or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Massacre in Connecticut
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Massacre in Connecticut - Page 17

post #641 of 1058
Of course MJ and Jazzy aren't interested in reading those "revisionist" essays pointing out Martin Luther's role in enabling the holocaust. Who wants to think? It's much easier to plug your ears with your fingers and scream, "Anything less than liberty is death!"
post #642 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


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. 1rolleyes.gif

 

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

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #643 of 1058
Meanwhile...

http://nbclatino.com/2013/01/29/georgia-man-shoots-and-kills-young-latino-who-accidentally-pulled-into-his-driveway-police-say/

According to right wing armsology, the other passengers in the car should have all had guns and shot at the old man to defend themselves.
post #644 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

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. 1rolleyes.gif

But what is lame is your attempts to derail the thread.
To be fair, it was Jazzguru who ignorantly claimed that connecting Martin Luther to Nazi Germany was "revisionist". But your claim was that what happened in Germany in the 1930s is happening in the US now. Without that element, and with the element of our diversity and our proud 200 year-old constitutional system, that claim is simply ridiculous. 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.
post #645 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

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 View Post

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 View Post

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.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #646 of 1058

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.


Edited by tonton - 1/29/13 at 11:52pm
post #647 of 1058

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

post #648 of 1058

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.

post #649 of 1058

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.


Edited by tonton - 1/30/13 at 4:20am
post #650 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Guns: The problem solver for stupid people.

 

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

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #651 of 1058

Op-Ed: Gun control fails rationality test:

 

 

Quote:
The Supreme Court has established a two-tiered protection of liberty. Under the lowest tier, "rational basis review," it will uphold restrictions on liberty so long as it can imagine any possible reason why Congress might have adopted the measure. By contrast, if a liberty is deemed by the court to be a "fundamental right," it will subject restrictions of that right to "heightened scrutiny," meaning that it will skeptically examine the means Congress chose to achieve its ends. This close comparison of means to ends is intended to smoke out justifications that are really pretexts for efforts to improperly stigmatize or restrict the exercise of a fundamental right.
 
In 2008, the Supreme Court held that the right to keep and bear arms was a fundamental right. In DC v. Heller, the court did not specify the exact type of heightened scrutiny it would employ when legislation restricts gun rights, except to insist that it would be higher than "rational basis review," and that a complete ban on weapons "in common use" by the citizenry for self-defense and other lawful purposes -- such as handguns -- is unconstitutional under any type of heightened scrutiny.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #652 of 1058

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?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #653 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

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?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #654 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

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 View Post

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.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #655 of 1058

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".

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #656 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

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?
Isn't Chicago one of the heavily populated areas most surrounded by red counties compared to places like New York and Los Angeles (which have relatively low rates of gun violence)?
post #657 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Guns: The problem solver for stupid people.

Are you saying the government is made up of stupid people?
Good point, and quite often, yes. At least in terms of foreign policy, that's for sure.
post #658 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

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".
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.
post #659 of 1058

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #660 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Office shooting in Arizona.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/30/phoenix-office-shooting_n_2582832.html
You see this wouldn't have happened in a state where more people were armed... oh, wait.
post #661 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


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.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #662 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


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?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #663 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


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.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #664 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

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?
Two words. Fewer deaths. That's right. Cops occasionally kill people. But they kill innocent people much less often than the general populace.
post #665 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

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.
Care to respond to what I posted? Should Adam Lanza have been allowed to buy an AR-15?
post #666 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


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?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #667 of 1058

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.

post #668 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

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?

 

1hmm.gif

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #669 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

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?

 

1hmm.gif


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.

post #670 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

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.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #671 of 1058
Yeah, the Japanese government assassinated so many people overseas in 2011. 1rolleyes.gif

The two issues are completely unrelated, and you talk to me about "non-sequitur"?
post #672 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yeah, the Japanese government assassinated so many people overseas in 2011. 1rolleyes.gif

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?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #673 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Yeah, the Japanese government assassinated so many people overseas in 2011. 1rolleyes.gif


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?
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.
post #674 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post


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.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #675 of 1058
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?
post #676 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

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.
Yeah, maybe we should have allowed the South to continue slavery. That seems to be what you're suggesting.
post #677 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

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.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #678 of 1058
You obviously must oppose any and all border enforcement.
post #679 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

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.
And you think that will save lives?
post #680 of 1058
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

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.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Massacre in Connecticut