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

LOL@ rob's butthurt.

Oh shit posting a Crowder video is gonna set him off.

Let me make it more clear: the framers of the constitution made it quite clear that the right to keep and bear arms was not specific to militias and it was for the populace as well.

Anyone who makes the argument that the 2A was only for militias is a moron, doesn't know about history even a tiny bit, and has an agenda to harm law abiding citizens and empower criminals (knowingly or unknowingly).

REEEEE YOU POSTED A YOUTUBE VIDEO REEEEEEE YOUTUBE NECKBEARD REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

@ddm

1) Thank you for at least responding on topic, unlike the Trumper crew

2) I don't feel this will happen personally, even in a scenario where the SC is very liberal. But he opens it up for food for thought.

3) I don't watch Crowder vids (or TYT); Crowder also knows nothing about guns.

Originally posted by Robtard
3) I don't watch Crowder vids (or TYT); Crowder also knows nothing about guns.

https://media.tenor.com/images/a8ea7539ae02b46103e98170200d3255/tenor.gif

I lol'd at Surts response.


I can't tell if he is joking about being triggered or is serious because....because...Crowder is right in a lot of his videos and makes great points. But sometimes...he's wrong.

That's a well spoken, valid opinion from a judge.


Other opinions from officials argue that those decisions infringing rights are the wrong ones, and that the language says nothing about ONLY those in the militia having uninfringed rights to arms. Only that a militia requires regulating, which requires armed people.


You can't even have a militia to regulate, UNLESS there is an armed population. That's how militia's were formed, from regular armed civilians, before the military industrial complex.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I lol'd at Surts response.


I can't tell if he is joking about being triggered or is serious because....because...Crowder is right in a lot of his videos and makes great points. But sometimes...he's wrong.

I'm half joking, Rob has been triggered by Crowder in the past. Now you're slapping him down using it and he's so buttmad over it he refuses to watch it.

So not watching youtube ranter vid = you lost. Interesting and very pretend win-y. But that's expected and tomorrow is Friday.

Originally posted by Robtard
So now watching youtube ranter vid = you lost. Interesting and very pretend win-y. But that's expected and tomorrow is Friday.

Lol, classic Rob.

**** the second amendment, guns are for pussies with noodle arms.

https://piximus.net/media/37162/fun-and-interesting-facts-about-the-terminator-movies-1.jpg

That's not even a real gun, bro.

Movie Props Kill Brah.

Movie props are covered by the second amendment. #don'ttreadonme

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/X7XTXdLf3_o/maxresdefault.jpg

Those are the 2019 line of super soakers.

Rob will believe anything the TV tells him.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Rob will believe anything the TV tells him.

Commercials=good

Youtubers=bad

That's Rob's logic here. Even though we've had school shootings with handguns with a body count double that of Parkland. Even though the latest one in Colorado featured two legally purchased handguns that did the killings.

What laws do they want to change, I wonder?

We all need Fly's chairbourne rangers in this thread! Would be classic, Fly, make it happen. Sock this thread up buddy.

Originally posted by Robtard
Excellent point

This commercial covers that point about what was known then compared to what our world is now:

8CDtSHAmoFg
Link

And this video covers this exact argument and destroys it utterly with facts:

MW_noXjj6w8





You should feel ashamed for posting one of those most untrue and manipulative anti-gun arguments.

https://i.imgur.com/4Jqt5Sa.gif

Robtard, you would have known the lame ol' "day only new 'bout muskets, brah!" argument was fail if you would make the time to actually watch Crowder.


But I think you know that, already.

Multiple meltdowns over a benign 30 second commercial. Oh my!

TIL: AR-15s and Glocks existed back in the late 1700's

Originally posted by Surtur
Commercials=good

Youtubers=bad

That's Rob's logic here. Even though we've had school shootings with handguns with a body count double that of Parkland. Even though the latest one in Colorado featured two legally purchased handguns that did the killings.

What laws do they want to change, I wonder?

^ strawmanning it up as usual

Multiple tantrums by being shut down with facts. Oh my!

TIL: Robtard thinks nobody knew about technology, guns, and science back in the late 1700s, he thinks that people back then were super stupid, he thinks that those people made laws that would only apply in extremely specific technology-bereft scenarios, and he thinks that - because of all the previous things he thinks- gun laws don't make sense in our contemporary landscape.


Yeah, makes sense if you line up a bunch of falsehoods to come up with a conclusion like that. I understand where you're coming from, Robtard.

But, don't worry, I've got you set straight with actual facts!

You're welcome.

If you strawman me as well, there won't be any straw left for Surt to do it...

Originally posted by Robtard
If you strawman me as well, there won't be any straw left for Surt to do it... brilliant!

Originally posted by Putinbot1
brilliant!


Their meltdowns and strawmanning aside, this a a solid example of why we can't have a sensible gun debate, the commercial simply posed a question, 'shouldn't we reevaluate our laws?', maybe we do and the conclusion is "no changes needed. they're fine as they are.". They take it as "DEY WANT TO TAKE ALL ERR GUNZ!".

The commercial lied about history. can't have a sensible debate if one side lies.

Originally posted by Silent Master
The commercial lied about history. can't have a sensible debate if one side lies.

Oh?

