It Was Done on Tobacco. It Can Be Done on Guns.

[MAGAman]

A simple amendment will change that before the ink is even dry.

Good luck getting that many Americans to be that stupid.

 

[GLASNOST]

A simple amendment will change that before the ink is even dry.

Good luck getting that many Americans to be that stupid.

It's the other way around. It requires smart men and women to do the right thing. Any idiot can drive around with a gun in his glove compartment. In fact, the majority who do are idiots.

 

[Blues Man]

I answered the question you are too stupid to understand it

No, you are avoiding to answer the question ... not that I blame you because the question places you between a rock and a hard place. BTW, Calling me "stupid" is not the best way to conduct a discussion but if that's all you've got then you go for it!

You said ...

Gee criminals shoot people who would have thought?

.. and my reply was ...

Yes. Although most people are shot by "good guys" criminals are responsible for a small percentage as well.

That reply angered you so I asked you if soldiers are good guys or bad guys. But you have no answer to that.

Your problem is that you think of soldiers (American ones) as good guys or heroes despite the fact that they murder more innocent men, women, and children than any other American.

So I just wonder if you care to revise your original statement ...

Gee criminals shoot people who would have thought?

... being as you can't have it both ways. Either "good guys" murder more than anyone else or .... American soldiers are not "good guys" after all. Which is it? Maybe you can answer the question this time?

Once again Soldiers are individuals and some might be good some might be bad.

Sweeping generalizations are no more intelligent than false dichotomies.

And Since your statement is incorrect that "good guys" commit the most murders I see no reason to waste my time with your quest for a yes or no black or white answer.

As I said before only idiots think the world is black and white.

That said the discussion of war is a separate issue. I was discussing the murder rates and who commits murders in this country.

 

[Blues Man]

cars needed--weapons not..this is plain and simple

That's right. Cars are produced to transport goods and people. Guns are produced to destroy things and kill.

Weapons, a Constitutional right
Cars? Nope.

A simple amendment will change that before the ink is even dry.

If repealing the second amendment was at all feasible it would have been done by now

 

[hadit]

cars needed--weapons not..this is plain and simple

That's right. Cars are produced to transport goods and people. Guns are produced to destroy things and kill.

Weapons, a Constitutional right
Cars? Nope.

A simple amendment will change that before the ink is even dry.

Not really. It would take years to approve such an amendment, if it was even possible to get it approved, which is far, far from certain.

 

[hadit]

English grammar escapes you doesn't it?

Have you never considered how stupid the 2nd. Amendment is?

FIRST of all, it is only an amendment. Do you know what an amendment is? It is synonymous with "change" or "addition". It is not part of the constitution as it was written ... it is an "add on".

SECONDLY, how in blue blazes can "an addition" claim to be non-infringeable? It is of utmost clarity - by pure definition - that the ability to "amend" is legal. This is so stupid as to say, "I am going to change this and then it will be illegal to change it". Yeah, right. How about, "Heads I win tails you lose". Or let's play basketball: "When I put the ball through the hoop I get a point, when you put the ball through the hoop it doesn't count".

An amendment is as much a part of the Constitution as the rest of it. Congress cannot simply cancel one.

 

[rightwinger]

Now you got it!

To really impact our murder rate, you need to go after handguns which account for 2/3 of all gun deaths

But handguns are a sacred cow and can’t be touched. So we have to nibble at the edges and go after weapons that are used in mass shootings

Actually 2/3 of all gun deaths are suicides

Not all gun deaths are murders

Dead is still dead

And those that choose to die have that right

Their loved ones don’t think so

You don't need permission from mommy to exercise your rights

You have a right to suicide now?
Does that mean we have to help you?

 

[Blues Man]

Actually 2/3 of all gun deaths are suicides

Not all gun deaths are murders

Dead is still dead

And those that choose to die have that right

Their loved ones don’t think so

You don't need permission from mommy to exercise your rights

You have a right to suicide now?
Does that mean we have to help you?

