unbillievable Posted December 6, 2015 Posted December 6, 2015 We will invent a technology that can disable all guns simultaneously.
Azalin Posted December 6, 2015 Posted December 6, 2015 It's funny isn't it (sad really), that gun lovers contort earnest attempts to save lives with responsible gun control, as being "political". So they can deflect to the weak minded that its a " liberal agenda to take away your rights." Case in point from the Fred flintsone of a governor of New Jersey: Listen, you boob - I'll put this as simply as humanly possible: It's not about loving guns. I'll say it again - IT'S NOT ABOUT LOVING GUNS. It's about defending a constitutional right. You lefties are all about freedoms when it comes to expression, but you run away from the fight for our constitutional rights when it comes to issues of gun ownership and property rights because it doesn't fit your pathetic little mindset. You can not pick and choose what constitutional liberties do or don't deserve preservation. I don't give a crap what you think. What you think doesn't matter. You can't start limiting a constitutionally guaranteed liberty without setting a precedent for limiting all the others. You may feel better by blaming right-wingers, but if you hold constitutional liberties as being sacrosanct, as I do, then you'll screw your head on straight for a change and look at this issue in a more realistic light.
3rdnlng Posted December 6, 2015 Posted December 6, 2015 Listen, you boob - I'll put this as simply as humanly possible: It's not about loving guns. I'll say it again - IT'S NOT ABOUT LOVING GUNS. It's about defending a constitutional right. You lefties are all about freedoms when it comes to expression, but you run away from the fight for our constitutional rights when it comes to issues of gun ownership and property rights because it doesn't fit your pathetic little mindset. You can not pick and choose what constitutional liberties do or don't deserve preservation. I don't give a crap what you think. What you think doesn't matter. You can't start limiting a constitutionally guaranteed liberty without setting a precedent for limiting all the others. You may feel better by blaming right-wingers, but if you hold constitutional liberties as being sacrosanct, as I do, then you'll screw your head on straight for a change and look at this issue in a more realistic light. A couple years ago here at PPP we had a bald atheist (the bald part is not known for sure but attested by Crayonz/4mer)who was in danger of being banned because of his views. (Gene is still here) I don't think there were many of us conservatives who agreed with his views but several of us came out strongly in his defense because of our belief in free speech. I can't recall a liberal ever defending free speech that didn't agree with them. Conservatives tend to have principles, while liberals tend to have agendas.
Ozymandius Posted December 6, 2015 Posted December 6, 2015 You lefties are all about freedoms when it comes to expression, No, they're not. Plus, it's not a left vs right thing. It's a whoever is in control of power thing. Right now, the left is in control. (I don't mean just the presidency, of course). The left is the establishment, and the establishment always seeks to squash dissenters. Speak against trannies or gay marriage or black crime on facebook, and you will get fired. Praise those things, and you get praised.
GG Posted December 6, 2015 Posted December 6, 2015 This is a follow up answer to Geno. You ask for NRA to accede to reasonable demands by gun control activists. But reasonable counterparties don't splatter your head's name and face on a front page and call him a terrorist. Here's what the NRA knows is the ultimate goal of the anti-gun activists - of course, lots of likes on Facebook from the couch activists. At some point, we will become a gun-safe, and then a gun-sane, and finally a gun-free society. It’s closer than you think. So tell me why would any willingly group negotiate its own extinction, especially when its existence is protected by a little old (and inconvenient to many) document? Among the gems found in the piece was this: What the New York Police Department found out, through empirical experience and better organization, was that making crime even a little bit harder made it much, much rarer. Gee, I wonder if he's referring to Giuliani's and Bloomberg's efforts to stomp out petty crimes and stop & frisk policies that The New Yorker hates? Life must really be comfortable in that cleaned up Upper West Side tower.
Azalin Posted December 6, 2015 Posted December 6, 2015 A couple years ago here at PPP we had a bald atheist (the bald part is not known for sure but attested by Crayonz/4mer)who was in danger of being banned because of his views. (Gene is still here) I don't think there were many of us conservatives who agreed with his views but several of us came out strongly in his defense because of our belief in free speech. I can't recall a liberal ever defending free speech that didn't agree with them. Conservatives tend to have principles, while liberals tend to have agendas. I have a hard time imagining that - Gene has his own opinions, but isn't more caustic in expressing them than many others here are. I've seen what I consider to be some amazingly ignorant things posted here, as well as some extremely immature things, but I have yet to see anything said that's worthy of silencing the offender. To be fair, I know plenty of lefties that are both principled and consistent in their views, despite that I may disagree with them. What I have trouble with are smarmy declarations and condemnations that seem to be tossed out without any consideration given to consistency - for example, speech and expression can not and should not ever be abridged, but someone needs to shut those people praying in public up because I shouldn't have to listen to it. The glaring inconsistency in that is often overlooked by many, and I've never been able to understand - or accept - that line of thinking.
