Leftists owe the rest of us an explanation for the Florida shooting

[The Derp]

You need to mind your own business, but then again your a control freak.

Hold up a second...

You said that guns were a deterrent.

If that was the case, then there should be no crime at all because we have the highest guns-per-capita in the world. But we do have crime. So that means guns aren't a deterrent.

The NRA is not pro gun enough, this country needs to be better armed.
Gun free zones need to be abolished, they are magnets for progressive mass shooters.

Of the 153 mass shootings (defined as a shooting where more than 4 people are killed) from 2005-2014, only 15 were in "gun free zones".

Besides, with the highest guns-per-capita in the world, we shouldn't have any crime because according to you, guns are a deterrent.

 

[easyt65]

2 SWAT members were punished for running TOWARDS the shooting and seeking to help / stop it?!

WTF?!

 

[Rustic]

You need to mind your own business, but then again your a control freak.

Hold up a second...

You said that guns were a deterrent.

If that was the case, then there should be no crime at all because we have the highest guns-per-capita in the world. But we do have crime. So that means guns aren't a deterrent.

The NRA is not pro gun enough, this country needs to be better armed.
Gun free zones need to be abolished, they are magnets for progressive mass shooters.

Of the 153 mass shootings (defined as a shooting where more than 4 people are killed) from 2005-2014, only 15 were in "gun free zones".

Besides, with the highest guns-per-capita in the world, we shouldn't have any crime because according to you, guns are a deterrent.

2018 Real Time Death Statistics in America

 

[The Derp]

2018 Real Time Death Statistics in America

What gives with the asterisk after abortion on this link?

 

[Rustic]

2018 Real Time Death Statistics in America

What gives with the asterisk after abortion on this link?

Tap it

 

[The Derp]

Tap it

So it's just a link to an Op-Ed column in the Federalist. That's supposed to prove, what?

 

[Rustic]

Tap it

So it's just a link to an Op-Ed column in the Federalist. That's supposed to prove, what?

You asked

 

[kaz]

That's a completely idiotic comparison.

It's not a comparison, it's a hyperbole. It's hyperbole because your argument is that criminals break laws anyway, so new laws won't do anything to stop them from acting like criminals. That's your argument against any new gun laws, isn't it?

I wouldn't know how to even find the "black market", let alone safely purchase a gun from it. I think you people overstate the simplicity and ease, while downplaying the risk.

Why have a law against murder when not every murderer gets caught? Because you want to punish the ones who do.

So then why won't new laws on guns prevent people from getting them and using them to inflict mass casualties?

To compare that to the argument why have gun laws if criminals can get guns anyway is just a false equivalency.

It's your argument. You're the one who made it, not me. My argument isn't that we shouldn't have gun laws; that's the argument you were making.

You're really that stupid, aren't you?

 

[The Derp]

You're really that stupid, aren't you?

Look dude, I can't help it if you make arguments that eat themselves. That's your deficiency to work through; I'm just trying to piece together what it is you actually believe.

 

[kaz]

The FBI dropped the ball on passing along information to local authorities

The local authorities dropped the ball on doing anything about a kid who had the cops called on him 39 times

The social worker dropped the ball on declaring the kid psycho and detaining him for evaluation

The deputy assigned to the school dropped the ball on entering when the shooting started

Three more deputies arrived and dropped the same ball

You/the left dropped the ball on believing you can keep 300 million guns from one psycho

You/the left dropped the ball on believing we can have no southern border and keep guns out of the hands of psychos

You/the left dropped the ball not asking yourselves why we can't keep drugs from teenagers but we can keep guns from criminals

And you blame us? Seriously? You should invest in a mirror

OMG so now unless we build a fucking wall on the southern border it's our fault? LOL

No, it's not starting now. It was before and still is. When you disarm honest citizens and you allow the continued importation of weapons through our non-southern border to arm criminals. Then yes, you are responsible for the consequence of your choice. See how manhood works?

And you admit that you're the lapdog of illegal alien lobby? Another interesting one.

Just pointing out your standard. To support a special interest group is to be their "lapdog." That's what you said.

I have a different tact. I support lobbies that advocate my views. I guess we're not all the same

No one disarmed your stupid ass. We just want to take certain guns off the assembly line so in the future you can't buy them. That way you and the nut doesn't get their hands on certain weapons. But you can keep your guns. In fact if you already have a automatic weapon, keep it. We just don't make them anymore. Again, no one is trying to disarm you despite your paranoia.

Let me ask you a simple question. If you can't purchase this is that considered disarming you?

