Friday, December 21, 2012

The argument.

A Word of Warning:

What follows is in response to the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, CT.  It is, for the most part a discussion on gun control, when it is civilized.  If you take offense to this, please don't comment on it.  I do not hold "MM" responsible for his comments, and as I am admitting my own flaws and stupidity in this opening paragraph because I am above all else, a human being, there is no need for you to comment on those either.  

A Nation Mourns

Not long ago, this country witnessed one of the most heinous acts of gun-related violence in its history.  In what should have been proof positive that there is in fact, no such thing as a benevolent, omnipotent, and loving god, Facebook was inundated with people instead saying in not so many words that it was all part of "god's plan" and that these poor children are "with god now."  I don't really feel that it is proper to presume that the families of these children need to hear that right now.  Lend them your shoulder, not your Bible, I would say.

Selfish Interests

I began to respond to some of these posts by saying that if they wanted to do something positive, rather than pray to god (which, in my opinion and in this reality at least, accomplishes nothing) that they should be starting a dialog, questioning why these massacres happen, and why such devastating weapons are showing up in the hands of civilians, criminal or not.  In one of these comments, I was challenged by someone that the weapons were not the problem, and I (foolishly) made a few snide and dismissive comments in lieu of a serious discussion, before realizing that I had participated in a similar disagreement with this person before.  At first I was only being my usual, cynical, smart-assed self, but then actually tried to have a real discussion with this person, only to realize again that he was in fact merely trolling me and had no interest in seeing another side to the argument or to participate in a real discussion, so I reverted to my usual snide smart-assed self.  This went on for quite a few days, as I was determined to not let him have the last word.  As of the first of this posting, I had left the last comment.  I will update if he picks the thread back up but I won't go poking.  

I've changed the names to initials for the sake of the whole post.  ME of course, means me, and MM is the "gentleman" that I spoke of.  For the most part he tries to bait everyone in this post, but only I am so sadly without a life that I kept talking to him.   Here is the conversation in its entirety, not edited (I did not remove the apostrophes in his contractions - I just assumed that he thought using them was taking away his freedom to butcher the English language.  I will freely admit that there are flaws in my argument, but that doesn't mean that his is any more valid.

The Thread:

TLC: Just saw the news about the elementary school shooting. And people are now going to scream gun control - really? The criminals and nutballs will always be able to get their hands on guns. They only ones who would be affected by gun control would be the honest citizens. Maybe instead we should consider stronger more immediate punishment for criminals?

JAF: Exactly,T...but this will just be more "ammo" for the gun grabbers.My heart goes out to 
the families.More gun laws will NOT change peoples hearts,and that is what needs to happen....
December 14 at 1:45pm · Like · 1

MM: Didnt the last 3 or so school shooters commit suicide? Columbine, VA Tech and this one? What 
good would stronger and more immediate punishment do in these cases? What is more immediate than suicide following something like this?
December 14 at 7:12pm · Like

TLC: Not necessarily referring to those gunmen. It just seems as if our justice system in general 
needs an overhaul. If criminals were dealt with more swiftly and harshly there would be an example set to all the other potential law breakers. What threat is there now to would be criminals? Years waiting on a trial while getting a higher education, free gym time, three squares a day,etc. in "jail", and if after all that they are found guilty, well, just keep on living off the system. Ouch. Harsh. And you have to wonder about these shootings. They almost seem to play into the "gun control" agenda. Is it somehow rigged to get the general public to scream for gun control? Each shooter is no longer around to ask 'why did you do it'? Just my two cents worth.
December 14 at 9:29pm · Like

