Mass shootings now ho hum.....

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by bodecea, Dec 6, 2019.

  1. LuckyDuck
    Offline

    LuckyDuck Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2016
    Messages:
    3,169
    Thanks Received:
    489
    Trophy Points:
    170
    Ratings:
    +2,489
    The blame falls completely on the criminals, not the over 90 million private citizens (Democrat and Republican alike) that don't ever commit crimes with their weapons.
    As terrorists like to kill with motor vehicles...should we ban the use of motor vehicles? Oh wait, no....because you ride in or drive one. Should we ban knives because many people have been stabbed? Oh wait, no. You use knives every day. Many a person has been killed with a hammer. Should we ban hammers? Oh wait, no. Everybody uses a hammer at one time or another.
    A firearm in a law abiding citizen's hands who is safe with them, isn't a danger to you. Also, you would be very safe in a room with people who have concealed carry permits and their weapons on them; safer than in a room without them.
    This push for gun-grabbing is a communist/socialist push so that they can take apart the Constitution and implement their draconian laws, as "everyone must be in lockstep belief."
    If you or any other far-left fool believes that such a government would be good, simply try living in Venezuela, China, Cuba, or North Korea, for awhile; then come back and tell us how wonderful it is.
     
    Last edited: Dec 12, 2019
  2. Blues Man
    Offline

    Blues Man Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,502
    Thanks Received:
    545
    Trophy Points:
    195
    Ratings:
    +3,053
    And you cherry pick because I have found more than one source that says the word soldier can be used for any member of the military

    Why don't you post the entire definition from each of those sources rather than just the parts that support your claim?


    Definition of SOLDIER

    Definition of soldier
    (Entry 1 of 2)

    1a : one engaged in military service and especially in the army
    b : an enlisted man or woman
    c : a skilled warrior
    2 : a militant leader, follower, or worker
    3a : one of a caste of wingless sterile termites usually differing from workers in larger size and head and long jaws
    b : one of a type of worker ants distinguished by exceptionally large head and jaws


    You'll notice that is does not say exclusively in the army but rather especially in the army

    Words mean things

    It may be more common to use the word soldier for those in the army but then again Marines are nothing but soldiers

    I did not use the word incorrectly

    That you have to try to prove I did with such vehemence is quite amusing. You really must have tied your identity to the word
     
  3. Admiral Rockwell Tory
    Offline

    Admiral Rockwell Tory Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Messages:
    31,958
    Thanks Received:
    3,436
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Sitting down in front of my computer
    Ratings:
    +17,987
    I told you that I took the first responses to a Google search. There was no cherry picking!

    You are simply a fucktard who cannot read and loves to talk out of his ass. That is a proven fact! Now you just need to STFU and go back to Momma. I am sure she has a titty full for you!
     
  4. Blues Man
    Offline

    Blues Man Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,502
    Thanks Received:
    545
    Trophy Points:
    195
    Ratings:
    +3,053
    No I just read the entire definition before I start insulting people

    My use of the word is not incorrect

    And I have proven that by posting the entire definition of the word.

    So take it up with the publisher of the Merriam Webster dictionary because you're making an ass of yourself here

    And FYI my mother died when I was 14



    Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
     
  5. Admiral Rockwell Tory
    Offline

    Admiral Rockwell Tory Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2015
    Messages:
    31,958
    Thanks Received:
    3,436
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Sitting down in front of my computer
    Ratings:
    +17,987
    So that is why you wound up mentally challenged. I am truly sorry for you! It obviously scarred you for life.

    You found one definition that flies in the face of all others, and you are banking on that. Good for you! Now, seek some help with those issues. You are way too retarded for intervention via the internet. I'm done with your self-inflicted ignorance.
     
  6. Blues Man
    Offline

    Blues Man Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,502
    Thanks Received:
    545
    Trophy Points:
    195
    Ratings:
    +3,053
    It is still an accepted use

    No matter what you say.

    From my interaction with you and that you say you were a teacher I can only infer that this is your teaching style

     
  7. KGB
    Offline

    KGB Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2008
    Messages:
    1,174
    Thanks Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Location:
    Washington DC
    Ratings:
    +467
    here’s the entirety of the clause showing once again you are wrong...

    “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Moneyto that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

    To provide and maintain a Navy;

    To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of theland and naval Forces;

    To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute theLaws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, theMilitia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Serviceof the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment ofthe Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to thediscipline prescribed by Congress”

    It talks about a length of appropriation (two years), but it states nothing about renewing said appropriation. The DoD receives appropriated money every year under which said authority is granted for that year. There are no 5 year budgets, so it falls under the auspices of the Constitution.

    You can’t raise & support an army to last only two years. That’s not an effective fighting force. The Founding Fathers were afraid of an occupying force along the lines of the Royal Army, but weren’t gullible to believe there weren’t existential threats to the young country. The Revolutionary War itself lasted eight years, so it would make no sense whatsoever to have a two year Army.
     

Share This Page