Another Mall Shooting

[bigred]

Ah, so the mass murderers were completely sane individuals that had no history of mental illnesss... 'kay.

Perhaps you should do some Research.

OK.....that's one example. So? Or are you saying all mass murderers had prior records/history?

And regardless, we're spinning away from your orig contention, ie if someone doesn't have a prior record or history of mental illlness, it's OK for them to own a gun.

Yikes.

The one in which all of the people I respect -- including Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers, and Henry David Thoreau, and Thomas Paine -- believe in freedom, liberty, and personal responsibility.

...and here comes the "it's my constitutional right" bit. Took longer than I thought though. (PS the circle of people you respect is awfully small )

Anyway, FYI freedoms and liberties are not and should not be absolute. I feel reasonably certain the founding fathers knew this as well.

No, but we can expect enough people to act responsibly that we don't outlaw everything from vehicles or computers. I mean, people CAN hack with computers... and if we can't be trusted with responsibility, then why should you be trusted with a computer?

You're comparing owning a gun to owning a PC? Good analogy.

Actually, I don't necessarily see a problem with that.

Sadly, I'm not surprised.

People that are rich enough to afford things like those statistically are not the type of people that actually commit violent crimes. The statistics would back up my side on this.

And we all know statistics are everything.

And if someone can afford to buy a nuclear device and goes against the statistical data? No big to you, apparently.

Yes, actually. As Penn and Teller said, you should have the right to ingest anything you want into your body... anything else is bullspit.

I see. And what about giving those substances to others.......including kids (intentionally or accidentally ie kids find it in the home etc)? yeah so what? I find this mentality extremely short-sighted, frankly.

(PS using Penn and Teller to bolster your argument doesn't strike me as a great move either - Penn IMO is an arrogant ass)

Why should they? People like you have made no logical argument why everyone should be assumed to be irresponsible first, responsible second..

You're kidding I hope. How about erring on the side of caution? Based on your logic, it would make perfect sense to not only legalize but start handing out loaded guns (and drugs of all kinds) out in neighborhoods because it makes sense to assume everyone would be responsible.

Can we start with your neighborhood first? I'm sure you wouldn't mind, right?

Should parents be trusted to be good parents, or should they have their children taken away from them before the child is born?

er being a parent and owning a gun are hardly the same thing just because both involve responsibility.

I'll note that I'm not quite an absolutist here. There are things that I do feel that the risks outweigh the benefits. I mean, we shouldn't let the average person be able to, say, buy biological or chemical weapons... and I do tend to draw the line at nuclear weapons. But such devices aren't really all that comparable to handguns.

backpedealling already? aw But why not?? After all, it makes TOTAL sense to assume people will be responsible right? And for those who aren't, so what? They're just a small minority.

Right?

I have yet to see any real convincing evidence that it would, personally. But "countless"? I'm not really seeing a huge epidemic here... just a handful of shooting sprees that get sensationalized.

um FYI shooting sprees account for a very small percentage of the people killed by handguns.

Yeah, I mean, handguns are so evil and everything. They can even protect Evil Women from defending themselves from rape. How dare they think that they have a right to protect themselves? Women deserve to be raped, after all.

FYI anecdotal cases and logic with holes big enough to drive a truck through do not exactly help your case.

Then I guess you must be plugging your ears and going "Lalalala, can't hear you", which is about as mature as everything else in your post here.

...and the degradation of your stance is about complete with the pot/kettle childish cheap shots. (I guess the GI Joe/etc thing hit home......FWIW wasn't intentional)

Gun controls affect responsible users more than irresponsible users.

Yeah it stops people who would otherwise kill/murder at the HUGE sacrifice of responsible users, who sacrifice.......um what was it they were sacrificing again......

If you prevent people with a criminal record or a history of mental insanity from gaining firearms, you prevent people that are more likely to participate in shootings and gang-related crime

So most people who participate in shootings and gang-related crime have a criminal record or a history of mental insanity?

However, if you control the ability to hand out firearms to those who can use them to defend themselves,

What about handing out firearms to those who don't have a history/etc but don't have a clue how to use them to defend themselves or are otherwise not exactly the best candidates to own guns (hotheads etc)?

Oh yeah, you can't mold the law that way and can not exactly accurately judge people that way.

then it's the people who are acted upon by the criminal element that are punished.

