Amarels butt buddy the Devil tries to save his ass
Both of them are idiots and neither one of them understands what debate is. Absolutely typical American idiots who have been trained to believe up is down and backwards is forwards. Really frustrating reading their stupid comments to be honest.
“Hero’s” like 6 gun Amarel think owning a gun is necessary and it’s a “right” yet if a woman claimed it was her right to have an abortion and protected that right with a gun he would scream blue murder
I honestly don't know how it is possible to hold even one set of opposing beliefs, but Old Six Gun has dozens. Remember his anti-drug debate last week? He thinks drugs are a problem because they kill 60-70 thousand a year, despite there being a wealth of reliable statistics proving that drugs save millions of lives and have essentially doubled average human lifespans. But guns are a solution because they only kill 40,000 a year, despite there being a clear lack of reliable evidence that guns save any lives at all. His double standards are so inexcusable it's a wonder he can even make a cup of tea without contradicting himself.
I checked and found no law on the books barring me from owning a tank.
Tanks without functional weapons you idiot. I assumed it would be obvious that I was talking about tanks capable of doing what tanks are built to do. But it seems that to you nothing is obvious.
Get your facts right.
Get out you idiot. You know exactly what I mean. Tanks are not street legal. We don't see rich people driving them down the highway. The cannons are also not street legal. You need a destructive device permit from the federal government.
I don't really get what point you're trying to make here.
Oh you don't? 😆 Now why doesn't that surprise me?
After spending the better part of a year insisting that guns are necessary to protect oneself in close-quarter encounters like rapes, carjackings, home invasions and robberies, now that someone has proven that to be a total bag of bullshit you don't really get what point I'm trying to make?
You're funny. 😆
But seriously. Off you go.
Can the Democrats impeach a ''FORMER'' President who doesn't hold any other public office?
Yes, that all makes perfect sense to me now. If you commit crimes you should be allowed to get away with them as long as you have been voted out of office. 😆
Idk what you're so pissy about
Yes you do. I'm pissy because you refuse to ever engage in honest discussion. You constantly misrepresent what other people say. It is tiring, pointless and in no way conducive to a productive conversation.
Nom seems to know a lot about how and when to use a gun.
I just listen to the experts.
The 21-foot rule has long been used by police officers. Essentially, it says that when an assailant wielding a knife is closing in, they will cover 21 feet in the time it takes you to draw and fire your gun.
And you might not even have that much time. Recently, a study at Minnesota State University- Mankato found that the amount of distance covered can be greater than 21 feet.
https://www.krudoknives.com/
Any more intellectually dishonest comments?
If a right is fundamental, then this wasn't decided by someone
This is close to the stupidest thing you ever said but I’ve doubt you can top it
Lol. That's truly laughable.
Where does he actually think these fundamental rights come from if they weren't "decided by someone"? Where does he think the actual idea of rights came from in the first place?
You would respond to a post like this by saying that someone should take me aside for a chat.
I have no idea what you mean but I can tell you this much: I have yet to see you last more than ten minutes without contradicting yourself.
You've created a whole character of me based mostly on the straw men
I'm quoting your idiotic comments verbatim and responding to them with all the derision they deserve.
while loosing arguments
Losing, you delusional idiot. At least learn to speak English before making up your own version of reality.
That's your fucking MO. And the Jody follows suit.
You are literally mad, pal. You're mentally unwell. You deny things and then double down on what you've just denied a sentence later. Out of all the tens of thousands of people killed by guns each year, the only group you cared to mention were "killers".
What you are looking for is a means to justify killing others, and what is truly astonishing about that is killing a killer would obviously place you in the exact same group you are pretending you have justification to kill.
I'm glad you put it that response to killing a killer.
Are you?
Well, I'm glad that in your first paragraph you denied pretending guns can only be used for defence, and then in your second pretended killing someone because they killed someone else is a logical proposition. It really helps accentuate to others the extent of your mental health problems.
Yeah, you constantly criticize me for shit that has nothing to do with anything I've ever said.
At one point three different people were all accusing you of the exact same thing and you still denied it.
You're not worth the time it takes to reply because you're a liar.
No one pretends that a gun could only potentially be used to defend oneself.
