I thought you didn't like the government interfering? Do you make an exception for the government banning abortion in order to teach those sluts a lesson?
My position is, we shouldn't need abortions. Anyone who doesn't want a kid and gets pregnant is a total fuck-up, a drain on society, and should live and learn by her mistake. I'm not sure where you think I brought government into this because I didn't. If a woman gets an abortion, she should be charged with muder and any doctor involved should also be charged. Now, before you start whining consider: If some crackhead, alcoholic, welfare crud delivers a stillborn, chances are, social services will call the cops and they will charge her with manslaughter, death due to negligence or some other charge. Or, if her pimp shoots this low-life, good-for-nothing pregnant broad and she and the unborn child dies, he is charged with two murders. Explain that to me. It's either a life or it isn't.
That's not the mistake of the child who now comes into a life of neglect. Don't punish the child for the sluts mistake. It's obvious you don't understand human behavior, urges, or that humans make mistakes. Your punishment is that of a murderous dictator.
os: One would hope that the natural instinct of a mother to nurture, love and protect their child would kick in, but it doesn't always as we see by neglected and abused children who were wanted. That is one of those nasty facts of life
Anon: Don't punish the child for the sluts mistake.
os: We are all born into the circumstance and environment we are born into - some good, some bad.
Anon: It's obvious you don't understand human behavior, urges,
os: I don't think that is obvious at all.
Anon: .Your punishment is that of a murderous dictator.
os: You might wanna rethink that. I'm not the one calling for murder or punishment.
OK, we just had terrorists in Paris France kill 12 or more innocent unarmed people. Would what you anti's call torture be used to catch these animals be OK then? Everyone including the tortured terrorist animal could be alive today.
France has no right to keep and bear arms. Even the regular police didn't have weapons to properly respond to the call and two police officers were killed execution style because there was no way possible for them to be anything but a victim.
Torture , so called, is OK in given situations that could save lives. Gun control is not OK at anytime and France is but the latest example of why. Gun control kills innocents. Gun control is forced victimization.
Gun control never prevents criminals from having them, ever, period, end of story.
Does Paris really not teach you anything at all??? If it didn't then YOU are the most closed minded, stubborn, witless anti gunner I have ever run across.
Even now most of the other anti gunners have changed their position somewhat since the Paris attack in the view of total disarmament. The reason? YOU CAN NOT EVER, EVER STOP A CRIMINAL FROM GETTING GUNS NO MATTER WHAT LAW, RULE, ORDINANCE YOU PUT IN PLACE!!!!! EVER!
"You're position is torture is ok in some cases but gun control never is? "
Mike I am all for the criminal background checks, I am probably for a little more controls on the purchases of guns than a lot of gun rights "fanatics" are comfortable with in a "effort" to stem the flow to the criminal. However I am totally against banning certain guns because of features or capacity or caliber. I am against the GCA, the banning of full auto anything or banning the purchase of modern day select fire military weapons for civilians. There are several reasons I am against those things and that will be a different subject altogether.
But your goal of total disarmament (don't lie, its your goal, given the "hero's" you have) will make the USA look like France.
Look above, you can not in no way ever prevent criminals from getting guns, ever!
If you can legally buy it (no or harmless criminal record) then you should own whatever you want. There should be no permit, no forced concealment, no limit across state lines, no "GUN FREE ZONES" as there is really no such thing for criminals. I should be able to carry what ever I want, where ever I want simply because a criminal does the same. If the criminal knows this, it may give him pause to think he may get away with at least some criminal acts instead of being completely unopposed.
That is called COMMON SENSE! Not the twisted ideas you antis have twisted the phrase "common sense" into. You antis have no sense and nothing common to anything that makes sense.
I dunno Kurt, your going to have to work hard at over taking me, according to Mike. But I will welcome the challenge!
When Kurt finds my inconsistencies, it usually spans months or years. You do it in two consecutive comments. 1. YOU CAN NOT EVER, EVER STOP A CRIMINAL FROM GETTING GUNS NO MATTER WHAT LAW, RULE, ORDINANCE YOU PUT IN PLACE!!!!! EVER! 2. I am probably for a little more controls on the purchases of guns than a lot of gun rights "fanatics" are comfortable with in a "effort" to stem the flow to the criminal.
When Kurt finds my inconsistencies, it usually spans months or years.
So is there some kind of statute of limitations on being held accountable for shrilly arguing for one position, then reversing course 180 degrees, and equally shrilly arguing the opposite position? If so, how long is this time limit? After it expires, does it become illegitimate to question the argument that rested on the now abandoned position?