What about the people who aren't acted upon by "the criminal element?" You conveniently ignore them.

I really can't see how you can go up against that logic.

I'm not surprised.

It seems that people like you have built up this mythology around the average person that buys firearms. They're all rambo vigilante crazy people that wear military camoflauge and love to go around and shoot each other for the hell of it.

Yeah that's what I'm saying. Sweet, yet more pot/kettle stuff, ie accuse me of stereotyping while doing the same thing in one breath.

None of you even stop to think that maybe, just maybe, the majority of people that buy and train with firearms are actually responsible users that are normal, everyday people.

In fact I'm happy to concede that point, for the sake of argument if nothing else. And-?

I just don't get the paranoia here.

Perhaps because there is none, at least not on my part. Again I simply think when it comes to owning something whose sole purpose for existance is to maim or kill, it makes sense to err on the side of caution.

 

[bigred]

Ah, so the mass murderers were completely sane individuals that had no history of mental illnesss... 'kay.

Perhaps you should do some Research.

OK.....that's one example. So? Or are you saying all mass murderers had prior records/history?

And regardless, we're spinning away from your orig contention, ie if someone doesn't have a prior record or history of mental illlness, it's OK for them to own a gun.

Yikes.

The one in which all of the people I respect -- including Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers, and Henry David Thoreau, and Thomas Paine -- believe in freedom, liberty, and personal responsibility.

...and here comes the "it's my constitutional right" bit. Took longer than I thought though. (PS the circle of people you respect is awfully small )

Anyway, FYI freedoms and liberties are not and should not be absolute. I feel reasonably certain the founding fathers knew this as well.

No, but we can expect enough people to act responsibly that we don't outlaw everything from vehicles or computers. I mean, people CAN hack with computers... and if we can't be trusted with responsibility, then why should you be trusted with a computer?

You're comparing owning a gun to owning a PC? Good analogy.

Actually, I don't necessarily see a problem with that.

Sadly, I'm not surprised.

People that are rich enough to afford things like those statistically are not the type of people that actually commit violent crimes. The statistics would back up my side on this.

And we all know statistics are everything.

And if someone can afford to buy a nuclear device and goes against the statistical data? No big to you, apparently.

Yes, actually. As Penn and Teller said, you should have the right to ingest anything you want into your body... anything else is bullspit.

I see. And what about giving those substances to others.......including kids (intentionally or accidentally ie kids find it in the home etc)? yeah so what? I find this mentality extremely short-sighted, frankly.

(PS using Penn and Teller to bolster your argument doesn't strike me as a great move either - Penn IMO is an arrogant ass)

Why should they? People like you have made no logical argument why everyone should be assumed to be irresponsible first, responsible second..

You're kidding I hope. How about erring on the side of caution? Based on your logic, it would make perfect sense to not only legalize but start handing out loaded guns (and drugs of all kinds) out in neighborhoods because it makes sense to assume everyone would be responsible.

Can we start with your neighborhood first? I'm sure you wouldn't mind, right?

Should parents be trusted to be good parents, or should they have their children taken away from them before the child is born?

er being a parent and owning a gun are hardly the same thing just because both involve responsibility.

I'll note that I'm not quite an absolutist here. There are things that I do feel that the risks outweigh the benefits. I mean, we shouldn't let the average person be able to, say, buy biological or chemical weapons... and I do tend to draw the line at nuclear weapons. But such devices aren't really all that comparable to handguns.

backpedealling already? aw But why not?? After all, it makes TOTAL sense to assume people will be responsible right? And for those who aren't, so what? They're just a small minority.

Right?

I have yet to see any real convincing evidence that it would, personally. But "countless"? I'm not really seeing a huge epidemic here... just a handful of shooting sprees that get sensationalized.

um FYI shooting sprees account for a very small percentage of the people killed by handguns.

Yeah, I mean, handguns are so evil and everything. They can even protect Evil Women from defending themselves from rape. How dare they think that they have a right to protect themselves? Women deserve to be raped, after all.

FYI anecdotal cases and logic with holes big enough to drive a truck through do not exactly help your case.

Then I guess you must be plugging your ears and going "Lalalala, can't hear you", which is about as mature as everything else in your post here.