Originally posted by Robtard
Their meltdowns and strawmanning aside, this a a solid example of why we can't have a sensible gun debate, the commercial simply posed a question, 'shouldn't we reevaluate our laws?', maybe we do and the conclusion is "no changes needed. they're fine as they are.". They take it as "DEY WANT TO TAKE ALL ERR GUNZ!".

Talk about strawman arguments. I didn't strawman your points. lol

I also didn't say "they want to take all" or even "some of our guns."

I represented your points quite well. It just sucks when your points are explored for the factually incorrect points they are because it makes your arguments look as terrible as they really are.

Originally posted by Silent Master
The commercial lied about history. can't have a sensible debate if one side lies.

This is correct.

"They only thought about muskets when they wrote the second amendment, therefore, we should rethink the second amendment entirely."

That's a terrible and factually incorrect argument.


If you want a sensible gun debate, it always results in the pro-gun people stating that they are okay with sensible gun-control laws such as background checks and licensing requirements (for conceal carry) and anti-gun people just having emotional breakdowns.



There's really no gun debate to be had.

https://media0.giphy.com/media/xnz2xVhROd5Bu/giphy.gif

Regardless of constitutionality, my personal opinion is that the idea of a militia existing to challenge a tyrannical government is full of shit. Maybe back in the 1700's it could have been a fair fight with simple weaponry, but anyone with two brain-cells to rub together should be able to see that the armed forces of the government possesses weaponry that far out-classes anything a private party can get. Easiest example would be the AR-15 which is a semi-auto, inferior derivative, of the M16.

People are talking about the second amendment militias as a barrier to the feds infringing on state-sovereignty as if the national guard stands any sort of chance against the vastly superior weaponry possessed our government. We are in a period where victories are not determined by the amount of men or valor but by the click of a computer mouse.

State forces are a joke. The 2nd 'mendment is obsolete from a militia to protect state sovereignty POV.

(also as I've said in the past a bunch of pot-bellied middle-aged men aren't going to do jack)


My personal opinion (being a fan of military rule/martial law) is that only those who undergo training in the armed forces should be allowed to bear arms. More now than ever; today's civilians lack self-discipline and the common sense to responsibly stow and wield a gun. Countless times I see on the news children getting access to firearms as a result of idiotic owners. It's sad that the responsible owners must bear the price, but I'm sure they'd be able to past the rigors of military training (your average soyboy/incel can't--so cut down on mass shootings?).


Tl;dr:

2nd amendment militia as a force to challenge a tyrannical federal government is impractical in the 21st century (not so much in the 18th) as technological advances have already given the feds "the victory" so to speak. My personal opinion is that only those who undergo military training have access to guns.

Originally posted by Robtard
Multiple meltdowns over a benign 30 second commercial. Oh my!

TIL: AR-15s and Glocks existed back in the late 1700's

^More pretend winning, I love it. They should change the name from AR-15 to MS-13 and then leftists will wanna protect them.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Multiple tantrums by being shut down with facts. Oh my!

TIL: Robtard thinks nobody knew about technology, guns, and science back in the late 1700s, he thinks that people back then were super stupid, he thinks that those people made laws that would only apply in extremely specific technology-bereft scenarios, and he thinks that - because of all the previous things he thinks- gun laws don't make sense in our contemporary landscape.


Yeah, makes sense if you line up a bunch of falsehoods to come up with a conclusion like that. I understand where you're coming from, Robtard.

But, don't worry, I've got you set straight with actual facts!

You're welcome.

Bingo I loved it, it almost made me think Bash had somehow taken control of Robs account.

Originally posted by Surtur
^More pretend winning, I love it. They should change the name from AR-15 to MS-13 and then leftists will wanna protect them.



Sad, but true. Maybe Nancy Pelosi will even start claiming the guns have a "spark of divinity" and are "God's children" as well as she did with the actual gang. lol

Originally posted by TempAccount
Regardless of constitutionality, my personal opinion is that the idea of a militia existing to challenge a tyrannical government is full of shit. Maybe back in the 1700's it could have been a fair fight with simple weaponry, but anyone with two brain-cells to rub together should be able to see that the armed forces of the government possesses weaponry that far out-classes anything a private party can get. Easiest example would be the AR-15 which is a semi-auto, inferior derivative, of the M16.

People are talking about the second amendment militias as a barrier to the feds infringing on state-sovereignty as if the national guard stands any sort of chance against the vastly superior weaponry possessed our government. We are in a period where victories are not determined by the amount of men or valor but by the click of a computer mouse.

State forces are a joke. The 2nd 'mendment is obsolete from a militia to protect state sovereignty POV.

(also as I've said in the past a bunch of pot-bellied middle-aged men aren't going to do jack)


My personal opinion (being a fan of military rule/martial law) is that only those who undergo training in the armed forces should be allowed to bear arms. More now than ever; today's civilians lack self-discipline and the common sense to responsibly stow and wield a gun. Countless times I see on the news children getting access to firearms as a result of idiotic owners. It's sad that the responsible owners must bear the price, but I'm sure they'd be able to past the rigors of military training (your average soyboy/incel can't--so cut down on mass shootings?).


Tl;dr:

2nd amendment militia as a force to challenge a tyrannical federal government is impractical in the 21st century (not so much in the 18th) as technological advances have already given the feds "the victory" so to speak. My personal opinion is that only those who undergo military training have access to guns.