JG: Perhaps teaching our children that we evolved from slime and we are just animals who live and die 
and life means absolutely nothing and there is no life after death (Heaven or Hell) isn't such a good idea after all. Give them a choice. All this talk of tolerance and openness is sick. The ones crying tolerance and be open minded are more narrow minded than those they are accusing of being. We are rapidly reaping what we have sown for so long. You can't execute a murderer or rapest but you can murder Millions of innocent children and not give it a second thought. Bottom line is they are spiritually dead and anything apart from Salvation in Christ there is no cure for them. And all man kind is capable of the same and worse. In 2010 in China or Japan 20 kids were killed by and individual with a knife not a gun. and today well yesterday now 22 children and an elderly woman were stabbed and sent to the hospital no deaths though only by the grace of God. These are just my thoughts. Take them for what you want. I agree with the death penalty and law abiding citizens owning guns even being in law enforcement. People have saved officers in need because they were armed but that doesn't make national news. I WONDER WHY. Does the media have an agenda maybe with our soon to be world government. But don't tell anyone I said that I don't want to be under their survellance. LOL
December 15 at 12:51am · Like · 1

MM: The belief that someone else can die for your sins, yes reaping exactly what youve sown. I dont 
know where this supposed lack of choice is since over 80% of people in this country are xtian. The odds are pretty good that this guy was xtian and believed in jesus and god. I dont even know how you can reasonably turn a gun control talk into a religious debate but since you did... try teaching children personal responsibility instead of the belief that if you just believe in some sky fairy and his supposed son that everything will be ok in heaven.
December 15 at 6:11am · Like

JG: Yes we need to teach our children personal responsibility and accountability. And yes the belief in 
that "sky fairy and his son" is a real problem in the false church today. To just say "I believe in Jesus and say 'the sinner's prayer", is a false and devastating religion. In James 2:19 it states: "You believe that God is one. You do well. The demons also believe and shudder". To say 80% of the nation are believers, only about 50% of them are true believers. Jesus says in John 14:15: "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments". And in Matthew 22:37: "You shall love the Lord your God will all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38: This is the great and foremost commandment. 39: The second is like it; you shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40: On these two commandments, depend the whole law and the prophets."
December 15 at 11:33am · Like

JG: You say he was probably a believer. But he was not showing love toward God or his neighbor, but 
pure hatred. I don't know if you regard the New Testament as the Word of God, but I myself do. As it says in 2 Timothy 2:16: "All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness. 17: So that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work". And in Proverbs 30:6: "Do not add to His words or He will reprove you and you will be proved a liar". And in Revelation 22:18: "I testify to everyone who hears the Word of the prophecy of this book, if anyone adds to them God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book. 19: And if anyone takes away from the words of this prophecy, God will take away his part from The Tree of Life, from the Holy City, which are written in this book". THis book, The Holy Bible, all of the books are one book, as God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are one God.
December 15 at 11:43am · Like

JG: I was one of those false believers I spoke of and the ONLY thing that saved me was Jesus Christ, 
through His Word. I had issues with "I say a prayer and can do anything I want, and I was ok with God. And the guy down the street wasn't because he didn't say a prayer and believe in Jesus. And I did the same things he did. THat was false christianity. John 1:1: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2: He was in the beginning with God. 3: All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him, nothing came into being that has come into being. 4: In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5: The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it". I believe in the Word of God. It says what it says and means what it says, whether we believe in it or not. THe heart of the issue is not gun control. The symtom here is murder. The murder of anyone. This is a symtom of depravity (spiritual deadness, the unsaved in the flesh). Gun control will not fix the problem, only Christ can fix the problem.
December 15 at 11:54am · Like

MM: all the books are one book since the council of nicea where books were taken away and 
added...didnt you quote something about that? so apparently its all false xtianity right.... can you do something besides quote scripture? like address any of the points i made. Hitler was xtian too.
December 15 at 6:37pm · Like

ME: There is literally no situation in the civilized world where you would ever need a semi-
automatic or assault weapon. Simply by passing laws to get rid of these would prevent many of these tragedies from reaching these proportions. These weapons have no other purpose than to take life en masse, and anyone who tells you differently is compensating for a failed sense of self worth. You want to fend off foreign invaders? How about investing in diplomacy, and a strong military. You want to avoid these tragedies and stop creating these monsters, how about investing in mental health education, diagnosis, and counseling for mental illness, rather than praying that they'll get better.
December 15 at 11:40pm · Like

