Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

These are Questions directed at our Hitler Youth Wannabee's.
Like Little FascistFly *aka FireFly* Robbie, Bashy, Adam , Nepy and the Rest.

I already know what kind of SPIN you will put on your answers but I will take the Fun to ask these Questions ANYWAY!

Until your side takes full power and freedom in every way is abolished that is.

But to the QUESTION!

If we are to take you Narrative on Reality ,and that in the U.S. President Trump and The Whole of the Republican Party and Conservative People are all Fascists, and that the ENTIREITY of the U.S Police Forces are ALL MURDERERS and RACSIT and the Military Forces are just their Brainwashed Lap Dogs.

Would under such a regime be a Bad Time to take Guns out of the Hands of the General Public?


And let the SPIN BEGIN!!!!!!!!!!!

you rotten your brain out with hard drugs? cool.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
you rotten your brain out with hard drugs? cool.


Awwww.... Can't answer the question can you Bashy the Fasci???

I blame all the unprotected anal and oral.

get a job, angry loser

You are the only one here making "Angry Comments"

But please. Answer the Posted question.


Or Can You?

RanDom UPPer casE LetteRs AND WorDs ARE AWeSOmE.

So Two Self Proclamied Leftists that Can Not Answer the Question.

Or do you two think it was Rhetorical?

Do you two know what "Rhetorical" means?

Can you ask a strawman a rhetorical question?

Or is that also a rhetorical question?

And is that one as well?

And that?

Much like the Kids in the Florida School. You have learned the Lesson of The DODGE!!

Well ....

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Much like the Kids in the Florida School. You have learned the Lesson of The DODGE!!

Well ....

Well what? I can hardly answer a question from points of view I don't hold.

Originally posted by jaden101
Well what? I can hardly answer a question from points of view I don't hold.

Oh come on. I know you have more points to you then the one on top of your head.



https://media.giphy.com/media/6KAxgfdBLzzqM/giphy.gif

I do. Just not any of the batshit strawman ones you posted.

Only one here tossing out straws is you.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Only one here tossing out straws is you.

Nah see if I was strawmanning you I'd ask this.

If you really think that every single teacher and college lecturer in the entire USA is an evil leftist SJW that are indoctrinating the country's youth to be genderless terrorist loving queers do you really think its a good idea to train them all to be Universal Soldier style unstoppable killing machines and arm them with state of the art laser death rays and biological weapons that only target straight white protestant men who support the 2nd amendment?

Originally posted by jaden101
Nah see if I was strawmanning you I'd ask this.

If you really think that every single teacher and college lecturer in the entire USA is an evil leftist SJW that are indoctrinating the country's youth to be genderless terrorist loving queers do you really think its a good idea to train them all to be Universal Soldier style unstoppable killing machines and arm them with state of the art laser death rays and biological weapons that only target straight white protestant men who support the 2nd amendment?

I would say Go Start Your OWN Thread and Ask that Question instead of doing it here and DODGING this Threads Question.

SO there.

Originally posted by jaden101
do you really think its a good idea to train them all to be Universal Soldier style unstoppable killing machines and arm them with state of the art laser death rays and biological weapons that only target straight white protestant men who support the 2nd amendment?

i believed it was a bad idea, until you put it that way.

Again, how do I dodge a question that's not aimed at me?

Originally posted by jaden101
Again, how do I dodge a question that's not aimed at me?

I can't Help it if You stepped in front of it.

And My question is based on a realistic factor.

You bring up RoboZombies and lazers in yours.

So your question is Shit!

Which is why Bashy was able to answer it.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
i believed it was a bad idea, until you put it that way.

That's because you're a leftist progressive regressive Nazi fascist communist soy boy who virtue signals and other things that Sargon of Akkad and Paul Joseph Watson and other Youtubers say or something.

Originally posted by jaden101
That's because you're a leftist progressive regressive Nazi fascist communist soy boy who virtue signals and other things that Sargon of Akkad and Paul Joseph Watson and other Youtubers say or something.

but i don't like soy

I will say that I think that Jaden is NOT a Leftist Progressive/Fascist.

I do think He is a Question Dodging AssHat tho.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
I can't Help it if You stepped in front of it.

And My question is based on a realistic factor.

You bring up RoboZombies and lazers in yours.

So your question is Shit!

Which is why Bashy was able to answer it.




I'm guessing all those members of the forum that fit criterea you posted must frequent the comic book vs forums or some other part I never visit then cos I've never seen them in the GDF. You might to ask your question there instead.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
I will say that I think that Jaden is NOT a Leftist Progressive/Fascist.

I do think He is a Question Dodging AssHat tho.

Thanks for the compliment. 👍.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
but i don't like soy

Better not take Brain Force Plus then.

