, sort it out and decide which religion is right and then everyone be that religion? real question, why dont we do that?

We have freedom of religion because we collectively agree that it is a good thing. The same process that allows us to get together and enforce everyone's freedom of religion is the same process that could theoretically take it away. Democracy is a double edged sword and you can't only use one side.


I understand that you can make the argument that every form of government is socialism, IE fire departments, highways, police ect..... i separate public servants from the public. My taxes paying for a cop who protects everyone is not the same as my taxes paying for your section 8 house. Your section 8 house has absolutely no benefit to me what so ever........ "no taxation without representation".

You can disagree with the results of our representative democracy but that doesn't make it socialism or anything else than a representative democracy. You say no taxation without representation but you do have representation whether you agree with what your representative does or not. Representation does not entitle you to getting things your way, it's just a voice, no more valuable than anyone else's.

[Sinfix_15]

It sounds good, but there is no system in which every person can live the way they want without being influenced by others beliefs. Groups will always have more power to force their beliefs on individuals. Government allows us to determine collectively which freedoms we want to restrict because one person's freedom can result in the denial of another's.

You shouldnt have the freedom to support yourself off of my work....... that is where we went wrong. "as soon as people realize they can vote themselves money, that will be the end of the republic"..... how twisted have we become that you are literally saying to me that me wanting to keep the money i work for is denying someone else their freedom. It's a real tragedy that you or anyone else actually thinks this way. "government allows us...." That's not the way it was meant to be. For too long people have been willing to trade their freedom away to big government in exchange for entitlements... now the monster may be too big to ever be put back in it's cage.



We have freedom of religion because we collectively agree that it is a good thing. The same process that allows us to get together and enforce everyone's freedom of religion is the same process that could theoretically take it away. Democracy is a double edged sword and you can't only use one side.

What a great nation we live in..... where the majority can vote away the rights of the minority, no matter how stupid the majority is.




You can disagree with the results of our representative democracy but that doesn't make it socialism or anything else than a representative democracy. You say no taxation without representation but you do have representation whether you agree with what your representative does or not. Representation does not entitle you to getting things your way, it's just a voice, no more valuable than anyone else's.

So when the government uses it's agencies to attack political parties that support my views, that is my government representing me? When the government pushes unconstitutional laws, that is my government representing me? Are all of my rights borrowed from the government to be taken away whenever they see fit?

It's really sad.... democrats are ruining this country.

[.blank cd]

It's really sad.... democrats are ruining this country.

So how do you explain the fact that since social welfare became a thing in the US, the country has become richer and more powerful?...

[Sinfix_15]

So how do you explain the fact that since social welfare became a thing in the US, the country has become richer and more powerful?...

Yep, and you see the results of big government.

[Browning151]

So how do you explain the fact that since social welfare became a thing in the US, the country has become richer and more powerful?...

What happens when we reach a disproportionate number of people receiving to those paying in and it's no longer sustainable?

[David88vert]

What happens when we reach a disproportionate number of people receiving to those paying in and it's no longer sustainable?

The number of people receing and paying in is not the limitation. The amount of revenue being collected, minus operation needs, and the amount being distributed, is where the limitations are. Technically, you could ahve jsut one person paying in, and as long as he had enough to start with, the rest of the people could be receiving from that one individual. Of course, that one individual would likely be a king or dictator.

[David88vert]

It sounds good, but there is no system in which every person can live the way they want without being influenced by others beliefs. Groups will always have more power to force their beliefs on individuals. Government allows us to determine collectively which freedoms we want to restrict because one person's freedom can result in the denial of another's.

"there is no system in which every person can live the way they want without being influenced by others beliefs" - I completely agree.
"Groups will always have more power to force their beliefs on individuals" - true in many cases, but not all
"Government allows us to determine collectively which freedoms we want to restrict because one person's freedom can result in the denial of another's" - My disagreement here is with the term "allow". Allow assumes that the government has ownership of one's freedom of choice. That's not correct. Our government should be a management company, not a ruling entity that allows you to take actions. Our founding fathers never intended that the government would allow you to do anything, rather, they setup a government that would be a servant entity to the people. You may not have intended your statement that way, but that is something to consider in the choice of the word.

"Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature." - "On Government No. I", John Webbe, published in Benjamin Franklin's paper, The Pennsylvania Gazette, April 1, 1736


We have freedom of religion because we collectively agree that it is a good thing. The same process that allows us to get together and enforce everyone's freedom of religion is the same process that could theoretically take it away. Democracy is a double edged sword and you can't only use one side.

"We have freedom of religion because we collectively agree that it is a good thing" - I have to disagree. We have freedom of religion because it is a Constitutionally-protected freedom. Our fore-fathers recognized this as one of the most important reasons that the first Pilgrims came to America, and determined to make this a founding principal of this country from the beginning. "We the people" did not vote on this, or collectively agree - the founding fathers decided to collectively agree that this was an important founding principal that must be protected.

A democracy is not the same as a republic. A democracy is the rule of the majority over the individual. and the majority's power is absolute and not limited. A Republic protects the minority and individuals by establishing rights that are not designed to simply be overwritten by the collective will of the majority. That does not mean that it cannot be changed, but that amendments go through the proper checks and balances first, and pass Constitutional muster.


You can disagree with the results of our representative democracy but that doesn't make it socialism or anything else than a representative democracy. You say no taxation without representation but you do have representation whether you agree with what your representative does or not. Representation does not entitle you to getting things your way, it's just a voice, no more valuable than anyone else's.

"You say no taxation without representation but you do have representation whether you agree with what your representative does or not. Representation does not entitle you to getting things your way, it's just a voice, no more valuable than anyone else's." - Very true, and well-stated.

[Sinfix_15]

"there is no system in which every person can live the way they want without being influenced by others beliefs" - I completely agree.
"Groups will always have more power to force their beliefs on individuals" - true in many cases, but not all
"Government allows us to determine collectively which freedoms we want to restrict because one person's freedom can result in the denial of another's" - My disagreement here is with the term "allow". Allow assumes that the government has ownership of one's freedom of choice. That's not correct. Our government should be a management company, not a ruling entity that allows you to take actions. Our founding fathers never intended that the government would allow you to do anything, rather, they setup a government that would be a servant entity to the people. You may not have intended your statement that way, but that is something to consider in the choice of the word.

"Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature." - Benjamin Franklin



"We have freedom of religion because we collectively agree that it is a good thing" - I have to disagree. We have freedom of religion because it is a Constitutionally-protected freedom. Our fore-fathers recognized this as one of the most important reasons that the first Pilgrims came to America, and determined to make this a founding principal of this country from the beginning. "We the people" did not vote on this, or collectively agree - the founding fathers decided to collectively agree that this was an important founding principal that must be protected.

A democracy is not the same as a republic. A democracy is the rule of the majority over the individual. and the majority's power is absolute and not limited. A Republic protects the minority and individuals by establishing rights that are not designed to simply be overwritten by the collective will of the majority. That does not mean that it cannot be changed, but that amendments go through the proper checks and balances first, and pass Constitutional muster.



"You say no taxation without representation but you do have representation whether you agree with what your representative does or not. Representation does not entitle you to getting things your way, it's just a voice, no more valuable than anyone else's." - Very true, and well-stated.

" A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner "

[Browning151]

The number of people receing and paying in is not the limitation. The amount of revenue being collected, minus operation needs, and the amount being distributed, is where the limitations are. Technically, you could ahve jsut one person paying in, and as long as he had enough to start with, the rest of the people could be receiving from that one individual. Of course, that one individual would likely be a king or dictator.

Technically yes, but our system is not single payer, it is payed for through taxation. At some point the amount of taxes a small percentage must pay to support the majority is no longer viable, people either won't be able to survive or they will find ways to take their money/business etc. elsewhere. So technically percentage is not the factor, the taxation on that small percentage in order to maintain the needed amount of revenue will be. Then what happens? There is a tipping point that the system is unsustainable, what is it?