There are nearly 400 million guns owned by civilians in this country compared to less than 5 million owned by the military.

Originally posted by TempAccount
Regardless of constitutionality, my personal opinion is that the idea of a militia existing to challenge a tyrannical government is full of shit.

Man, you're right.

Let's go rewrite history. Let's tell the people from Vietnam and Afghanistan that they did not successfully wage war with the most powerful militaries on the planet from their huts, trees, and shacks.

So glad you cleared that ups for us.



FYI, if what you said was correct, then the DHS wouldn't have scenarios run in their tabletops about coordinated attacks against the government.

Of course the Left will find a Legal Way to Ban Guns...once guns are out of the hands of the People it will be Much MUCH easier for them to get rid of all those OTHER Rights and Freedoms the Left don't like.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Of course the Left will find a Legal Way to Ban Guns...once guns are out of the hands of the People it will be Much MUCH easier for them to get rid of all those OTHER Rights and Freedoms the Left don't like.




Exactly.

One on, both on. You are Gustavo Fring Fly.

Don't You mean "WE"?

http://img.picturequotes.com/2/419/418284/those-who-hammer-their-guns-into-plows-will-plow-for-those-who-do-not-quote-1.jpg

Originally posted by Putinbot1
One on, both on. You are Gustavo Fring Fly.
Nah dude that's Kurk

Originally posted by Surtur
There are nearly 400 million guns owned by civilians in this country compared to less than 5 million owned by the military.

yeah, but that's not accounting for higher level equipment and most importantly the armed forces are trained, can coordinate, can perform country-wide coordinated operations, while you will never see 2% of the general population spread randomly to have any amount of that level of coop

Are you accounting for the number of military people that would refuse to attack their friends and family?

Just make ammunition extremely hard to acquire and you can effectively ban guns while not violating the right to bear arms.

He's not accounting for the huge number of those in the military who wouldn't attack americans, in general, no matter who orders them to.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Just make ammunition extremely hard to acquire and you can effectively ban guns while not violating the right to bear arms.


That's an old trick, and would also violate the second amendment right. May as well sell guns without a trigger or frame.

let everyone use any gun they want but they have to publicly wear trumpsocks

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1631/8771/products/Trump_Troll_Socks.jpg?v=1557260022

this way only those of insanely strong willpower will obtain guns, perfect solution

Originally posted by gold slorg
let everyone use any gun they want but they have to publicly wear trumpsocks

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1631/8771/products/Trump_Troll_Socks.jpg?v=1557260022

this way only those of insanely strong willpower will obtain guns, perfect solution

How very Nazi Germany of you.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Nah dude that's Kurk I've realized that I'm more like Ted Beneke in my current state.
Originally posted by gold slorg
yeah, but that's not accounting for higher level equipment and most importantly the armed forces are trained, can coordinate, can perform country-wide coordinated operations, while you will never see 2% of the general population spread randomly to have any amount of that level of coop
Yep. Hunting rifles < Military grade weapons
Fat Hillbillies < Conditioned soldiers

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Just make ammunition extremely hard to acquire and you can effectively ban guns while not violating the right to bear arms.
This is basically what Switzerland does. I'm a fan of their system tbh. Kids are trained to use guns at a young age, and all men are required to serve in the military. Reminds me of Sparta.

Right to bare arms... PFFFFT that's not in there... but somehow we found a right to an abortion embedded in the constitution.

1st amendment gives us the right to not live under theocratic law, and a zygote is not a person; despite what some cult-leader white mages and their supplicants assert about souls entering an embryonic cell at the moment of conception. oh well

Even if a soul did, and we can prove it did, there's nothing in law about granting human rights based on a soul.

Originally posted by Silent Master
https://piximus.net/media/37162/fun-and-interesting-facts-about-the-terminator-movies-1.jpg

Man Imagine how many Fascist SJW POS's Ya could Mow down this this lovely Piece of Home Defense....

http://blog.contv.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Logo-featured-825x340.jpg

Whoa pretty badass, keyboard rambo.

Go kill yourself. Nobody will care about another dead old brokedick junkie

Awwww Bashy. Your attempts to insult and hurt my feelings always brings a Song to My heart...

lB-bUOXE1g0&list=FLrQBtkBXcaA07IaQmLhHs6w&index=31&t=0s

what's it like to have nobody care about you?

What is it like to be so obsessed with some one you don't like?

I can't even imagine it. Tell me what it's like. What motivates you to get out of bed when nobody cares if you live or die?

Wow..The Weed-Tard had Really Stunted your sense of Humor and Imagination aint it Bashy....Cause you a broken record.

no answer? that's okay, nobody cares. I was just curious about what drives something like you to continue their worthless existence

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
1st amendment gives us the right to not live under theocratic law, and a zygote is not a person; despite what some cult-leader white mages and their supplicants assert about souls entering an embryonic cell at the moment of conception. oh well
Yeah because there are no pro-life atheists out there.

Are you really going to tell pro-life atheists that their concerns violate the first amendment because predominantly religious people agree with them? Seems like a pretty slimy thing to do man.

This is not an establishment of religion when a variety people of various faiths and people without faiths hold this position in common.

This is quite frankly a very weak dishonest argument and one that could be weaponized against any position so long as anyone argued for the position on theological grounds.

The bar for an establishment of religion is higher than "some religious people want it for religious reasons" you ****ing moron.

