NationStates Jolt Archive

Of course we have to think of crime made with guns and not crime in general.
I found out that the US has the top 4 murder capitals in the world http://christianparty.net/homicide.htm

well, I have to go...and I know your country is in a sad hole so I will leave you to it. Maybe I have time later to dig up some evidence and read the whole thread without my blood pressure jumping through the roof.

Nice website. Stretch out any n*ggers lately?

Kecibukia, seriously, visit Britain for a few weeks. Find out what it is actually like to live in a country that DOESN'T see firearms as essential. I know it won't change your point of view, but at least it could help show you where I'm actually coming from on this topic.

And did you give up opposing all of the reports that Mike's weapon was an AK-47?

That's truly sad.
But realistic in this day and age.

The government has created the concept of "national security" partly to protect us from outside threats, but to protect the government itself from internal threats. The inalienable right to overthrow an intolerable government no longer exists. If I attempted to fight back against the government (not taking arms, which you know I'm against, but the war on paper), the Feds would squash me and my family like a bug. Better to try again someplace else.

Kecibukia, seriously, visit Britain for a few weeks. Find out what it is actually like to live in a country that DOESN'T see firearms as essential. I know it won't change your point of view, but at least it could help show you where I'm actually coming from on this topic.

Translation: I can't back up anything I said so I'll change the topic again.

And did you give up opposing all of the reports that Mike's weapon was an AK-47?

Um, I asked you to provide proof that select fire weapons were legal in the UK. You ignored that post apparently. I also provided a link to show his purchase was for a semi-auto rifle as well as one showing the select fire ak-47. You even stated semi-auto in your post. Are you still unable to tell the difference?

Now let's go w/ the hypothesis it was a select-fire AK-47. Why would the gov't only ban semi-auto rifles then?

But realistic in this day and age.

The government has created the concept of "national security" partly to protect us from outside threats, but to protect the government itself from internal threats. The inalienable right to overthrow an intolerable government no longer exists. If I attempted to fight back against the government (not taking arms, which you know I'm against, but the war on paper), the Feds would squash me and my family like a bug. Better to try again someplace else.

Like I said, that attitude is truly sad. I don't believe a word of it and neither do millions of others.

To the former: No, I was actually making a serious suggestion that instead of dismissing non-gun society as unsafe and stupid that you should come to the UK where we're doing just fine without the need for a gun per household.

To the latter: Buggered if I know. I'm just more inclined to go with every publication I can find on the web rather than your assertions. And you still haven't come up with a site saying that it wasn't an AK-47.

Now I really do need to sleep. It's 5:50am here, so I do have a valid reason to feel tired. Sleep well when you do. Good luck if you wake up with a gun pointed at you. I can go to sleep safe in the knowledge that no such thing is going to happen to me. The basic crime rate where I live is very low, and the gun-crime rate is almost nil (It hits headlines if someone gets injured by an air rifle. And I can't even remember the last time that story ran.)

Night night.

To the former: No, I was actually making a serious suggestion that instead of dismissing non-gun society as unsafe and stupid that you should come to the UK where we're doing just fine without the need for a gun per household.

And yet you haven't been to the US where there are 300 million + firearms and a dropping crime rate.

To the latter: Buggered if I know. I'm just more inclined to go with every publication I can find on the web rather than your assertions. And you still haven't come up with a site saying that it wasn't an AK-47.

I showed you a site showing an AK and what he was authorized. You can believe what you want. The evidence otherwise doesn't seem to matter to you.


Now I really do need to sleep. It's 5:50am here, so I do have a valid reason to feel tired. Sleep well when you do. Good luck if you wake up with a gun pointed at you. I can go to sleep safe in the knowledge that no such thing is going to happen to me. The basic crime rate where I live is very low, and the gun-crime rate is almost nil (It hits headlines if someone gets injured by an air rifle. And I can't even remember the last time that story ran.)

And the classic dodge out.


Night night.

Anyone want to lay odds that when he comes back, he'll start the same arguements w/o proof all over again?

