Previous, current, and future guns. Do you really think an educated man, as you've stated, wouldn't have noticed the technological advancement of weaponry?
Come on. The people who amended the constitution to provision guns did so based on (their) present, not future conditions. They did not have the ability to see into the future. Indeed, if they did, they would presumably not have penned an amendment which technically legalises personal use of nuclear weapons.
I've agreed with you, haven't I? We've found some common ground?
Yes, but I still don't understand why you refused to read the article I linked. Presumably when you say you "researched", what you mean is that you looked for and found other articles which say the exact same thing. Why not just take advantage of the time I spent finding the first one for you?
Present me with evidence that I am bronto.
I do not have any. I am basing my decision on the fact that he has a multitude of puppet accounts, deflects the point in an identical manner when arguing, and has similar difficulties admitting when he is wrong.
Your most recent couple of posts suggest I might be wrong, so if this is the case then I apologise. I would not want to be mistaken for bronto either.
Also, instead of reading the article you provided
So are you admitting that you are just going to continue arguing regardless of being presented with evidence that you are being unreasonable?
I researched what actually goes on because of the Drug War, and I agree with you on the premises that the Drug War is unconstitutional when violating the Constitution
OK, so let's forget the fact that you think your anecdotes are more relevant than my article and simply reach the understanding that the war on drugs is oppressive.
Still not bronto
False.
I'd like to see your proof for me being them
You must get this silly idea out of your head that you have to explicitly state something in order to make your meaning clear to others. For example, it would be silly for me to state that you are not very intelligent, and then two sentences later deny the claim that I think you are stupid.
Wouldn't a law like that be unconstitutional?
Another nice red herring, bronto. You are working hard tonight.
Ten Ways the War On Drugs Violates the U.S. Constitution
https://www.thefix.com/content/
I never made that point.
Yes you did, bronto. You said that something cannot be oppressive if it is illegal. That was your entire argument. See:-
Putting people in jail for illegal things is not oppressive
And:-
It's not oppressive if you're breaking the law.
Saying the universe was created by "accident" implies "naturally, based on the laws of physics
The "laws of physics" predate themselves? That's interesting.
Thanks for the heads up.
It's not oppressive if you're breaking the law.
Ahaha! So if I made a law up that, say, you couldn't be Jewish, it wouldn't be oppressive if I put people in jail for it? Gotcha. Lol.
Now, who else can I think of who had that point of view?
Putting people in jail for illegal things is not oppressive
It is the law itself which is oppressive so your argument is circular and based on the false premise that the law cannot be used as a tool of oppression. See Hitler, Stalin, Mao etc... for evidence to the contrary.
What's your point?
Clearly, my point is that you cannot blame the disproportionate number of American prisoners on the fact that drugs are illegal in America. Hence, your referral to the drug war was a red herring.
Drugs. Are. Illegal.
Just because something is illegal does not necessarily mean the law which makes it illegal is not tyrannical. Literally, a six year old child could understand this, which further evidences that you are another bronto puppet account.
That's my point
So let me just clarify this a second. Your "point" was to raise the probability that you are wrong by expanding the concept of one God into the concept of many gods? Somehow I sincerely doubt that was your point, buddy.
Every single god that has been proposed has an equal chance of being real(comparatively), which drastically reduces the overall chances that a single one of them really does exist.
Completely false and stupid. You have increased the chances that a god or god exists by introducing more possibilities than there were previously. Thor or Odin do not "reduce" the chances that the Abrahamic God is real because these are two different questions. You now have three gods to debunk instead of only one. Do you understand that three is bigger than one?
Tyranny is defined as "cruel and oppressive government or rule"
So telling other people what they can/can't put into their own bodies is not oppressive? Gotcha. Lol.
Again, the drug war
So hang on a minute. On the one hand you say the drug war is not tyrannical, but on the other you are trying to use it to explain why America has one quarter of the Earth's prisoners?
Your reasoning simply does not follow. For starters, illicit drugs are illegal everywhere, not just America. Secondly, you are creating a sense of fear in anybody who decides they want to try drugs, hence only proving my point that there is tyranny.
In fact, since drug addiction is a medically recognised illness, then you are treating sick people as criminals. And that is not tyrannical?
You are writing so much BS that you are actually getting lost in it. The only person I know who does that is bronto. Hi bronto.
