CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
If you are a weed or mushrooms lover then visit https://buy420weeds.com and you will get the best quality indoor products. Meanwhile people who are fighting to lose weight can visit https://buysaxendapen.com and get delivery to your address and location. While for IGET disposable vape pens you can get from https://igetcartsforsale.com/. Meanwhile with the level of insecurity you can purchase the best weapons for self defense and armored vest from https://gunsandgoonsforhire.com/
The right to bear arms is in the Constitution so the gubament should provide us with guns. It is a form of healthcare, too. For example, if a half-crazed, spittle-spewing liberal comes to do damage to your person or property, a gun will preserve your health by eliminating a threat to it.
This is like killing 2 birds with one stone. Free gun and free healthcare in one fell swoop.
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms derives from the natural right of self defense. That doesn't mean the government gives you a gun, nor does it mean that the government will defend you individually from other individuals. It means that your right to self defense is protected by law.
The right to healthcare goes no further than your right to freely associate and trade with medical professionals. That doesn't mean you have the right to take healthcare from others via the government.
If there is anything that is given to you by the government (as opposed to protected for you by the government), then it is a privilege. The right to such is a statutory right only.
This post is for BL who demanded an explanation of this just as he banned me.
The right to healthcare goes no further than your right to freely associate and trade with medical professionals. That doesn't mean you have the right to take healthcare from others via the government.
What “others”? Basic health care is a fundamental human right and is covered (or should be by taxes )
If there is anything that is given to you by the government (as opposed to protected for you by the government), then it is a privilege. The right to such is a statutory right only.
It’s not “given “ it’s paid for , it’s incredible to think your country spends billions a year on arms and your money aids in that and you don’t mind yet you and a sizable amount of Americans rabidly resist the idea of universal health care .....you’re very strange people
Arms exporters have arranged it so that the American public pays $6-7 billion annually to market and finance sales of their product. On top of that, the public bears the costs of researching and developing the weapons in the first place
Great isn’t it ?
This post is for BL who demanded an explanation of this just as he banned me.
You ban everyone on your debates and deny them a right to reply hows it feel?
Humans existed prior to laws. If something is fundamental to humans, it would precede laws just as humans preceded laws.
Nonsense ,“law “ was not as it is today but I’ve no doubt there were basic formations of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour amongst earlier humans which were the “law “ of the time in its most rudimentary fashion
Who do you think decides theses law are fundamental rights ?
If a right is fundamental, then this wasn't decided by someone.
You've described norms and mores and equated them with laws. You should try again on your definition of fundamental human rights. Currently your definition applies to speed limits and looks something like norms and mores.
Your confusion about what even you mean by "rights" explains a lot about your view of them.
If a right is fundamental, then this wasn't decided by someone.
What an utterly ridiculous statement
You've described norms and mores and equated them with laws.
A fundamental right is decided by law
you should try again on your definition of fundamental human rights.
Right thanks for that will inform UN you disagree with them
Currently your definition applies to speed limits and looks something like norms and mores.
Your confusion about what even you mean by "rights” explains a lot about your view of them
😂😂😂 This from a gun nut who demands women cannot abort because the unborn have a “right “ that Trumps a woman’s right to bodily autonomy😱 You’re a raving nut
You chickened out of answering who decides what is a “right “?
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.
You really need to get your message circulated to the warlike nations of the world and explain to them that they must either dispose of, or decommission all their weaponry forthwith.
It would also be helpful if you would embark on a series of coast to coast roadshow lectures supplemented with a nationwide television and radio advertising campaign targeting gangsters, muggers and psychopathic murders demanding that they surrender their firearms along with any other lethal weapons they may possess.
The problem occurs when just as you're feeling secure with your trusty umbrella as a form of defence you bump into a jolly nasty chap who missed out on your anti-gun promotional lectures, cuts your gizzard out with a machete' then shoots your balls off with his .38 Smith & Wesson.
At some point during that encounter you may find your sanctimonious self wishing you'd brought the glock-18 your granny gave you for your birthday present.
If, per chance you had prudently brought your granny's present and had used it successfully and survived the confrontation would you concede that you used it in ''self-defence?
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. That's not true. You can punch a person to get them to stop attacking you. That's self defense where an offensive act is used. If one must defend thier self or others from a lethal aggressor, then a lethal offensive act my be the most effective form of self defense. That's why cops have guns.
A cop having a gun does not endanger your life in modern developed nations. However, no one but the military having a gun can, and often has endangered the lives of the citizens historically. That's a circumstance where the cops gun is a threat, and there's really only one way to counter it.
What's with the alt Nom, were you pre-banned? Kinda hard to respond to something in a place you were banned from huh.. But I suppose alts are nothing new for you.
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 not merely the law that recognizes the violence of self defense. It's common language to all but you. When troops defend a complex, for example, they use guns. And everyone but you will know what it means to say they are defending the complex.
Yes, the circumstances where a gun could properly be used for self defense (or the defense of others I should add) are exceptionally rare. You will find that your death is an exceptionally rare occurrence. Legal weapons carriers rarely need to even display their own gun (which may be enough to remove the lethal threat). In my area, I know of 2 circumstances in 5 years where a legal gun carrier used their weapon to save themselves or others. That's pretty rare and it means it is highly unlikely that I will be in that position. But the chances aren't 0. And carrying one around that no one knows about is perfectly safe. So I'll just keep doing it.
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?