You do it every time you post you ridiculous liar. I was literally criticising you for doing it last night, and so was Jody.
Killing a killer
This is yet more backwards logic where you want to kill someone while at the same time branding HIM the killer.
You are a fucking idiot, Amarel. I say that with the utmost sincerity because it is true.
Is invasion a higher probability than being sick?
That's a great example of the double standards which are institutionalised in American society. Blindly support the military throughout any act of aggression, but go crazy when somebody proposes a tax-based, equal access healthcare system.
if you suppose that the right to bear arms stems from your right to defend yourself
But I don't suppose that at all brother. I suppose that to be one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard, and I think the reason many Americans disagree is because guns have been purposefully mythologised in the United States.
If we look at what guns are built to do then it is very easy to establish they kill living things. They were built to snub out life. To pretend then that guns are defensive items is to turn the very meaning of language upside down. They have no bias at all about who dies because their job is only to facilitate killing. Therefore, to pretend that their only potential use is to "defend" against aggression is just an appalling abuse of reason, because their entire purpose is to facilitate aggression.
What you actually do in reality when you arm everybody is simply give them the means to kill each other instantly, without even thinking about it beforehand. Guns are drawn in anger every single day and people are killed in domestic rows, arguments in the street and in countless other situations where tempers get heated.
Honestly, I just find it so stupid because guns are presented to Americans as mere tools to help you "defend" against aggression, but of course the reality is that when you legalise guns you simply give everybody else in society the means to instantly kill you, for absolutely any reason they like.
My point being, isn’t the point of allowing EVERYONE to bear arms a way to assure that everyone EQUALLY has a right to self defense ?
My apologies but this is simply ridiculous. It's absurd. Everybody has the right to defend themselves, but this has no relationship to the legality of guns one way or the other. Firstly, guns are used to kill people, not to defend. Secondly, since some people struggle to hold a gun, should we therefore arm everybody with nuclear missiles to make sure there is a fair and even playing field? Thirdly, not even your own state -- which pushes this insane sophistry to the public in the first place on behalf of the gun lobby -- subscribes to the belief that "EVERYONE" should be able to defend themselves equally!!! In fact, the US government has pretty much done everything in its power to make sure its enemies cannot obtain nuclear armaments.
I really struggle to understand how people can be fooled by these bullshit pro-gun arguments, which are all rooted in the abuse of reason and/or logic.
What qualifies as a lethal agression?
Exactly brother. Do you see the way he simply distorts language around the gaping holes in his own arguments? He doesn't mention that it is his determination he is relying upon to conclude there was lethal intent, and that this determination may very well -- as is so often the case -- fail to match the physical facts. He essentially just wants carte blanche to kill, and so you can bet on him having an extremely loose interpretation of the law.
Why the fuck would you want the primary determinant of a deadly encounter to be solely in the hands of bad guys?
I don't think you understand how this works bud. When you legalise guns, "bad guys" buy them first, because "bad guys" have the most use for them. Hence, your argument is literally that we should legalise guns because we have legalised guns (and now the "bad guys" have them). It's so stupid I honestly don't know why I'm even replying to it.
What the fuck do you think a gun would defend against?
I don't think a gun would defend against anything. Having a gun in my hand isn't going to stop me getting shot, so it is next to useless as a form of defence. A gun is a brilliant form of attack and a shit form of defence, but here's you pretending it's the other way around. Just like I began this conversation by pointing out to you, the paradigm you are selling is the precise opposite of factual reality.
When I talk about various uses for a gun, it's a red herring
And now of course you are simply misrepresenting your own history rather than mine. Your vast list of "various uses for a gun" didn't include murders, suicides, rapes, carjackings, armed robberies, executions, revolutions, hijackings, kidnappings or terrorism, was headed at the very top with the ridiculous idea that guns are synonymous with self-defence, and both of your "points" about hunting and civil war have already been covered anyway!!! You are simply trying to drag the conversation around in circles because that is what idiots like you do. You have no valid argument. You have no valid points. Everytime I ask a question you can't answer you ignore it and come back with some kind of ruthless distortion of something I wrote previously. The fact is that you are just a bit of an idiot, my friend.
Here's a hypothetical for you.