MM: Theres no such thing as an assault weapon.
December 16 at 7:25am · Like

ME: There are a lot of things that can be used as weapons, but something that really can't be 
used for anything else is an assault weapon. A hunting rifle and a car have their uses. A machine gun and a tank have no place outside of assault. A weapon is only a deterrent if you use it (ergo, you shoot first).
December 17 at 6:48pm via mobile · Like

ME: To back up MM's point, Adolf Hitler (and most of the elite SS) were Roman Catholic.
December 17 at 7:36pm via mobile · Like

MM: You cant add an adjective to a word and claim its a noun. No one calls a bayonet an assault 
knife. Anything can be used to assault. There is no physical distinction between an assault rifle and a hunting rifle, JFK would agree if he werent assaulted with what would now be called hunting rifle. Most hunting rifles started as military assault rifles. The next generation of almost all weapons are usually military and invariably designed to take life more en masse than the previous generation, ie the leap from sticks and stones to swords. I find most of your logic invalid and even contrary to itself. Especially after you claim "no one needs an assault weapon in this civilized world" then tell us to invest in a strong military. What do you need a military for in a civilized world? And if a weapon is only a deterrent if you use it then why are these fucks attacking schools and not police stations?

And if these incidents are due to these type weapons being available explain Switzerlands lack of this type of crime, at least relatively, when their citizen militia are required to keep fully automatic rifles and ammo at home.

Now excuse me while I go sharpen up my assault words.
December 17 at 9:29pm · Edited · Like

ME: (b) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a) of title 18, United 
States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon’ means–

`(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as–

`(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);

`(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;

`(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);

`(iv) Colt AR-15;

`(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;

`(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;

`(vii) Steyr AUG;

`(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and

`(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

`(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of–

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

`(iii) a bayonet mount;

`(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and

`(v) a grenade launcher;

`(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of–

`(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;

`(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;

`(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;

`(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and

`(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

`(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of–

`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;

`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;

`(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and

`(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.’.
December 17 at 11:20pm · Like

ME: So, you claim that in order to protect our children we need to arm them? You claim that 
Switzerland lacks this type of crime, and your basis for comparison is the fact that they have fully automatic rifles? And you fail to mention that Switzerland also has compulsory military service even though Switzerland has a very strict neutrality policy, that Switzerland is one of the richest countries per capita in the world, and that their health care system is similar to the concept of the Affordable Health Care Act. In other words: Their young people are given a military education even though they almost assured to never use it, their health care system makes sure that they receive psychological treatment, and their economy is such that most of them will never know the extreme poverty that we are seeing in much of our own country. They are educated and healthy. Yeah, I can't see why they don't have the extreme gun violence we're seeing over here.
December 17 at 11:37pm · Like

MM: Oh look a bayonet mount, not an assault knife mount. Bolt action rifles were once military grade 
supposed "assault weapons". If I go hunting with an AR-15, and ever only hunting, that has enough doo-dads to be termed an assault rifle by this supposed definition made up by the same people who made up the term assault rifle, and who use blacks law dictionary which frequently has comletely different definitions than a normal dictionary, is it a hunting rifle or an assault rifle?

When does a WW1 era bolt action rifle, designed to assault the enemy and inflict casualties en masse go from a military grade assault weapon to a hunting rifle?

Do you think that an AR-15 sold during the assault weapon ban under clinton couldnt be used to inflict as many casualties as a supposed assault weapon, if it technically even was one, like the one used at Sandy Hook? You do realize that the things that make a weapon deadly arent really these supposed adooter at VA Techded to them listed in the law here?

Do you even realize that the shooter at VA Tech used two pistols, neither of which is a so called assault weapon and killed MORE people than the shooter at Sandy Hook?