Hey Jaden. Why don't You shove your own Starwman shit back up your Fat Albert and answer this question or...

Originally posted by Flyattractor
These are Questions directed at our Hitler Youth Wannabee's.
Like Little FascistFly *aka FireFly* Robbie, Bashy, Adam , Nepy and the Rest.

I already know what kind of SPIN you will put on your answers but I will take the Fun to ask these Questions ANYWAY!

Until your side takes full power and freedom in every way is abolished that is.

But to the QUESTION!

If we are to take you Narrative on Reality ,and that in the U.S. President Trump and The Whole of the Republican Party and Conservative People are all Fascists, and that the ENTIREITY of the U.S Police Forces are ALL MURDERERS and RACSIT and the Military Forces are just their Brainwashed Lap Dogs.

Would under such a regime be a Bad Time to take Guns out of the Hands of the General Public?


And let the SPIN BEGIN!!!!!!!!!!!



...

https://media.giphy.com/media/3o6wrfq7q64I5l5auc/giphy.gif

aww you quoted own your drug-fueled rant. kinda

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
aww you quoted own your drug-fueled rant.

Oh You can stay on my road all you like Bashy!

Originally posted by Flyattractor
These are Questions directed at our Hitler Youth Wannabee's.
Like Little FascistFly *aka FireFly* Robbie, Bashy, Adam , Nepy and the Rest.

I already know what kind of SPIN you will put on your answers but I will take the Fun to ask these Questions ANYWAY!

Until your side takes full power and freedom in every way is abolished that is.

But to the QUESTION!

If we are to take you Narrative on Reality ,and that in the U.S. President Trump and The Whole of the Republican Party and Conservative People are all Fascists, and that the ENTIREITY of the U.S Police Forces are ALL MURDERERS and RACSIT and the Military Forces are just their Brainwashed Lap Dogs.

Would under such a regime be a Bad Time to take Guns out of the Hands of the General Public?


And let the SPIN BEGIN!!!!!!!!!!!



As the token liberal, I'll respond:

The public would more likely make things worse. Better to live under totalitarian stability then blood soaked mob rule.

Originally posted by cdtm
As the token liberal, I'll respond:

The public would more likely make things worse. Better to live under totalitarian stability then blood soaked mob rule.

See.

Was that so Hard?

^^now druggie the clown thinks his strawman rant was somehow validated.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Hey Jaden. Why don't You shove your own Starwman shit back up your Fat Albert and answer this question or...



...

https://media.giphy.com/media/3o6wrfq7q64I5l5auc/giphy.gif

Originally posted by Flyattractor
These are Questions directed at our Hitler Youth Wannabee's.
Like Little FascistFly *aka FireFly* Robbie, Bashy, Adam , Nepy and the Rest.


Originally posted by Flyattractor
I will say that I think that Jaden is NOT a Leftist Progressive/Fascist.


You even admitted it wasn't aimed at me. You be as well asking me what it's like to be a Polynesian lesbian penguinologist.

Originally posted by jaden101
You be as well asking me what it's like to be a Polynesian lesbian penguinologist.

do you deny it?

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
do you deny it?

I can only dream of such lofty heights.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
^^now druggie the clown thinks his strawman rant was somehow validated.

Actually it wasn't It was answered by a Liberal. Not a Leftist.
Big Diff... True his answer is stupid, but He did answer it.

Originally posted by jaden101
You even admitted it wasn't aimed at me. You be as well asking me what it's like to be a Polynesian lesbian penguinologist.

So why don't you tell us what you ARE so we can Only Form the Proper Questions to be AIMED at you.


Asshat is pretty much at the top of my list.

or...

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Hey Jaden. Why don't You shove your own Starwman shit back up your Fat Albert and answer this question or...



...

https://media.giphy.com/media/3o6wrfq7q64I5l5auc/giphy.gif

Originally posted by Flyattractor


So why don't you tell us what you ARE so we can Only Form the Proper Questions to be AIMED at you.


An ordinary bloke who likes a bit of torture.

Originally posted by jaden101
I can only dream of such lofty heights.

never give up on your dreams

Originally posted by jaden101
An ordinary bloke who likes a bit of torture.

So go look in a mirror.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
^^now druggie the clown thinks his strawman rant was somehow validated.

As a leftist poser, I'm vigorously ambivalent about this comment!

Originally posted by cdtm
As the token liberal, I'll respond:

The public would more likely make things worse. Better to live under totalitarian stability then blood soaked mob rule.

A token liberal would understand that totalitarianism is right-wing.

Next you are going to tell us about how the Nazis are actually liberal, because "Socialist" is in their party name, even though they interred and executed socialists.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
A token liberal would understand that totalitarianism is right-wing.

Next you are going to tell us about how the Nazis are actually liberal, because "Socialist" is in their party name, even though they interred and executed socialists.