You can thank the drug war for our prisons being overcrowded.
So are you saying the drug war is not tyranny? Because otherwise your comment is a complete deflection of the point.
Furthermore, illicit drugs are illegal everywhere, not just America.
But, there isn't a 'culture' of fear and violence
But clearly there is, or America would not be home to one quarter of the entire planet's prison population.
You still haven't answered as to who the tyrants are.
I don't care who the tyrants are. If someone is raping my poor defenceless ass I am more concerned with getting them off me than knowing who they are.
Most of the time, but not here, no.
America has the highest incarceration rate in the entire world and you are genuinely asking me how you are being "tyrannized"? Are you aware that America houses just under a quarter of the prisoners on the entire planet???
The proliferation of guns has created a demonstrable culture of fear and violence in America. Who exactly benefits from such conditions if not tyrants?
I haven't been brainwashed.
But it is obvious that you have been.
To be fair, it seems you've been brainwashed by the left
My views about guns have absolutely nothing to do with my politics and everything to do with the fact that there is a serious problem with society if it cannot function without its members being armed to kill.
Where are we being tyrannized?
Are you joking?
Well, for a start you are being brainwashed into the notion that 30,000 completely unnecessary, preventable deaths per year is an acceptable price to keep paying for something which has clearly been a mistake.
Read some Orwell. You will discover that tyranny often comes bearing gifts.
I didn't say you claimed to.
Then your initial comment was a purposeful deflection of the point.
In fact, you said it very clearly by way of implication.
Okay, fair.
Thank you.
I'm not being silly.
I beg to differ.
I'll agree with you that they didn't have the foresight to know what kind of weapons we have today
If it really was their intent to give the people the right to protect themselves against tyranny then they would recoil in horror and trepidation at today's state of affairs, where the proliferation of guns has actually caused precisely that which they were trying to avoid.
No, this is wrong.
It isn't wrong. It is simply arguable what their intended language means.
And neither do you.
But I didn't claim to. I said quite the opposite. In fact, it was the entire reasoning I used to debunk the OP's premise.
He wants you to prove that a god exists
Then why does the OP read, "God most likely doesn't exist. Prove me wrong", instead of, "Prove to me that God exists"???
Stop being silly.
I don't agree that the debate between creation vs accident is pure speculation because there's far more evidence for an accident
Then show me your "evidence" that the universe was created by accident.
Get ready for a long parade of superstitious brainwashed people telling you in one way or another that God is real because they BELIEVE he's real. And really, that's all they've got.
You are correct, Rusticus. However, the precise same criticism can be made of atheists (i.e. God isn't real because atheists believe he isn't real).
I am very careful not to conflate the damaging effects of religion with the possibility that the universe (or biological life) had a creator. The damaging effects of religion can be criticised because they are very demonstrable and real. The debate between creation versus accident is however one of pure speculation.
God most likely doesn't exist. Prove me wrong.
You have no reliable method to determine the mathematical probability of a creator and subsequently no reliable method to determine what is "most likely".
This is me proving you wrong. Smell it. Taste it. Bathe in it.
I believe christianity plays an important role in giving a set of values and rules by which to abide to ovoid making any unethical decision
But this is a demonstrable myth which can be debunked simply by reading the Bible, which in fact encourages unethical decisions.
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives. (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)
Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death. (Exodus 21:15 NAB)
Just consider the implication of these numbers on things like politics and business. For example, if you could convince nine out of ten politicians that voting for/against a particular piece of legislation would be against the wishes of God, then you could potentially shape the law based on your manipulation of a concept which might feasibly be completely false.
So tell us once more how Democrats are not trying to take our hunting rifles.
IMO there is no problem with licensing hunters to own rifles. The problem is that some people think throwing the word "hunting" into a conversation automatically legitimises American gun culture.
Here you are simply deflecting your responsibility to explain one piece of fake news with another appeal to fake news.
Either answer the question you were asked or shut up. In what version of reality do "millions of Democrat Muslims" support putting Jews into concentration camps?
In grown up world we call them facts.
They are the precise opposite of facts. Explain to me please, how it is a "fact" that "millions of Democrat Muslims" support putting Jews into concentration camps? That is simply unfathomably absurd political slander with absolutely no basis in reality.