[David88vert]

" A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner "

^^ Gary Strand, Usenet group sci.environment, 23 April 1990

[David88vert]

Technically yes, but our system is not single payer, it is payed for through taxation. At some point the amount of taxes a small percentage must pay to support the majority is no longer viable, people either won't be able to survive or they will find ways to take their money/business etc. elsewhere. So technically percentage is not the factor, the taxation on that small percentage in order to maintain the needed amount of revenue will be. Then what happens? There is a tipping point that the system is unsustainable, what is it?

The system becomes unsustainable once the revenue amount collected through taxation cannot support the collective.

[Sinfix_15]

On the bright side...... hopefully i'll be dead before entitlement society completely takes over this country.

[Browning151]

The system becomes unsustainable once the revenue amount collected through taxation cannot support the collective.

Yes, clearly.

Eventually in our system you will reach a point where the percent of people paying cannot meet the amount of revenue needed, or should I say will not? If you reach the point that you must tax someone at an exorbitant rate to sustain the revenue, even though the revenue is there the system is still unsustainable.

[David88vert]

Yes, clearly.

Eventually in our system you will reach a point where the percent of people paying cannot meet the amount of revenue needed, or should I say will not? If you reach the point that you must tax someone at an exorbitant rate to sustain the revenue, even though the revenue is there the system is still unsustainable.

Let me state this another way.

First, let's assume that the total cost/need of the collective (including governmetn operation expenses) is $5 trillion per year ($5T/yr).
Second, let's make the assumption that a single person makes $5T/yr. No one else has any income at all.
Third, let's assume that the government taxes income at 100%.
If the government is collecting all of the tax revenue from that individual, then technically, the system is sustainable. As long as the individual continues to work, collect, and then pay out, and not increased cost impacts the government's expenses, then the system still works. If the costs increase over the amount collected, or anything else that makes revenue be less than what is being spent, then the budget starts into deficit spending. Technically, that is still sustainable as long as we have credit being extended to the government.

[Sinfix_15]

Let me state this another way.

First, let's assume that the total cost/need of the collective (including governmetn operation expenses) is $5 trillion per year ($5T/yr).
Second, let's make the assumption that a single person makes $5T/yr. No one else has any income at all.
Third, let's assume that the government taxes income at 100%.
If the government is collecting all of the tax revenue from that individual, then technically, the system is sustainable. As long as the individual continues to work, collect, and then pay out, and not increased cost impacts the government's expenses, then the system still works. If the costs increase over the amount collected, or anything else that makes revenue be less than what is being spent, then the budget starts into deficit spending. Technically, that is still sustainable as long as we have credit being extended to the government.

I believe he's saying that there is a point when the mule is going to say no to the wagon. I'm pretty sure that will happen long before the "mule" is contributing 100% of what it's capable of.

[David88vert]

I believe he's saying that there is a point when the mule is going to say no to the wagon. I'm pretty sure that will happen long before the "mule" is contributing 100% of what it's capable of.

That is where deficit spending comes into play. We currently are already in deficit spending and have a national debt as our yearly spending outpaces our revenue.

[Sinfix_15]

That is where deficit spending comes into play. We currently are already in deficit spending and have a national debt as our yearly spending outpaces our revenue.

Democrats would have us beat the mule to death first.

[Sinfix_15]

I've got a really crazy idea.......

lets create a currency... make it good for everything. Then have it to where people can do whatever they want to get this currency and trade it for anything they want. So that whether you want to pick vegetables and sell them for currency, or get paid to provide labor for currency... ect ect...

That way people can go out into the world and acquire their own currency rather than relying on the government to hand it out???

I know that's a crazy concept..... but i think it could work.

[Browning151]

I believe he's saying that there is a point when the mule is going to say no to the wagon. I'm pretty sure that will happen long before the "mule" is contributing 100% of what it's capable of.

Yes. I don't know why this had to be taken to such a technical point.


That is where deficit spending comes into play. We currently are already in deficit spending and have a national debt as our yearly spending outpaces our revenue.

Which cannot continue forever. You can't just borrow and print forever, eventually the well runs dry.

[Sinfix_15]

Yes. I don't know why this had to be taken to such a technical point.



Which cannot continue forever. You can't just borrow and print forever, eventually the well runs dry.

Future of our country doesnt matter.... as long as this month's welfare checks go out.

[.blank cd]

Which cannot continue forever. You can't just borrow and print forever, eventually the well runs dry.It isn't. This "outpacing" has been drawing back since 2009. And as long as growth continues to happen, the well wont run dry

[bu villain]

You shouldnt have the freedom to support yourself off of my work....... that is where we went wrong. "as soon as people realize they can vote themselves money, that will be the end of the republic"..... how twisted have we become that you are literally saying to me that me wanting to keep the money i work for is denying someone else their freedom. It's a real tragedy that you or anyone else actually thinks this way. "government allows us...." That's not the way it was meant to be. For too long people have been willing to trade their freedom away to big government in exchange for entitlements... now the monster may be too big to ever be put back in it's cage.

You are misinterpreting me. Take for example, your right to bear arms. It is an important freedom but it can also be used to deny others freedom. You can deny someone their right to live with it. You could also enslave someone with it and force them to support you with their work (the exact same thing you are complaining about). You can say how you think things should be but at the end of the day we have to deal with reality. Reality is that if enough people want to force you to follow their rules, you will never achieve that life you are hoping for.


What a great nation we live in..... where the majority can vote away the rights of the minority, no matter how stupid the majority is.

If you have a better system please let me know.


So when the government uses it's agencies to attack political parties that support my views, that is my government representing me? When the government pushes unconstitutional laws, that is my government representing me? Are all of my rights borrowed from the government to be taken away whenever they see fit?

The government is not one thing that represents one view. It is a conglomeration of many different views. If you don't feel your opinion is represented it's probably just because it is getting drown out by the other 300,000,000+ views. Your rights are not borrowed from the government but your rights don't always enforce themselves either.


"Government allows us to determine collectively which freedoms we want to restrict because one person's freedom can result in the denial of another's" - My disagreement here is with the term "allow". Allow assumes that the government has ownership of one's freedom of choice. That's not correct. Our government should be a management company, not a ruling entity that allows you to take actions. Our founding fathers never intended that the government would allow you to do anything, rather, they setup a government that would be a servant entity to the people. You may not have intended your statement that way, but that is something to consider in the choice of the word.

The word allow is confusing things here. A grill "allows" you to grill a steak. It doesn't give you permission. When I say the government allows us to determine our freedoms, I mean government is only a tool through which citizens can collectively decide and enforce those freedoms. It's still the citizens deciding, not the government as some separate entity. Also, freedoms may not last long if you don't have any way to enforce them. Of course governments are just as capable at taking away freedoms as it is protecting them. There is no solution to that problem that I know of. Checks and balances are the best we have.


"Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature." - "On Government No. I", John Webbe, published in Benjamin Franklin's paper, The Pennsylvania Gazette, April 1, 1736

Very true, but God and nature do not enforce those freedoms.


"We have freedom of religion because we collectively agree that it is a good thing" - I have to disagree. We have freedom of religion because it is a Constitutionally-protected freedom. Our fore-fathers recognized this as one of the most important reasons that the first Pilgrims came to America, and determined to make this a founding principal of this country from the beginning. "We the people" did not vote on this, or collectively agree - the founding fathers decided to collectively agree that this was an important founding principal that must be protected.

The constitution was and still is that agreement. The founding fathers were not dictators, they provided us a method to change the constitution. If enough citizens disagreed with the first amendment, it could be repealed through our constitutional process. The fact no one is trying to do that is reflective of our ongoing agreement.


A democracy is not the same as a republic. A democracy is the rule of the majority over the individual. and the majority's power is absolute and not limited. A Republic protects the minority and individuals by establishing rights that are not designed to simply be overwritten by the collective will of the majority. That does not mean that it cannot be changed, but that amendments go through the proper checks and balances first, and pass Constitutional muster.