And only a Fascist Progressive would tell bunch of LIS that Big!!!


But then that is EXACTLY what Adam is.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
A token liberal would understand that totalitarianism is right-wing.

Next you are going to tell us about how the Nazis are actually liberal, because "Socialist" is in their party name, even though they interred and executed socialists.
Totalitarianism is not exclusive to the right-wing.

Yeah what the **** kind of horse shit is that LMFAO

I'm not one of those dipshits whose like "totalitarianism is only on the left" that's seriously retarded.

It is impossible to be a totalitarian liberal or libertarian though, since that's literally antithetical to being a liberal or libertarian. (that being said, being liberal and being left-wing are not the same thing)

*gears grinding*

If we are to take you Narrative on Reality ,and that in the U.S. President Trump and The Whole of the Republican Party and Conservative People are all Fascists, and that the ENTIREITY of the U.S Police Forces are ALL MURDERERS and RACSIT and the Military Forces are just their Brainwashed Lap Dogs.

Would under such a regime be a Bad Time to take Guns out of the Hands of the General Public?

Just to refresh after all the Counter-Spamming.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Yeah what the **** kind of horse shit is that LMFAO

I'm not one of those dipshits whose like "totalitarianism is only on the left" that's seriously retarded.

It is impossible to be a totalitarian liberal or libertarian though, since that's literally antithetical to being a liberal or libertarian. (that being said, being liberal and being left-wing are not the same thing)

The best part is he is 100% serious. Just like when he said this doozy:

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Wow, you could not be demonstrably more wrong. Someone who has experienced gun violence has an entire set of knowledge about guns that someone who has not does not.

Reminds me of the movie "Taken".

"I have a very particular set of skills, one time I was near a shooting".

You'll notice that he didn't explain what the "entire set of knowledge about guns" consisted of.

As a result of the Parkland shooting David Hogg can now dismantle an M16 and put it back together in 3.9 seconds.

And an M16 wasn't even used, remarkable!

I was arguing the "uprising of the people actually works" with my former boss. He's more like Robtard (a true centrist) and I.

I pointed out that the Afghans fought against the Russians and now the Americans with guerrilla tactics and limited weaponry. He pointed out that we armed them against the Russians and they are still using RPGs against our military which is why they are so effective. He further argued that it is not possible for the American people to fight against the US Military. That the Second Amendment become obsolete around WWI when we modernized warfare and experienced our first true entrenchment warfare with:

1. Tanks.
2. Long-range mortars.
3. Airplanes.
4. High-capacity, high-firing rate, mounted machine guns, intended for long-term engagement.
5. Chemical weapons.
6. True Naval Dreadnought class warships (fully armored warships with long-range weaponry and machine guns).
7. True submarine warfare armed with torpedoes.
8. Flamethrowers.


Some may criticize my use of long-range mortars as not really being introduced in WWI. I disagree. Not only the volume that the mortars were used but the firing distance vastly eclipsed previous mortar tech we had used in wars.




We also should not ignore the fact that information and communication is much more advanced, now. The Second Amendment, the specific intention to be able to overthrew the government, is still viable. Especially consider that not all military would be on board to kill the American people. If a true civil war happened and the people wanted to violently overthrow an oppressive government, with how well armed, how much tech is available, and how advanced communications are, the government does not stand a chance. They will not use nukes. Some military would be part of the coup if not most of them. The overthrow would happen fairly quickly.

It just depend son the specific situation. If it was a small segment of the population that had an uprising, it would be squashed very quickly. If it was a significant plurality or a significant minority, likely, the overthrow would be successful if the attack was coordinated and timed well enough: almost all government could be killed in less than a day.


The government is aware of this. And they have planned for it.

I'm sorry... Robtard is a true centrist?

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Totalitarianism is not exclusive to the right-wing.

fair point, but leftist totalitarianism is irrelevant as far as contemporary western politics is concerned.

Kek but right wing totalitarianism is somehow relevant?

Originally posted by Emperordmb
I'm sorry... Robtard is a true centrist?

Yes. Step away from KMC for a moment. Make him take a political orientation test, and he ends up being centrist between the four poles.

On KMC, he appears leftist because of the members and positions he takes against those members.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Kek

ah, the distress call of the majestic triggered broflake

No seriously, explain the relevance of right-wing totalitarianism in western politics

Originally posted by Emperordmb
No seriously, explain the relevance of right-wing totalitarianism in western politics

Pretty much an effort to associate the other side with the Nazi's, as far as I can see.

Not like there haven't been enough other oppressive governments of both "sides" with a legacy of murdering large proportions of their population.. Call it totalitarian or whatever you want, oppression and murder is oppression and murder.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
No seriously, explain the relevance of right-wing totalitarianism in western politics

How about the arrest, detention and extradition of democratically elected representatives of Catalonia in Europe at the behest of the Spanish government for holding a referendum on independence.