TH3 Posted December 6, 2015 Posted December 6, 2015 A couple years ago here at PPP we had a bald atheist (the bald part is not known for sure but attested by Crayonz/4mer)who was in danger of being banned because of his views. (Gene is still here) I don't think there were many of us conservatives who agreed with his views but several of us came out strongly in his defense because of our belief in free speech. I can't recall a liberal ever defending free speech that didn't agree with them. Conservatives tend to have principles, while liberals tend to have agendas. Principles like say....not believing in science, restricting voting abilities, freedom to pursue happiness - unless your gay....principles like welcoming the downtrodden....unless your not welcome....give me a break...what conservative principles are you speaking of that are the pillars of conservatism?
Azalin Posted December 6, 2015 Posted December 6, 2015 Principles like say....not believing in science, restricting voting abilities, freedom to pursue happiness - unless your gay....principles like welcoming the downtrodden....unless your not welcome....give me a break...what conservative principles are you speaking of that are the pillars of conservatism? Who here doesn't believe science, believes in restricting voting abilities, is against pursuing happiness for gays, or is against welcoming 'the downtrodden'? And you actually say 'give me a break'? I would say the same to you.
DC Tom Posted December 6, 2015 Posted December 6, 2015 Principles like say....not believing in science, restricting voting abilities, freedom to pursue happiness - unless your gay....principles like welcoming the downtrodden....unless your not welcome....give me a break...what conservative principles are you speaking of that are the pillars of conservatism? Yes, people are allowed to not believe in science. And you're allowed to have a problem with that. And both beliefs are equally retarded.
meazza Posted December 6, 2015 Posted December 6, 2015 Yes, people are allowed to not believe in science. And you're allowed to have a problem with that. And both beliefs are equally retarded. He's also allowed to believe he's a conservative even though he's a pure liberal and we're allowed to make fun of him because of that. And Buffalo just scored.
3rdnlng Posted December 7, 2015 Posted December 7, 2015 Principles like say....not believing in science, restricting voting abilities, freedom to pursue happiness - unless your gay....principles like welcoming the downtrodden....unless your not welcome....give me a break...what conservative principles are you speaking of that are the pillars of conservatism? Who the !@#$ doesn't believe in science? What's this restricting voting abilities schit you are talking about? Please be specific. While you are at it, be specific about that freedom to pursue happiness thing that we are against and why (again specifically) do you think we have a problem welcoming the downtrodden? While you are at it learn the difference between your and you're.
TH3 Posted December 7, 2015 Posted December 7, 2015 Yes, people are allowed to not believe in science. And you're allowed to have a problem with that. And both beliefs are equally retarded. Not if they are making public policy...Einstein
FireChan Posted December 7, 2015 Posted December 7, 2015 Not if they are making public policy...Einstein Yes they are. Of course they are.
TH3 Posted December 7, 2015 Posted December 7, 2015 (edited) Who the !@#$ doesn't believe in science? 1. What's this restricting voting abilities 2. schit you are talking about? Please be specific. While you are at it, 3. be specific about that freedom to pursue happiness thing that we are against and why (again specifically) do you think we have a problem welcoming the downtrodden 4. ? While you are at it learn the difference between your and you're. 1. The GOP in regards to global warming. 2. Check MI, TX, LA, MI, VA, PA...all your "ID voter laws:" are nothing more than thinly veiled efforts to restrict voting for segments...please don't insult whatever intelligence you have by saying they are not 3. Same sex marriage 4. UMM maybe all the GOP governors who don't want the downtrodden.... Your welcome Yes they are. Of course they are. Then you get crap policy and poor results Edited December 7, 2015 by baskin
FireChan Posted December 7, 2015 Posted December 7, 2015 1. The GOP in regards to global warming. 2. Check MI, TX, LA, MI, VA, PA...all your "ID voter laws:" are nothing more than thinly veiled efforts to restrict voting for segments...please don't insult whatever intelligence you have by saying they are not 3. Same sex marriage 4. UMM maybe all the GOP governors who don't want the downtrodden.... Your welcome Then you get crap policy and poor results You may. Or you may not. But either way, they are still allowed.
TH3 Posted December 7, 2015 Posted December 7, 2015 (edited) You may. Or you may not. But either way, they are still allowed. I am pretty sure disregarding scientific data is going to consistently lead to bad policy...if that is ok with you....well here we are Edited December 7, 2015 by baskin
FireChan Posted December 7, 2015 Posted December 7, 2015 (edited) I am pretty sure disregarding scientific data is going to consistently lead to bad policy...if that is ok with you....well here we are I didn't say if it was "okay" with me, but it is allowed. Edited December 7, 2015 by FireChan
Azalin Posted December 7, 2015 Posted December 7, 2015 I am pretty sure disregarding scientific data is going to consistently lead to bad policy...if that is ok with you....well here we are Again I ask you - who here doesn't believe in science, doesn't want equality for gays, supports suppressing the vote, or has ill will toward the downtrodden? Got nothing? Thought so.
B-Man Posted December 7, 2015 Posted December 7, 2015 Again I ask you - who here doesn't believe in science, doesn't want equality for gays, supports suppressing the vote, or has ill will toward the downtrodden? Got nothing? Thought so. Much to his detriment, he really believes that about Republicans. .
Recommended Posts