Massacre in Connecticut - Page 17

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 


Yeah, yeah. Anything that refutes your simplistic and sheltered world view is utterly lame. I get it.

I don't know how what you've posted "refutes" my worldview. But whatever. 

But what is lame is your attempts to derail the thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

But your claim was that what happened in Germany in the 1930s is happening in the US now.

Not exactly. But there are certainly similarities. As Mark Twain once said: "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme."

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Without that element, and with the element of our diversity and our proud 200 year-old constitutional system, that claim is simply ridiculous.

Thanks so much for sharing your opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Your world view that elections and out system are not enough to defend ourselves against an oppressive government, and that Nazi Germany somehow supports that thesis is clearly refuted by the facts.

I don't believe they are "clearly refuted by the facts" at all. Perhaps this is how it appears when you're selective in what facts you use and observe and accept, sure.

http://www.abc3340.com/story/20790943/school-bus-driver-shot-6-year-old-taken-hostage-in-dale-county

Maybe those six year-olds should have been armed to defend themselves.

Distressing how these things keep happening in places like Texas, Alabama and Georgia.

There is your wonderful the right to bear arms innocent people getting shot more than ever now.Pathetic indeed.
 

Hey but if that guy in Georgia hadn't have had a gun he wouldn't have been able to defend his home from the horrifying threat of a Mexican pulling into his driveway.

And if the guy in Alabama didn't have the gun he wouldn't have been able to get the kid off the bus, which I'm sure he had every legal right to do (yeah, right).

And he was arrested on Dec. 22 for pulling a gun and threatening someone. Yep. Can't take HIS guns away... nosir. 2nd Amendment!

FFS if that guy had pulled a gun on someone and threatened them here in Hong Kong he'd be in jail for five years, and his house would have been searched. And no one would have been shot. But in Alabama, they just let 'em go.

I'm sure he had an issue with whoever he pulled the gun on before, and I'm sure he was having trouble getting at the kid for whatever reason. He had to find some way to solve those problems.

Guns: The problem solver for stupid people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Guns: The problem solver for stupid people.

Are you saying the government is made up of stupid people?

Op-Ed: Gun control fails rationality test:

A teen who performed at an event for the POTUS was shot and killed for no apparent reason.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/30/hadiya-pendleton-dead-chi_n_2581309.html

Guess the shooter's right to have a gun is greater than her right to have a life.

What a week for her family: elation at her performing before the POTUS, distress over her untimely death.

How many children must die?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bergermeister 

A teen who performed at an event for the POTUS was shot and killed for no apparent reason.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/30/hadiya-pendleton-dead-chi_n_2581309.html

 

Guess the shooter's right to have a gun is greater than her right to have a life.

 

What a week for her family: elation at her performing before the POTUS, distress over her untimely death.

 

 

How many children must die?

Isn't Chicago one of the most liberal cities in the country? And doesn't Chicago have some of the strictest gun laws in the country?

Quote:

Originally Posted by nht 

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Actually it highlights all three and it shows causality. Gun violence isn't caused by guns. It is caused by high population density, poverty and fatherlessness. All three of these are created by blue state Democratic policies.

 

So why are red states typically poorer and have higher divorce rates than the blue east coast strongholds?  Why do red states suck down more federal dollars than they pay in?  Other than Texas and Alaska that produce oil.

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/0312/High-divorce-rates-and-teen-pregnancy-are-worse-in-conservative-states-than-liberal-states

You can't get divorced if you never got married in the first place. You have to compare rates of illegitimacy, not divorce. Red states don't suck down more federal dollars than they pay in, they provide services for those dollars or often they are in close proximity to the federal government. The most spending per capita federally occurs in D.C. Second is Virginia which, no surprise is right next to D.C. Third in spending per capita is Alaska, again no surprise when you see how many military bases we have there. Fourth in spending per capita is Hawaii, again military bases. Many of these items are related to military spending, or people retiring to the Sun belt which has nothing to do with the politics of those particular states. If someone retires and leaves snowy New York for sunny Florida, it doesn't make Florida a slacker.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Trumptman, prove it. Show me the map with gun deaths per capita.