As a vet, can you imagine a Christmas truce ever playing out? (Or any of the various truces that were said to happen organically, and that the brass frowned upon.)

"Hey German buddy, share a ***. We can go back to shooting each other later."

Originally posted by dadudemon



And you, as a veteran, have direct knowledge of this very topic because you served "in the shit" and know exactly how it goes down.

More like he was also TRAINED, EDUCATED and Also EXPERIENCED to be fair. All the Parkland Kids "EXPERIENCED" could be descreibed as Extreme School House Bullying.

Originally posted by cdtm
As a vet, can you imagine a Christmas truce ever playing out? (Or any of the various truces that were said to happen organically, and that the brass frowned upon.)

"Hey German buddy, share a ***. We can go back to shooting each other later."

But that did happen. It was the Corrupt Government Leaders on each side that put an END to Peace.

Oh and
*REPORTED for using Homophobic Slurs*

Originally posted by cdtm
As a vet, can you imagine a Christmas truce ever playing out? (Or any of the various truces that were said to happen organically, and that the brass frowned upon.)

"Hey German buddy, share a ***. We can go back to shooting each other later."

That would never happen in this day age. For the second it begins, morons would go to social media and claims Christmas is racist or phobic to the other races in the world. All this would be happening while those morons are safe in their little underground bunker.

Originally posted by Firefly218
Real people are being hurt today by the guns you need to defend yourself from fantasy fears.

And knives, and cars, and fists, and baseball bats. Don't forget those.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And knives, and cars, and fists, and baseball bats. Don't forget those. I know this might be controversial to you, but knives, baseball bats and fists are not as dangerous as fuccking AK-47s

Yes real people are being hurt by guns, but it's not unreasonable to be hesitant to pass legislation restricting the liberty and property rights of the entire US population.

It's not just a matter of you can stop people from being killed without having to sacrifice anything of value to do so. It's a matter of to pursue some of these policies you would explicitly necessarily have to restrict the liberty and property rights of every American citizen (and in the case of say a proposed ban on semi-automatic rifles you'd actually have to take people's property by force or threat of force), and that isn't an insignificant cost. Beyond that point there's also the uncertainty of potential other costs that result from the legislation, such as the hypothetical of a tyrannical government, or even on the smaller scale of what if certain people have a harder time getting weapons and then confront genuine threats to their lives they are unequipped to deal with. And furthermore the intended benefit of the legislation isn't even a given, it could be passed with the cost of everyone's liberty to the effect of minimal impact on gun homicides.

I don't think it's irrational or paranoid to approach the subject of what we should get our government to restrict from us with serious hesitancy.

Originally posted by Firefly218
I know this might be controversial to you, but knives, baseball bats and fists are not as dangerous as fuccking AK-47s

Then explain how knives kill more people per year than AK-47s.

Originally posted by Firefly218
Too paranoid
Too paranoid... really? Just think about how many people have been slaughtered by tyrannical governments in the last 100 hundred years. It's not like people are worried about something human beings as a species have actually evolved beyond.

Originally posted by darthgoober
Too paranoid... really? Just think about how many people have been slaughtered by tyrannical governments in the last 100 hundred years. It's not like people are worried about something human beings as a species have actually evolved beyond.

Firefly has 100% faith in the government. BTW, he also thinks that the Trump admin is full of morons, racists and probably Nazis.

Originally posted by darthgoober
Too paranoid... really? Just think about how many people have been slaughtered by tyrannical governments in the last 100 hundred years. It's not like people are worried about something human beings as a species have actually evolved beyond. It's not a practical concern in America, especially when we keep having mass shootings

Originally posted by Firefly218
Real people are being hurt today by the guns you need to defend yourself from fantasy fears.

It's like the guy digging a radioactive bunker to protect himself from a potential nuclear fall out and unintentionally sabotaging the underground water supply while doing so.

You do know when the 2nd amendment was written, there were already fully auto weapons in circulation right?

Acids are also being use in England and Afghanistan.

Slavery is still being practiced on Blacks by Muslims!

Yet, gun! gun! gun!

Originally posted by Firefly218
It's not a practical concern in America, especially when we keep having mass shootings

What about all the guns deaths that aren't from mass shootings, why don't you care about them?

Originally posted by Firefly218
It's not a practical concern in America, especially when we keep having mass shootings
It IS a practical concern. Think about the rights we've already had stripped from us by things like the Patriot Act. Giving up our ability to effectively fight back in a worst case scenario is a horrible idea because once we do that we're screwed if/when the impending threat of a true tyrant presents itself.

Admittedly I haven't given this one much thought, though I honestly don't think it'd be much of a deterrent. Logically finding away around that seems like something that would be a pretty easy thing to do.