Do you realize that your whole argument is now moot?
December 17 at 11:42pm · Edited · Like

ME: Yeah, you're right -- you need that single-fire action to take down one of those heavily-
armed rabid deer. Make sure that you remember to use depleted uranium rounds to pierce its formidable hide.
December 17 at 11:40pm · Like

MM: So now you know best what you should and shouldnt hunt with too?
December 17 at 11:42pm · Like

MM: Why have anything more than bow season for deer, those apparently work just fine.
December 17 at 11:44pm · Like

MM: You started down a slippery slope and hit every non sequitur on your slide to the bottom.
December 17 at 11:47pm · Like

MM: A pistol grip makes everything but a pistol an assault weapon.....lolololololol
December 17 at 11:50pm · Like

MM: Next up, polysyallables declared assault weapons, 1st amendment abolished, new US Code 
written defining assault words. Morons argue in its favor.
December 17 at 11:53pm · Like

MM: It is funny the news keeps repeating about the semi-auto rifle he had then adding "and two 
pistols" neglecting the fact that the handguns are both semi-auto too. No agenda there at all.
December 17 at 11:56pm · Like

ME: No, I think you all should go back to using spears, as you'd actually have to HUNT instead of 
baiting and sitting on your drunk asses waiting to shoot the first thing that blundered into your sites.
December 17 at 11:56pm · Like

MM: Did you just call us spear chuckers? Not very nice.
December 17 at 11:57pm · Like

MM: I dont even hunt.
December 17 at 11:57pm · Like

MM: I guess you got tired of the non sequiturs and moved in for the kill with ad hominems.
December 17 at 11:58pm · Like

ME: You know what? You're right. There's no way to convince a Christian that "God" is anything 
but a delusion of society, and there's no way to otherwise convince a gun nut that putting restrictions on weapons is anything other than an attack on freedom. So, arm your children with suppressed-fire porcelain pistols, or simple cheap zip guns in order to keep them safe - at least if they're ever involved in one of these terrible tragedies, and you know the loss of a loved one, you can console yourself with the fact that they had a fighting chance. It's not like this little incident won't be forgotten until the NEXT tragedy. As long as the NRA has lobbyists nothing will ever be done, I guess. You certainly haven't offered any solutions.
December 18 at 12:16am · Like

MM: Your solution isnt a solution re VA Tech and you didnt offer it you just repeated it.
December 18 at 12:23am · Like

ME: That's because VA Tech didn't change the gun laws. Countries with tight restrictions on gun 
ownership suffer far fewer of these rampages. And before you make the argument that we simply need to enforce the gun laws that we already have, keep in mind that the very reason you can argue the legal semantics of assault rifles is because the gun laws in this country are a joke due to the gun lobby keeping reform from happening. There are over 300,000,000 guns in civilian hands in the U.S., and your "solution" to the problem is every man, woman, and child in a perpetual Mexican standoff. That seems like a horrible way to live.
December 18 at 7:06am · Like

MM: Osaka School Massacre, Osaka Japan: 6/8/2001. 8 children dead, 13 other children and 2 
teachers wounded. Committed by 37 year old former janitor armed with a kitchen knife.

Daegu subway fire, Daegu, South Korea: 2/18/2003. 198 killed, 147 injured. A 56 year old unemployed taxi driver, dissatisfied with his medical treatment, sets fire to a crowded train.

On March 23, 2010, Zheng Minsheng 41, murdered eight children with a knife in an elementary school in Nanping,Fujian province; The attack was widely reported in Chinese media, sparking fears of copycat crimes. Following a quick trial, Zheng Minsheng was executed about one month later on April 28.

Just a few hours after the execution of Zheng Minsheng in neighboring Fujian Province, in Leizhou,Guangdong another knife-wielding man named Chen Kangbing, 33 at Hongfu Primary School wounded 16 students and a teacher. Chen Kangbing had been a teacher at a different primary school in Leizhou; he was sentenced to death by a court in Zhanjiang in June.