I stumble into you drunk at a bar, get aggressive and threaten to kill you and your wife.
Calmly, nodding, you reach down behind the bar, pick up a potato peeler, and stab me wildly 47 times in the neck.
How many of those 47 strikes were defence?
How many were attack?
Think on it son. Take your time.
I swear we just had a long talk about hunting and civil war.
Lol. No we didn't. They were just the red herrings you used last time I pointed out that you are grossly misrepresenting the intended purpose of firearms. Firearms are built to kill living things, and so that is why you can use them to hunt (i.e. kill living things) or for "civil war" (why not just war??).
Any attempted defence of the legalisation of guns necessitates a pathology where a person feels they should hold ultimate power over life and death. Therefore, if we did a survey we would find that the most vocal proponents of the legalisation of guns are psychopaths.
You don't believe that any offensive action can be taken in self defense.
Somebody needs to take you to one side and have a serious word with you so that you can begin to grasp the concept of the strawman fallacy, and why telling another person what they think, believe, or want, is not a valid argument in a debate. I have never said, suggested or implied what you are accusing me of believing and indeed this entire conversation is a game where you purposefully misrepresent and distort the things I have said. I find that pointless. I find you pointless.
It's not merely the law that recognizes the violence of self defense.
And here we are right back with you refusing to recognise any use for a gun except "self-defence". It's so stupid.
It's common language to all but you.
Then you won't have a problem directing me to a self-defence class which teaches me to shoot people, will you?
And everyone but you will know what it means to say they are defending the complex.
Everyone except you understands the difference between attack and defence. You cannot define your own actions on the basis of someone else's actions because that is the logic of abuse. That is the logic which says it's OK to rape the girl at the bar because she is being flirty. Would that be a defensive rape, Amarel?
You're stupid and you are laughably dishonest.
You want to pretend that hunting some kind of bad thing to do
I made absolutely no comment on the morality of hunting one way or the other. Explain to me the point of a conversation in which you simply tell barefaced lies?
Hunting is unnecessary. That's the point I actually made.
You can punch a person to get them to stop attacking you.
Of course. What you can't do -- unless you happen to be stupid -- is call punching another person in the face defence. That is ridiculous because it swaps the meanings of attack and defence around. Even under the American legal provisions you are hiding behind one is only permitted to use reasonable force to deter an attacker, so the circumstances where it is legitimately necessary to shoot someone in order to save yourself are exceptionally rare. Yet all you want to acknowledge are these exceptionally rare circumstances where a gun is necessary to save your own life, and absolutely nothing else. Your bias is so overt it is just simply comical.
It's interesting that you believe it is morally superior to imprison an animal in factory farm conditions
Where do you pull this insane, stupid, completely false rhetoric from?
My feelings and beliefs have zero relevance to the factual reality that civilisation has reached the stage of development where it does not need to hunt for sustenance.
Even if my feelings and beliefs did have some relevance, then it is not up to you to decide for me whether I have a moral problem with factory farming or not.
I just don't understand what you feel is gained by your stupid strawman fallacies and flagrant intellectual dishonesty.
My apologies. I really thought I mentioned hunting and civil war as well.
Perhaps, but your first line was so outrageously and offensively dishonest that I didn't bother reading any further. Let's just quickly cover those topics though.
A) Hunting.
Oh, so you only want to slaughter everything except other humans?? Well, why didn't you say that in the first place!! That's is of course perfectly OK and, after all, supermarkets have not yet been invented, nor have pizza parlors and Burger King. We must hunt to secure food and it is as simple as that. Let's just pretend that the last four thousand years have not occurred because of course that is a very strong argument worthy of lengthy consideration.
B) Civil War.
Not civil war. Killing people. Guns are useful in civil wars only because civil wars involve killing people. Stop twisting and distorting everything please. It's quite shameful.
At least not successfully.
It is not really possible to "successfully" debate someone who presents a paradigm which is the exact opposite of factual reality. The best you can do with that person is explain the logical fallacies they are using to manufacture their erroneous paradigm.
You've presented this goofy line of reasoning before where you believe an action can only qualify as self defense if the act is strictly defensive.
