RE: New York Shootings

RE: New York Shootings (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

pyschosubmission -> RE: New York Shootings (8/27/2012 11:11:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin It seems to me you guys have a pretty narrow view on guns. I refer you to post #89. Yes they're leathal but they save lives too which in fact would make us safer. Guns in the hands of peaceable citizens is good, bad guys will obtain them regardless of the law or bans, restrictions or whatever. Bad guys won't comply with gun laws which only serve to impede the good guys. It literally frightens me that you are unable to see the paradox within your own argument

lovmuffin -> RE: New York Shootings (8/28/2012 12:12:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pyschosubmission quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin It seems to me you guys have a pretty narrow view on guns. I refer you to post #89. Yes they're leathal but they save lives too which in fact would make us safer. Guns in the hands of peaceable citizens is good, bad guys will obtain them regardless of the law or bans, restrictions or whatever. Bad guys won't comply with gun laws which only serve to impede the good guys. It literally frightens me that you are unable to see the paradox within your own argument I didn't mean to frighten ya but I don't see it. Would you please explain it to me. And once again I refer to post #89.

farglebargle -> RE: New York Shootings (8/28/2012 12:21:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: pyschosubmission quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin If those guns were floating around in the hands of law abiding citizens then yes, the city would be a safer place. At least those citizens with the guns and their families would be safer. Firearms can only be used to kill. That is there sole purpose. Perhaps this is just "European Socialist" ideas coming through, but, the idea that more people carrying instruments of death seems incongruous with my idea of "safer" Yeah it must be. We rejected those European socialist ideas over 200 years ago. It wasn't socialism we rejected, it was the monarchy. You know, "King George" and all that...

pyschosubmission -> RE: New York Shootings (8/28/2012 12:23:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin Yeah it must be. We rejected those European socialist ideas over 200 years ago. It wasn't socialism we rejected, it was the monarchy. You know, "King George" and all that... Overthrowing taxation without representation and imperialism, seems leftist to me

Politesub53 -> RE: New York Shootings (8/28/2012 10:56:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin Yeah it must be. We rejected those European socialist ideas over 200 years ago. The ignorance in your post is stunning. You rejected Britains ideas and took the same socialist route as France. I know you think Europe is just one country but I suggest you buy an atlas and a history book.

lovmuffin -> RE: New York Shootings (8/28/2012 11:37:29 AM)
I suggest you guys take a deep breath and lighten up. I get that except you might have to explain how we took the same socialist route as France.

mnottertail -> RE: New York Shootings (8/28/2012 12:36:04 PM)
Since we are not socialist in our route perhaps such drivel could be explained into some reasonable semblance of at least a unapprehending fantasy.

Politesub53 -> RE: New York Shootings (8/28/2012 12:50:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin I suggest you guys take a deep breath and lighten up. I get that except you might have to explain how we took the same socialist route as France. I guessed something would need explaining. Both revolutions threw of the yoke of royalty. Both revolutions ended up with little benefit to the poor and much benefit to the middle classes. Both revolutions had the same ideas and objectives. Both revolutions were against having a social elite, but ended up replacing one crowd with another to a degree. Both had the same idea of a shared reward of money via labour, as espoused by Marx. When all is said and done, neither one ended up with everyone being equal. In your case the native Americans and slaves. In Frances case the poor.

lovmuffin -> RE: New York Shootings (8/28/2012 1:55:38 PM)
There was no shared reward here as espoused by Marx.

Politesub53 -> RE: New York Shootings (8/28/2012 4:12:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin There was no shared reward here as espoused by Marx. Which is indeed my point, reward wasnt shared equally, just as it wasnt under British rule. It was the good intention behind things though, for the most part. Wasnt it John Adams who called Thomas Paines "Common Sense" thesis an "Absurd notion" ?

hardcybermaster -> RE: New York Shootings (8/28/2012 4:45:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: pyschosubmission quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin It seems to me you guys have a pretty narrow view on guns. I refer you to post #89. Yes they're leathal but they save lives too which in fact would make us safer. Guns in the hands of peaceable citizens is good, bad guys will obtain them regardless of the law or bans, restrictions or whatever. Bad guys won't comply with gun laws which only serve to impede the good guys. It literally frightens me that you are unable to see the paradox within your own argument I didn't mean to frighten ya but I don't see it. Would you please explain it to me. And once again I refer to post #89. I assume that the point of post 89 is to imply that if everyone had a gun no one would get shot? that seems a little simplistic to me, but then perhaps I am just a simple man. I prefer the fewer guns means fewer shootings arguement myself, but there you go

slvemike4u -> RE: New York Shootings (8/28/2012 5:20:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Guns are neutral some people are bad. What scares sensible people is the easy access that those same bad people have to guns in our society.