...and the degradation of your stance is about complete with the pot/kettle childish cheap shots. I guess the GI Joe/etc thing hit home......FWIW wasn't intentional and I would've stated it differently if I'd known it'd hit such a nerve......my point is tighter controls have more benefit than (perceived) loss, ie the saving of lives.

Gun controls affect responsible users more than irresponsible users.

Yeah it stops people who would otherwise kill/murder at the HUGE sacrifice of responsible users, who sacrifice.......um what was it they were sacrificing again......

If you prevent people with a criminal record or a history of mental insanity from gaining firearms, you prevent people that are more likely to participate in shootings and gang-related crime

So most people who shoot others have a criminal record or a history of mental insanity?

However, if you control the ability to hand out firearms to those who can use them to defend themselves,

What about handing out firearms to those who don't have a history/etc but don't have a clue how to use them to defend themselves or are otherwise not exactly the best candidates to own guns (hotheads etc)?

Oh yeah, you can't mold the law that way, ie can't exactly tell one from the other with any real accuracy...so I guess a more general solution is needed.

then it's the people who are acted upon by the criminal element that are punished.

What about the people who aren't acted upon by "the criminal element" (ie shot by others/for other reasons)? You conveniently ignore them.

I really can't see how you can go up against that logic.

It was pretty easy, actually.

It seems that people like you have built up this mythology around the average person that buys firearms. They're all rambo vigilante crazy people that wear military camoflauge and love to go around and shoot each other for the hell of it.

Yeah that's what I'm saying. Sweet, yet more pot/kettle stuff, ie accuse me of stereotyping while doing the same thing in one breath.

None of you even stop to think that maybe, just maybe, the majority of people that buy and train with firearms are actually responsible users that are normal, everyday people.

In fact I'm happy to concede that point, for the sake of argument if nothing else. And-?

I just don't get the paranoia here.

Perhaps because there is none, at least not on my part. Again I simply think when it comes to owning something whose sole purpose for existance is to maim or kill, it makes sense to err on the side of caution.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

Which claim? That shootings take place in "gun-free zones"?

Well, I think that most colleges in the U.S. are "gun-free zones", so lessee...

Proof, Proof, Proof etc. etc.

I can do this all day. Almost all shooting sprees are done in gun free zones.

What are the point of gun free zones? No one has yet answered that question yet.

Let me see. You think or you know?
Most murders are committed in jurisdictions that have anti-murder laws. You haven't answered me as to why anti-murder laws are required when they clearly don't work.

No, I don't mean that. I never made that claim. The only one that has claimed that murdering another individual is the exact same as carrying a firearm has been you.

Au contraire. What I have stated is that murder continues despite there being anti-murder laws yet anti-murder laws are not rescinded.

I don't advocate gun free zones on a scale smaller than the nation state, especially when there is no way of policing them.

To prevent murder. If you commit the crime and are caught, you are arrested and then are punished. The goal is to prevent future murders from happening.

There we go.

But it clearly doesn't work.

Logically, if making murders illegal is more likely to cause more murders, then by the same logic of banning murders, you should make them legal. However, factually, there is no evidence to support that making murder legal will prevent murders. However, there is also no evidence to support that banning firearms is more likely to stop a shooting spree. However, those that participate in such a shooting spree are more likely to run into unarmed individuals incapable of defending themselves.

It is fairly stupid to flood your society with guns.

THe aim of murder laws is to stop murder and they don't work. The aim of gun laws is generally to reduce gun crime but they don't work, yet you apparently only want one to be rescinded. Still not sure why.

Now, do you think that murder is immediately equal to owning a gun, and if so, how do you make that comparison?

As explained above that is your own straw man and you are free to torch it yourself.

I don't quite get your logic here. Gun free zones haven't prevented a single shooter to my knowledge, and it prevents people from being able to defend themselves. Your claim is that banning guns from an area makes them less likely to cause a shooting, right? I don't get where this comes from. Is there something back this up?

What is your knowledge based on?
As pointed out above I don't think that areas smaller than the nation state are particularly effective in stopping gun movement. Although murder laws don't work they have been accepted across every state with some differences yet won't do it with gun laws.

If people aren't searched daily, how can you know if there are people carrying guns and if there aren't? If you don't know, then the average person is likely to follow the rules... but the people intent on carrying out a crime is already willing to break the law. Logically, therefore, they are the most likely to break the regulations on restricting firearms.