Gunsmoke, both your statements are clear. The problem is they contradict each other. If you favor some gun control laws which "stem the flow to the criminal," how can you say "YOU CAN NOT EVER, EVER STOP A CRIMINAL FROM GETTING GUNS," in all caps no less?
Kurt, I don't think the inconsistencies you find are "reversing course 180 degrees." Although I have changed in some of my positions, a praiseworthy trait I might point out, I don't think It's anything like you said. Do you, really? (I can just see you scurrying through the archives for examples to prove you were right - let's have it).
To you they contradict each other but not to me. It doesn't matter how much I could tighten up gun access, the criminal will still get them thus number one still stands. But since you don't want to hear what could work, number two is irrelevant at this point right now. Do you want to start a new subject?
Sure I can explain. Do you want to start a new subject on the matter? You know to bring the issues up front for all to see, not hidden back here in the archives and you actually post my responses. Like you didn't do on another thread that I posted three times and still today, nothing. Be honest Mike, you don't want to hear what could work. Anyone with a half a brain and a little honesty can see you don't want the answer.
The contradiction is obvious and outrageous.
ReplyDeleteNot to worry, McGowan. Some of us oppose the evil of torture and the evil of "gun control." No contradiction there!
You'd save a hell of a lot more children by not having abortions.
ReplyDeleteorlin sellers
As soon as society is willing to pay for the care of unwanted children, I will switch to anti abortion.
DeleteThe problem isn't unwanted kids, it is stoopid, ignorant sluts who don't want kids, getting themselves pregnant.
DeleteWhat's your solution the actual root of the problem?
orlin sellers
I thought you didn't like the government interfering? Do you make an exception for the government banning abortion in order to teach those sluts a lesson?
DeleteMy position is, we shouldn't need abortions. Anyone who doesn't want a kid and gets pregnant is a total fuck-up, a drain on society, and should live and learn by her mistake.
DeleteI'm not sure where you think I brought government into this because I didn't.
If a woman gets an abortion, she should be charged with muder and any doctor involved should also be charged.
Now, before you start whining consider: If some crackhead, alcoholic, welfare crud delivers a stillborn, chances are, social services will call the cops and they will charge her with manslaughter, death due to negligence or some other charge. Or, if her pimp shoots this low-life, good-for-nothing pregnant broad and she and the unborn child dies, he is charged with two murders. Explain that to me. It's either a life or it isn't.
orlin sellers
That's not the mistake of the child who now comes into a life of neglect. Don't punish the child for the sluts mistake.
DeleteIt's obvious you don't understand human behavior, urges, or that humans make mistakes.
Your punishment is that of a murderous dictator.
Anon: That's not the mistake of the child
Deleteos: Can't argue that.
Anon:: now comes into a life of neglect
os: One would hope that the natural instinct of a mother to nurture, love and protect their child would kick in, but it doesn't always as we see by neglected and abused children who were wanted. That is one of those nasty facts of life
Anon: Don't punish the child for the sluts mistake.
os: We are all born into the circumstance and environment we are born into - some good, some bad.
Anon: It's obvious you don't understand human behavior, urges,
os: I don't think that is obvious at all.
Anon: .Your punishment is that of a murderous dictator.
os: You might wanna rethink that. I'm not the one calling for murder or punishment.
orlin sellers
"If a woman gets an abortion, she should be charged with muder and any doctor involved should also be charged."
Delete"os: You might wanna rethink that. I'm not the one calling for murder or punishment.
You don't read your own comments.
Leave it to a troll to splice two completely unrelated responses together. Very unoriginal and lacking cleverness.
Deleteorlin sellers
Just like the master liar SS you can't seem to admit your own words. Not my fault that those words are obviously hypocritical.
DeleteOrlin, I get ya. You consider abortion murder. Fair enough.
DeleteOK, we just had terrorists in Paris France kill 12 or more innocent unarmed people. Would what you anti's call torture be used to catch these animals be OK then? Everyone including the tortured terrorist animal could be alive today.
ReplyDeleteFrance has no right to keep and bear arms. Even the regular police didn't have weapons to properly respond to the call and two police officers were killed execution style because there was no way possible for them to be anything but a victim.
Torture , so called, is OK in given situations that could save lives.
Gun control is not OK at anytime and France is but the latest example of why. Gun control kills innocents. Gun control is forced victimization.
Gun control never prevents criminals from having them, ever, period, end of story.
You may be the most close-minded, unreasonable gun rights fanatic around here. Congratulations.
DeleteYou're position is torture is ok in some cases but gun control never is?
You may be the most close-minded, unreasonable gun rights fanatic around here. Congratulations.