On April 29 in Taixing, Jiangsu, 47-year-old Xu Yuyuan went to Zhongxin Kindergarten and stabbed 28 students, two teachers and one security guard;[ most of the Taixing students were 4 years old.

On April 30, Wang Yonglai used a hammer to cause head injury to preschool children in Weifang, Shandong, then used gasoline to commit suicide by self-immolation.

An attacker named Wu Huanming, 48, killed seven children and two adults and injured 11 other persons with a cleaver at a kindergarten in Hanzhong, Shaanxi on May 12, 2010;

On May 18, 2010 at Hainan Institute of Science and Technology, a vocational college in Haikou, Hainan, more than 10 men charged into a dormitory wielding knives around 2:30 am; after attacking the security guard and disabling security cameras, 9 students were injured, 1 seriously.

On 4 August 2010, 26-year-old Fang Jiantang slashed more than 20 children and staff with a 60 cm knife, killing 3 children and 1 teacher

Julio Gonzalez (87) Cuban born Gonzalez came to the United States in the 1980 Mariel boat lift. Ten years later, in a fit of jealousy, he killed eighty-seven partiers. Pissed off at his ex-girlfriend, Lydia Feliciano, who was dancing with someone else, Julio bought a buck's worth of gasoline and torched the Bronx's Happy Land Social Club killing nearly everyone inside.

Andrew Kehoe (45) The first mad bomber in U.S. soil, on May 18, 1927, Andy blew up a school in Bath, Michigan, killing 45 people, 37 of them children. After detonating explosives he planted under the school, "maniac bomber" Andrew Kehoe, a school board member and treasurer and farmer, blew up his pickup truck, killing himself and the Bath School superintendent.

Humberto de la Torre (25) 21-year-old Humberto torched the Dorothy Mae Apartment Hotel in downtown Los Angeles in 1982 after a dispute with his uncle who managed the building. The blaze killed 25 residents and got Humberto a 625-year sentence.

Sadamichi Hirasawa (12) A Japanese artist, Sadamichi poisoned 12 bank employees during a robbery.
December 18 at 10:59am · Edited · Like

ME: Fascinating. And you're saying that guns will solve all of these problems?
December 18 at 5:54pm via mobile · Like

MM: No I said you should move to China.
December 18 at 6:52pm · Like

ME: Why, what's in China?
December 18 at 9:13pm via mobile · Like

MM: Your new home.
Wednesday at 8:00am · Like

MM: Pearl High School, Mississippi: This incident began the morning of Oct. 1, 1997, when 16-year-old 
student Luke Windham entered the school with a rifle. Wearing only an orange jumpsuit and a trench coat and making no effort to hide his weapon, he initially entered the school and shot and killed two students, injuring seven others. He was stopped by assistant principal Joel Myrick, who retrieved a .45 cal. handgun from the glove box of his truck.

"I've always kept a gun in the truck just in case something like this ever happened," said Myrick at the time, who went on to become principal of Corinth High School, Corinth, Miss.
Wednesday at 8:01am · Like

MM: Appalachia Law School, Virginia: On Jan. 16, 2002, Peter Odighizuwa, 43, a former student from 
Nigeria, arrived on the campus of the school with a handgun around 1:00 p.m. and immediately killed three people, at least two of them at point-blank range. Two students - Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges - both retrieved handguns from their vehicles and confronted Odighizuwa. As former police officers, both men were trained to subdue suspects but the fact is they were on the scene and armed, and helped prevent more killings.
Wednesday at 8:01am · Like