I'm not sure how you can really contest that logic.

I don't contest that logic. They are indeed most likely to break regulations. Why make it easy for them by having a society inundated with guns from the friendly gun manufacturers? I forgot, the arms manufacturers are major donators to the Bush administration - and every administration I believe and have thus bought the politicians.

Where did I claim you did?

When you stated' Okay, so you're saying that making murder illegal has done nothing to affect murder rates?'

Maybe you should make sure you actually understand me before posting.[/QUOTE} Maybe you should not post things you don't mean?

So?


Seems to beat yours in all ways.

I thought you needed to know.

By definition then, you must be right?

Right ho.

 

[Lonewulf]

OK.....that's one example. So? Or are you saying all mass murderers had prior records/history?

Naw. Are you saying that most mass murderers don't have any prior records or history of mental insanity or criminal records?

Evidence?

And regardless, we're spinning away from your orig contention, ie if someone doesn't have a prior record or history of mental illlness, it's OK for them to own a gun.

We are, eh?

...and here comes the "it's my constitutional right" bit. Took longer than I thought though. (PS the circle of people you respect is awfully small )

It is, is it? Glad you know everything about me. Didn't even occur to you that maybe I didn't really want to list out every single person I respect, but that would be too much for your mind, I guess.

Anyway, FYI freedoms and liberties are not and should not be absolute. I feel reasonably certain the founding fathers knew this as well.

Sure, except see, that certain people in the US wouldn't accept the Constitution except for this pesky thing such as rights that can't be taken away as soon as a dictator wanted to take charge. They wanted to prevent someone from coming in and saying, "You no longer have any rights"... whether through voting, dictatorship, or otherwise. This is why they made this little thing such as the "Bill of Rights". This "Bill of Rights" is that which cannot be changed through U.S. Government, because to do so would be to invite tyranny.

The Founding Fathers knew this. Some basic history lessons would serve you well, Bigred.

Here's a place where you can do basic reading on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights I encourage you to become more educated.

Here's the United States Bill of Rights: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

In the meantime, I'd invite others (not Bigred, he's on my ignore list now) to explain what other bill of right they'd like to see taken away?

You're comparing owning a gun to owning a PC? Good analogy.

Actually, it's a great analogy. Computer hackers can do a lot more damage than you know. A good amount of hackers can destroy businesses in a short period of time, can mess with banking records, etc. Computers can be used in ways that are very harmful to business and economy.

Why should you be trusted with a computer? Can you give me an objective reason why I should trust that you won't go and hack? I have to assume you're irresponsible first, not responsible, remember?

I hold that it's how you use the tool. You can use computers for good or for ill. You can use guns for good or for ill. I don't assume that firearms take over your brain and immediately make you a bad or irresponsible person... I don't see why you do.

Sadly, I'm not surprised.

Sadly, I'm not surprised you said "sadly".

And we all know statistics are everything.

Yes. I mean, we have to worry about all of those rich accountants and business owners that want to take over the Pentagon with their own private army of jets and tanks.........

And if someone can afford to buy a nuclear device and goes against the statistical data? No big to you, apparently.

Except that I already said that it was a "big" to me.

Nice strawman. Since you're a liar, I'm gonna throw you on ignore after this post.

I see. And what about giving those substances to others.......including kids (intentionally or accidentally ie kids find it in the home etc)?

Children are already recognized as not responsible for their own actions. They should not be given drugs.

yeah so what? I find this mentality extremely short-sighted, frankly.

You find it "short-sighted" because you can't think it through, while I can.

(PS using Penn and Teller to bolster your argument doesn't strike me as a great move either - Penn IMO is an arrogant ass)

So was Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson, considered in their time by their opponents.

You find him an arrogant ass, I find him a very intelligent person that's willing to buck the system; people like that are hard to find.

You're kidding I hope.

How about erring on the side of caution?

Those that sacrifice liberty for a little bit of safety deserve neither. Hey, wasn't that a quote from a Founding Father? But I though the Founding Fathers would want the Bill of Rights to be altered as much as you want.

Based on your logic, it would make perfect sense to not only legalize but start handing out loaded guns (and drugs of all kinds) out in neighborhoods because it makes sense to assume everyone would be responsible.

Why hand out loaded guns and drugs? I certainly wouldn't want my tax money to go towards that.

But yeah, you're right, prohibition has been so successful. I mean, when we prohibited alcohol... OMG! Instantly better society!

Next thing I'll suggest, ALCOHOL should be readily available on every street corner! Onose! The entire society will be destroyed because every single human is totally irresponsible!!!!

Hell, you can give kids alcohol here in Germany. Looking around now... nope. Not a destroyed society.

Weird that.

Can we start with your neighborhood first? I'm sure you wouldn't mind, right?

You mean my neighborhood in Eppelheim, Germany?

Sure.

Though I guess those nice neighbors of mine will be taken over by the EVIL MIND CONTROLLING GUNS and suddenly go from nice neighbors to evil gangsters, right?

er being a parent and owning a gun are hardly the same thing just because both involve responsibility.

So, you want to assume that the average person is responsible enough to raise a child, but can't be responsible with a firearm?

Awwww, why not? I mean, it makes TOTAL sense to assume that every person alive is completely irresponsible and will go on shooting sprees as soon as they own a firearm, right?

BAN CHILD BEARING! YEAH!

Tip: People that give birth are more a threat to this world, through overpopulation, than firearms.

backpedealling already?

It is not "backpedalling" if I held the position before I came to the table.

Second lie in this post.

aw But why not??

Because the benefits outweigh the risks. There are 0 benefits, and 100% risks.

After all, it makes TOTAL sense to assume people will be responsible right?

And it makes TOTAL sense to treat every adult like a child, right?

And for those who aren't, so what? They're just a small minority.

Right?

Uh huh.

um FYI shooting sprees account for a very small percentage of the people killed by handguns.

Yeap.

Yet it's the shooting sprees that gun control freaks like you jump on.

"CAN'T YOU STOP THE FIREARM VIOLENCE SO SCHOOLS CAN BE SAFE?!!!!"

We've seemed to move a far way from the discussion on "gun free zones", though... but oh well. People like you always shift the goal posts when it gets too hot.

FYI anecdotal cases and logic with holes big enough to drive a truck through do not exactly help your case.

Yeah, I mean, women can't POSSIBLY protect themselves from rape AT ALL with a firearm.

Rapists don't care if they have guns. TOTALLY LOGICAL.

...and the degradation of your stance is about complete with the pot/kettle childish cheap shots. (I guess the GI Joe/etc thing hit home......FWIW wasn't intentional)

Uh, no. I don't even own a firearm. I'm a liberal. I support Barack Obama. I only fired on the shooting range once, a long time ago. Personally, I prefer archery to firearms, but it's been a long time since I really dabbled in archery.

But being wrong is kinda normal for you, innit?

Yeah it stops people who would otherwise kill/murder at the HUGE sacrifice of responsible users, who sacrifice.......um what was it they were sacrificing again......

The ability to defend themselves.

Wow, you couldn't think of that? Definitely going on my ignore list.

So most people who participate in shootings and gang-related crime have a criminal record or a history of mental insanity?

Uh, yeah.

People involved in gangs might ACTUALLY HAVE A CRIMINAL RECORD! OMG HOW COULD I BE SO IGNORANT?!

What about handing out firearms to those who don't have a history/etc but don't have a clue how to use them to defend themselves or are otherwise not exactly the best candidates to own guns (hotheads etc)?

I'm for gun licenses. Just because I think the average person should have access doesn't mean that I don't think it shouldn't have some prerequisite training. I'm sure you'll lie again and call this a "backpedal", except that I've always been for licenses.

As for "hotheads", you'd be hard pressed to define that objectively.

Oh yeah, you can't mold the law that way and can not exactly accurately judge people that way.

"don't have a clue how to defend themselves" can't be molded into law? Do you even know what's required to get a gun license or a concealed carry license?

Apparently ignorance is the only thing on your side.

What about the people who aren't acted upon by "the criminal element?" You conveniently ignore them.

Show me that there's a huge rash of such, and I'll respond.

I'm not surprised.

OH DON'T SAY THAT! I want you to be surprised! I'll be surprising! Please?

Yeah that's what I'm saying. Sweet, yet more pot/kettle stuff, ie accuse me of stereotyping while doing the same thing in one breath.

I love the "kot pettle" thing. It's essentially saying, "OMG HOW DARE YOU?! It's wrong, but because YOU supposedly did it (and I won't prove that, of course), it's okay and perfectly logical for ME to do it! Hahah!"

It's the college equivalent of the elementary school, "Takes one to know one!"

In fact I'm happy to concede that point, for the sake of argument if nothing else. And-?

Blah, forget it. People like you hate humans. I can't even convince you that you can trust your neighbors...

Putting you on ignore.

Perhaps because there is none, at least not on my part. Again I simply think when it comes to owning something whose sole purpose for existance is to maim or kill, it makes sense to err on the side of caution.

Except that you don't recognize that many people don't use it solely for maiming or killing, but don't let facts get in the way.

Good riddance.

 

[Lonewulf]

Let me see. You think or you know?

I'm willing to be shown that I'm wrong. But I don't think I am.

Most murders are committed in jurisdictions that have anti-murder laws. You haven't answered me as to why anti-murder laws are required when they clearly don't work.

Except that they do work. They limit murders.

If murder was made illegal, more murders would occur. If gun free zones were removed... things would be pretty much the same, except that the average person can now defend themselves.

Au contraire. What I have stated is that murder continues despite there being anti-murder laws yet anti-murder laws are not rescinded.

Yeah, okay.

Keep running with that.

I don't advocate gun free zones on a scale smaller than the nation state, especially when there is no way of policing them.

Then you're pretty much arguing against a strawman, because I'm talking about limited gun free zones.

Good luck with that, btw.

But it clearly doesn't work.

Yes it does. Murder is limited. Serial killers are stopped. Mass murderers are stopped from killing again.

It is fairly stupid to flood your society with guns.

If you say so.

THe aim of murder laws is to stop murder and they don't work.

Yes they do.

The aim of gun laws is generally to reduce gun crime but they don't work, yet you apparently only want one to be rescinded. Still not sure why.

Because you're not smart enough to see that I never called for 100% stoppage.

Good luck fighting your straw men. Since you continually lie about my position, you're going on my ignore list as well.

As explained above that is your own straw man and you are free to torch it yourself.

Except that it isn't.

Welcome to my ignore list.

What is your knowledge based on?

Which? That shootings occur on "gun free zones"? Because people get shot on "gun free zones".

As pointed out above I don't think that areas smaller than the nation state are particularly effective in stopping gun movement.

In which case, you are not arguing against "gun free zones", but for banning firearms completely from the U.S.

That is completely dishonest, or else you really need to work on your reading comprehension. You should be ashamed.

Unless you're just simply ignorant. In which case, you should still be ashamed, and actually do some basic cursory Research as to what the hell I'm talking about.

Although murder laws don't work they have been accepted across every state with some differences yet won't do it with gun laws.

You keep saying that they don't work. So apparently, if it's made illegal, murder isn't prevented any more than if murder would be completely legal.

Fascinating.

I don't contest that logic. They are indeed most likely to break regulations. Why make it easy for them by having a society inundated with guns from the friendly gun manufacturers?

Jesus, you really don't know what's meant by gun free zones, do you?

I forgot, the arms manufacturers are major donators to the Bush administration - and every administration I believe and have thus bought the politicians.

OMG CONSPIRACY. I mean, it might not be that there are people in the U.S. that actually feel that they have the right to be able to defend themselves, go hunting, or be able to shoot their firearms on the range, RIGHT?! IT'S ALL BUSH'S FAULT!

Actually, you're wrong. It's the aliens. They want to flood america with firearms so that we kill ourselves off so they can take over.

When you stated' Okay, so you're saying that making murder illegal has done nothing to affect murder rates?'

So has it or hasn't it? You're the one making the claim that murder laws don't work. I think they work just fine, although I might like to change some of the ways they're handled.

Maybe you should not post things you don't mean?

I've meant everything I've said.

You've been the one that's deliberately twisted my words to suit your agenda.

I thought you needed to know.

By definition then, you must be right?

So far, the facts have been on my side.

Right ho.

Mm hmm.

Goodbye.

 

[bigred]

It is, is it? Glad you know everything about me. Didn't even occur to you that maybe I didn't really want to list out every single person I respect, but that would be too much for your mind, I guess.

lol - it was a joke (note the smilies). You can stop pouting now.

This "Bill of Rights" is that which cannot be changed through U.S. Government, because to do so would be to invite tyranny.

The Founding Fathers knew this. Some basic history lessons would serve you well, Bigred.

Surprise, the pot/kettle thing - again. ie claiming ignorance while displaying the same.

Please, show me where in the Bill of Rights it says freedoms are absolute. Some basic reading comprehension would serve you well.

In the meantime, I'd invite others (not Bigred, he's on my ignore list now)

lol aw - couldn't handle the discussion, so little wolfy picked up his ball and went home. I guess that means you'll never see this, but thx anyway for saving me from wasting time reading the rest of your dribblings.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Another news story can be found ....... here. Just facts in this news story about the UK. No reason to read unless you can avoid cognitive dissonance.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

lol - it was a joke (note the smilies). You can stop pouting now.

Sandbox humor?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Please, show me where in the Bill of Rights it says freedoms are absolute. Some basic reading comprehension would serve you well.

How about the The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Opps, you forgot the basis of the Bill of Rights.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

lol aw - couldn't handle the discussion, so little wolfy picked up his ball and went home. I guess that means you'll never see this, but thx anyway for saving me from wasting time reading the rest of your dribblings.

Back to the sandbox?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Another news story can be found ....... here. Just facts in this news story about the UK. No reason to read unless you can avoid cognitive dissonance.

Fake news story. Guns have been banned. There can be no gun deaths.

Ply this propaganda elsewhere!

 

[bigred]

How about the The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America?

How about it? I didn't say "show me where all the states voted for freedoms" or "show me where the 13 states declared themselves a free nation."

Again: show me where is says/implies ANY freedom is ABSOLUTE. Meaning no limits. Meaning you can say or do whatever you want.

FYI "absolute freedom" doesn't mean "we all voted and agreed on freedoms."

Opps, you forgot the basis of the Bill of Rights.

More like you forgot basic reading comprehension.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

How about it? I didn't say "show me where all the states voted for freedoms" or "show me where the 13 states declared themselves a free nation."

Again: show me where is says/implies ANY freedom is ABSOLUTE. Meaning no limits. Meaning you can say or do whatever you want.

FYI "absolute freedom" doesn't mean "we all voted and agreed on freedoms."


More like you forgot basic reading comprehension.

The right of freedom is not up for a vote, it is inherent in the individual human.

 

[Lonewulf]

I think that the things quoted by Big Red are hilarious.

It's amazing how some people think.

Oh well. He's either a liar, or delusional. Not worth my, or anyone else's time.

 

[EagleEye]

Agreed Lonewulf... He's one of those people who "just doesn't get it" in my book.

 

[bigred]

The right of freedom is not up for a vote, it is inherent in the individual human.

No kidding. Who said it was?

I think that the things quoted by Big Red are hilarious.

yeah. like your posts.

Actually what I find hilarious is someone getting their undies in such a twist because you dare to disagree with them that they put you on ignore - then go out of their way to spit at you later out of the blue. Actually "pathetic" is probably more accurate.

It's amazing how some people think.

No argument there.

Oh well. He's either a liar, or delusional. Not worth my, or anyone else's time.

What a mature and worthwhile comment. And backed up so well too.

Agreed Lonewulf... He's one of those people who "just doesn't get it" in my book.

Also backed up very well. What don't I allegedly "get?"

 

[EagleEye]

What don't I allegedly "get?"

Exactly.

 

[bigred]

Exactly.

LOL

oh well. It was an interesting thread till the trolls scurried in.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Oh well. He's either a liar, or delusional. Not worth my, or anyone else's time.

Na. Just thinks a different way than us. If you want conformity move to a dictatorship. Me, I will stay in the US...for now.

 

[Lonewulf]

Na. Just thinks a different way than us.

WAY different, I guess. To the point of not even knowing what the Bill of Rights were intended to do...

Or he calls things "back pedaling" when it's just you admitting that you have limits. (Lol).

Or continuous accusations, including calling what you say "dribblings" even when you kick his ass and debunk nearly all of his false points.

If you want conformity move to a dictatorship. Me, I will stay in the US...for now.

That's nice.

I don't want conformity, I want sanity.