DeleteDon't count me out yet, Mikeb--I might still overtake him.
Closed minded, Mike?? REALLY?!!?
DeleteDoes Paris really not teach you anything at all??? If it didn't then YOU are the most closed minded, stubborn, witless anti gunner I have ever run across.
Even now most of the other anti gunners have changed their position somewhat since the Paris attack in the view of total disarmament. The reason? YOU CAN NOT EVER, EVER STOP A CRIMINAL FROM GETTING GUNS NO MATTER WHAT LAW, RULE, ORDINANCE YOU PUT IN PLACE!!!!! EVER!
Closed mind, boy now that takes the cake!
"You're position is torture is ok in some cases but gun control never is? "
DeleteMike I am all for the criminal background checks, I am probably for a little more controls on the purchases of guns than a lot of gun rights "fanatics" are comfortable with in a "effort" to stem the flow to the criminal. However I am totally against banning certain guns because of features or capacity or caliber. I am against the GCA, the banning of full auto anything or banning the purchase of modern day select fire military weapons for civilians. There are several reasons I am against those things and that will be a different subject altogether.
But your goal of total disarmament (don't lie, its your goal, given the "hero's" you have) will make the USA look like France.
Look above, you can not in no way ever prevent criminals from getting guns, ever!
If you can legally buy it (no or harmless criminal record) then you should own whatever you want. There should be no permit, no forced concealment, no limit across state lines, no "GUN FREE ZONES" as there is really no such thing for criminals. I should be able to carry what ever I want, where ever I want simply because a criminal does the same. If the criminal knows this, it may give him pause to think he may get away with at least some criminal acts instead of being completely unopposed.
That is called COMMON SENSE! Not the twisted ideas you antis have twisted the phrase "common sense" into. You antis have no sense and nothing common to anything that makes sense.
I dunno Kurt, your going to have to work hard at over taking me, according to Mike. But I will welcome the challenge!
When Kurt finds my inconsistencies, it usually spans months or years. You do it in two consecutive comments.
Delete1. YOU CAN NOT EVER, EVER STOP A CRIMINAL FROM GETTING GUNS NO MATTER WHAT LAW, RULE, ORDINANCE YOU PUT IN PLACE!!!!! EVER!
2. I am probably for a little more controls on the purchases of guns than a lot of gun rights "fanatics" are comfortable with in a "effort" to stem the flow to the criminal.
Can you clarify, please?
Come on Mike, I certainly cannot believe I could be anymore clear than that!
DeleteWhat's UNCLEAR about number one?
Number two, that's another subject, do you want to start a fresh subject?
When Kurt finds my inconsistencies, it usually spans months or years.
DeleteSo is there some kind of statute of limitations on being held accountable for shrilly arguing for one position, then reversing course 180 degrees, and equally shrilly arguing the opposite position? If so, how long is this time limit? After it expires, does it become illegitimate to question the argument that rested on the now abandoned position?
Gunsmoke, both your statements are clear. The problem is they contradict each other. If you favor some gun control laws which "stem the flow to the criminal," how can you say "YOU CAN NOT EVER, EVER STOP A CRIMINAL FROM GETTING GUNS," in all caps no less?
DeleteKurt, I don't think the inconsistencies you find are "reversing course 180 degrees." Although I have changed in some of my positions, a praiseworthy trait I might point out, I don't think It's anything like you said. Do you, really? (I can just see you scurrying through the archives for examples to prove you were right - let's have it).
Delete(I can just see you scurrying through the archives for examples to prove you were right - let's have it)
DeleteI kinda doubt you can see me, and I don't "scurry."
Let's see--how 'bout:
Owning a gun illegally is not a "gun crime"--to illegal possession of firearms being a "gun crime"? Not a 180 degree reversal? Really?
How 'bout:
"Selling a gun with a check, makes it no longer a private sale"--to universal background checks are not a private sales ban?
Those are the two examples I could cite without effort. I think that's enough.
To you they contradict each other but not to me. It doesn't matter how much I could tighten up gun access, the criminal will still get them thus number one still stands. But since you don't want to hear what could work, number two is irrelevant at this point right now. Do you want to start a new subject?
ReplyDeleteNo, not just to me - to anybody with half a brain and a little honesty. I've asked you three times to explain. Can you?
DeleteSure I can explain. Do you want to start a new subject on the matter? You know to bring the issues up front for all to see, not hidden back here in the archives and you actually post my responses. Like you didn't do on another thread that I posted three times and still today, nothing. Be honest Mike, you don't want to hear what could work. Anyone with a half a brain and a little honesty can see you don't want the answer.
Delete