Originally posted by cdtm
Even if a soul did, and we can prove it did, there's nothing in law about granting human rights based on a soul.
I'd say there's everything about granting human rights on account of something being... a human. Seems pretty straightforward when you use the term "human rights"

Nice word salad. And yet I am correct. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. your "winning" argument of "some athiests believe" is pure fallacious horseshit. And you have the nerve to suggest I'm being deceptive. Go stress-eat a bucket of kfc and cry into your waifu pillow, fatty.

What law says a soul is proof of humanity?

Originally posted by cdtm
What law says a soul is proof of humanity?

How dare you ignore soul laws, you scofflaw!

Is that why 90% of the time I've seen someone religious or atheist argue the pro-life position, they've never cited the Bible or religious text?

I don't think not terminating human life is a uniquely theological position. You don't have to cite to some holy text to stake up that position.

And it's not just "a few atheists" there are legitimate secular pro-life organizations.

You have to actually prove it is uniquely an establishment of religion other than "predominantly religious people want it," otherwise we could just itso facto rule out any position so long as it was disproportionately religious who were in favor of it, which frankly sounds tyrannical and undemocratic.

And my apologies for calling you a liar, I honestly now think you're just that retarded.


Also to be fair to the pro-choice people, just as most pro-life people I've talked to don't rely on an appeal to the authority of God, most pro-choice people I've talked to don't make this same backwards ass argument that Bashar is making. Patientleech (ha spelled it right this time) despite his visceral contempt for religion and his pro-life stance is too intelligent and honest to try and peddle that kinda horseshit.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Is that why 90% of the time I've seen someone religious or atheist argue the pro-life position, they've never cited the Bible or religious text?

I don't think not terminating human life is a uniquely theological position. You don't have to cite to some holy text to stake up that position.

And it's not just "a few atheists" there are legitimate secular pro-life organizations.

You have to actually prove it is uniquely an establishment of religion other than "predominantly religious people want it," otherwise we could just itso facto rule out any position so long as it was disproportionately religious who were in favor of it, which frankly sounds tyrannical and undemocratic.

And my apologies for calling you a liar, I honestly now think you're just that retarded.

Are you suggesting retards can't lie? Take your bigotry elsewhere.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
no answer? that's okay, nobody cares. I was just curious about what drives something like you to continue their worthless existence

Just pretend you got the answer you wanted and make bellieve its real....like you always do.

Originally posted by cdtm
What law says a soul is proof of humanity?

"THEY" have been degrading human value for quite a long time now.

i kinda like how abortion is dealt with in Poland, it's fully allowed in case of rape, any risk to mother's health, or if the kid is about to be born heavily disabled, or if the mother is underage

a f*cking whale, human, chicken, and salamander zygote all look the same ffs. Unborn children do not have a conscience. Do you remember being an infant? I don't. Hell, young kids have cognitive abilities comparable to a rat.

Not according to "THEY". That isn't even true to them for amlost 2 years after birth now.

Try again.

Originally posted by TempAccount
a f*cking whale, human, chicken, and salamander zygote all look the same ffs. Unborn children do not have a conscience. Do you remember being an infant? I don't. Hell, young kids have cognitive abilities comparable to a rat.

Except only one of them forms into a human. People are so fixated on one single stage of human development, when a human life is so much more.


We all started the same way. And we'd all be robbed of our lives, if our parents chose to abort us, as sure as if they smothered us in the crib.

w_bIzMJngeM

Originally posted by cdtm
Except only one of them forms into a human. People are so fixated on one single stage of human development, when a human life is so much more.


We all started the same way. And we'd all be robbed of our lives, if our parents chose to abort us, as sure as if they smothered us in the crib. Yes, I cry every time a women menstruates for the lost potential human.

Originally posted by TempAccount
a f*cking whale, human, chicken, and salamander zygote all look the same ffs. Unborn children do not have a conscience. Do you remember being an infant? I don't. Hell, young kids have cognitive abilities comparable to a rat.
And if you wanna make the argument that we should either be allowed to kill infants or that rats or whatever should have the same legal protections as human babies feel free to be consistent on that point without attaching a special value to human life specifically.

For everyone else who doesn't do that though... they kinda itso facto accept a uniqueness to the value of human life.

Cq3U09DeKpg

Originally posted by TempAccount
Yes, I cry every time a women menstruates for the lost potential human. same, after jacking off i look at the tissue and scream in terror knowing i just wiped out hundreds of potential human beings

Think of all that potential Loss to the MCU!?

YOU MONSTER!

true

all those hundreds after all those years would sure help endgame beat avatar

Originally posted by Emperordmb
And if you wanna make the argument that we should either be allowed to kill infants or that rats or whatever should have the same legal protections as human babies feel free to be consistent on that point without attaching a special value to human life specifically.

For everyone else who doesn't do that though... they kinda itso facto accept a uniqueness to the value of human life. I'm not a racist like you or Dooku. All aliens, humans, animals should be treated as equals. I'm a extropian transhumanist and believe humans are just like any other animal. The next stage of evolution is to merge with technology and become lobot.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Cq3U09DeKpg

This is s Heterosexual Reproduction Discussion Adam.

Originally posted by TempAccount
a f*cking whale, human, chicken, and salamander zygote all look the same ffs. Unborn children do not have a conscience. Do you remember being an infant? I don't. Hell, young kids have cognitive abilities comparable to a rat.