Yes you have the absolute right to decide if you want to live or not.



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[GLASNOST]

I answered the question you are too stupid to understand it

No, you are avoiding to answer the question ... not that I blame you because the question places you between a rock and a hard place. BTW, Calling me "stupid" is not the best way to conduct a discussion but if that's all you've got then you go for it!

You said ...

Gee criminals shoot people who would have thought?

.. and my reply was ...

Yes. Although most people are shot by "good guys" criminals are responsible for a small percentage as well.

That reply angered you so I asked you if soldiers are good guys or bad guys. But you have no answer to that.

Your problem is that you think of soldiers (American ones) as good guys or heroes despite the fact that they murder more innocent men, women, and children than any other American.

So I just wonder if you care to revise your original statement ...

Gee criminals shoot people who would have thought?

... being as you can't have it both ways. Either "good guys" murder more than anyone else or .... American soldiers are not "good guys" after all. Which is it? Maybe you can answer the question this time?

Once again Soldiers are individuals and some might be good some might be bad.

Sweeping generalizations are no more intelligent than false dichotomies.

And Since your statement is incorrect that "good guys" commit the most murders I see no reason to waste my time with your quest for a yes or no black or white answer.

As I said before only idiots think the world is black and white.

That said the discussion of war is a separate issue. I was discussing the murder rates and who commits murders in this country.

Ain't it cute that you are eager to speak on black and white matters and very keen to "take sides" when your back isn't against the wall, as it is now. But my, how you've gone near-silent now that I've pressed you to account for your own convictions!

 

[Blues Man]

I answered the question you are too stupid to understand it

No, you are avoiding to answer the question ... not that I blame you because the question places you between a rock and a hard place. BTW, Calling me "stupid" is not the best way to conduct a discussion but if that's all you've got then you go for it!

You said ...

Gee criminals shoot people who would have thought?

.. and my reply was ...

Yes. Although most people are shot by "good guys" criminals are responsible for a small percentage as well.

That reply angered you so I asked you if soldiers are good guys or bad guys. But you have no answer to that.

Your problem is that you think of soldiers (American ones) as good guys or heroes despite the fact that they murder more innocent men, women, and children than any other American.

So I just wonder if you care to revise your original statement ...

Gee criminals shoot people who would have thought?

... being as you can't have it both ways. Either "good guys" murder more than anyone else or .... American soldiers are not "good guys" after all. Which is it? Maybe you can answer the question this time?

Once again Soldiers are individuals and some might be good some might be bad.

Sweeping generalizations are no more intelligent than false dichotomies.

And Since your statement is incorrect that "good guys" commit the most murders I see no reason to waste my time with your quest for a yes or no black or white answer.

As I said before only idiots think the world is black and white.

That said the discussion of war is a separate issue. I was discussing the murder rates and who commits murders in this country.

Ain't it cute that you are eager to speak on black and white matters and very keen to "take sides" when your back isn't against the wall, as it is now. But my, how you've gone near-silent now that I've pressed you to account for your own convictions!

What black or white false dichotomies have I ever proposed?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[GLASNOST]

A simple amendment will change that before the ink is even dry.

If repealing the second amendment was at all feasible it would have been done by now

In a sense, that's true. The NRA is strong and has its' nose up the buttocks of the right people ..... those who can be bought. That is the only reason the second amendment hasn't been repealed yet. But of course, those (the true set of circumstances) are what makes a repeal un"feasible", as you say. It will change someday - when the American population have had more than they can take of political corruption and start breaking heads.

 

[GLASNOST]

I answered the question you are too stupid to understand it

No, you are avoiding to answer the question ... not that I blame you because the question places you between a rock and a hard place. BTW, Calling me "stupid" is not the best way to conduct a discussion but if that's all you've got then you go for it!

You said ...

Gee criminals shoot people who would have thought?

.. and my reply was ...

Yes. Although most people are shot by "good guys" criminals are responsible for a small percentage as well.