I think some people are too caught up on the difference between a democracy and republic. The central issue in this discussion which you mention is that there is a process for the constitution to be changed. Thus there is no rule that isn't subjected to the citizens will. True, our republic requires more than 51% to change it but the core principle of collective agreement remains.

[David88vert]

The word allow is confusing things here. A grill "allows" you to grill a steak. It doesn't give you permission. When I say the government allows us to determine our freedoms, I mean government is only a tool through which citizens can collectively decide and enforce those freedoms. It's still the citizens deciding, not the government as some separate entity. Also, freedoms may not last long if you don't have any way to enforce them. Of course governments are just as capable at taking away freedoms as it is protecting them. There is no solution to that problem that I know of. Checks and balances are the best we have.

Very true, but God and nature do not enforce those freedoms.

The constitution was and still is that agreement. The founding fathers were not dictators, they provided us a method to change the constitution. If enough citizens disagreed with the first amendment, it could be repealed through our constitutional process. The fact no one is trying to do that is reflective of our ongoing agreement.

I think some people are too caught up on the difference between a democracy and republic. The central issue in this discussion which you mention is that there is a process for the constitution to be changed. Thus there is no rule that isn't subjected to the citizens will. True, our republic requires more than 51% to change it but the core principle of collective agreement remains.

I think that we share mostly the same view, but are expressing it from different viewpoints.

The process to amend the Constitution is not a simple majority vote, and was designed to be a detailed process in order to make sure that the Amendments would be at a more fundamental level than regular laws. If the people were to amend the Constitution through just a popular vote, that would be a Popular Amendment. This has never been done in the US, and is not mentioned in the Constitution.

Our current Amendment process has only been done 2 ways, of the 4 possible ways.
1) Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
2) Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
3) Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
4) Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)

Right now, for an Amendment to pass, you have to have both the House and the Senate pass it by 2/3 vote each, then have it ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures. It's not just a simple vote by Congress to pass an Amendment - and that is by design.

[bu villain]

I think that we share mostly the same view, but are expressing it from different viewpoints...

Yep, we both understand the details of how a constitutional amendment is passed. Sinflix seemed to imply that whatever the constitution says is more or less written in stone, can never change, and is not subject to the will of the people. That is what I was refuting. While our rights may be god given, the enforcement and collective recognition of those rights are written in the constitution and thus can change.

[BanginJimmy]

and is not subject to the will of the people.


You are wrong here. We the People do not get a vote on Constitutional Amendments.

[David88vert]

You are wrong here. We the People do not get a vote on Constitutional Amendments.

I just explained that - read again - I am not wrong. The people do not get to vote directly, that would be a Popular Amendment, which is not described as the process to amend the US Constitution. This is the same as what you are saying.
Constitutional Amendments - How is the Constitution amended? (http://www.lexisnexis.com/constitution/amendments_howitsdone.asp)
Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net (http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html)

[Sinfix_15]

You are misinterpreting me. Take for example, your right to bear arms. It is an important freedom but it can also be used to deny others freedom. You can deny someone their right to live with it. You could also enslave someone with it and force them to support you with their work (the exact same thing you are complaining about). You can say how you think things should be but at the end of the day we have to deal with reality. Reality is that if enough people want to force you to follow their rules, you will never achieve that life you are hoping for.

This is probably the poorest argument i've ever seen you construct. I am highly disappointed by this. You dont legislate based off the possibility of what someone could do. The problem is that you support a system that allows the majority to prey off the minority. What if everyone voted to re-enslave black people, would you just shrug and say "oh well, that's democracy massa" . THIS SYSTEM IS THE PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! QUIT VOTING FOR IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Quit voting for those who want to further expand and empower the government's ability to control your life.




If you have a better system please let me know. I do.... quit voting for democrats.




The government is not one thing that represents one view. It is a conglomeration of many different views. If you don't feel your opinion is represented it's probably just because it is getting drown out by the other 300,000,000+ views. Your rights are not borrowed from the government but your rights don't always enforce themselves either.



It shouldnt be that way. Nothing i believe in would effect anyone else's life what so ever....... we shouldnt allow the majority to vote themselves the freedoms of the minority. Some things should not be up for vote.....

Why dont democrats just be honest? you keep saying the constitution is not set in stone and can be changed...... its plenty obvious that it's one of the main goals of Obama to see that happen..... be honest then... run on that ticket..... instead of "hope and change" run on "The constitution gets in my way, lets get rid of it"

[Sinfix_15]

Connecticut, Colorado gun owners file lawsuit to win back Second Amendment rights - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/23/connecticut-colorado-gun-owners-file-lawsuit-get-b/)

[.blank cd]

Connecticut, Colorado gun owners file lawsuit to win back Second Amendment rights - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/23/connecticut-colorado-gun-owners-file-lawsuit-get-b/)

Win back? Which 2nd amendment right did they lose?

[Sinfix_15]

Win back? Which 2nd amendment right did they lose?

I forgot..... you feel that as long as someone can own a potato gun their right to bear arms is intact.

[.blank cd]

I forgot..... you feel that as long as someone can own a potato gun their right to bear arms is intact.

And you feel that its a constitutional right to own a magazine with more than a 10 round capacity and no serial number on it, and to be able to buy guns with no background checks.

So which 2nd amendment right got removed? I didn't see any news about the government amending the constitution.

[Sinfix_15]

And you feel that its a constitutional right to own a magazine with more than a 10 round capacity and no serial number on it, and to be able to buy guns with no background checks.

So which 2nd amendment right got removed? I didn't see any news about the government amending the constitution.

I dont believe the government should be able to reduce a right that was designed, in part, to defend you from the government. We should just let bank robbers decide what kind of vaults a bank can have....

If you still believe in big government, then there's really no hope for you.

"There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetuated under the shield of law and in the name of justice" - Montesquieu

[BanginJimmy]

And you feel that its a constitutional right to own a magazine with more than a 10 round capacity and no serial number on it, and to be able to buy guns with no background checks.

So which 2nd amendment right got removed? I didn't see any news about the government amending the constitution.


You really think 10rd magazines and magazines with a serial number is going to prevent a single gun crime from happening?

Background checks are something I support. However, it is completely unenforceable without complete registration. Colorado does not have a gun registration. Connecticut does not officially, but they do required a transfer form for any weapon transfer, even private party.

[Sinfix_15]

You really think 10rd magazines and magazines with a serial number is going to prevent a single gun crime from happening?

Background checks are something I support. However, it is completely unenforceable without complete registration. Colorado does not have a gun registration. Connecticut does not officially, but they do required a transfer form for any weapon transfer, even private party.

I would rather take my chances vs criminals with guns than allowing the government to decide who can and cannot have a gun, not that this issue is or ever was about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.

Also, theyre going further than just magazines with serial numbers.... they want individual bullets to have serial numbers. They want anything that makes it difficult to buy sell or produce firearms.... that's the bottom line. Limit gun ownership in any way possible.

[.blank cd]

You really think 10rd magazines and magazines with a serial number is going to prevent a single gun crime from happening?
Do you think it won't?

What would be the purpose of putting serial numbers on anything?

[BanginJimmy]

Do you think it won't?

What would be the purpose of putting serial numbers on anything?

No it won't prevent a single crime. Remember, criminals don't follow the law so they won't be affected by these laws.

The purpose of a serial number is tracking. What is the point of tracking a magazine?

Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk 2.

[.blank cd]

No it won't prevent a single crime. Remember, criminals don't follow the law so they won't be affected by these laws.

The purpose of a serial number is tracking. What is the point of tracking a magazine?

Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk 2.
I'm not asking if criminals follow laws, that talking point has been debunked time and time again, its flawed logic and it's gettin tired. We don't pass laws for criminals to follow. We pass laws so we have a guideline for punishment when they are broken. For example, we made a law for car theft, its called grand theft auto. Criminals didnt follow it before it was made, haven't followed it since it was made. But now that it exists, if you go out and take a car that isn't yours, we have a guideline to charge and punish you by.

The purpose for tracking magazines would be the same for tracking guns.

[bu villain]

This is probably the poorest argument i've ever seen you construct. I am highly disappointed by this. You dont legislate based off the possibility of what someone could do. The problem is that you support a system that allows the majority to prey off the minority. What if everyone voted to re-enslave black people, would you just shrug and say "oh well, that's democracy massa" . THIS SYSTEM IS THE PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! QUIT VOTING FOR IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Quit voting for those who want to further expand and empower the government's ability to control your life.

To be clear, the "system" is our voting system spelled out in the consititution. It is not democrats or republicans. Are you saying I shouldn't support the constitution. If everyone voted to re-enslave black people I would fight against it any way I could. You seem to think the outcome that is reached through the system is synonymous with the system itself. It is not.


I do.... quit voting for democrats.

Not voting for democrats is not a different system. It is the same system we currently have (representative democracy).



It shouldnt be that way. Nothing i believe in would effect anyone else's life what so ever....... we shouldnt allow the majority to vote themselves the freedoms of the minority. Some things should not be up for vote.....

Whether it should be or not, that is the way our process is set up. If 99/100 people want to pass a law requiring the murder of all babies, that will be the law no matter how horrible of a law it is. I agree some things shouldn't be up for a vote but I'm talking about the way things are, not the way they should be. Now if you have an idea of how to stop a large majority from getting their way, I'm all ears. And don't say stop voting for democrats because you can't stop people from voting for democrats if they want to.


Why dont democrats just be honest? you keep saying the constitution is not set in stone and can be changed...... its plenty obvious that it's one of the main goals of Obama to see that happen..... be honest then... run on that ticket..... instead of "hope and change" run on "The constitution gets in my way, lets get rid of it"

Politician honesty is a whole other topic. Also, aren't you arguing we should change the constitution so that some things can't be voted on?

[Sinfix_15]

To be clear, the "system" is our voting system spelled out in the consititution. It is not democrats or republicans. Are you saying I shouldn't support the constitution. If everyone voted to re-enslave black people I would fight against it any way I could. You seem to think the outcome that is reached through the system is synonymous with the system itself. It is not.



Not voting for democrats is not a different system. It is the same system we currently have (representative democracy).




Whether it should be or not, that is the way our process is set up. If 99/100 people want to pass a law requiring the murder of all babies, that will be the law no matter how horrible of a law it is. I agree some things shouldn't be up for a vote but I'm talking about the way things are, not the way they should be. Now if you have an idea of how to stop a large majority from getting their way, I'm all ears. And don't say stop voting for democrats because you can't stop people from voting for democrats if they want to.



Politician honesty is a whole other topic. Also, aren't you arguing we should change the constitution so that some things can't be voted on?


Democrats are not abiding by the current system. Theyre playing by their own rules while at the same time trying to tear down any rules that would prevent them from making their own rules. A vote for a democrat is a vote for a big government that answers to nobody.

[BanginJimmy]

I'm not asking if criminals follow laws, that talking point has been debunked time and time again, its flawed logic and it's gettin tired. We don't pass laws for criminals to follow. We pass laws so we have a guideline for punishment when they are broken. For example, we made a law for car theft, its called grand theft auto. Criminals didnt follow it before it was made, haven't followed it since it was made. But now that it exists, if you go out and take a car that isn't yours, we have a guideline to charge and punish you by.

So its a debunked myth that criminals dont follow the law? What logic is flawed about that?

A better analogy using your stole car example would be saying its ok to steal a dodge, but you go to jail for stealing a Lexus.


A magazine is absolutely useless without a gun to fire the rounds. We already have laws governing who can and who cannot legally possess a firearm. No more laws are needed for this.



The purpose for tracking magazines would be the same for tracking guns.

How exactly do you think they will be tracked? You think some gang banger is going to leave the magazine at the scene of a crime but take the gun? I've been around a LOT of gang bangers in my day and most carried guns at least some times. Not a single one carried multiple magazines.


BTW, how hard to you think it is to remove a serial number from a magazine? Or how about just getting magazines from out of state?


I'm surprised you havent brought up micro stamping.

[.blank cd]

So its a debunked myth that criminals dont follow the law? What logic is flawed about that?It is a debunked myth that we make laws for criminals to follow. Every law that's ever been made has been broken by criminals. Doesn't mean we don't make the laws, does it?



BTW, how hard to you think it is to remove a serial number from a magazine? Or how about just getting magazines from out of state?

As easy as it is for guns.

[Sinfix_15]

It is a debunked myth that we make laws for criminals to follow. Every law that's ever been made has been broken by criminals. Doesn't mean we don't make the laws, does it?




As easy as it is for guns.

Waste of time talking to this sheep. He's aware of the democratic agenda and is unwavering in his support for it. Gun control is not about safety or crime, it's about control.

[BanginJimmy]

As easy as it is for guns.

So you want a new set of laws covering interstate magazine sales? You want a new registry of all magazines sold? Sounds like a lot more hassle than its worth.

Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk 2.

[.blank cd]

So you want a new set of laws covering interstate magazine sales? You want a new registry of all magazines sold? Sounds like a lot more hassle than its worth.

Sent from my S3 using Tapatalk 2.

Wonder how many people said that when they started putting serial numbers on the guns themselves.

[BanginJimmy]

Wonder how many people said that when they started putting serial numbers on the guns themselves.

Magazines are worthless without guns so it isnt a valid comparison.

You are also comparing state law with federal law, making your argument even more baseless.

[Sinfix_15]

indoctrination..... brainwash them while theyre young.

Elementary School Beginning Toy Gun Turn-In Program - Patriot UpdatePatriot Update (http://patriotupdate.com/2013/06/elementary-school-beginning-toy-gun-turn-in-program/#.UbZ3U3I5qhc.twitter)

[.blank cd]

indoctrination..... brainwash them while theyre young.

Elementary School Beginning Toy Gun Turn-In Program - Patriot UpdatePatriot Update (http://patriotupdate.com/2013/06/elementary-school-beginning-toy-gun-turn-in-program/#.UbZ3U3I5qhc.twitter)

As much as I disagree with a toy gun turn in program, if this link is legitimate (I'm not gonna waste my time fact checking it), I don't see any implications of indoctrination.

[Sinfix_15]

14-year-old at the center of "NRA T-Shirt Controversy" now facin - WOWK 13 Charleston, Huntington WV News, Weather, Sports (http://www.wowktv.com/story/22587338/14-year-old-at-the-center-of-nra-t-shirt-controversy-now-facing-possibility-of-1-year-in-jail)

[Sinfix_15]

http://www.mississippigunnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/tale-of-two-cities.jpg

[David88vert]

"The police will protect you" - sure they will.

If there ever was an argument for owning a gun, THIS IS IT! » The Right Scoop - (http://therightscoop.com/if-there-ever-was-an-argument-for-owning-a-gun-this-is-it/)

[Sinfix_15]

"The police will protect you" - sure they will.

If there ever was an argument for owning a gun, THIS IS IT! » The Right Scoop - (http://therightscoop.com/if-there-ever-was-an-argument-for-owning-a-gun-this-is-it/)

"It's republicans fault because of the sequester" - Shit Blankcd is going to say.

[Elbow]

"The police will protect you" - sure they will.

If there ever was an argument for owning a gun, THIS IS IT! » The Right Scoop - (http://therightscoop.com/if-there-ever-was-an-argument-for-owning-a-gun-this-is-it/)

I don't get it, why did they have nobody to send? Why would the department not work "up there?"

Seems like they're in the middle of nowhere or something?

Pretty stupid though, I like how the operator is pretty much like "sorry you're shit out of luck."