MM: Muskegon, Michigan: From the Aug. 23, 1995, issue of the Muskegon Chronicle: "Plans to slay 
everyone in the Muskegon, Michigan, store and steal enough cash and jewelry to feed their 'gnawing hunger for crack cocaine' fell apart for a band of would-be killers after one of their victims fought back. Store owner Clare Cooper was returning behind the counter after showing three of the four conspirators some jewelry, when one of the group pulled out a gun and shot him four times in the back. Stumbling for the safety of his bullet-proof glass-encased counter, Cooper managed to grab his shotgun and fire as the suspects fled."
Wednesday at 8:02am · Like

MM: Colorado Springs, Colo.: On Dec. 9, 2007, gunman Mathew Murray, 24, launched an armed 
attack against the parishioners of the New Life Church that ultimately left two innocent victims dead. But the toll could have been much higher, were it not for the heroic actions of former police officer Jeanne Assam from Minnesota. In an interview she said she very nearly decided not to go to church that morning but because she saw a headline on her computer indicating that two young people were murdered and a training center for Christian missionaries about 70 miles away in the Denver suburb of Arvada, she changed her mind. Murray shot a total of five people before an armed Assam shot and killed him. There were about 7,000 people at the church at the time of the attack.
Wednesday at 8:03am · Like

MM: "Criminologist Gary Kleck estimates that 2.5 million Americans use guns to defend themselves 
each year. Out of that number, 400,000 believe that but for their firearms, they would have been dead," columnist Larry Elder wrote in July, following the shooting tragedy at the premier of the latest Batman movie in Aurora, Colo.

"We know from Census Bureau surveys that something beyond 100,000 uses of guns for self-defense occur every year," adds Professor Emeritus James Q. Wilson, a public policy expert at the University of California-Los Angeles. "We know from smaller surveys of a commercial nature that the number may be as high as two-and-a-half or three million. We don't know what the right number is, but whatever the right number is, it's not a trivial number."
Wednesday at 8:04am · Like

MM: Whats in China? A totalitarian regime where people who cant think and who dont want freedom 
deserve to live.
Wednesday at 8:06am · Like

ME: And that would make you happy why?
Wednesday at 5:34pm via mobile · Like

ME: Ha ha! Quoting Gary Kleck - Classic! You're not seriously quoting a discredited study? Here's 
actual Department of Justice statistics:
Wednesday at 6:21pm · Edited · Like

ME: I also like the one about the two guys with illegally concealed handguns in their cars on 
school property stopping a murder spree. Makes me feel MUCH better.
Wednesday at 6:24pm · Like

MM: Ha ha youve been totally discredited and you still havent moved to China?
Wednesday at 6:25pm · Like

MM: I guess dead kids instead of illegal firearms would make you feel better. Interesting.
Wednesday at 6:25pm · Like

MM: So no assault weapons 
used at Sandy Hook Elementary. Also interesting.
Repeal the Connecticut Assault Weapons Ban
The Clinton administration Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) expired in 2004. Today it exists in various states only for arbitrary reasons.
Page: 48 like this

Wednesday at 6:27pm · Like

ME: How is a Bushmaster not an assault rifle? And no, NO firearms in the hands of civilians would 
make me feel better.
Wednesday at 6:46pm via mobile · Like

ME: Never happen in a million years, of course, but it would make me feel better.
Wednesday at 6:47pm via mobile · Like

ME: Why haven't you moved to Switzerland if you love it so much?
Wednesday at 6:52pm via mobile · Like

MM: Because CT has an AWBan in place, the bushmaster was bought legally in CT, you posted the 
lawful definition of an assault weapon and that bushmaster didnt qualify. SO you tell me genius, how IS it an assault weapon? Guess youre falling back to what I said that there is no physical difference now? Good job. The one thing you actually tried to rebut and now you back down.
Wednesday at 6:56pm · Edited · Like

MM: Why dont you stop trying to impinge on everyone elses constitutional freedom when you cant 
even form coherent reasoning to back your claims?
Wednesday at 6:57pm · Like