Doesn't matter if they have a conscious or not because they are still a human being. Period.


Abortion is murder. Period.


Everyone, including an unborn child, has a fundamental right to life. Period.

This thread is about gun control, right?

Right. Temp Account went off topic. I only replied to his nonsense.

You mean gun control or abortion?


They're both hot-button issues in America, yes.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae



Doesn't matter if they have a conscious or not because they are still a human being. Period.


Abortion is murder. Period.


Everyone, including an unborn child, has a fundamental right to life. Period. What makes a human human then?

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/human

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
You mean gun control or abortion?


They're both hot-button issues in America, yes. Gun control. This thread is about gun control!

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae



Doesn't matter if they have a conscious or not because they are still a human being. Period.


Abortion is murder. Period.


Everyone, including an unborn child, has a fundamental right to life. Period.

No one, including an unborn child, has a fundamental right to use the body of another person to live. Period.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No one, including an unborn child, has a fundamental right to use the body of another person to live. Period.

I can do this, too:

No one, unless for the standard cases, has a fundamental right to murder a developing baby. The developing baby is a person. Period.


Stating very strong opinions like they are facts is not a way to see any type of useful dialogue.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I can do this, too:

No one, unless for the standard cases, has a fundamental right to murder a developing baby. The developing baby is a person. Period.


Stating very strong opinions like they are facts is not a way to see any type of useful dialogue.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Is it? A dialysis patient has a right to live. Therefore, by your reasoning, he has a right to use your kidneys to process poison from his blood.

Oh, this old and tired argument? Great!

Comparing pregnancy to kidney disease and pretending like a random person off the street should be required to give up use of or donate their kidney.

They are not the same scenarios.

No scenario is comparable to a pregnancy except for Siamese twin issues. You can't create kidney disease analogies to pregnancies because they are not analogous until you inject government into.

Why not just use dialysis machines?

When we can grow babies outside of the womb, your argument can be, "Why not just use artificial wombs?"

Here is how the Kidney Argument breaks down and why you should stop using it:




Here's a better argument using kidneys but it, too, also fails:



https://prolife.stanford.edu/qanda/q2-3.html


Originally posted by Adam_PoE
When can we expect you down to the clinic to be plugged into people who need your kidneys to live?

Never. You need to come up with an argument that is not old and and tired, first.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No one, including an unborn child, has a fundamental right to use the body of another person to live. Period.



Doesn't change the fact abortion is murder. PERIOD.


If a woman can't take on the responsibility of a child then she shouldn't be spreading her f***ing legs for some deadbeat who has no intention of taking care of her child. PERIOD.


It is not right that an innocent defenseless unborn child has to pay the penalty for someone else's f*ck-up. If a woman doesn't want another person using her body to stay alive then she should make damn sure both the man and herself are using precautions to make sure she doesn't get pregnant. If she still ends up getting pregnant despite said precautions then the baby shouldn't have to suffer for it because the woman knew damn well the risks of having her birth control and the man's condom failing.

Yeah, that kind of shit doesn't help.


Honestly, hearing that garbage makes me wonder if the vocal anti-abortion side is controlled opposition.

Oh yeah, one other thing Adam:


According to the idiotic statement of yours I quoted above that would mean a siamese twin could legally kill his or her twin since he/she is using his/her body to stay alive.


Quit making pathetic excuses for mass infantacide.

Originally posted by cdtm
Yeah, that kind of shit doesn't help.


Honestly, hearing that garbage makes me wonder if the vocal anti-abortion side is controlled opposition.






^Triggered by the truth

What you mean is, it doesn't help your side because you know it's the truth and you don't like hearing it, dude. Tell you what, supporter of baby murder, if you can't take it then don't listen (or read, in this case) because I will keep speaking (or typing) my mind on the subject whether you like it or not. Put me on ignore if you need your crybaby little safe space, k?


It's also pathetic how you supporters of infantacide love to label those of who're pro-life "anti-abortion" or "anti-choice" while calling yourselves "pro-choice". You think giving us a negative sounding label is gonna somehow discredit us. It won't. And the baby is not getting a choice in the matter is he/she?


So how about you call us 'pro-life' and we'll call y'all 'pro-death'? That way we both get a positive-sounding label.

Kinda weird how people like Adam likely think I have a responsibility to pay for some stranger's healthcare more than a mother has any degree of responsibility to her own child and in a situation she is responsible for creating.

Leftist Thinking. You are NEVER Responsible for your OWN actions.

And honestly that's one of the main reasons I left the left aside from their identity politics, and a realization of the logical economic conclusions of the Lockean principles I ascribed to. The transformation of the government into the agent of responsibility rather than the individual is something that doesn't sit right with me.

My conviction is that the government's role is to secure people's liberties so they may have a private life, and that it is the role of the culture to encourage responsibility on the part of the individual in their private lives. Increasingly what I've been seeing however is the encouragement of a libertine culture suggesting that outside the bounds of government an individual should be encouraged to do whatever the **** they want, and that the government should invade people's liberties to reign in the excesses.

Though to be clear and fair, social policies like the war on drugs and banning gay marriage aren't exactly an embodiment of the ideal I spoke of either.

These are not ends, even if you seriously believe such behaviors are immoral, that warrant the use of force.