[David88vert]

I don't get it, why did they have nobody to send? Why would the department not work "up there?"

Seems like they're in the middle of nowhere or something?

Pretty stupid though, I like how the operator is pretty much like "sorry you're shit out of luck."

The sheriff's department shut down at 10pm. They stated that on the call.

[Elbow]

The sheriff's department shut down at 10pm. They stated that on the call.

Oh I missed that, why the hell would it shut down at 10pm?

[.blank cd]

"It's republicans fault because of the sequester" - Shit Blankcd is going to say.

You've gone full retard lately. Never go full retard.

[.blank cd]

Oh I missed that
Because it wasnt stated in the video at all. Lol

[.blank cd]

In May of this year, the residents of that city shot down a tax increase that would have provided funding for more police. Presumably by anti-tax conservatives.

Sad state of affairs when your convoluted ideals trump community safety.

[Sinfix_15]

In May of this year, the residents of that city shot down a tax increase that would have provided funding for more police. Presumably by anti-tax conservatives.

Sad state of affairs when your convoluted ideals trump community safety.

Calls me retarded for making a sarcastic comment mocking something he would say...... then says what i said he would say.

The hypocrisy of this douche....

[.blank cd]

Calls me retarded for making a sarcastic comment mocking something he would say...... then says what i said he would say.

The hypocrisy of this douche....

Except what I actually said were the facts, and what you said I would say was a lie

[Sinfix_15]

I don't get it, why did they have nobody to send? Why would the department not work "up there?"

Seems like they're in the middle of nowhere or something?

Pretty stupid though, I like how the operator is pretty much like "sorry you're shit out of luck."

Its not much different in the city....... even though a cop does eventually come, it still can take hours.

Common known fact to people living in the real world. Waiting for the police has always been a LAST resort to self defense.

[Sinfix_15]

Except what I actually said were the facts, and what you said I would say was a lie

Nope, you're an open book to me kid. I probably know what you will eat for lunch tomorrow before you ever even get hungry. All you liberals think you're all snowflakes... yet every last one of you is exactly the same. Every sheep shares the same thoughts as the other sheep. Then there's you... pseudo intellectual amateur psychologist who's self righteous to the point of narcissism.

[.blank cd]

All you liberals think you're all snowflakes... yet every last one of you is exactly the same. Every sheep shares the same thoughts as the other sheep.Pot calling the kettle black again?
Then there's you... pseudo intellectual amateur psychologist who's self righteous to the point of narcissism.You forgot to mention smarter than you.

Sorry bro. I'm actually getting pretty tired of proving you wrong all the time. As little work as it takes to shut down your simple minded, fact neglecting bleeding heart American drivel, Im growing weary.

The fact is, there was a vote on extra taxes that would fund extra police. It was voted down.

Everyone else on the face of the earth realizes this. Why don't you? Do you simply disagree with me because I'm the one saying it? That's a shitty way to live your life.

[Sinfix_15]

Pot calling the kettle black again? You forgot to mention smarter than you.

Sorry bro. I'm actually getting pretty tired of proving you wrong all the time. As little work as it takes to shut down your simple minded, fact neglecting bleeding heart American drivel, Im growing weary.

The fact is, there was a vote on extra taxes that would fund extra police. It was voted down.

Everyone else on the face of the earth realizes this. Why don't you? Do you simply disagree with me because I'm the one saying it? That's a shitty way to live your life.

You are not smart kid.

[.blank cd]

Gotcha. Lost another argument again. That's the same response you give everytime you've lost an argument because of your ignorance.

[Sinfix_15]

Gotcha. Lost another argument again. That's the same response you give everytime you've lost an argument because of your ignorance.

It's just that i'm getting tired of proving you wrong all the time. As little work as it takes to shutdown your delusional liberal ideology, I have come to realize that your brain is not capable of excepting reality, i'm growing weary of trying to pull you back to reality.

I've successfully convinced everyone else that participates here that you're a moron. As much as i would like to take credit for this rather easy task, the only thing i had to do was inspire you to participate so everyone could evaluate you for themselves.

It's ok that you don't get it.... to be honest, the day you start agreeing with me, is probably a day when i begin questioning my own ideology.

[David88vert]

If she had an assault style weapon, she would have had the ability to defend herself.

[.blank cd]

If she had an assault style weapon, she would have had the ability to defend herself.

I assume she had a kitchen with a bunch of knives, rolling pins, broom handles.....

...you know, tools.

[Sinfix_15]

I assume she had a kitchen with a bunch of knives, rolling pins, broom handles.....

...you know, tools.

Sucks to only have a screw driver when you need a wrench.

[David88vert]

I assume she had a kitchen with a bunch of knives, rolling pins, broom handles.....

...you know, tools.

Stop being sexist......

[Sinfix_15]

Stop being sexist......

lol....

[Sinfix_15]

911 operator should have said "did you offer him a sandwich?" "do his clothes need washed?" "did you try having sex with him?"

[.blank cd]

Sucks to only have a screw driver when you need a wrench.

http://i01.i.aliimg.com/photo/v0/254939431/0505_Slotted_hex_washer_head_bolt.jpg

[David88vert]

http://i01.i.aliimg.com/photo/v0/254939431/0505_Slotted_hex_washer_head_bolt.jpg

http://cache0.bigcartel.com/product_images/97201783/ScrewDriverPhillips.JPG

[Sinfix_15]

AR15 = http://gearpatrol.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Leatherman-OHT-best-multi-tool-gear-patrol.jpg

[bu villain]

To me, it's completely obvious there are times where a gun is a useful tool but that isn't the end of the debate on gun control. That's only where it starts. We already put restrictions on all sorts of tools including guns. The question is what are reasonable restrictions and what aren't? Although some people think its a very simply answer, I personally think it is quite difficult to answer.

[Elbow]

I agree the police won't always be there to save the day, too many issues not enough cops and time.

I will say though in the few times I've called the police and wanted them there pretty quickly they got there VERY quickly. You typically need to say "gun" or "dead" though for immediate response.

[Sinfix_15]

To me, it's completely obvious there are times where a gun is a useful tool but that isn't the end of the debate on gun control. That's only where it starts. We already put restrictions on all sorts of tools including guns. The question is what are reasonable restrictions and what aren't? Although some people think its a very simply answer, I personally think it is quite difficult to answer.

The US is the last free republic on the planet..... the people who do not like complete freedom and the dangers that come with it are free to move to the communist country of their choosing.

[bu villain]

The US is the last free republic on the planet..... the people who do not like complete freedom and the dangers that come with it are free to move to the communist country of their choosing.

There is no such thing as complete freedom. That sort of idealistic rhetoric just obscures the realities of living in a society where compromises between conflicting rights must be made. Everyone in this country is free to speak up about what laws they think should govern the land and they are free to engage in the political process in order to influence what laws are made. If the founders didn't intend for the people to continually question and evolve the laws over time, they wouldn't have created the process by which to do so.

[Sinfix_15]

There is no such thing as complete freedom. That sort of idealistic rhetoric just obscures the realities of living in a society where compromises between conflicting rights must be made. Everyone in this country is free to speak up about what laws they think should govern the land and they are free to engage in the political process in order to influence what laws are made. If the founders didn't intend for the people to continually question and evolve the laws over time, they wouldn't have created the process by which to do so.

The meaning of the constitution is lost in translation. Democrats dissect it only looking for ways to get around it.

It doesnt say "the right to bear arms wont be infringed until politicians decide it should be infringed".....

In regards to the 2nd amendment, many of the founders stated that defense FROM government was one of the main reasons. It seems illogical to think the government can strip you of a right intended to prevent your government from stripping you of rights.

[.blank cd]

I think Sinfix's version of the country is pretty utopian to him.

[Sinfix_15]

To me, one of the primary differences in the left and the right....

The left focuses on what the founders DIDNT say in the constitution
The right focuses on what they DID say.