Again, that is the exact opposite of factual reality. I replied to your conclusion that guns (and therefore violence) are a paradigm of self-defence. You presented guns only as instruments of self-defence, and left out entirely every other possible use.
Since you are just sat here playing black is white, up is down, left is right, you aren't really worth my time.
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms derives from the natural right of self defense.
It is not possible to debate you on this topic because you appear to be trying to force language into the conversation which is inaccurate to the point that it is simply bizarre.
It is a matter of fact that guns were invented to take life. They were not invented to give life. They were invented to take life.
And yet, your first line is a head-scratching attempt to turn this simple principle upside down. You have presented guns as something which preserve life rather than something which take life. It is such a gross distortion of language and reason that it renders discussion all but impossible. If you cannot even accept what the design purpose of guns is then how can you expect to have a discussion?
My "right" to self-defence does not stipulate that I should have a gun. It stipulates that everyone else around me should not have a gun, because that endangers my life.
Statistics fall into a category of academic research known as quantitative analysis. As with all forms of academic research, one begins with a hypothesis.
But you would know nothing about academic research, which makes it all the more ironic when you make claims about "educating" me.
Ice cream consumption positively correlated to murder rate.
Nobody researched those statistics, halfwit. Learn how to use Google properly. The effects of weather on crime were researched, the seasonal sales of ice cream were researched, and somebody glued those statistics together. Nobody set out to discover whether ice cream sales have any correlation to crime, which makes your analogy false and misleading.
I am very interested in discussing the correlation between crime and poverty
If that were true then the correlation between crime and poverty would have been what you mentioned, not the correlation between crime and race.
The days of me educating you on basic concepts
Oh shut your mouth you boring troll. You're an idiot.
your argument premises on the absurdity that statistics necessarily assumes there is a causal relationship between correlates
Clearly it does not. Show me where, dickhead. What I said is that you have to begin with the assumption that crime is race related in order to research those statistics. You have to begin with the assumption that there is a correlation between race and crime, because otherwise there is no point researching the statistics. It's like researching who commits more crime: blonde-haired or black-haired people. Blue-eyed or brown-eyed people? Who commits more crime between these groups? You have no fucking idea, do you? And the reason is because nobody has assumed these traits have any correlation with crime.
That's as far as I got.
Good for you. So now you're going to attempt to refute a post you haven't even read. Aren't you smart?
Once I saw that your argument premises on the absurdity that statistics necessarily assumes there is a causal relationship between correlates
But you were the one who premised this, which is why I objected in the first place. Honestly, just shut up you idiot.
He is absolutely correct. The blacks have failed to capitalize on the opportunities available to them in education and to take advantage of the job openings accessible to all under the long established equal opportunities legislation.
Then how did a black man rise to become president of the United States for 8 years?
Why are there more black people, both men and women, in positions of authority and power, than ever before in history?
As per usual, you are talking shit. All you do is talk shit. You're a boring, ridiculous, racist troll.
The Communists infiltrated your party
Ahahaha! Shut up Bronto you Nazi idiot.
and destroy Capitalism
Capitalism will destroy itself, halfwit. Are you literally so unfathomably stupid that you believe a system rooted in human exploitation will survive indefinitely?
he's a moron with money. That's it.
Amen. If those people were all removed from the world overnight, we'd all wake up to a much better place.
Don't get me wrong. I know there are plenty of morons without money too, but the difference is that they can't pay for an audience.
good men
You are worse than they are. You're a nasty, narcissistic piece of work who used to vote for these asshats. The moment anybody disproves -- or even disagrees with -- something you write, you resort immediately, without hesitation, back to the lying, viciously abusive cretin you are by birth.
It's not a fantasy, it's statistics.
You say the most ridiculously stupid things. You have to begin with the supposition that crime is race related in order to even take race related crime statistics in the first place!! It is classic circular reasoning, like beginning with the premise that Nazis are more cultured than blacks and then using correlations implied by statistics to present a false cause/effect relationship.
The fact of the matter is that criminologists have been studying crime statistics for longer than you have been alive, and they illustrated long ago that there is a link between poverty and crime. But because you do not want to acknowledge that proven correlation, you instead point to racial statistics without informing anybody beforehand that blacks and minorities have much greater rates of poverty than whites. Hence you, and indeed the entire American right wing, are deliberately misleading people with the false assumption that race and crime are related.