Right, like drug laws. Drugs are illegal, so you can't buy drugs! Poof! Have you asked your drug dealer about that? How if we make things like guns illegal, then we can't buy them?

Dear kaz and sealybobo
No sense in arguing about people's engrained beliefs.
Liberals believe this argument applies to abortion, where making them illegal
just promotes illegal abortion that will get worse.
Conservatives believe this argument about guns.

So let both have their beliefs that aren't going to change.
Trying to change this by arguing is like
trying to change an Atheist to believe like a Christian
or a Christian to believe like an Atheist.

They are both coming at each other from two different contexts and beliefs.
You cannot change either side by arguing the beliefs of the other.

What we can do is work WITHIN each person's belief system
and get these groups to govern themselves by their own rules
and quit imposing their rules and beliefs on others outside that group.

We need to separate parties as political religions
like allowing Hindus and Muslims equal religious freedom to manage their own programs
or separating Protestants from Catholics.

In this system, Baptists who believe in heading their own churches
and ministries directly by the law (and not going through the Catholic authorities to be
considered a valid church) are like the Conservatives and Constitutionalists teaching people that
the people are the govt where we follow the laws and don't depend on elected leaders
to dictate laws for us because our rights and laws are given by God/Nature first not the Govt.

And the liberals are like the Catholics who only respect Govt as the central authority
dictating law from the top down for everyone to follow.

You can't force Catholics to believe and think like Protestants
or Protestants to bow to Catholic authority like Catholics teach "is the only way" to salvation and heaven.

So why don't we respect equal freedom of religion when it
comes to political beliefs and religions by party?

Why do we force govt to take one side over the other by majority rule
and then fight to bully each other down because we don't want to
lose equal freedom to live by our own beliefs threatened by the other group?

Nobody is going to agree to be forced by govt to change beliefs
or comply with beliefs of the other party we don't believe in !

We wouldn't do this with religion, why do we do it with political parties
that are worse. The govt system makes it mandatory to comply with
laws, so that's even more dangerous to allow political religions to infiltrate
or dominate govt policy.

Isn't this obvious why this doesn't work?

Well, I agree with a lot of this regarding conservatives and leftists. But I'm a libertarian, I never trust government solutions. So I don't find it particularly applicable. I'm pro-gun rights, but I'm also pro-choice. I'm against the war on drugs. My positions are consistent. Ronald Reagan. Government is not the solution, government is the problem

 

[kaz]

That isn't what it means. It was just gibberish.

No, it was pretty clear:

"Libertarians" want people to think they're completely independent...like my cat.
"Libertarians" actually are just as, if not more dependent on others to survive...like my cat.

Without the luxury government provides you, none of you "libertarians" would be able to survive.

Libertarians support government, roads, courts, police, military, the basics. We support and pay the taxes to provide them. We just oppose the socialist State that you are fighting for.

Jesus Christ...

roads, courts, police, military, "the basics" are of the socialist state.

So you say you oppose the socialist state, but right before that you expressed support for the socialist state.

Libertarians aren't like cats...they're like dogs; dumb, slobbering idiots who would put anything in their mouths.

Hey kaz,

roads are socialism!

Derp, derp, derp ...

Keep responding to my posts. You're so stupid it's funny

 

[kaz]

OMG so now unless we build a fucking wall on the southern border it's our fault? LOL

No, it's not starting now. It was before and still is. When you disarm honest citizens and you allow the continued importation of weapons through our non-southern border to arm criminals. Then yes, you are responsible for the consequence of your choice. See how manhood works?

And you admit that you're the lapdog of illegal alien lobby? Another interesting one.

Just pointing out your standard. To support a special interest group is to be their "lapdog." That's what you said.

I have a different tact. I support lobbies that advocate my views. I guess we're not all the same

No one disarmed your stupid ass. We just want to take certain guns off the assembly line so in the future you can't buy them. That way you and the nut doesn't get their hands on certain weapons. But you can keep your guns. In fact if you already have a automatic weapon, keep it. We just don't make them anymore. Again, no one is trying to disarm you despite your paranoia.

Let me ask you a simple question. If you can't purchase this is that considered disarming you?

Right, like drug laws. Drugs are illegal, so you can't buy drugs! Poof! Have you asked your drug dealer about that? How if we make things like guns illegal, then we can't buy them?

Dear kaz and sealybobo
No sense in arguing about people's engrained beliefs.
Liberals believe this argument applies to abortion, where making them illegal
just promotes illegal abortion that will get worse.
Conservatives believe this argument about guns.

So let both have their beliefs that aren't going to change.
Trying to change this by arguing is like
trying to change an Atheist to believe like a Christian
or a Christian to believe like an Atheist.