Founders - "right to bear arms shall not be infringed"
Left - "They didnt say ar15"

[.blank cd]

It doesnt say "the right to bear arms wont be infringed until politicians decide it should be infringed".....

In regards to the 2nd amendment, many of the founders stated that defense FROM government was one of the main reasons. It seems illogical to think the government can strip you of a right intended to prevent your government from stripping you of rights.

The government the founders were trying to protect citizens from and the government that were imposing the regulations are NOT the same.

[Sinfix_15]

I think Sinfix's version of the country is pretty utopian to him.

My version of the country is freedom. Freedom should be a utopia for anyone. I dont want to tell you how to live your life.... i just want you to stop telling me how to live mine. For democrats, that is too much to ask.

[Sinfix_15]

The government the founders were trying to protect citizens from and the government that were imposing the regulations are NOT the same.

says you..... government is government, they all suffer from the same tribulations.

[.blank cd]

says you..... government is government, they all suffer from the same tribulations.

Says every single historian that's ever lived since that point. And Im more inclined to believe them than you. Sorry. That's a part of history. You can't change it to suit your wishes.

[Sinfix_15]

Says every single historian that's ever lived since that point. And Im more inclined to believe them than you. Sorry. That's a part of history. You can't change it to suit your wishes.

Liberals will say anything to promote their agenda.

You will find true intelligence when you start challenging what your professors tell you rather than taking it as gospel. You're a book worm, you are not smart. Remembering what you're told is not intelligence.

[.blank cd]

Liberals will say anything to promote their agenda.

You will find true intelligence when you start challenging what your professors tell you rather than taking it as gospel. You're a book worm, you are not smart. Remembering what you're told is not intelligence.

So the people that wrote the 2nd amendment weren't talking about the British government, despite what every single history book, every historical document ever written on the topic says. Seems like when I challenge the professors, the answer is still the truth. I find it hard to believe the entire global university system is connected in attempting to undermine US democracy and education in spite of your truth.

Do you have evidence that the authors of the bill of rights, these wealthy land owners and slave owners intended on everyone having a gun to protect them from them? I would be more than happy to see it.

[Elbow]

To me, one of the primary differences in the left and the right....

The left focuses on what the founders DIDNT say in the constitution
The right focuses on what they DID say.


Founders - "right to bear arms shall not be infringed"
Left - "They didnt say ar15"

No but some things need to be modified to meet modern times.

[Sinfix_15]

So the people that wrote the 2nd amendment weren't talking about the British government, despite what every single history book, every historical document ever written on the topic says. Seems like when I challenge the professors, the answer is still the truth. I find it hard to believe the entire global university system is connected in attempting to undermine US democracy and education in spite of your truth.

Do you have evidence that the authors of the bill of rights, these wealthy land owners and slave owners intended on everyone having a gun to protect them from them? I would be more than happy to see it.

I don't see you as someone who would challenge your professor on anything, you're too conformed to the hive mindset. You don't have a single original thought in your brain, you're just reading Al Sharpton's cliff notes.


Ok, i will submit to your point. I dont believe it, but for the sake of argument i will continue assuming that your statement is correct.

So the constitution and/or the statements made by the founders in regards to protecting us from "the government" were talking about the british government and not our own..... this is what you're saying.

Ok, so the british government still exists..... as do a variety of other nations who conflict with our standard of living. Back then they would have had to sail over on a boat to get to us........ now they can get here in planes, aircraft carriers, submarines..... did they somehow become less of a threat with modern technology?

"the beauty of the 2nd amendment is that you wont need it until they come to take it".... So this statement is only in regards to the british government? indians? who?... to me... ANYONE that tries to take it, including our own government.

"When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears its people there is liberty" i suppose this is speaking to the british government also? it's not a statement applied to government in general..... why didnt they say "when the british government fears america, there is liberty"??

Like i said..... the constitution is lost in translation. Democrats seek to diminish it's value by questioning it's translation. Obama himself said it. Liberals arent even shy anymore about their communist agenda.... they dont have to be, they have your unconditional support whether theyre communist or not.

[Sinfix_15]

No but some things need to be modified to meet modern times.

"shall not be infringed"

[.blank cd]

Ok, i will submit to your point. I dont believe it, but for the sake of argument i will continue assuming that your statement is correct.What about it don't you believe? Where is the evidence suggesting the founders wanted to arm everyone to protect themselves from themselves? If you have it, show it, and I might change my mind.


So the constitution and/or the statements made by the founders in regards to protecting us from "the government" were talking about the british government and not our own..... this is what you're saying.

Ok, so the british government still exists..... as do a variety of other nations who conflict with our standard of living. Back then they would have had to sail over on a boat to get to us........ now they can get here in planes, aircraft carriers, submarines..... did they somehow become less of a threat with modern technology?Nope. But before they get to us, they have to get through the US government.


"the beauty of the 2nd amendment is that you wont need it until they come to take it".... So this statement is only in regards to the british government? indians? who?... to me... ANYONE that tries to take it, including our own government.A lot of other things would have to take place in order for that to happen. If it came to that point, you'd already be fucked anyway. Not to mention, the government has a strategic advantage over you.


"When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears its people there is liberty" i suppose this is speaking to the british government also? it's not a statement applied to government in general..... why didnt they say "when the british government fears america, there is liberty"??No one is even sure if that is a real quote or a made up one. No one can seem to find it in any print earlier than 1910

[bu villain]

It doesnt say "the right to bear arms wont be infringed until politicians decide it should be infringed".....

In regards to the 2nd amendment, many of the founders stated that defense FROM government was one of the main reasons. It seems illogical to think the government can strip you of a right intended to prevent your government from stripping you of rights.

Indeed I think they did intend the second amendment to be a defense against a tyrannical government. However, the fact they instituted a process for changing the constitution and it's amendments I think is conclusive evidence that the document is not intended to be set in stone. The system isn't set up to prevent government from over reaching but it is set up to ensure the citizens are the ones who get the final word (through voting) so that the government can not act tyrannically without having to answer to the people.


To me, one of the primary differences in the left and the right....

The left focuses on what the founders DIDNT say in the constitution
The right focuses on what they DID say.


Founders - "right to bear arms shall not be infringed"
Left - "They didnt say ar15"

I think that is true to an extent but sometimes what isn't said is as important as what is said. The founders could never have imagined all the changes that have happened over the last couple centuries. To assume anyone knows perfectly what they would have thought about current society and technology is quite presumptuous. From what I know of the founders, the weren't so arrogant to believe that things couldn't or shouldn't change over time. Once again, I refer to the process they set up for changing the constitution.

[Sinfix_15]

What about it don't you believe? Where is the evidence suggesting the founders wanted to arm everyone to protect themselves from themselves? If you have it, show it, and I might change my mind.

Nope. But before they get to us, they have to get through the US government.

A lot of other things would have to take place in order for that to happen. If it came to that point, you'd already be fucked anyway. Not to mention, the government has a strategic advantage over you.

No one is even sure if that is a real quote or a made up one. No one can seem to find it in any print earlier than 1910

So the british government didnt have an advantage over the founders? were they not "fucked anyway"...?? Why didnt the constitution say "we're out numbered by the british, you can keep your guns until they decide to take them, cause if they do, we're fucked anyway"

The odds being stacked against you is no reason to surrender. That is not the american way, we dont surrender.

[David88vert]

The government the founders were trying to protect citizens from and the government that were imposing the regulations are NOT the same.


Says every single historian that's ever lived since that point. And Im more inclined to believe them than you. Sorry. That's a part of history. You can't change it to suit your wishes.


So the people that wrote the 2nd amendment weren't talking about the British government, despite what every single history book, every historical document ever written on the topic says. Seems like when I challenge the professors, the answer is still the truth. I find it hard to believe the entire global university system is connected in attempting to undermine US democracy and education in spite of your truth.