MM: Go back to China where you came from.
Wednesday at 6:57pm · Like

ME: Funny, I've never been to China. When the second amendment was written, there weren't 
even machined bullets yet. So in effect, you're saying that a law written a hundred years before the machine gun is relevant today? And to correct you, I'm not saying that guns are the entire problem, but they're definitely part of it. Even your lover-boy Gary Kleck is for gun control.
Wednesday at 7:32pm via mobile · Like

MM: So you dont care about the first amendment either? I also like how you keep skipping shit. Do 
you now not care about the definition of assault weapon you posted and agree there is no difference?
Wednesday at 7:34pm · Like

ME: I just think that it's bizarre that you are arguing about your (impotent) phallic symbol being taken away when what's actually being discussed is simply limiting the ability of said phallic symbol's ability to cause harm to large numbers of people. What claims am I not backing? Did I forget to state that these laws were written to appease gun owners by being as lax as possible in their definition? Just because the Bushmaster he used isn't the legal definition of an assault weapon doesn't make it any less designed for that purpose.
Wednesday at 8:10pm via mobile · Like

MM: Oh now I see why you dont write for the NY Times and instead "freelance" on Facebook.
Wednesday at 8:24pm · Like

ME: So, just so we have our arguments straight: My argument is that based on recent events 
the gun laws need to be reformed because in this country multi-clip semi-automatic and automatic weapons are being used to massacre people, and your argument is that this would happen anyway, and a few dead children is alright so long as it doesn't violate our sketchy view of constitutional freedom. Is that right?
Wednesday at 8:37pm via mobile · Like

ME: And you grew up in Texas. That explains a lot.
Wednesday at 8:44pm via mobile · Like

MM: No its not right, your streak remains unbroken.
Wednesday at 9:03pm · Like

ME: Well, then what is your argument?
Wednesday at 9:04pm via mobile · Like

MM: I grew up in Massachusetts too.
Wednesday at 9:06pm · Like

MM: Check my newest wall posts.
Wednesday at 9:08pm · Edited · Like

ME: I'm seriously asking. No B.S.
Wednesday at 9:11pm via mobile · Like

MM: Is the first amendment outdated because we now use words that werent invented when it was 
Wednesday at 9:17pm · Like

ME: The first amendment does have it's limits. You can't yell "fire " in a crowded theater, or "I 
have a bomb" on an airplane,for example. There's no reason to assume that just because something's allowed that it doesn't have limits, and if defining those limits helps to solve the problems created by contemporary advances in technology or a lexicon, then we should make the effort. But please, explain your position.
Wednesday at 9:30pm via mobile · Like

MM: You didnt answer the question.
Wednesday at 9:31pm · Like

ME: Not yet, but as soon as someone invents a word that can kill a room full of people, then 
yes, I would say that there should be limits on its usage (see preceding statement on "fire"). There, your question is answered. Now please restate your position.
Wednesday at 9:49pm via mobile · Like

MM: no you still havent answered it
Wednesday at 10:21pm · Like

MM: the word "terrorist" has killed a few million people
Wednesday at 10:22pm · Like

MM: now answer the question as asked and quit dodging
Wednesday at 10:22pm · Like

ME: I think that I answered it fairly concisely.
Wednesday at 10:23pm via mobile · Like

MM: I think you havent thought at all.
Wednesday at 10:24pm · Like

MM: I didnt ask about limits on their usage. I asked if it was outdated because new words have been 
invented. Youre inventing your own question in place of mine and answering that one because you know the answer to this fully defuses one of your points.
Wednesday at 10:25pm · Like

ME: I'm not dodging. As soon as you invent a word, that when invoked, can kill someone, then it 
no longer becomes free speech and the first amendment needs re-examined. Your argument that "terrorist" is one such word makes no perceivable sense to me, as the word hasn't killed anyone. The word "fire" has, and that is why you aren't allowed to use it in confined areas.
Wednesday at 10:26pm via mobile · Like

MM: You just said it hasnt been invented then named one. You are dodging and youre not even artful 
at it. I asked a specific question, not the one you think you should answer.
Wednesday at 10:31pm · Like