That reply angered you so I asked you if soldiers are good guys or bad guys. But you have no answer to that.

Your problem is that you think of soldiers (American ones) as good guys or heroes despite the fact that they murder more innocent men, women, and children than any other American.

So I just wonder if you care to revise your original statement ...

Gee criminals shoot people who would have thought?

... being as you can't have it both ways. Either "good guys" murder more than anyone else or .... American soldiers are not "good guys" after all. Which is it? Maybe you can answer the question this time?

Once again Soldiers are individuals and some might be good some might be bad.

Sweeping generalizations are no more intelligent than false dichotomies.

And Since your statement is incorrect that "good guys" commit the most murders I see no reason to waste my time with your quest for a yes or no black or white answer.

As I said before only idiots think the world is black and white.

That said the discussion of war is a separate issue. I was discussing the murder rates and who commits murders in this country.

Ain't it cute that you are eager to speak on black and white matters and very keen to "take sides" when your back isn't against the wall, as it is now. But my, how you've gone near-silent now that I've pressed you to account for your own convictions!

What black or white false dichotomies have I ever proposed?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Every one of them prior to this one.

 

[GLASNOST]

cars needed--weapons not..this is plain and simple

That's right. Cars are produced to transport goods and people. Guns are produced to destroy things and kill.

Weapons, a Constitutional right
Cars? Nope.

A simple amendment will change that before the ink is even dry.

Not really. It would take years to approve such an amendment, if it was even possible to get it approved, which is far, far from certain.

So what exactly does your "not really" signify?

 

[Blues Man]

A simple amendment will change that before the ink is even dry.

If repealing the second amendment was at all feasible it would have been done by now

In a sense, that's true. The NRA is strong and has its' nose up the buttocks of the right people ..... those who can be bought. That is the only reason the second amendment hasn't been repealed yet. But of course, those (the true set of circumstances) are what makes a repeal un"feasible", as you say. It will change someday - when the American population have had more than they can take of political corruption and start breaking heads.

We get the politicians we deserve.

Our politicians reflect the general attitude of the people who vote them in

 

[GLASNOST]

English grammar escapes you doesn't it?

Have you never considered how stupid the 2nd. Amendment is?

FIRST of all, it is only an amendment. Do you know what an amendment is? It is synonymous with "change" or "addition". It is not part of the constitution as it was written ... it is an "add on".

SECONDLY, how in blue blazes can "an addition" claim to be non-infringeable? It is of utmost clarity - by pure definition - that the ability to "amend" is legal. This is so stupid as to say, "I am going to change this and then it will be illegal to change it". Yeah, right. How about, "Heads I win tails you lose". Or let's play basketball: "When I put the ball through the hoop I get a point, when you put the ball through the hoop it doesn't count".

An amendment is as much a part of the Constitution as the rest of it. Congress cannot simply cancel one.

Cancel? It is called "Amend". It is just as legal as the 2nd. Amendment itself. It can ... and will be done.

 

[Blues Man]

I answered the question you are too stupid to understand it

No, you are avoiding to answer the question ... not that I blame you because the question places you between a rock and a hard place. BTW, Calling me "stupid" is not the best way to conduct a discussion but if that's all you've got then you go for it!

You said ...

Gee criminals shoot people who would have thought?

.. and my reply was ...

Yes. Although most people are shot by "good guys" criminals are responsible for a small percentage as well.

That reply angered you so I asked you if soldiers are good guys or bad guys. But you have no answer to that.

Your problem is that you think of soldiers (American ones) as good guys or heroes despite the fact that they murder more innocent men, women, and children than any other American.

So I just wonder if you care to revise your original statement ...

Gee criminals shoot people who would have thought?

... being as you can't have it both ways. Either "good guys" murder more than anyone else or .... American soldiers are not "good guys" after all. Which is it? Maybe you can answer the question this time?

Once again Soldiers are individuals and some might be good some might be bad.