Do you have evidence that the authors of the bill of rights, these wealthy land owners and slave owners intended on everyone having a gun to protect them from them? I would be more than happy to see it.

blank - The Constitution and Bill of Rights were not written about the British government. You are 100% incorrect on that. NO historian worth his salt would every say that the US Constitution and the Amendments were written about the British government.
Learn your history: Constitution of the United States - A History (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_history.html)

[.blank cd]

So the british government didnt have an advantage over the founders? were they not "fucked anyway"...?? Why didnt the constitution say "we're out numbered by the british, you can keep your guns until they decide to take them, cause if they do, we're fucked anyway"

The odds being stacked against you is no reason to surrender. That is not the american way, we dont surrender.This is why some subscribe to the "well regulated militia" theory, that the 2nd amendment was intended to more or less make an army out of citizens making the US larger than the British army, at the time they were stronger and better funded than us.

[.blank cd]

blank - The Constitution and Bill of Rights were not written about the British government. You are 100% incorrect on that. NO historian worth his salt would every say that the US Constitution and the Amendments were written about the British government.
Learn your history: Constitution of the United States - A History (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_history.html)

Now you're putting words I didn't say in my mouth. Learn your history some more.

[Sinfix_15]

This is why some subscribe to the "well regulated militia" theory, that the 2nd amendment was intended to more or less make an army out of citizens making the US larger than the British army, at the time they were stronger and better funded than us.

The chinese military out numbers us does it not?

[Sinfix_15]

I feel my work is done here for the day......

I will let Blank's brain marinate for a day and check to see if he's any closer to joining reality another time.

[David88vert]

This is why some subscribe to the "well regulated militia" theory, that the 2nd amendment was intended to more or less make an army out of citizens making the US larger than the British army, at the time they were stronger and better funded than us.

The Revolutionary War ended in September of 1783. The Bill of Rights was written in 1789. They were not fighting the British - that war had already ended.

The US did not have an army during that period - we only had militia, and the states carried more power back then.

[David88vert]

Now you're putting words I didn't say in my mouth. Learn your history some more.

You have no chance at matching me in recollection of history.

[.blank cd]

The Revolutionary War ended in September of 1783. The Bill of Rights was written in 1789. They were not fighting the British - that war had already ended.I didn't say we were fighting a war, did I?

[.blank cd]

You have no chance at matching me in recollection of history.

LMAO. Sorry old man. Forgot you were around back then.

[.blank cd]

The chinese military out numbers us does it not?

What's your point? Maybe America should have a billion people between its borders?

[David88vert]

I didn't say we were fighting a war, did I?

We didn't need to "make an army out of citizens" to "make the US larger than the British army" - we already had defeated them, and already had our militias.

As for the British Army being well-funded and stronger - obviously, they were not stronger at the end of the war in the US theatre (and lost the War of 1812 to the US as well), and prior to the war starting, they were already in debt, hence the increase in the King's taxes, and the Revolutionary War. They weren't in the poor house though either.

I suggest that you download and watch the 4 part PBS special on the Constitution. They are good basic history documentaries.
Part 1 is called "A More Perfect Union"
Part 2 is called "It's A Free Country"
Part 3 is called "Created Equal"
Part 4 is called "Built To Last"

[.blank cd]

We didn't need to "make an army out of citizens" to "make the US larger than the British army" - we already had defeated them, and already had our militias.

As for the British Army being well-funded and stronger - obviously, they were not stronger at the end of the war in the US theatre (and lost the War of 1812 to the US as well), and prior to the war starting, they were already in debt, hence the increase in the King's taxes, and the Revolutionary War. They weren't in the poor house though either.How does that change anything I said? You're not that great at this history thing are you?

[David88vert]

How does that change anything I said? You're not that great at this history thing are you?

I am fine with my knowledge of history; you, however, have difficulty with thinking. Re-read your statements. Your "knowledge" of the Revolutionary War shows your lack of education.


The government the founders were trying to protect citizens from and the government that were imposing the regulations are NOT the same.


So the people that wrote the 2nd amendment weren't talking about the British government, despite what every single history book, every historical document ever written on the topic says. Seems like when I challenge the professors, the answer is still the truth. I find it hard to believe the entire global university system is connected in attempting to undermine US democracy and education in spite of your truth.


YOUR statements - British government was the reason for the 2nd Amendment being written as it is. Either that is a false statement, or you are really stretching for a vague, indirect reference to King George III's troops being on American soil prior to the Revolutionary War. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt on it, but that is an extreme stretch to say that it had any impactful influence as their is no direct evidence of that.

The real world knows that when the US established a permanent professional army, controlled by the federal government, many of the "anti-Federalists" feared a standing army as an instrument of oppression. State militias were viewed as a counterbalance to the federal army and the Second Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from having the legal ability to be able to disarm the state-run militias.

[Sinfix_15]

How does that change anything I said? You're not that great at this history thing are you?

vintage blank cd, responding with unabashed self righteousness even when someone is proving him the fool.

[Sinfix_15]

MILLER: Taxing the Second Amendment - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/25/taxing-the-second-amendment/#.UcmoSn8XCkQ.twitter)

[David88vert]

MILLER: Taxing the Second Amendment - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jun/25/taxing-the-second-amendment/#.UcmoSn8XCkQ.twitter)

I don't agree with Emily Miller's assessment of a tax on firearms and ammunition. There is nothing in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that say that they cannot be taxed, and they currently are taxed through sales tax.

[Sinfix_15]

I don't agree with Emily Miller's assessment of a tax on firearms and ammunition. There is nothing in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that say that they cannot be taxed, and they currently are taxed through sales tax.

Taxed enough already.

[.blank cd]

Taxed enough already.

Don't buy a gun if you don't want to be taxed on it. Problem solved.

[David88vert]

Taxed enough already.

If it is important enough to you to purchase a firearm or ammunition, you will still purchase it, with or without the tax. The question is, what do they need the additional revenue for? If it is really for a gun buy-back program, and would be earmarked specifically for that fund, I would have no issue with it.
In fact, if that was the case, then you would collect more revenue from higher end guns and ammunition, and that tax money would be used to get "Saturday night specials" and other low end guns off the street. Typically, these lower end firearms are used more in criminal interests, and are the most likely to get turned in when there is a buy-back. Legal purchasers, collectors, etc typically do not like to purchase and keep these lower end firearms, so what is the problem with this approach?



Don't buy a gun if you don't want to be taxed on it. Problem solved.

That's a simple answer, but a valid one. The same type of answer could be put towards any item, but would you still have the same answer if "air conditioner" or "organic vegetables" was substituted for "firearm"? Just food for thought - nothing more, and not "attacking" your statement or anything like that. I'm mostly agreeing with you on this one, that the tax can be avoided if you wish to.

[.blank cd]

That's a simple answer, but a valid one. The same type of answer could be put towards any item, but would you still have the same answer if "air conditioner" or "organic vegetables" was substituted for "firearm"? Just food for thought - nothing more, and not "attacking" your statement or anything like that. I'm mostly agreeing with you on this one, that the tax can be avoided if you wish to.
I don't give a shit whether or not I'm taxed on an air conditioner or organic vegetables or a gun. A $20 tax isn't gonna stop me from purchasing $500 firearm. If I didnt want to pay the tax on any of those, I wouldn't buy them

[Sinfix_15]

I don't give a shit whether or not I'm taxed on an air conditioner or organic vegetables or a gun. A $20 tax isn't gonna stop me from purchasing $500 firearm. If I didnt want to pay the tax on any of those, I wouldn't buy them

You're the perfect democrat..... you've already accepted that you're nothing more than tax cattle.

[.blank cd]

You're the perfect democrat..... you've already accepted that you're nothing more than tax cattle.