They are both coming at each other from two different contexts and beliefs.
You cannot change either side by arguing the beliefs of the other.

What we can do is work WITHIN each person's belief system
and get these groups to govern themselves by their own rules
and quit imposing their rules and beliefs on others outside that group.

We need to separate parties as political religions
like allowing Hindus and Muslims equal religious freedom to manage their own programs
or separating Protestants from Catholics.

In this system, Baptists who believe in heading their own churches
and ministries directly by the law (and not going through the Catholic authorities to be
considered a valid church) are like the Conservatives and Constitutionalists teaching people that
the people are the govt where we follow the laws and don't depend on elected leaders
to dictate laws for us because our rights and laws are given by God/Nature first not the Govt.

And the liberals are like the Catholics who only respect Govt as the central authority
dictating law from the top down for everyone to follow.

You can't force Catholics to believe and think like Protestants
or Protestants to bow to Catholic authority like Catholics teach "is the only way" to salvation and heaven.

So why don't we respect equal freedom of religion when it
comes to political beliefs and religions by party?

Why do we force govt to take one side over the other by majority rule
and then fight to bully each other down because we don't want to
lose equal freedom to live by our own beliefs threatened by the other group?

Nobody is going to agree to be forced by govt to change beliefs
or comply with beliefs of the other party we don't believe in !

We wouldn't do this with religion, why do we do it with political parties
that are worse. The govt system makes it mandatory to comply with
laws, so that's even more dangerous to allow political religions to infiltrate
or dominate govt policy.

Isn't this obvious why this doesn't work?

Abortions don't kill people; guns do.

There's no equivalency to be made.

 

[kaz]

No, it's not starting now. It was before and still is. When you disarm honest citizens and you allow the continued importation of weapons through our non-southern border to arm criminals. Then yes, you are responsible for the consequence of your choice. See how manhood works?

And you admit that you're the lapdog of illegal alien lobby? Another interesting one.

Just pointing out your standard. To support a special interest group is to be their "lapdog." That's what you said.

I have a different tact. I support lobbies that advocate my views. I guess we're not all the same

No one disarmed your stupid ass. We just want to take certain guns off the assembly line so in the future you can't buy them. That way you and the nut doesn't get their hands on certain weapons. But you can keep your guns. In fact if you already have a automatic weapon, keep it. We just don't make them anymore. Again, no one is trying to disarm you despite your paranoia.

Let me ask you a simple question. If you can't purchase this is that considered disarming you?

Right, like drug laws. Drugs are illegal, so you can't buy drugs! Poof! Have you asked your drug dealer about that? How if we make things like guns illegal, then we can't buy them?

Dear kaz and sealybobo
No sense in arguing about people's engrained beliefs.
Liberals believe this argument applies to abortion, where making them illegal
just promotes illegal abortion that will get worse.
Conservatives believe this argument about guns.

So let both have their beliefs that aren't going to change.
Trying to change this by arguing is like
trying to change an Atheist to believe like a Christian
or a Christian to believe like an Atheist.

They are both coming at each other from two different contexts and beliefs.
You cannot change either side by arguing the beliefs of the other.

What we can do is work WITHIN each person's belief system
and get these groups to govern themselves by their own rules
and quit imposing their rules and beliefs on others outside that group.

We need to separate parties as political religions
like allowing Hindus and Muslims equal religious freedom to manage their own programs
or separating Protestants from Catholics.

In this system, Baptists who believe in heading their own churches
and ministries directly by the law (and not going through the Catholic authorities to be
considered a valid church) are like the Conservatives and Constitutionalists teaching people that
the people are the govt where we follow the laws and don't depend on elected leaders
to dictate laws for us because our rights and laws are given by God/Nature first not the Govt.

And the liberals are like the Catholics who only respect Govt as the central authority
dictating law from the top down for everyone to follow.

You can't force Catholics to believe and think like Protestants
or Protestants to bow to Catholic authority like Catholics teach "is the only way" to salvation and heaven.

So why don't we respect equal freedom of religion when it
comes to political beliefs and religions by party?

Why do we force govt to take one side over the other by majority rule
and then fight to bully each other down because we don't want to
lose equal freedom to live by our own beliefs threatened by the other group?

Nobody is going to agree to be forced by govt to change beliefs
or comply with beliefs of the other party we don't believe in !

We wouldn't do this with religion, why do we do it with political parties
that are worse. The govt system makes it mandatory to comply with
laws, so that's even more dangerous to allow political religions to infiltrate
or dominate govt policy.

Isn't this obvious why this doesn't work?

Abortions don't kill people; guns do.