Whoever told you that your claim is fantasy is absolutely correct.
Right - Xtian, small Gov
Don't believe the hype, Chuck D once said. When Republicans tell you they want "small government", they actually mean the precise opposite of that. As Trump himself claimed mere weeks ago, he believes his authority to be total.
If you want to see a "small" right wing government in action, look back to the Nazis.
This debate is intended to use real research to decide whether Trump does or does not have a high IQ.
Is this a serious question? Because the man is a goddamned moron. If your interpretation of having a high IQ is when someone tells you they have a high IQ then Trump has a high IQ. Otherwise, he's a goddamned moron who can barely structure a coherent sentence.
Any person with more than just one brain cell jumps from the waterfall to the specific debate
Can you even read English you ridiculously stupid cow? They don't find the post by opening all the sub-threads. They find it on the waterfall and when they click it they are magically transported to that specific post. If you reply to the same post after me then your post appears underneath mine, making it look as though you have replied to me.
You're a stupid, stupid cow. If there was no ambiguity about who you replied to then why are we even having this conversation? Why have you had it tonight with two different people?
You're an idiot. A real fucking idiot.
No. The site uses threaded comments - when you reply, it is directed at that comment
Yes, you utterly stupid bitch. Because of the vast amount of time it takes to trawl through every sub-chain on a thread, and because of the small amount of discussions on the site, everybody with half a functional brain cell just uses the waterfall. We don't open up every single reply chain in a debate looking for a specific post when we can just find the same post instantly on the waterfall. Are you actually this fucking stupid? Quote what you reply to you lazy bitch. You've blamed two different people tonight because you're too lazy to be clear about who you are talking to.
Where does Amarel say it shouldn't?
The only possible relevance in mentioning "resistance" is to imply the officer's actions were justified. Otherwise it has no bearing on the discussion. Are you actually capable of following any type of coherent thought process?
Adding a CAPTCHA on sign up might prevent some of the automated account creation and posting.
There is a captcha on sign up. At least for me.
And the account creation isn't automated. Bronto does it manually. A lot of the names he picks are quite clearly chosen by him. He's just insane. That's the problem.
The police chief believes that the main problem there was out of town agitators. Provocateurs, possibly neo-nazis or some other form of right wing slime.
But wait a minute. Bronto keeps insisting all the right wing slime is on the left. Now I'm really confused. It's almost as if Bronto is lying to me.
Are you really that crazy? Seriously, anybody who thinks that's any kind of evidence is seriously deluded.
Seriously insane more like. Just like the Nazis, these halfwits know full well they are lying. They just figure the end justifies the means. The birthmark of the extremist.
Did you not see that my post was to Miocene?
Did you mention in your post who you were addressing? Did you quote the person's comments you were addressing?
No, I don't think you did, did you?
British law is, of course, irrelevant
It most certainly is not irrelevant. I was directly addressing your comment about whether there should still be outrage if there was not intent, and I used the law in my own country as an example.
Frankly, given the way you tell lies, you should just go and join the Republican Party, because you are exactly alike.
While you have other elements incorrect
Oh, is my sarcasm incorrect? Perhaps you should write to the sarcasm oversight committee and have me reprimanded for this outrage.
I do think people should consider what their feelings would be if the death was unintentional, which is certainly possible.
Yeah, there's a word for that here. It's called manslaughter and it comes with a heavy prison sentence.
But don't tell me now. British law is incorrect. Amirite?
Try to comprehend that the thug cop didn't intend to kill Floyd.
Exactly bro!!! I am so glad other people actually understand!! I have been arguing for years, YEARS, that Hitler didn't intend to kill the Jews. It is a matter of historical fact that he first, very reasonably tried to export them to Madagascar. Hence, in no way can we hold Hitler responsible for killing Jews. He tried his best to save their lives!!!!!
This is how I am going to respond from now on, every time I read one of your truly ridiculous posts.
This would satisfy the loony lefties who could rejoice by sitting among the smoldering ruins of a once great nation drinking copious amounts of Jack Daniels.