"Enhance" is a vague term, it depends on what enhancements you have in mind. Also I don't disagree with universality of background checks, but at the same time it seems virtually impossible to regulate hand to hand transactions in any seriously effective way.


Again that's a vague sound good statement with not a lot of substance as to what specifics it's actually proposing.


Yeah I definitely don't agree with that one. I think it partially defeats the purpose of accessible self-defense if you're going to institute something that would significantly bump up the cost of owning a fire-arm. I don't think it's reasonable to charge someone a monthly insurance fee for a rifle they keep in their house and only use in the situation that someone tries to break into their house, or that someone whose poor enough that they're stuck living in a high crime rate area would have to dedicate that much of their income to paying insurance monthly, as opposed to making a one time purchase that will help them secure their safety in their own neighborhood.


I can understand gun owner's apprehension to expanded government intelligence on their gun ownership when you have politicians and political activists calling for the government to restrict and confiscate certain type of guns. To someone seriously concerned with protecting their property, I can see why they wouldn't want to consent to something that would make it easier for the government to disarm them if they chose to do so.

Originally posted by Firefly218
What agenda do you think I have?

You've said before that you'd like all guns taken away.

Originally posted by darthgoober
It IS a practical concern. Think about the rights we've already had stripped from us by things like the Patriot Act. Giving up our ability to effectively fight back in a worst case scenario is a horrible idea because once we do that we're screwed if/when the impending threat of a true tyrant presents itself. I'm not totally unsympathetic to these concerns: but are you seriously suggesting that a decentralized militia could stand any chance against the 700 billion dollar US military on home soil? Barring an army mutiny, I just can't see that happening. The technology and weapons that the US army are too much , and I'm speaking just in regards to the weapons that we know about. You know: drones, tanks, stealth bombers etc... There are probably many weapons that the US army has that we don't even know about, and would be able to nip an uprising in the bud.

And if you don't want a tyrannical government, it might be prudent to stop voting for authoritarian demagogues who erode the foundations of American democracy. I mean, isn't it funny that many of the neurotic right-wingers who raise these tyrannical government concerns are more than happy to line up and vote for a man who is bombastically authoritarian and constantly attacks the institutions and norms of the American political system?

Originally posted by Firefly218
I know this might be controversial to you, but knives, baseball bats and fists are not as dangerous as fuccking AK-47s

Well, according to the facts, yeah, knives are 5x more dangerous than all rifles.

Remember, the US has a violence problem, not a gun problem.

Do you not understand what Guerrilla warfare is?

Originally posted by SquallX
You do know when the 2nd amendment was written, there were already fully auto weapons in circulation right?

Acids are also being use in England and Afghanistan.

Slavery is still being practiced on Blacks by Muslims!

Yet, gun! gun! gun!

Yeah, but, this is America! It's "racist" to care about blacks especially blacks being enslaved (still) and black homicides.

Get it right, geeeez!

Originally posted by Silent Master
Do you not understand what Guerrilla warfare is? I assume this post was directed at me. And yes, I obviously understand what guerilla warfare is and how it has sometimes prevailed against a stronger force. But this glamorized view of a few desperate stragglers fighting off a much more formidable force is typically the exception rather than the rule, in my opinion. And in modern times, we are seeing all manner of new modes of warfare that go beyond the indiscriminate carpet bombing employed in Vietnam. There is also a difference between home-grown forces on the other side of the world fighting off an invading force and fighting the US military on home soil, where it can bring its full might to bear nigh-instantaneously.

Originally posted by lazybones
I assume this post was directed at me. And yes, I obviously understand what guerilla warfare is and how it has sometimes prevailed against a stronger force. But this glamorized view of a few desperate stragglers fighting off a much more formidable force is typically the exception rather than the rule, in my opinion. And in modern times, we are seeing all manner of new modes of warfare that go beyond the indiscriminate carpet bombing employed in Vietnam. There is also a difference between home-grown forces on the other side of the world fighting off an invading force and fighting the US military on home soil, where it can bring its full might to bear nigh-instantaneously.

They can't bring their "full might to bear nigh-instantaneously" if they can't find the guerrillas.

Originally posted by lazybones
I'm not totally unsympathetic to these concerns: but are you seriously suggesting that a decentralized militia could stand any chance against the 700 billion dollar US military on home soil? Barring an army mutiny, I just can't see that happening. The technology and weapons that the US army are too much , and I'm speaking just in regards to the weapons that we know about. You know: drones, tanks, stealth bombers etc... There are probably many weapons that the US army has that we don't even know about, and would be able to nip an uprising in the bud.