When it comes to moral values a person sincerely believes that do not concern themselves with the protection of human rights, it is that person's responsibility to advocate for them in good faith, justify them to other people to the best of their ability in the square of dialogue, not to remove people they don't like from the conversation, and not to enforce such views at the point of the government's gun.

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Kinda weird how people like Adam likely think I have a responsibility to pay for some stranger's healthcare more than a mother has any degree of responsibility to her own child and in a situation she is responsible for creating.



Yeah, that's the typical dual-standards/hypocrisy of the left. In regards to your other post about the democrats' identity politics BS, I agree with that as well. I've been sick of that shit even years before Trump was elected. It just got much worse after he was. The left seems to have doubled-down on their collectivist crap since then. They don't care about the individual. Not surprising since they hate the principles are country was founded on and embrace socialism while shunning capitalism even though capitalism has proven time after time to be far superior. They think the desires of the many override the God-given rights of the individual... smh. That's not the way it's supposed to work in a Constitutional Republic though which is what we are truly supposed to be, not a "democracy."

Oh even back when I was firmly on the left, Bernie supporter type person, I was sick of that shit.

Back when I was like 6 or some shit and first learned about slavery, my first instinct was to go "damn that's ****ed up." My second instinct was to feel guilty for being white. My third instinct was to think "no that's ****ing stupid, I didn't do any of that shit, and the game of judging people on their group identity is what lead to that shit to begin with."

Then when I was roughly 16 or 17 in high school, I was taught critical race theory in one of my classes, about how there's "whiteness" and "blackness" in society and how due to interlocking totalizing systems of oppression or some shit all white people are racist and black people are incapable of being racist. My friend and I spent that whole presentation just laughing under our breaths. It was so ****ing stupid.

Some of the democrat candidates running for president are supporting slave reparations lol. I'm sure you've heard about that though. That's sheer lunacy.

The forum is still doing that shit where I can't quote certain posts for some reason.

@Squall: I know that blacks as a whole don't support that slave reparations crap. Many of those who're hard-core leftists do though.

I don't understand how a crazy law like that would ever be enforced.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
If a woman can't take on the responsibility of a child then she shouldn't be spreading her f***ing legs for some deadbeat who has no intention of taking care of her child. PERIOD.


It is not right that an innocent defenseless unborn child has to pay the penalty for someone else's f*ck-up. If a woman doesn't want another person using her body to stay alive then she should make damn sure both the man and herself are using precautions to make sure she doesn't get pregnant. If she still ends up getting pregnant despite said precautions then the baby shouldn't have to suffer for it because the woman knew damn well the risks of having her birth control and the man's condom failing.


So the argument here is "everyone who has sex should be willing to ruin their lives", well, women that is. All this by allowing enormous social pressure on sex, objectifying people, having reduced taxes for multimillion dollar firms that leech on dating stigmas etc.? This all happening while keeping contraception a luxury because everyone has to pay for it. And kids don't even get proper sex education. But your government has a solution for you in that dire situation: you can go to prison.

Instead of putting so much money into campaigning to ban abortions more resources should be allocated to develop temporary sterilization techniques so only people who want children are fertile awesr

Originally posted by Bentley
So the argument here is "everyone who has sex should be willing to ruin their lives", well, women that is. All this by allowing enormous social pressure on sex, objectifying people, having reduced taxes for multimillion dollar firms that leech on dating stigmas etc.? This all happening while keeping contraception a luxury because everyone has to pay for it. And kids don't even get proper sex education. But your government has a solution for you in that dire situation: you can go to prison.

Instead of putting so much money into campaigning to ban abortions more resources should be allocated to develop temporary sterilization techniques so only people who want children are fertile awesr

It's sad that there are people like you in the world who think a defenseless unborn child should have to die because otherwise it would ruin someone's sex life. You don't see the callousness inherent in having a sentiment like that? That baby didn't ask to be conceived. Why should he/she be punished for someone else screwing up?



Why do you value sleeping around more than another person's inherent right to life? Use protection, make sure the woman is using birth control as well. If those safeguards fail then no, I don't think the unborn child should have to suffer for it just because his or her life would be an inconvenience to his parents.


There are other ways to get off you know if you don't wanna take the chance of getting a woman pregnant: oral sex, anal (which is gross to me but to each his own), jerking off, pulling out before ejaculation, etc.

Originally posted by Bentley
So the argument here is "everyone who has sex should be willing to ruin their lives", well, women that is. All this by allowing enormous social pressure on sex, objectifying people, having reduced taxes for multimillion dollar firms that leech on dating stigmas etc.? This all happening while keeping contraception a luxury because everyone has to pay for it. And kids don't even get proper sex education. But your government has a solution for you in that dire situation: you can go to prison.

Instead of putting so much money into campaigning to ban abortions more resources should be allocated to develop temporary sterilization techniques so only people who want children are fertile awesr

I'd rather say...if women can shirk all responsibility for a kid, why can't men?

Would you be open to men being able to opt out of having to pay for child support for similar reasons women opt out of giving birth? Is it okay for a woman to abort a kid cuz she can't afford to take care of it, but also to be able to force a man to take care of it even if he can't afford it and she decides to keep it?