Real0ne -> RE: New York Shootings (8/28/2012 5:35:01 PM)
well if you and muse dont like it here why dont you move to angleland? you can fight for banning forks and spoons there!

Real0ne -> RE: New York Shootings (8/28/2012 5:39:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Since we are not socialist in our route perhaps such drivel could be explained into some reasonable semblance of at least a unapprehending fantasy. HUH??????? you think you got private property? You are either delusional or I know you are just shitting us right?

lovmuffin -> RE: New York Shootings (8/28/2012 5:45:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hardcybermaster quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: pyschosubmission quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin It seems to me you guys have a pretty narrow view on guns. I refer you to post #89. Yes they're leathal but they save lives too which in fact would make us safer. Guns in the hands of peaceable citizens is good, bad guys will obtain them regardless of the law or bans, restrictions or whatever. Bad guys won't comply with gun laws which only serve to impede the good guys. It literally frightens me that you are unable to see the paradox within your own argument I didn't mean to frighten ya but I don't see it. Would you please explain it to me. And once again I refer to post #89. I assume that the point of post 89 is to imply that if everyone had a gun no one would get shot? that seems a little simplistic to me, but then perhaps I am just a simple man. I prefer the fewer guns means fewer shootings arguement myself, but there you go Your logic seems simple too. The question I have is how do you get to the point of having less guns, particularly in the US. The point of post 89 is guns in the hands of the good guys is a good thing. Adding to that I'm here to tell ya that there is no way of keeping them away from the bad guys short of keeping the bad guys in jail where they belong. Look at the draconian gun laws in Mexico. It does'nt deter the bad guys from getting their hands on them down there.

Real0ne -> RE: New York Shootings (8/28/2012 5:46:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pyschosubmission quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin Yeah it must be. We rejected those European socialist ideas over 200 years ago. It wasn't socialism we rejected, it was the monarchy. You know, "King George" and all that... Overthrowing taxation without representation and imperialism, seems leftist to me fucking traitors! between the move from ole angloland to here they somehow forgot to continue putting the E in front of state when they created the 50 plantations. the constitution is nothing more than a compilation of several already existing english documents and most tards over here think it was some kind of magnificio creation sent from framer god heaven. LMAO but what more can you expect from tarded americans? They think democracy got rid of the king. OH speaking of king, I have not yet seen any documents where the KING stated he divested himsself of all right title and interest to said soil within the boundaries of the united states. good luck with that heh heh

BamaD -> RE: New York Shootings (8/28/2012 5:50:55 PM)
This thread has gotten way off topic.

slvemike4u -> RE: New York Shootings (8/28/2012 5:51:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne well if you and muse dont like it here why dont you move to angleland? you can fight for banning forks and spoons there! While I am flattered to be "lumped"with MM,I don't,at present,have any intentions of emigrating.Your input was given the weight it deserved,in other words quickly filed in the loony bin.[:)]

lovmuffin -> RE: New York Shootings (8/28/2012 5:58:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD This thread has gotten way off topic. When ever there is a thread about a shooting it will eventually come down to some calling for some kind of gun control, restrictions, less guns or whatever.

slvemike4u -> RE: New York Shootings (8/28/2012 6:00:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: hardcybermaster quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: pyschosubmission quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin It seems to me you guys have a pretty narrow view on guns. I refer you to post #89. Yes they're leathal but they save lives too which in fact would make us safer. Guns in the hands of peaceable citizens is good, bad guys will obtain them regardless of the law or bans, restrictions or whatever. Bad guys won't comply with gun laws which only serve to impede the good guys. It literally frightens me that you are unable to see the paradox within your own argument I didn't mean to frighten ya but I don't see it. Would you please explain it to me. And once again I refer to post #89. I assume that the point of post 89 is to imply that if everyone had a gun no one would get shot? that seems a little simplistic to me, but then perhaps I am just a simple man. I prefer the fewer guns means fewer shootings arguement myself, but there you go Your logic seems simple too. The question I have is how do you get to the point of having less guns, particularly in the US. The point of post 89 is guns in the hands of the good guys is a good thing. Adding to that I'm here to tell ya that there is no way of keeping them away from the bad guys short of keeping the bad guys in jail where they belong. Look at the draconian gun laws in Mexico. It does'nt deter the bad guys from getting their hands on them down there. Yeah,we here in America make it real easy for the Mexican gangs to get guns.Texas and Arizona act,for those gangs, much like Virginia and Florida act for New Yorks criminals.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875