And if you don't want a tyrannical government, it might be prudent to stop voting for authoritarian demagogues who erode the foundations of American democracy. I mean, isn't it funny that many of the neurotic right-wingers who raise these tyrannical government concerns are more than happy to line up and vote for a man who is bombastically authoritarian and constantly attacks the institutions and norms of the American political system?

You're right. Let's go ahead and just recoup those costs for billions of dollars in lost equipment and supplies that were destroyed by Iraqis and Afghans because you think they don't stand a chance.

Oh, and those thousands of American lives lost against the warfare you think doesn't stand a chance against the US MIS, they will get undone. Revived from the dead. Because you don't believe they stand a chance.

Thanks a $4.79 trillion for clearing that up. I would say "thanks a billion" but that's not accurate.


Whew, glad you cleared that up for all of us ignorant folk.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're right. Let's go ahead and just recoup those costs for billions of dollars in lost equipment and supplies that were destroyed by Iraqis and Afghans because you think they don't stand a chance.

Oh, and those thousands of American lives lost against the warfare you think doesn't stand a chance against the US MIS, they will get undone. Revived from the dead. Because you don't believe they stand a chance.

Thanks a $4.79 trillion for clearing that up. I would say "thanks a billion" but that's not accurate.


Whew, glad you cleared that up for all of us ignorant folk. If you're trying to make some sort of coherent counter-point here, it's lost on me. I explicitly stated 'home soil', because I realize that guerillas in far flung places have given pause to the US military. I just find the idea of a spontaneous uprising on home soil, which the US military could strike against instantly with maximum force, to have extremely steep odds of succeeding or even taking root in any significant way. Barring an army mutiny, of course, or something so spontaneous and vast that the army couldn't nip it in the bud before it spreads.

But of course, this entire conversation is mounted on an extremely unlikely premise from the get-go: that is, that a tyrant could subvert the military, the intelligence agencies and the dozens of government bureaucracies and make an attempt to establish a dictatorship without being thwarted at some point. Don't get me wrong, I think it's the responsibility of citizens to be aware and conscious of such possibilities, but they shouldn't dominate our conversations.

And I don't think a kneejerk reaction to sacrifice liberty for security whenever a tragedy happens should dominate our conversations either. I don't think the conversation is unwarranted, and I recognize some sacrifices have to be made, but it should be understandable why some people are hesitant to jump on board as eagerly as those who disagree with them are willing to.

This is a hugely magnificent pile of shit.

Now that you have used a wonderful cliff note ultra liberal talking point you need to expand on HOW our foundations of democracy have eroded........because so far that just isn't true and the fact the even an authoritarian president isn't a king we still have the legislative branch and judicial branch to keep him check and last that I have seen they have done just that.

Originally posted by lazybones
If you're trying to make some sort of coherent counter-point here, it's lost on me.

No, you seem to understand the point, just fine as you later reveal. And others understood it just fine, too.

I think you just want to be disagreeable because it's me.

Originally posted by lazybones
And if you don't want a tyrannical government, it might be prudent to stop voting for authoritarian demagogues who erode the foundations of American democracy.

Originally posted by snowdragon
This is a hugely magnificent pile of shit.

Now that you have used a wonderful cliff note ultra liberal talking point you need to expand on HOW our foundations of democracy have eroded........because so far that just isn't true and the fact the even an authoritarian president isn't a king we still have the legislative branch and judicial branch to keep him check and last that I have seen they have done just that.


I don't know, man, I like exactly what he said and I think it is 100% accurate and it is something I've said before.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, according to the facts, yeah, knives are 5x more dangerous than all rifles.

Remember, the US has a violence problem, not a gun problem. You can misrepresent data to say whatever you want buddy, but ultimately you know what you're saying is dishonest. Would you rather be attacked by a baseball bat or an AK-47? There's your answer

Originally posted by snowdragon
This is a hugely magnificent pile of shit.

Now that you have used a wonderful cliff note ultra liberal talking point you need to expand on HOW our foundations of democracy have eroded........because so far that just isn't true and the fact the even an authoritarian president isn't a king we still have the legislative branch and judicial branch to keep him check and last that I have seen they have done just that. Fucck this. The legislative branch doesn't hold Trump's regime accountable for anything, they need him to stay in power.

This government has obstructed investigations on a dubious election, it has attacked and silenced the free press, it has infringed on the civil rights of minority groups, it has stolen a seat on the Supreme Court and it is shamelessly in the pocket of corrupt corporations like NRA and Oil.

Originally posted by Firefly218
You can misrepresent data to say whatever you want buddy, but ultimately you know what you're saying is dishonest. Would you rather be attacked by a baseball bat or an AK-47? There's your answer

What I would rather be attacked by is irrelevant. What is relevant is where the numbers are. If more people are dying from knives than rifles, at a rate of 5 times, and you (not me) want to try and prevent some of this homicides, where do you think we should be spending our efforts to more effectively reduce those homicides based on your logic?