What in the world are you talking about? Do you realize how ignorant you sound? LOL

[David88vert]

I don't give a shit whether or not I'm taxed on an air conditioner or organic vegetables or a gun. A $20 tax isn't gonna stop me from purchasing $500 firearm. If I didnt want to pay the tax on any of those, I wouldn't buy them

Fair enough. What if the "air conditioner" cost $500, and the tax was raised to be 1:1 cost? So that $500 air conditioner started to cost $1000, and every other item deemed a "luxury/non-necessity" by the government was taxed at 1:1? If the A/C unit cost $500, but tax was 4:1, so the total was then $2500, would that still be ok? Would that be ok, or is there a limit to being reasonable?

[Sinfix_15]

Fair enough. What if the "air conditioner" cost $500, and the tax was raised to be 1:1 cost? So that $500 air conditioner started to cost $1000, and every other item deemed a "luxury/non-necessity" by the government was taxed at 1:1? If the A/C unit cost $500, but tax was 4:1, so the total was then $2500, would that still be ok? Would that be ok, or is there a limit to being reasonable?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=HlTxGHn4sH4

[.blank cd]

Fair enough. What if the "air conditioner" cost $500, and the tax was raised to be 1:1 cost? So that $500 air conditioner started to cost $1000, and every other item deemed a "luxury/non-necessity" by the government was taxed at 1:1? If the A/C unit cost $500, but tax was 4:1, so the total was then $2500, would that still be ok? Would that be ok, or is there a limit to being reasonable?

A 100-400% tax on an air conditioner is pretty unreasonable.

[Sinfix_15]

A 100-400% tax on an air conditioner is pretty unreasonable.

air conditioning is destroying our planet. If we can save one tree then we have to try.

[David88vert]

A 100-400% tax on an air conditioner is pretty unreasonable.

Ok, just was asking.

[Sinfix_15]

DON (http://youngcons.com/dont-mess-with-a-mans-family/)

"nothing you could have done"

This man would disagree.

[.blank cd]

DON (http://youngcons.com/dont-mess-with-a-mans-family/)

"nothing you could have done"

This man would disagree.

What would this man disagree about?

[Sinfix_15]

What would this man disagree about?

The common statement that having a gun wont protect you from a criminal.

I feel like i spelled this out...

"nothing you could have done"..........

[.blank cd]

The common statement that having a gun wont protect you from a criminal.

I feel like i spelled this out...

"nothing you could have done"..........

Is it at all possible for you to judge each situation on its own merits? This isn't a common statement at all. Sometimes a gun won't help you, sometimes it will. That doesn't mean the woman from your last thread should have had a gun, that doesn't mean the man from this article should not have had a gun.

[Sinfix_15]

Is it at all possible for you to judge each situation on its own merits? This isn't a common statement at all. Sometimes a gun won't help you, sometimes it will. That doesn't mean the woman from your last thread should have had a gun, that doesn't mean the man from this article should not have had a gun.

Fair enough, but what i'm "fight for" is the right to decide for yourself and not let politicians make the decision for you.

[.blank cd]

Fair enough, but what i'm "fight for" is the right to decide for yourself and not let politicians make the decision for you.

Keep fighting the good fight

[Sinfix_15]

Keep fighting the good fight

You should join me. Your rights are worth fighting for. It's easier to defend them than it will be to get them back.

[Sinfix_15]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BASbwrpCUAMc3iv.jpg:large

[Sinfix_15]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6QRNnayYpDw


Hey BU, you said that one of the great things about this country was that i could insult the most powerful people on the planet and nothing happen...........

no so fast...................

“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”

[bu villain]

Can't see vids here, I'll have to check it out later. I stand by my statement from before though.

[.blank cd]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BASbwrpCUAMc3iv.jpg:large

I agree with Henry.

[Sinfix_15]

I agree with Henry.

You would...

I agree with Thomas. If you dont think you should defend your rights.... what else is worth defending???

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

[Sinfix_15]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BN58AK_CUAASwcS.jpg:large

[Sinfix_15]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=o8YDnd1Yoyk

[bu villain]

Hey BU, you said that one of the great things about this country was that i could insult the most powerful people on the planet and nothing happen...........

no so fast...................

“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”

Ok so I watched the video and yes that proposed legislation is a terrible idea but I'm not worried that it will actually pass. The wording as summarized in the video is obviously ridiculously broad. It's funny that you put that quote at the bottom though since applying it to the video would mean that everyone rules over everyone if such legislation became law.

[Sinfix_15]

Ok so I watched the video and yes that proposed legislation is a terrible idea but I'm not worried that it will actually pass. The wording as summarized in the video is obviously ridiculously broad. It's funny that you put that quote at the bottom though since applying it to the video would mean that everyone rules over everyone if such legislation became law.

You have too much faith in government.

[Sinfix_15]

LiveLeak.com - 4th of July DUI Checkpoint (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9e3_1373034153)

[Echonova]

LiveLeak.com - 4th of July DUI Checkpoint (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9e3_1373034153)While I have had a run-ins like this once or twice, I've also had situations where the officer had every right to cart me off to jail and didn't.



I don't wanna say you have to take the good with the bad... But you kinda do.

[Sinfix_15]

While I have had a run-ins like this once or twice, I've also had situations where the officer had every right to cart me off to jail and didn't.



I don't wanna say you have to take the good with the bad... But you kinda do.

I dont plan on cooperating with any government employees who violate my rights.

[BanginJimmy]

I dont plan on cooperating with any government employees who violate my rights.

Exactly which rights were violated?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[Sinfix_15]

Exactly which rights were violated?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

This, in addition to just being a rude fuck.
http://speaklibertynow.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/fourthamendment.jpg

[BanginJimmy]

This, in addition to just being a rude fuck.
http://speaklibertynow.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/fourthamendment.jpg

Nope. The kid wouldn't comply with basic requests for info, creating a reasonable suspicion.

Sent from my Galaxy SIII using Tapatalk 2.

[Sinfix_15]

Lawsuit: Police seize homes, arrest owners to investigate neighbor | The Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/05/lawsuit-police-seize-homes-arrest-owners-to-investigate-neighbor/)

[Sinfix_15]

Nope. The kid wouldn't comply with basic requests for info, creating a reasonable suspicion.

Sent from my Galaxy SIII using Tapatalk 2.

It creates suspicion to refuse answering questions unwarranted by suspicion?

[Sinfix_15]

http://youngcons.com/rapper-ice-t-gun-rights-are-civil-rights/

[.blank cd]

Nope. The kid wouldn't comply with basic requests for info, creating a reasonable suspicion.

Sent from my Galaxy SIII using Tapatalk 2.

In the courts eyes, not answering questions doesn't create reasonable suspicion of anything.

[Sinfix_15]

Chicago Veteran Has Antique Guns Confiscated After Visit to Grief Counselor « Pat Dollard (http://patdollard.com/2013/06/chicago-veteran-has-antique-guns-confiscated-after-visit-to-grief-counselor/)

[Sinfix_15]

Nevada cops sued for storming home they wanted for lookout - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/8/nevada-cops-sued-storming-home-they-wanted-lookout/)

[bu villain]

You have too much faith in government.

It's not about faith, it's about practicality. Stupid legislation is proposed every day in some state legislature. I simply don't have enough mental energy or the inclination to get worked up about every proposed bill anywhere in the country that I disagree with. If you think this bill is worth your time and energy, that's your call. It's not worth mine.

[bu villain]

Nevada cops sued for storming home they wanted for lookout - Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/8/nevada-cops-sued-storming-home-they-wanted-lookout/)

And the point is what exactly? The cops acted in a way that may have violated someone's rights, and now the cops are getting sued for it. That is how the system is set up to work.

[Sinfix_15]

"Only the police should have guns" LOL


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=am-Qdx6vky0

[Sinfix_15]

And the point is what exactly? The cops acted in a way that may have violated someone's rights, and now the cops are getting sued for it. That is how the system is set up to work.

Just pointing out how aggressive the cops are at ignoring your constitutional rights. Mostly because they feel people dont have enough mental energy or the inclination to worked up about it every time they do.