I'm not against child support, but if the mantra is "her body her choice". Well...why not "her choice...her job to support it" ? It *does* take two to tango, but then that can't apply here unless we're gonna say a man has an actual say in abortion, but he doesn't. A woman can abort a child even if the father is a billionaire who is promising to take care of it and the child poses no serious health risk.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Why do you value sleeping around more than another person's inherent right to life? Use protection, make sure the woman is using birth control as well. If those safeguards fail then no, I don't think the unborn child should have to suffer for it just because his or her life would be an inconvenience to his parents.

It's not just the value of sleeping around. You are essentially saying that the process that made every human in the planet should be a risk on your life. Either having an unwanted child or going to prison is essentially taking off years of a person's life and those solutions are also in total disregard of the value of one's life and it's quality too. Pro-abortion arguments are selling you the choice between two evils when you could just sterilize people and keep every freedom and every wanted responsability alive in our current society.

Mass sterilization is the only moral answer as you present it.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
There are other ways to get off you know if you don't wanna take the chance of getting a woman pregnant: oral sex, anal (which is gross to me but to each his own), jerking off, pulling out before ejaculation, etc.

Most of this is accurate but due to a prude society and lack of sexual education, it's unreasonable to expect the whole population to manage their sexuality properly. There will be always a group of poor uneducated people that won't have the background to act seriously in building a non-fertile sexuality.

Everything I mentioned about social pressure applies here too: you push people towards having "real sex" and make it a luxury by putting a price tag into it. But every human being was born like that. It's a mixed message.

Our society would probably benefit from sterilizing everyone and making people jump through hoops in order to get the right to have a kid.

Owning a gun has folk getting background checks, etc. Yet you wanna pop out a kid, even if you're like 15? It's okay, we even glamorize doing it at a young age with shows like "teen mom". Awesome.

Originally posted by Surtur
I'd rather say...if women can shirk all responsibility for a kid, why can't men?

Would you be open to men being able to opt out of having to pay for child support for similar reasons women opt out of giving birth? Is it okay for a woman to abort a kid cuz she can't afford to take care of it, but also to be able to force a man to take care of it even if he can't afford it and she decides to keep it?

I'm not against child support, but if the mantra is "her body her choice". Well...why not "her choice...her job to support it" ? It *does* take two to tango, but then that can't apply here unless we're gonna say a man has an actual say in abortion, but he doesn't. A woman can abort a child even if the father is a billionaire who is promising to take care of it and the child poses no serious health risk.


You can count Surtur to introduce a fair sexless evaluation of the situation. The guy who knocked up a woman who aborted should go to prison because it takes two to tango biscuits

To be fair I don't believe that "her body her choice" should be a central part of the argument, to me the problem comes more from the responsabilities you are denied/forced to take than anything else. With that said, giving birth can permanently phuck up your body and then you have to train and upkeep your lower muscles so your organs don't fall off, so I see why a woman wouldn't want to go through that because "there is no serious health risk". Ultimately living 4 bad years of your life because a condom broke is not a pill easy to swallow either.

Originally posted by Bentley
You can count Surtur to introduce a fair sexless evaluation of the situation. The guy who knocked up a woman who aborted should go to prison because it takes two to tango biscuits

To be fair I don't believe that "her body her choice" should be a central part of the argument, to me the problem comes more from the responsabilities you are denied/forced to take than anything else. With that said, giving birth can permanently phuck up your body and then you have to train and upkeep your lower muscles so your organs don't fall off, so I see why a woman wouldn't want to go through that because "there is no serious health risk". Ultimately living 4 bad years of your life because a condom broke is not a pill easy to swallow either.

I never actually advocated for sending anyone to jail.

I'm saying women shouldn't be able to opt out cuz they just don't feel like having a kid while also having the ability to force a man into 18 years of child support if they so choose.

And okay, let's go with "even a normal pregnancy can f*ck up her life for years". Well, so can 18 years of child support for the guy.

So, now Bentley is repeating the already debunked myth that abortion is safer than child birth? I'm not surprised. Anything you have to convince yourself of in order to justify infantacide, eh Bentley?

Originally posted by Surtur
I never actually advocated for sending anyone to jail.

I'm saying women shouldn't be able to opt out cuz they just don't feel like having a kid while also having the ability to force a man into 18 years of child support if they so choose.

And okay, let's go with "even a normal pregnancy can f*ck up her life for years". Well, so can 18 years of child support for the guy.

The prison thing was just a joke to highlight how the responsabilities on these topics are stupidly loopsided.

I pretty much agree with your observation. It also makes a good argument to settle with default sterilization. If a guy declares he rather have the woman have an abortion he should by all means be extempt of paying (providing abortion is legal). But then you'd have cases where the guy found out after the legal date of abortion or got told later and many other tricky situations that are just a legal mess in the making.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
So, now Bentley is repeating the already debunked myth that abortion is safer than child birth? I'm not surprised. Anything you have to convince yourself of in order to justify infantacide, eh Bentley?

Or you can address the actual argument I make.

What's your stance in sterilization?

Originally posted by Bentley
So the argument here is "everyone who has sex should be willing to ruin their lives", well, women that is.

Thanks for being brave enough to respond despite the pack-attack in full force.

I think a better characterization of what you just said is as follows:

"The argument here is 'everyone who willingly rawdogs should be willing to raise a child that results from that instead of murdering it. And if you want to keep it and your man doesn't, you should be on the hook for the cost and care of the baby.'"