Before I begin with the point that I want to address from the original poster, I would like to make a comment about the claim about the "right to bear arms" being the "2nd most important right according to the founders". While I could debate gun control with you all day, I won't, I'm just going to question the logic of that statement. There is no reason to believe that the amendments are ordered by "importance" no Supreme Court decision has ever made the claim that their ordered by importance and to suggest so is outrageous. Most people (perhaps the poster? I don't know) don't even know what the 3rd amendment is. Why is that? Because its arcane and obsolete. Are you seriously going to suggest that its more important that we worry about the quartering of soldiers than that we make sure women have the right to vote (19th amendment). Or is it more important that we worry about a jury trial in a civil case (7th amendment) or that we ensure that there be no slavery (13th amendment, boy, that seems like kind of an important one to me, but the founders were slave owners). What do you think of the 27th Amendment which was supposed to be part of the original Constitution but was lost until the 1990s and added in, where does it fit in the hierarchy? Last? Is the 18th Amendment banning the sale of alcahol in actuality more important than the 21st Amendment repealing prohibition? That argument makes no sense, give me a break. On to what I really want to talk about.

Economists would say that government spending improves the economy by an amount equal to the spending increase. Tax cuts do the exact same thing, spending increases and tax cuts should have the exact same abstract effect economically. However, some groups in society spend money at higher rates, and others save at higher rates. So if you're trying to pump up the economy it makes more sense to increase spending that gets money into the hands of poor people who spend it than it does to cut taxes for the wealthy who tend to save it. Money in the bank is not money at all as far as economic growth is concerned. But all things equal (economist love making all things equal) a government spending increase is no different than a tax cut.

Taxes: High taxes slow the economy. Why? Because when you take more money away from people they have less money to spend and put back into the economy making it slow down. And what does the government do with those high taxes? Waste them on failed government programs. So low taxes= strong economy and less wasted money.

Gah! High taxes for the rich: good. High taxes for the poor: bad. Low taxes for the rich: bad. Low taxes for the poor: good.

Currently, the right believes in having low taxes for the rich, relying on their stupid, overly simple, and assumptive theory of supply-side economics. Money does not trickle. And with the right's current policies, they have turned a large surplus into a massive deficit. For the greatest explanation of SSE, buy Al Franken's "Lies, and the Lying Liars that Tell Them" and flip through to the Supply Side Jesus cartoon, and the one act play.

Gun control: It is my right to have a gun. 2nd most important right according to the people who started this country. Efforts to take away or limit my guns ARE AGAINST THE LAW

You're damn right it's your right. Is it necessary for everybody to have a gun? No. Having a gun for protection is like paranoia objectified. Canadians have legal guns, but they also have gun control, so that they can cut down on murderous bastards with guns, but can keep on hunting.

The gun amendment is there because the founders thought it was necessary in the time they were living in. The US was founded on wiping out one race that were living here already and enslaving one that we imported. Times have changed, and it's like saying that we all need swords because someone in medieval Europe built a country with barbarians around. Rent a copy of "Bowling for Columbine," and fast forward to the 'Billy Bullet' cartoon.

Crime: Stop fucking cuddling criminals. Prison is supposed to be a punishment not a resort. They are in there because they are bad people who hurt society. If we punished them like we should we wouldn't have so many reoffenders because people would actually not like to go to prison. Theres a thought, uh?

Please, tell me where you got your Psychology degree. Yes, prison needs to be punishment, but coming out of a hard prison isn't going to make you never do any crime again. Either you're embittered against authority, prompting more crime, or you're so emotionally scarred that although you may have been transformed into a good person, you're now an empty shell of a human being. And no-one deserves to be an empty shell of a human being if they've been converted into a society-friendly person, converted AWAY from being a criminal.

Death Penalty: If you kill an innocent person for no reason, you deserve to die. Pretty simple really murders a waste of life.

Do you trust your legal system 100%? If the courts get it wrong, does an innocent deserve to die just so nine out of ten criminals get killed? What if you were that innocent? And telling me your opinion ("you deserve to die") and then telling me I must dance to your tune basically tells me that there are a section of people that simply say, "I'm right, you're wrong, and although what you do in your own home is none of my business as long as you don't hurt another human being you must dance to the tune of my law. Dance!"

affirmative action: its just reverse racism and its wrong. It seems like the only people who see race or make race a big deal are the people who claim they are fighting racism. Guess what? If you stop focusing on race and highlighting the differences and divisions of the races, it will all go away and people will see people as people.

Oh good, you do have common sense.

You're damn right it's your right. Is it necessary for everybody to have a gun? No. Having a gun for protection is like paranoia objectified. Canadians have legal guns, but they also have gun control, so that they can cut down on murderous bastards with guns, but can keep on hunting.

The gun amendment is there because the founders thought it was necessary in the time they were living in. The US was founded on wiping out one race that were living here already and enslaving one that we imported. Times have changed, and it's like saying that we all need swords because someone in medieval Europe built a country with barbarians around. Rent a copy of "Bowling for Columbine," and fast forward to the 'Billy Bullet' cartoon.