Sweeping generalizations are no more intelligent than false dichotomies.

And Since your statement is incorrect that "good guys" commit the most murders I see no reason to waste my time with your quest for a yes or no black or white answer.

As I said before only idiots think the world is black and white.

That said the discussion of war is a separate issue. I was discussing the murder rates and who commits murders in this country.

Ain't it cute that you are eager to speak on black and white matters and very keen to "take sides" when your back isn't against the wall, as it is now. But my, how you've gone near-silent now that I've pressed you to account for your own convictions!

What black or white false dichotomies have I ever proposed?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Every one of them prior to this one.

REally?

Care to quite any of them?

 

[GLASNOST]

A simple amendment will change that before the ink is even dry.

If repealing the second amendment was at all feasible it would have been done by now

In a sense, that's true. The NRA is strong and has its' nose up the buttocks of the right people ..... those who can be bought. That is the only reason the second amendment hasn't been repealed yet. But of course, those (the true set of circumstances) are what makes a repeal un"feasible", as you say. It will change someday - when the American population have had more than they can take of political corruption and start breaking heads.

We get the politicians we deserve.

Our politicians reflect the general attitude of the people who vote them in

I don't believe that and I am sure you don't either.

 

[Blues Man]

A simple amendment will change that before the ink is even dry.

If repealing the second amendment was at all feasible it would have been done by now

In a sense, that's true. The NRA is strong and has its' nose up the buttocks of the right people ..... those who can be bought. That is the only reason the second amendment hasn't been repealed yet. But of course, those (the true set of circumstances) are what makes a repeal un"feasible", as you say. It will change someday - when the American population have had more than they can take of political corruption and start breaking heads.

We get the politicians we deserve.

Our politicians reflect the general attitude of the people who vote them in

I don't believe that and I am sure you don't either.

I absolutely believe it.

There is no reason not to. Just look at the gaggle of idiots running for the democratic nomination.

If people really wanted change the the three oldest most entrenched politicians the wouldn't be the front runners

 

[GLASNOST]

We get the politicians we deserve.

Our politicians reflect the general attitude of the people who vote them in

I don't believe that and I am sure you don't either.

I absolutely believe it.

There is no reason not to. Just look at the gaggle of idiots running for the democratic nomination.

If people really wanted change the the three oldest most entrenched politicians the wouldn't be the front runners

And you call this "getting what you deserve"? Nine out of ten doctors recommend "X". 100 doctors were interviewed beforehand but only 10 (those specifically chosen out of the hundred) went on to fill in the second questionnaire. It is from the second one that PR make their claim.

No, the majority of doctors do not recommend "X" and "the gaggle of idiots running for the Democratic (and Republican) nomination" were plucked out of the much larger gaggle of not-so-idiotic men and women who probably would be great politicians. America hasn't got "who they deserved" in a coon's age.

 

[Blues Man]

We get the politicians we deserve.

Our politicians reflect the general attitude of the people who vote them in

I don't believe that and I am sure you don't either.

I absolutely believe it.

There is no reason not to. Just look at the gaggle of idiots running for the democratic nomination.

If people really wanted change the the three oldest most entrenched politicians the wouldn't be the front runners

And you call this "getting what you deserve"? Nine out of ten doctors recommend "X". 100 doctors were interviewed beforehand but only 10 (those specifically chosen out of the hundred) went on to fill in the second questionnaire. It is from the second one that PR make their claim.

No, the majority of doctors do not recommend "X" and "the gaggle of idiots running for the Democratic (and Republican) nomination" were plucked out of the much larger gaggle of not-so-idiotic men and women who probably would be great politicians. America hasn't got "who they deserved" in a coon's age.

There is no applicable analogy between doctors and politicians. We vote the politicians into office. Well anyone who votes to continue the 2 party domination does. I haven't voted for a Dem or Rep in decades.

We don't vote as to who receives a medical degree or as to what treatments are specified for any illness.