Originally posted by Bentley
All this by allowing enormous social pressure on sex, objectifying people, having reduced taxes for multimillion dollar firms that leech on dating stigmas etc.? This all happening while keeping contraception a luxury because everyone has to pay for it. And kids don't even get proper sex education. But your government has a solution for you in that dire situation: you can go to prison.

Instead of putting so much money into campaigning to ban abortions more resources should be allocated to develop temporary sterilization techniques so only people who want children are fertile awesr


Healthcare for all which includes free contraceptives is a must. You cannot be pro-life without healthcare for all and free contraceptives. It's a moralistic contradiction.

Originally posted by Bentley
Or you can address the actual argument I make.

What's your stance in sterilization?

The default should be "everyone is sterilized and only those who get a license can have babies."

Originally posted by Bentley
Or you can address the actual argument I make.

What's your stance in sterilization?


Not to interject between you two, but out of curiosity, are you aware of the United States history with sterilization?

Originally posted by cdtm
Not to interject between you two, but out of curiosity, are you aware of the United States history with sterilization?

Lol well we sure have made some mistakes, but with some moxy and a new attitude...

^I'm not surprised you support Eugenics considering your abhorrent views on abortion.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Thanks for being brave enough to respond despite the pack-attack in full force.

I think a better characterization of what you just said is as follows:

"The argument here is 'everyone who willingly rawdogs should be willing to raise a child that results from that instead of murdering it. And if you want to keep it and your man doesn't, you should be on the hook for the cost and care of the baby.'"

Mostly yeah, but the post I responded to implied that even if a condom broke the lady should just suck it up. You are pretty much then forced to assume other chemical methods to get rid of any possibility of breeding, it becomes more expensive.


Originally posted by dadudemon
Healthcare for all which includes free contraceptives is a must. You cannot be pro-life without healthcare for all and free contraceptives. It's a moralistic contradiction.

Free contraceptives and proper sex education, which assumes that your family and Friends won't actively keep/pressure you from getting information/protection. Even then it's hard to ensure that low class people with little education and precarious backgrounds have proper access to contraception and entertain it properly.

But statistically the situation would be much better still.

Originally posted by cdtm
Not to interject between you two, but out of curiosity, are you aware of the United States history with sterilization?

Please share that certainly does sound like a found anecdote).

Here in Europe we do have a stigma against talking about control population politics because of the Nazis.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The default should be "everyone is sterilized and only those who get a license can have babies."


Pretty much, but I shiver at thinking the burocracy behind asking for a licence.

At the end of all this, who's opinion has changed?

Originally posted by Archaeopteryx
At the end of all this, who's opinion has changed?

Mine. Before I did not give it much of a thought about any real solution that would help resolve these issues and now I feel sterilization is the most responsible choice for everyone.

Thanks for everyone who made it possible

Originally posted by Bentley
Mine. Before I did not give it much of a thought about any real solution that would help resolve these issues and now I feel sterilization is the most responsible choice for everyone.

Thanks for everyone who made it possible

More like sterilization to everyone who can't afford to raise kids without significant govt $$, that seems more reasonable or not.

Originally posted by snowdragon
More like sterilization to everyone who can't afford to raise kids without significant govt $$, that seems more reasonable or not.

For me the willingness to have children as opposed to life being a literal accident is the center of the idea.

If you have to thin out people who deserve to have children (which is something I don't necessarily agree with -more potential of changing my mind!-) my first criterea would be a psychological evaluation.

Anyways, getting back to the topic nah there isn't a legal grounds to ban guns

Retarded people have just as much right to life as anyone else.


Oh, and of course he won't be consistent in regards to his retarded "only military should be allowed to have guns". He's a leftist. They aren't exactly know for consistency... or logic, for that matter. They're ruled by their fragile wittle fee fees.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Retarded people have just as much right to life as anyone else.


Agreed, I definitely don't think Kurk should have been aborted.

lol. Who's Kurk?

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
lol. Who's Kurk?

TempAccount

Originally posted by Surtur
Retards think all Trumpers think women should be forced to give birth to retards.

Also what you're saying is if we make something illegal people will still find ways to get it. Okie dokie, and being consistent: you'd apply that to your silly idea of only the military getting guns, right? Abortion is a service; guns are a regulated product, duh?

I advocate for a Switzerland model where you must have served in the military to own a gun---if I'm being nice to hunters maybe anything outside of a .22 rifle (moderate position). Me advocating for military rule is a radical position comparable to wanting Imperial Japan to return.

Originally posted by eThneoLgrRnae
Retarded people have just as much right to life as anyone else.


Oh, and of course he won't be consistent in regards to his retarded "only military should be allowed to have guns". He's a leftist. They aren't exactly know for consistency... or logic, for that matter. They're ruled by their fragile wittle fee fees.
lol you are the first person to call me a leftist on this forum in nearly 5 years.

You don't address the issue of when its a threat to mother's health? Retarded people have a right to life at the cost of worsening the quality of life of others it seems. You should adopt one and tell me how it goes

But with your way people will find illegal waaaaaaaaaays!

Originally posted by Emperordmb
Kinda weird how people like Adam likely think I have a responsibility to pay for some stranger's healthcare more than a mother has any degree of responsibility to her own child and in a situation she is responsible for creating. I think it's weird that a homosexual male has any interest in their vaginas anyway.