Exactly bro! Clearly, we should blame the left for not helping you sweep the problem of institutionalised racism under the nearest rug. How dare they have a problem with anything you do??
As right wing lunatics murder blacks in the street, it is nice to see at least some people have their priorities straight and can see the loony left is the real problem.
Indeed, I am so impressed by your stubborn refusal to ever contemplate the difference between right and wrong that I am recommending you be inducted into the partisan retard hall of fame. You are very welcome.
The long defunct British Empire is still causing significant trouble throughout the world but still they try to lecture other nations on their lack of morals.
You seem to be the one doing the lecturing about morals. I don't see any Brits doing it, just you.
In fact I notice you do this an awful lot. You'll do something and in the actual same sentence (or at least the same paragraph) you'll accuse somebody else of doing it. I imagine it's why most people think you're a prick. Well, that and the fact you openly hate people who aren't white.
If it looks like a dictator, walks like a dictator, Quacks like a dictator ... it's probably a dictator
Well said mate. Four hundred years of capitalism has given Americans a culture where a good salesperson can convince you that you aren't wearing any pants.
because they are fake news.
As discussed, you are the fake news:-
news reporting on the website tends to be be properly sourced with minimal failed fact checks
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cnn/
Go and kill yourself please, you insane Nazi halfwit.
It has been held legally accountable for inaccuracies in its reporting and
And yet it did not vanish and reappear several weeks later under a different name, with a different website. That's what differentiates it from the Nazi bullshit you link on a regular basis.
Taiwan pointed it out first.
I read the article. There's no evidence in it that China conspired with anybody. In fact, the article isn't even about China. It has literally no relevance. You've linked it for effect, same as always.
There is plenty of evidence that Trump ignored the warnings from his chief health adviser and caused the deaths of 100,000 Americans though. But you'd sooner make up conspiracy theories about China because you're a loyal little Nazi, right Herr Dickhead?
Obama also built the Nazi death camp cages to put children in at the border.
No, Obama built the cages. Trump was the one who put children in them.
You're legitimately insane, Bronto. So insane that you believe you can bring Nazism back without anybody realising it's Nazism.
CNN is fake news.
You are fake news. Everything you do and say is fake. CNN has a head office address where it can be held legally accountable for any inaccuracies in its reporting. You change accounts every ten minutes purposefully so that you can never be held accountable for your constant stream of lies and upside down facts. Like the one just below in the Waterfall where you try to convince us that the fascists were the progressives wanting racial equality and the anti-fascists the ones who wanted to build an Aryan super-race.
Everything you say is upside down and ridiculous. You are one of the biggest, most outright despicable idiots this planet has ever defecated from its darkest bowels. And the irony is that is probably your most likeable characteristic.
Luckily that will be countered by your support for most of Trump
A) I don't support Trump. You've linked a comment which you are perfectly aware was made sarcastically, and are misrepresenting it as literal language. That's dishonest, and only gives me the moral high ground.
B) My "support for Trump" has no relationship to the example I have just given. The example I have just given is about you driving people into the arms of the Republican Party by being such a complete arse. Hence, you have countered nothing. You've tried to deflect the point with a tu quoque fallacy, which quite obviously is not the same thing.
C) Shut your big stupid mouth please.
In your own hypothetical, they would have lost a portion of the aid
No, not in "my hypothetical". In your false representation of "my hypothetical". In my hypothetical the IRA cannot lose something if it does not have it in the first place. Is that clear enough for your stupid lying ass to understand or would you like an accompanying diagram?
You know what? I've a better idea. Let's follow this Mickey Mouse logic a bit further.
You are so irritatingly partisan that you have compelled most people you have come into contact with to vote Republican. Therefore Trump is your fault.
If you had bought the same candy bar from elsewhere, the IRA would have been worse off.
The IRA loses nothing if I don't buy a chocolate bar. So no, the IRA would not be worse off. You're just a damned idiot with too much to say and not enough brains to actually think about any of it.
so it could be said that I supported policies that I don't support.
Stupid. You don't have any control over what the government decides to spend tax revenue on. If I buy a Mars Bar from a shop and the shopkeeper is secretly giving funding to the IRA that doesn't mean I support the IRA. It means I just wanted a fucking Mars Bar.