Make fact based decisions, not emotion based. Stick to the facts.



I think tackling the weapons is the wrong move so going to either one is not correct. I think we need to solve the reasons behind the violence instead of going after the tools people use to commit violent acts. What about you?

Originally posted by Firefly218
Fucck this. The legislative branch doesn't hold Trump's regime accountable for anything, they need him to stay in power.

This government has obstructed investigations on a dubious election, it has attacked and silenced the free press, it has infringed on the civil rights of minority groups, it has stolen a seat on the Supreme Court and it is shamelessly in the pocket of corrupt corporations like NRA and Oil.

How has it silenced the press?

The owners can have them all say pretty much whatever they want. Corporate affiliates, shareholders, and management do more to silence the press then any politician could..

I am still enjoying CDTM's comment about how its better to be a Slave and Kept then to be Free and Fighting to Keep it reply to the Question.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
I am still enjoying CDTM's comment about how its better to be a Slave and Kept then to be Free and Fighting to Keep it reply to the Question.

Somebody needs to Man up and put our values out there.

No shame, fellow liberals!

If you are OK with being a Slave. Then You have no VALUES... You just have a VALUE...as a commodity.

The people need to be controlled. Or maybe you want to live in Zimbabwe. THERE is your freedom, pig.

*reported for making Racist Comments aka people in zimbabwe are pigs*

Hey, don't make me report you for etc!

I don't have to ETC to be reported for ETC.

That is How KMC works.

It is run by Lefties.

Originally posted by dadudemon
What I would rather be attacked by is irrelevant. What is relevant is where the numbers are. If more people are dying from knives than rifles, at a rate of 5 times, and you (not me) want to try and prevent some of this homicides, where do you think we should be spending our efforts to more effectively reduce those homicides based on your logic?


Make fact based decisions, not emotion based. Stick to the facts.



I think tackling the weapons is the wrong move so going to either one is not correct. I think we need to solve the reasons behind the violence instead of going after the tools people use to commit violent acts. What about you? Incredibly moronic logic. Knives are also responsible for more deaths than nuclear weapons, so are knives more dangerous than nukes too? That aggregate statistic does not indicate danger. We regulate who has access to nuclear weapons because they're incredible dangerous, even though more people are killed by cars and knives. It's called being proactive.

Originally posted by Firefly218
Incredibly moronic logic. Knives are also responsible for more deaths than nuclear weapons, so are knives more dangerous than nukes too? That aggregate statistic does not indicate danger. We regulate who has access to nuclear weapons because they're incredible dangerous, even though more people are killed by cars and knives. It's called being proactive.

But isn't attacking the motives behind gun violence pro active?

It doesn't look like he's arguing against regulation in an absolute sense.

Personally, I see the need for regulation, too. But I also don't want to leave someone at the mercies of gangs, crooks, or whoever. I want to curtail random violence and see to the needs of vulnerable people in dangerous areas and such. Ron Goldman would be alive if he had a gun against OJ.. (Yes, we have police. Courts have ruled they are under no obligation to protect us, because they simply can't protect everyone.)

SO you are OK with Murder Via Knife then?

Yep. Typical Leftist hypocrisy when it comes to Valuing Life.

Originally posted by cdtm
But isn't attacking the motives behind gun violence pro active?

It doesn't look like he's arguing against regulation in an absolute sense.

Personally, I see the need for regulation, too. But I also don't want to leave someone at the mercies of gangs, crooks, or whoever. I want to curtail random violence and see to the needs of vulnerable people in dangerous areas and such. I completely agree with you. If a farmer in the middle of nowhere is getting robbed, he can't rely on the police who are 30 minutes away and needs self-defense. Sure. No one is saying take away all guns, we're saying take away the ones that are far too powerful.

Any gun that gives one guy the power to slaughter dozens and dozens of human beings in a matter of seconds, should not be so easily available.

What about in Large Cities where Police Response times can be JUST as Long if not even Longer? Knives have an Unlimited Killing Potential because they don't have to be reloaded.

Why No March against Knife Use?

Some Points?

2x_YhKC2WjY

Originally posted by Firefly218
I completely agree with you. If a farmer in the middle of nowhere is getting robbed, he can't rely on the police who are 30 minutes away and needs self-defense. Sure. No one is saying take away all guns, we're saying take away the ones that are far too powerful.

Any gun that gives one guy the power to slaughter dozens and dozens of human beings in a matter of seconds, should not be so easily available.

And you still won't be able to prevent Parklands if you get what you want.

As I have said before. Virginia Tech. 2 pistols. 33 dead.

The shootings were not all at once, it was spread out. There were moments where he did a ton of damage in a short amount of time though. Killed a teacher and then 9 other students in the span of a few seconds at one point.