First what have you proven with regard to assertions in this thread? The map is already in this thread. The reason it clusters around metro areas is because any city larger than 250,000 people has a per capita gun death rate at or near double the national average.

Adam Lanza DID NOT use an AR-15 in the Sandy Hook shooting.

He couldn't get an AR-15 of his own due to existing gun laws, so he had to kill his mother to steal hers. But he didn't use it. He left it in the car.

Very interesting that this is not being widely reported in the media.

Very interesting that gun control advocates continue to cite this shooting in their calls to ban so-called "assault weapons".

Office shooting in Arizona.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/30/phoenix-office-shooting_n_2582832.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 


You see this wouldn't have happened in a state where more people were armed... oh, wait.

We should give the government all our guns because they never use them irresponsibly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 


Good point, and quite often, yes. At least in terms of foreign policy, that's for sure.

So why, then, do you want to concentrate the firepower in the hands of people you admit are stupid?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 


Yeah, how dare they check his background. They should have let him buy that AR-15.

You do realize that this is what would have happened had you had your way with regard to gun control. Adam Lanza would have had multiple AR-15s and fully automatic AK47s instead of what he used.

The point is he had an AR-15 and didn't use it. Gun control advocates are claiming he did use it. This is an outright lie.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 


Two words. Fewer deaths. That's right. Cops occasionally kill people. But they kill innocent people much less often than the general populace.

There have been an estimated 262,000,000 victims of democide in the last century alone.

And you're telling me with a straight face that fewer deaths result when you concentrate weapons in the hands of your admittedly stupid governments?

Actually, yes, I am. Want to reduce "democide"? Stop wars. Domestic policy in the US will have absolutely no effect.

Want to reduce homicide in the US? Control guns.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Actually, yes, I am. Want to reduce "democide"? Stop wars. Domestic policy in the US will have absolutely no effect.

 

Want to reduce homicide in the US? Control guns.

Can we stop with your non sequiturs already?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Actually, yes, I am. Want to reduce "democide"? Stop wars. Domestic policy in the US will have absolutely no effect.

 

Want to reduce homicide in the US? Control guns.

 

Can we stop with your non sequiturs already?

 

Is that reply directed at me, or at Jazzguru? He was the one who brought up "democide". Not me.

We're talking about domestic homicide. We're (hopefully) trying to discuss how to reduce that. Let's look at what works around the world.

Japan, 2011: 11 gun deaths.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Actually, yes, I am. Want to reduce "democide"? Stop wars. Domestic policy in the US will have absolutely no effect.

 

Want to reduce homicide in the US? Control guns.

You can't reduce government intervention in foreign policy while simultaneously increasing it domestically.

Either the government has the power to force you to do whatever it wants, or it does not.

Either the government has the power to assassinate you without due process or it does not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Yeah, the Japanese government assassinated so many people overseas in 2011.

The two issues are completely unrelated, and you talk to me about "non-sequitur"?

So...the same government that is murdering people overseas could never do such a thing at home?

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 


Yes. Exactly. Because right now the people of the US are allowing the government (by not using their political tools) to murder people overseas. The same people will never allow the government (using their political tools) to murder citizens. The difference is that Americans couldn't give a shit about Muslims and Arabs, they've been systematically been taught to hate, so they take no action.

They took no action when the US government murdered its own citizens in the past.

What you don't seem to get is that Americans are quite adept at dismissing and infringing on the rights and lives of any class or group of people they don't particularly like or align with regardless of skin color or religion. We see this with "the rich." We see it with gun owners. We see it with unborn children. We see it in lots of ways.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Would you suggest the Iranians and Iraqis and Afghanis and Pakistanis arm themselves more to protect themselves from the US military? Would you tell Remington to sell them guns for that purpose?

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton 

Yeah, maybe we should have allowed the South to continue slavery. That seems to be what you're suggesting.

I see you believe the war of northern aggression was about ending slavery. You have some homework to do.

Actually, I wasn't referring to that incident. But, it applies also, yes. I was thinking of more recent history.