There's no equivalency to be made.

That's because you are not counting the aborted baby as a person

Guns are also used for DETERRENCE not just defense
to PREVENT people from killing.

If you don't believe automatic level artillery is necessary
for defending life and property, The Derp, look up the
articles on Koreatown in LA during the riots that were allowed
to run unchecked for 24 hours while police were ordered to stand down.
Those high power arms were used for DETERRENCE where NOBODY
got shot or killed, but displaying these prevented attacks on the people and their
business property.

You can argue abortion can save the life of the mother in some extreme cases.

More so with guns when these are used lawfully to DETER crime
where NOBODY gets hurt much less killed.

The Derp in a case I know personally about in Houston,
one man had to shoot an intruder dead in his home
in order to save himself his wife and infant child.

There are more cases of guns used legally and properly for
defense to SAVE lives than to shoot and kill.

If the point is to prevent ILLEGAL abuse of weapons
and guns, that's the focus.

Since guns are used both to save lives and abused to kill,
do you agree it doesn't make sense to treat these the same.

I'm pro-gun rights and pro-abortion rights. But great post, Emily. Abortions never save a life other than in rare medical cases

 

[kaz]

You're really that stupid, aren't you?

Look dude, I can't help it if you make arguments that eat themselves. That's your deficiency to work through; I'm just trying to piece together what it is you actually believe.

You're not capable of simple logic.

- Why have murder against the law if some people get away with murder?

- Why not have gun laws that don't prevent anyone from getting a gun?

You think those are the same logic. You're just an utter fool. Derp, derp,derp ...

 

[The Derp]

That isn't what it means. It was just gibberish.

No, it was pretty clear:

"Libertarians" want people to think they're completely independent...like my cat.
"Libertarians" actually are just as, if not more dependent on others to survive...like my cat.

Without the luxury government provides you, none of you "libertarians" would be able to survive.

Libertarians support government, roads, courts, police, military, the basics. We support and pay the taxes to provide them. We just oppose the socialist State that you are fighting for.

Jesus Christ...

roads, courts, police, military, "the basics" are of the socialist state.

So you say you oppose the socialist state, but right before that you expressed support for the socialist state.

Libertarians aren't like cats...they're like dogs; dumb, slobbering idiots who would put anything in their mouths.

Hey kaz,

roads are socialism!

Derp, derp, derp ...

Keep responding to my posts. You're so stupid it's funny

Roads are socialism, boy wonder. Taxpayers fund them, government builds them.

 

[The Derp]

- Why have murder against the law if some people get away with murder?

Again, I'm not the one arguing for no laws; that's what you guys are doing.

- Why not have gun laws that don't prevent anyone from getting a gun?

Double negative. Did you mean to construct a different straw man?

 

[kaz]

That isn't what it means. It was just gibberish.

No, it was pretty clear:

"Libertarians" want people to think they're completely independent...like my cat.
"Libertarians" actually are just as, if not more dependent on others to survive...like my cat.

Without the luxury government provides you, none of you "libertarians" would be able to survive.

Libertarians support government, roads, courts, police, military, the basics. We support and pay the taxes to provide them. We just oppose the socialist State that you are fighting for.

Jesus Christ...

roads, courts, police, military, "the basics" are of the socialist state.

So you say you oppose the socialist state, but right before that you expressed support for the socialist state.

Libertarians aren't like cats...they're like dogs; dumb, slobbering idiots who would put anything in their mouths.

Hey kaz,

roads are socialism!

Derp, derp, derp ...

Keep responding to my posts. You're so stupid it's funny

Roads are socialism, boy wonder. Taxpayers fund them, government builds them.

I feel you. If I want roads, then I'm a Marxist. That's such insight, thanks for pointing that out.

Derp, derp, derp

 

[kaz]

- Why have murder against the law if some people get away with murder?

Again, I'm not the one arguing for no laws; that's what you guys are doing

I'm not an anarchist, geniak. I want roads, so that makes me a Marxist

- Why not have gun laws that don't prevent anyone from getting a gun?

Double negative. Did you mean to construct a different straw man?[/QUOTE]

You really have low reading comprehension

Derp, derp, derp

 

[The Derp]

I feel you. If I want roads, then I'm a Marxist. That's such insight, thanks for pointing that out.Derp, derp, derp

Derp indeed!

You said you opposed a socialist state...after expressing your support for the socialist state.

 

[The Derp]

I'm not an anarchist, geniak. I want roads, so that makes me a Marxist

Ummm...OK

You really have low reading comprehensionDerp, derp, derp

Maybe stop putting things through a Russian-to-English translator before posting.