caponine

Shooting In Virginia Beach

268 posts in this topic

3 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

Got mugged once upon a time. Made peace with the fact that there was nothing I could have done differently about it. Having a gun wouldn't have made a difference either and, if anything, would have just gotten stolen as well.

To each his own, I guess.

if you don't want to fight back that is fine. Go in peace. Just don't like people using the violence of Government to tell me I cannot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tim Mazetti said:

Really? No protection of the individual liberties of the sheep? Oh, majority rules.

What?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tim Mazetti said:

A Representative Republic, i.e. the United States Constitution. My God man are you a citizen of the US?

Which is a form of democracy, i.e. voting for the people that represent us...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Doug Carlton said:

if you don't want to fight back that is fine. Go in peace. Just don't like people using the violence of Government to tell me I cannot.

Trying to fight back would have undoubtedly gotten me badly injured or killed. Life ain't an action movie and you don't have plot armor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, Doug Carlton said:

Statistics overwhelmingly show whatever you want them to show, depends on where you get them and how you view the world.Real people in the real world know it is better to fight back even if you lose, because either way a violent predator is going to hurt you.

Real people are victims and real people get training and real people fight back. This is not an NRA/Gun Manufacturer reality, this is a real world reality.

 

 

 

If fighting back means you accidentally shoot and kill someone you love or yourself then I would say it's not better.  I get your point that people many times manipulate statistics or try to make a correlation when there is not one, but some statistics are cut and dry.

Edited by Falcons_Pantera_KoRn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tim Mazetti said:

Really? No protection of the individual liberties of the sheep? Oh, majority rules.

Oh, some other conservative who is pushing this. We went over this with another right-wing dope that doesn't know much about politics recently.

On 5/23/2019 at 3:15 PM, Psychic Gibbon said:

Says a republic is a government that's ruled by law while a democracy is rule by the majority, which is a toddler's vision of politics.

The reality is that a republic is basically any form of government that isn't a monarchy. This is why they can include systems that range from dictatorships to democracies. The United States is a democratic republic... No monarchy and the people vote for the officials that will represent them in government.

On 5/23/2019 at 4:37 PM, Psychic Gibbon said:

Didn't say a democracy and republic are the same thing. I said the argument that, "A republic is a government ruled by laws," is inherently braindead, since apparently no other form of government has laws or legal restrictions on various forms of power.

As for the dictionary definition that you googled and copy and pasted, that perfectly lines up with that I said a republic is. Supreme power is not held by the monarch but instead by the people, though that can obviously take various forms... From liberal (normally democratic) republics to oligarchic republics to peoples republics.

And since it's on topic, another thing that conservatives constantly get incorrect is what the 2nd Amendment was for. Long story short, it was put in place to prevent the central government (made stronger with the Constitution) from disarming the state militias via individual arms bans, since the states were too cheap and lazy to arm and supply their own militias and instead forced the members to pay for and keep their own arms and supplies.

The present interpretation was unfortunately instituted by activist judges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Falcons_Pantera_KoRn said:

Which is a form of democracy, i.e. voting for the people that represent us...

Correct. Not mob rule, i.e. tyranny of the majority, where the blue eyed people in the majority can vote to deprive brown eyed people of individual God given rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tim Mazetti said:

Correct. Not mob rule, i.e. tyranny of the majority, where the blue eyed people in the majority can vote to deprive brown eyed people of individual God given rights.

it's funny to me when boomers talk like they're in an episode of john adams or something

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tim Mazetti said:

Correct. Not mob rule, i.e. tyranny of the majority, where the blue eyed people in the majority can vote to deprive brown eyed people of individual God given rights.

Trans-national corporations who flood hundreds of millions and at times billions of dollars per election cycle are the only ones preventing people of their rights.   We have far from a mob rule, if anything we have rule by the few, the billionaires who own most of the politicians we elect each year.  

God gives us no rights.  If you believe the Earth is some 6,000 years old and all of the other fairy tales in the Bible then I don't think we should be taking your political views very seriously either because it has been proven that you can be brainwashed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/1/2019 at 5:20 PM, Tim Mazetti said:

This country (The united States.) is one in which government was founded to guarantee individual liberty bequeathed by God.

We don't get our rights from government.