ME: What point? I just said, IF THERE IS A WORD THAT WHEN RECITED CAUSES DEATH THEN THE FIRST AMENDMENT NEEDS RE-EXAMINED. Because the first amendment doesn't examine limits on the usage of such words, it is an oversight on the part of the authors. Such a word does not exist, and probably never will exist, so your question is moot. That doesn't change the fact that the second amendment was drafted at a time when weapons capable of killing a room full of people were few and far between, and that weapons capable of vaporizing entire cities weren't even imaginable. Now please, restate your argument.
Wednesday at 10:32pm via mobile · Like

MM: Also your argument is invalid because firearms existed at the time of the writing which could and 
did kill someone when "invoked". Whether or not the ammo was "machined".
Wednesday at 10:33pm · Like

ME: Yes, and it is illegal to use that word in that case, first amendment or no.
Wednesday at 10:33pm via mobile · Like

MM: I didnt asked about whether or not they can be recited and cause death you fucking twit.
Wednesday at 10:33pm · Like

MM: You said it doesnt exist then gave the word "fire"as an example of one that does exist.
Wednesday at 10:34pm · Like

MM: It's like debating Corky.
Wednesday at 10:34pm · Like

MM: Is the first amendment outdated because we now use words that werent invented when it was 
penned? I dont see anything about causing death when recited. I see MY question. Not the question you reinvented for your convienence.
Wednesday at 10:35pm · Like

ME: And you haven't given an argument either way, so it's like talking to a bridge troll, only on 
the internet.
Wednesday at 10:35pm via mobile · Like

MM: I think you mean it's like losing to a bridge troll, only on the internet.
Wednesday at 10:36pm · Like

ME: Then you truly are stupid.
Wednesday at 10:36pm via mobile · Like

How am I losing? You need a counter-position to have an argument, and you are 
consistently avoiding creating one.
Wednesday at 10:37pm via mobile · Like

MM: I've countered all your positions.
Wednesday at 10:37pm · Like

MM: You havent re-countered a single one.
Wednesday at 10:37pm · Like

ME: I'll freely admit that I'm stupid - there's enough empirical evidence to support that statement 
- and because of that I've asked no less than three times, earnestly and peacefully, for you to state your position so that I could re-evaluate it. You've opted instead to ignore my answers to your statements, and then to insult me. I'm almost flattered though, that I'm seemingly your only source of attention.
Wednesday at 10:48pm · Like

MM: You havent answered my question.
Wednesday at 10:54pm · Like

ME: 3 things to bear in mind: 1.) I have answered your question 2.) The first amendment is irrelevant to this argument, whatever this argument is. It doesn't matter either way because you're constructing a straw man in favor of whatever you're proposing. You could just as easily ask why we still need the 13th amendment if there are no slaves anymore. 3.) Guns have no other purpose than to kill. Setting strict limits on what an acceptable civilian weapon is a discussion that this country will have, no matter what your opinion is. I suspect that it will be the usual speech, period of mourning, then collective forgetfulness of the public that we've had so many times before, but it is a conversation that will have to happen anyway.
Thursday at 2:19am · Like

MM: You didnt answer my question.
Thursday at 7:13am · Like

MM: I asked my question well before you asked me to frame my argument. Go back and look. I wasnt 
setting up straw men I was knocking down yours that the 2nd amendment doesnt apply anymore because of technological advancements. Like those who penned the constitution didnt see any coming? Instead of answering the question quickly and concisely you chose to dodge the whole issue, lie about answering, set up your own straw men, throw out red herrings, ad hominems, and non sequiturs. Most of your points were quickly and easily shot down. There is one thing I agree with you on, you are stupid. Enjoy writing shit no one wants to read.
Thursday at 7:37am · Like

ME: I'm truly sorry that I bruised your little ego. It's okay if you want to cry.
Thursday at 8:05am · 


No comments: