Massacre in Connecticut - Page 14

Yes I was in the war in Nam in the 60's.Why do you ask this?
 

Another shooting at a university.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/23/us/shooting-reported-at-college-in-houston.html?_r=0

That is correct .
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Was this campus a "gun-free" zone?

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

So imagine if everyone on campus who wanted a gun had one... Do you honestly think this sort of thing would be less frequent, or more frequent?

Just as frequent or less.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

I didn't expect any different answer from you.

Then why ask?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

But let's just say that I strongly believe that to be an absolutely idiotic claim.

How liberal of you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Liberal... Realist... Tomato... Tomahto...

Of course. 

But, of course, you missed my point. What's liberal of you is dismissing opinions you disagree with as "absolutely idiotic."

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

You don't understand liberalism.

In one sense you are right. But not in the sense that you mean.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

It's not devoid of common sense.

All evidence to the contrary?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

If you were, for instance, to say that contracting AIDS can cure cancer, and that cancer patients should try it, then I would rightfully be able to call that assertion idiotic, and it would have nothing to do with how "liberal" I am.

And shitty analogies are another hallmark of liberal/progressive argumentation (if you and BR...and the above analogy are any example.)

To be truthful, what's most idiotic about me is my continued engagement with you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Unless you have science, logic and reason on your side, you won't win against me.

I've pwned you so many times here that statement is laughably delusional.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Saying more guns on campus will lead to fewer shootings is devoid of science, logic and reason... ergo...

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to prove that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Yes, perhaps it's time for you to smell the coffee. Unless you have science, logic and reason on your side, you won't win against me. Saying more guns on campus will lead to fewer shootings is devoid of science, logic and reason... ergo... Goodbye.

I forget, is it a win or loss against you when you conveniently try to ignore posts that blow your reasoning to bits and then proclaim yourself the winner on the next page?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

/horshack

How old are you with that reference there?

Who said I was talking about MJ or Jazzy at all? I was talking about my own post where you were blaiming the victim for their crime. You've addressed it by noting Marv is in the military. That was quite a diversion there.

I'm pretty sure my profile notes I'm 42 but the point is that even if I get the reference, the show has been off the air for two generations and the actor that spoke those lines is dead.

Now please excuse me while I go back to working up my Bonanza zingers to roast you with!

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Really? Have you been trained to use a gun against men? Have you seen anyone you know killed by gunfire? I haven't.

Whether SDW meant this or not...I'll tell you why it doesn't matter: It's a red herring. A person's qualifications with firearms is irrelevant as is whether someone "needs" X firearm for hunting (or whatever activity the anti-gun crowd wishes to limit people to.) And so is whether or not you think someone (or a group) could reasonably defend themselves against a modern tyrannical government armed to the teeth as the US government is. These are all red herrings. They are all irrelevant.

This is a question about rights. Those other items are an attempt to distract from the real issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Absolute individual rights is as idiotic a concept as is absolute collectivism. Why don't we have the right to drive drunk? Not because you're guaranteed to kill someone. Not because you're not responsible enough to know when you've had too much. But because there's danger anyway.

There is no right in the US that is absolute. Nice try at a straw man argument.

Martin Luther King, Jr.: Civil Rights Leader and Gun-owner

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Stop lying. None of my arguments were "torn to bits" by MJ and Jazzy's use of strawmen and ignoring the facts and common sense. For instance, when I asked about enforcement and was sent a link to an essay about security, an essay that was so ignorant it ignored the fact that strength isn't just used (even on a personal level) for defense, but for offense as well... yeah I guess by your standards that was "torn to bits".

41. How about you?

Who said I was talking about MJ or Jazzy at all? I was talking about my own post where you were blaiming the victim for their crime. You've addressed it by noting Marv is in the military. That was quite a diversion there.

I'm pretty sure my profile notes I'm 42 but the point is that even if I get the reference, the show has been off the air for two generations and the actor that spoke those lines is dead.

Now please excuse me while I go back to working up my Bonanza zingers to roast you with!

So you interjected into an argument with a nonsequitur. Again. And I had already explained that having a gun stolen was not the same as having a car stolen, because people who steal guns do so for one purpose and one purpose alone. To use those guns against people. So a gun owner should take a hell of a lot more care to avoid theft, and that doesn't mean buying an unbolted 50 pound "safe" at Home Depot.

Yeah. I mean Adam Lanza's mom should be charged for not wearing a bullet proof vest thus preventing her own death and the theft of guns that occurred.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Stop lying. None of my arguments were "torn to bits" by MJ and Jazzy's use of strawmen and ignoring the facts and common sense. For instance, when I asked about enforcement and was sent a link to an essay about security, an essay that was so ignorant it ignored the fact that strength isn't just used (even on a personal level) for defense, but for offense as well... yeah I guess by your standards that was "torn to bits".


41. How about you?

Who said I was talking about MJ or Jazzy at all? I was talking about my own post where you were blaiming the victim for their crime. You've addressed it by noting Marv is in the military. That was quite a diversion there.


I'm pretty sure my profile notes I'm 42 but the point is that even if I get the reference, the show has been off the air for two generations and the actor that spoke those lines is dead.


Now please excuse me while I go back to working up my Bonanza zingers to roast you with!

So you interjected into an argument with a nonsequitur. Again. And I had already explained that having a gun stolen was not the same as having a car stolen, because people who steal guns do so for one purpose and one purpose alone. To use those guns against people. So a gun owner should take a hell of a lot more care to avoid theft, and that doesn't mean buying an unbolted 50 pound "safe" at Home Depot.

Yeah. I mean Adam Lanza's mom should be charged for not wearing a bullet proof vest thus preventing her own death and the theft of guns that occurred.

Must you attempt to defend yourself with a straw man? Pathetic.

No but you must because blaming the victim is a legitimate fallacy and you are the one talking about how people should be charged for having crimes committed against them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

There are laws against negligence. Are they blaming the victim too? I'm claiming allowing a gun to be stolen is negligent, and should be criminally so, because of the danger it poses to society.

Your problem here is in the "allowing" part. Negligence requires...you know...negligence. There's a standard to be met hear in the courts. A guy having guns locked in safes is probably fairly well below the bar. Newspapers publishing addresses might be a bit higher on the list though.

He owned a gun to protect his life and safety.That is why. It was not an automatic that is for sure.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

As I said, a fifty pound box from Home Depot that is not bolted to the floor is not a safe. Necessary precautions were not taken.

And I'm pretty sure that you don't get to unilaterally declare what negligence is in the law despite what your authoritarian inclinations may lead you to believe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

How liberal of you.

How is this a comeback?

Comparing our Founders with loyalists the founders were liberals.

Comparing our Founders (in terms of religion) with Catholics many of the founders were liberals.

Comparing our Founders in terms of economics many of the the founders were liberals. (read Paine's Agrarian Justice).

The Declaration of Independence is a liberal document against the conservative crown.  Separation of Church and State is a liberal concept against religious conservatism.

Half of our Founders were Federalists (i.e. pro-big government) under Hamilton. 

Liberal is not a dirty word.  Our founders were the liberals of their day because they understood that to move forward it meant not doing things as they had been done before.  

It is also good to know, however, that the Founders were as contentious as we are today and name called with the best of them (leading to a duel or two).  

As a moderate centrist I lean far more toward Washington over either Hamilton or Jefferson.  I must say, as I grew older I became less enamored with Jefferson, especially contrasted with Washington.  While both Virginians Washington freed his slaves while Jefferson did not.  Washington hated political parties while Jefferson started one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nht 

How is this a comeback?

It was referring to the standard (modern) liberal/progressive approach to those they disagree with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nht 

Comparing our Founders with loyalists the founders were liberals.

Yes, they were...in the classical sense of liberalism. However modern liberals not at all liberal in that sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nht 

Half of our Founders were Federalists (i.e. pro-big government) under Hamilton.

As are 99% of modern liberals/progressives (and conservatives) today. There are virtually no anti-federalists anymore today. Mostly libertarians, anarco-capitalists and "micharcists" would most likely align with the anti-federalist sentiment and almost not at all with the federalist point of view, while 99% of current Democrats, Republicans, conservatives, liberals and progressives would be aligned with the federalist view.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nht 

Liberal is not a dirty word.

It is not in the classical sense. It is in the modern sense if no other reason than the hypocrisy and arrogance embedded in it. To use this same word and assume that liberals today are the same as liberals of the time you're referring is demonstrates an ignorance of how that term (and the people who've claimed it) has evolved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nht 

It is also good to know, however, that the Founders were as contentious as we are today and name called with the best of them (leading to a duel or two).

Yes, I've heard that the "nastiness" we complain about today pales in comparison to the past.