Ah, BFC. You mean the docudrama that even Moore admits is mostly made up?

Gah! High taxes for the rich: good. High taxes for the poor: bad. Low taxes for the rich: bad. Low taxes for the poor: good.
low taxes for everyone:great

Currently, the right believes in having low taxes for the rich, relying on their stupid, overly simple, and assumptive theory of supply-side economics. Money does not trickle. And with the right's current policies, they have turned a large surplus into a massive deficit. For the greatest explanation of SSE, buy Al Franken's "Lies, and the Lying Liars that Tell Them" and flip through to the Supply Side Jesus cartoon, and the one act play.

the deficit is not as big a problem as its made out to seem. Also I support tax cuts for all especially the poor and middle class, not just the rich.

You're damn right it's your right. Is it necessary for everybody to have a gun? No. Having a gun for protection is like paranoia objectified. Canadians have legal guns, but they also have gun control, so that they can cut down on murderous bastards with guns, but can keep on hunting.

The gun amendment is there because the founders thought it was necessary in the time they were living in. The US was founded on wiping out one race that were living here already and enslaving one that we imported. Times have changed, and it's like saying that we all need swords because someone in medieval Europe built a country with barbarians around. Rent a copy of "Bowling for Columbine," and fast forward to the 'Billy Bullet' cartoon.
The right to own guns is just as vital now as it was then. Btw, I've seen Bowling for Columbine. It was nothing more than mindless liberal dribble.


Please, tell me where you got your Psychology degree. Yes, prison needs to be punishment, but coming out of a hard prison isn't going to make you never do any crime again. Either you're embittered against authority, prompting more crime, or you're so emotionally scarred that although you may have been transformed into a good person, you're now an empty shell of a human being. And no-one deserves to be an empty shell of a human being if they've been converted into a society-friendly person, converted AWAY from being a criminal.
I'll take an empty shell of human that doesn't bother anyone than a criminal any day. Also they wouldn't be embittered, they would fear authority making them less likely to reoffend.


Do you trust your legal system 100%? If the courts get it wrong, does an innocent deserve to die just so nine out of ten criminals get killed? What if you were that innocent? And telling me your opinion ("you deserve to die") and then telling me I must dance to your tune basically tells me that there are a section of people that simply say, "I'm right, you're wrong, and although what you do in your own home is none of my business as long as you don't hurt another human being you must dance to the tune of my law. Dance!"

I agree all should be done to prevent killing innocent people. But those who are guilty should be killed.

Oh good, you do have common sense.
of course;)

Taxes: High taxes slow the economy. Why? Because when you take more money away from people they have less money to spend and put back into the economy making it slow down. And what does the government do with those high taxes? Waste them on failed government programs.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. You provide no evidence or reasoning on why failed government programs are doomed to fail again. That is an illogical argument, especially when you realize that most social programs fail because of right wing governments slashing funding or over-regulating them.

Non sequitor Your warrant for taxes slowing the economy rests in your assertion that all government programs fail, which was itself a fallacious argument. A claim built on a fallacy is itself a fallacy, as one flaw in logic leads to the argument not following. Simply put, your warrant doesn't back your claim.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. You provide no evidence or reasoning on why failed government programs are doomed to fail again. That is an illogical argument, especially when you realize that most social programs fail because of right wing governments slashing funding or over-regulating them.

Non sequitor Your warrant for taxes slowing the economy rests in your assertion that all government programs fail, which was itself a fallacious argument. A claim built on a fallacy is itself a fallacy, as one flaw in logic leads to the argument not following. Simply put, your warrant doesn't back your claim.

Would you like proof of government programs failing? Take a look at New Orleans. The whole place was constantly on welfare, and the democrates tried to keep pumping more $$$ into it, while it remaned poor. I know a friend who was there about 30 years ago and returned there only about a year before Katrina, and he said it hasent changed a bit. The democrats were holding it up as a wonderful specimen of government helping the poor, while in reality, it was the biggest failure of or tax dollars!

Would you like proof of government programs failing? Take a look at New Orleans. The whole place was constantly on welfare, and the democrates tried to keep pumping more $$$ into it, while it remaned poor. I know a friend who was there about 30 years ago and returned there only about a year before Katrina, and he said it hasent changed a bit. The democrats were holding it up as a wonderful specimen of government helping the poor, while in reality, it was the biggest failure of or tax dollars!

That's not the point. There is still no proof that government programs will always fail. Many programs are or were quite competent both in the US and other countries, until they were later defunded or prevented by pro-business governments from performing satisfactorily.