Originally posted by Surtur
And you still won't be able to prevent Parklands if you get what you want.

As I have said before. Virginia Tech. 2 pistols. 33 dead.

The shootings were not all at once, it was spread out. There were moments where he did a ton of damage in a short amount of time though. Killed a teacher and then 9 other students in the span of a few seconds at one point. Instead of chanting your "it won't work" mantra, how about offer solutions?

If Republicans AT LEAST put forward more funding for mental health it would seem like they care, but they're not even doing that. In fact they made cuts to mental health...

Originally posted by Firefly218
Incredibly moronic logic. Knives are also responsible for more deaths than nuclear weapons, so are knives more dangerous than nukes too?

What incredibly moronic logic.

Really? We're talking about homicides as a crime and you bring up nuclear weapons?

Let me know if you'd like to talk about war instead of crime. If you want to get fancy, we could talk about warcrimes and really mess with people's minds.

Come back to this discussion with an actual argument. Leave military stuff out of it.



Do you want to stop violence or do you want to wank off to shitty arguments that your libtarded pals pat you on the back about?


If you want to have a legit discussion instead of stupid wankery, probably best to keep it legit. If your counter argument to solving violence is to use nuclear weapons as a rebuttal to knives, you'll get no where.




Address what I said. Do you want to actually stop the violence or do you just care about gun crime and gun crime only (which means you don't care about stopping violence, you care about shifting the violence away from a concept because you think it feels good)?

Originally posted by dadudemon
What incredibly moronic logic.

Really? We're talking about homicides as a crime and you bring up nuclear weapons?

Let me know if you'd like to talk about war instead of crime. If you want to get fancy, we could talk about warcrimes and really mess with people's minds.

Come back to this discussion with an actual argument. Leave military stuff out of it.



Do you want to stop violence or do you want to wank off to shitty arguments that your libtarded pals pat you on the back about?


If you want to have a legit discussion instead of stupid wankery, probably best to keep it legit. If your counter argument to solving violence is to use nuclear weapons as a rebuttal to knives, you'll get no where.




Address what I said. Do you want to actually stop the violence or do you just care about gun crime and gun crime only (which means you don't care about stopping violence, you care about shifting the violence away from a concept because you think it feels good)? Um, we're talking about weapons and their potential for damage.

And the only reason nuclear weapons are not used in crimes is because they're HEAVILY regulated and VERY inaccessible to the average person. If a psycho terrorist got their hands on a nuke they could commit a much worse crime than if they got their hands on a knife. Similarly, if a psycho terrorist gets their hands on AK-47s, they can commit a much worse crime than if they got a knife.

Your use of aggregate data is misleading and misrepresenting

Originally posted by Firefly218
Instead of chanting your "it won't work" mantra, how about offer solutions?



Unlike on Drugs where the Left DOES Chant "It Won't WOrk"
and crys like babies when arguments are put forth.

Originally posted by Firefly218
Um, we're talking about weapons and their potential for damage.

No we are not. We are talking about violent crime rates, homicides, and what to do about them. You think rifles are serious business. I pointed out the facts that knives are more serious. Your rebuttal was nukes.

Originally posted by Firefly218
Your use of aggregate data is misleading and misrepresenting

It's not my data. It's the facts. You don't like it, though. You don't like the uncomfortable idea that you need to address violence with another avenue other than "restrict, regulate, and ban guns." Restricting, regulating, and banning guns is not the answer almost every time.


Take a step back from the conversation. Go back to the question I asked you.


Do you want to stop only gun violence or do you want to stop the reasons for causes the violence?

eat

The fundamental human issue is that we are self-conscious of our own vulnerability and have to find a way to best deal with that.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
The fundamental human issue is that we are self-conscious of our own vulnerability and have to find a way to best deal with that.

Yeah, but the left keeps telling us if we disagree we love dead kids lol.

Firefly will say he is joking, but I know he is at least half serious.

How would any of your suggestions actually stop or reduce mass shootings.

Originally posted by Firefly218
Since you completely avoided directly responding to me and just parroted yourself again, I'll quote my answer



^ Mass shootings and general violence have different causes and solutions. It's completely possible to reduce violence but still be vulnerable to mass shootings, and it's possible to eliminate mass shootings but still be plagued by violence.

And if you're only going to ignore my point and repeat your same thing over again then don't bother, there's better things to do in life than that

You didn't answer my question, at all. You presented 0 solutions in your reply.


Try again, pretty please?


Please, no more dancing, dodging, etc.? Can you just stop with that stuff? Try to have a conversation with me.

Quick question: do you think you are flexible in your beliefs?

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Quick question: do you think you are flexible in your beliefs? Yes

If your "Flexible" in your Beliefs, don't that make you kind of Wishy Washy in most things?