Yes, things have gone south a bit. The US Constitution guarantees the right of the individual states to succeed from the union, but the War of Northern Aggression (Some mistakenly call it our Civil War, but a Civil war by definition infeers sides battling each other for control of government.) proved that the Constitution can and is being attacked from within.

lol 

Psychic Gibbon, lostone and Serge like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

On 6/1/2019 at 5:20 PM, Tim Mazetti said:

This country (The united States.) is one in which government was founded to guarantee individual liberty bequeathed by God.

We don't get our rights from government.

Yes, things have gone south a bit. The US Constitution guarantees the right of the individual states to succeed from the union, but the War of Northern Aggression (Some mistakenly call it our Civil War, but a Civil war by definition infeers sides battling each other for control of government.) proved that the Constitution can and is being attacked from within.

You just called the Civil War, the war of Northern Aggression??  Wow, I won't even bother pointing out how extremely racist that view point is, because you will of course deny it and come up with some nonsensical way to condone your words, but that is a mind-blowing and disgusting statement. 

Now please proceed with telling me how the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery and it was all about 'states rights', blah blah blah...

I know you are popular on these boards, but I am calling you out right now, you are an overt racist.  Don't even waste your time telling me how you have black friends, or how your favorite NFL players are black, etc.  The typical, "I'm not a racist" response.

Edited by Falcons_Pantera_KoRn
lostone likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tim Mazetti said:

So, you aren't a citizen of the United States?

You're making up some specific definition of "democracy" and then attacking it.

That's called, a bad faith actor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Falcons_Pantera_KoRn said:

If fighting back means you accidentally shoot and kill someone you love or yourself then I would say it's not better.  I get your point that people many times manipulate statistics or try to make a correlation when there is not one, but some statistics are cut and dry.

training, training, training.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've known more people that have committed suicide with guns than have killed a robber or car jacker.

The facts speak for themselves in my case.

More guns isn't the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Doug Carlton said:

training, training, training.

Don't tell me, tell the people who are more like-minded with you.  Those are the people whom these statistics reflect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

Got mugged once upon a time. Made peace with the fact that there was nothing I could have done differently about it. Having a gun wouldn't have made a difference either and, if anything, would have just gotten stolen as well.

To each his own, I guess.

Explain to me how if you had a gun it wouldn't have made a difference?  under that same scenario, if I had a gun I guarantee you it wouldn't have happened. What is the difference I wonder? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

Explain to me how if you had a gun it wouldn't have made a difference?  under that same scenario, if I had a gun I guarantee you it wouldn't have happened. What is the difference I wonder? 

What's the scenario? Since you already know what would have went down describe to me how they approached PG. How many were there? Did they have guns? How many? What kind?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Falcons_Pantera_KoRn said:

The NRA/gun manufacturer myth about a good guy with a gun coming to save the day is false propaganda.  Statistics overwhelmingly show that the 'good guy' with a gun is exponentially more likely to shoot an innocent bystander, in a lot of cases a family member or themselves, more often than they shoot the 'bad guy'.

The rare case where the victim does use their gun to shoot the perpetrator gets plastered all over conservative media and pushed by the NRA to make it seem like this is a common occurrence, but if you look at facts that is simply not the case.

Overwhelmingly, mass shootings end when a good guy with a gun challenges the shooter.

WhenFalconsWin likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

Explain to me how if you had a gun it wouldn't have made a difference?  under that same scenario, if I had a gun I guarantee you it wouldn't have happened. What is the difference I wonder? 

When someone sneaks up on you and the first thing you see is a knife then, no, a gun or some other weapon will not be helpful and going for it most likely won't end well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Flip Flop said:

Overwhelmingly, mass shootings end when a good guy with a gun challenges the shooter.

Nope.  They usually end when the shooter commits suicide or the cops intervene.  When the NRA promotes this 'good guy' with a gun theory they are not referring to the cops, they are implicitly referring to more civilian citizens/non-law enforcement officials need to be carrying firearms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

When someone sneaks up on you and the first thing you see is a knife then, no, a gun or some other weapon will not be helpful and going for it most likely won't end well.

I've had a knife and a gun pulled on me. I'm still here, use your imagination as to why that is so 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now