And here we are right back with you refusing to recognise any use for a gun except "self-defence".
I swear we just had a long talk about hunting and civil war.
You don't believe that any offensive action can be taken in self defense. You're wrong. There's not much else to say about it. Thankfully, laws agree with me, so I don't have to say anything else about it.
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.
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.
Your vast list of "various uses for a gun" didn't include murders, suicides, rapes, carjackings, armed robberies, executions, revolutions, hijackings, kidnappings or terrorism
What the fuck do you think a gun would defend against?! Yeah, bad people have guns. No shit.
Why the fuck would you want the primary determinant of a deadly encounter to be solely in the hands of bad guys?
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.
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.
Hm. Wonder what cops need em for. You know what? I bet if a person is trying to shoot you, but you shoot him first, that will stop him from whatever he might do next. Including shooting you! Just a guess. Idk though.
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.
This is not an argument about legalizing guns. I'm not saying anyone should legalize anything, except maybe some drugs that are out there. Where the fuck do you come up with this shit? You probably don't know that guns were not legalized here.
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.
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.
A) Environmental protection and maintenance is funded by hunters and fishermen.
It's interesting that you believe it is morally superior to imprison an animal in factory farm conditions for its whole miserable life before slaughtering it for your meal. I don't share that view. Honestly, it's a shameful thing that I don't get a larger share of my food from hunting. It's a far more humane way to acquire meat.
B) Yes war is killing. And if there is a civil war, you're liable to be killed. Unless there is some magical way you know of to stop a lethal threat....wait a tick!
Here's the rest of the post. The part you missed.
Your refusal to see that self defense can be a violent endeavor is not my fallacy. It's your naivete
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.
You want to pretend that hunting some kind of bad thing to do because civilization has moved beyond the need for it. But civilization has done so by putting animals through much worse than what a hunter does. That, pretty obviously, is my point.
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.
. But civilization has done so by putting animals through much worse than what a hunter does.
Let us know when “civilization “ hits the US
Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY), Joint Economic Committee Vice Chair, published a new report Wednesday that estimates gun violence costs the U.S. $229 billion a year.
Democratic lawmakers have increasingly pressured the Republican-majority Senate to act on gun legislation.
“The United States stand alone in this degree of gun violence,” Maloney said. “The human costs are beyond our ability to comprehend, it is tragic, it is sickening and it is a crisis.”
If one must defend thier self or others from a lethal aggressor, then a lethal offensive act my be the most effective form of self defense. That's why cops have guns.
What qualifies as a lethal agression? And what do we do with people who rely on lethal offensive only ? All cops have guns. All gun are lethal threats. All cops are potential lethal aggressors. Why isn’t it a natural right to respond to a cop with the same lethal threat?
And on the side, as I feel that this debate wants call to talk about universal healthcare. I understand that universal healthcare cannot be a natural individual right because it depends on others taking care of you.
But can’t it be a natural social right ? I don’t know if that exist but the way I see it, as a society, we ( society ) have the right to survival. And the survival of a society depends on each person’s health. Otherwise the society will not survive. think about the ongoing pandemic. The limitations of individual liberty (I will admit annoying and frustrating) were to ensure the survival of our society.
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.
Force that a person would reasonably believe would result in serious injury or death is lethal force. Threatening someone, as in the example provided, is merely harassment and not even considered a violent crime.
All cops have guns. All gun are lethal threats. All cops are potential lethal aggressors. Why isn’t it a natural right to respond to a cop with the same lethal threat?
Having a weapon is not, in itself, a lethal threat.
, as a society, we ( society ) have the right to survival. And the survival of a society depends on each person’s health.
If each person's health becomes the responsibility of society, there will be a whole host of things that society can justify barring individuals from, for the sake of their health.
I don’t understand why one is willing to put their tax money in assuring the defense of their country through the military and cops ( group of people who are trained to kill to protect ) but not willing to put their tax money to assure the health of their country through doctors and nurse ( a group of people who are trained to save and bring back life )
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.
The government has a monopoly on the initiation of force. That's their primary purpose and the most civilizing role they play. It's an essential role, but it is inefficient. Everything the government does is inefficient.
If you consider the power of incentives, then the issue becomes more clear. If you are spending your own money on yourself, your incentive is to seek the highest quality at the lowest cost. If you are spending your money on someone else, your incentive is to seek the lowest cost, regardless of quality. If you are spending someone else's money on yourself, your incentive is to maximize quality regardless of cost. If you're spending someone else's money on someone else, you are concerned neither with cost nor quality. Government is the latter two.
There are some roles which need to be channeled through government. The initiation of force belongs there, as inefficient as the system is (you don't want efficient police arresting people for profit). If a role can be fulfilled through more efficient means, then it should be. Free markets incentivise producers to lower costs (in order to sell to more buyers) and to increase quality (in order to attract buyers from the competition. T
he American healthcare system began to break long ago as a result of government meddling. Some doctors are beginning to circumvent the government red tape by rejecting all insurance and taking payment directly from the patient. This is called Direct Care. They do this so that they can provide their services to the poor. They still make a doctor's living because they don't have to charge $15 per asprin or play any of the other games that comes with regular healthcare.
The government is not the solution to the problem caused by the government. Even so, there is room for a safety net. But that's the least of the problems with healthcare.
Sure, a gun on the ground isn’t a threat at all. But a cop having a gun is a person holding a force that could lead to serious injury or death. Non? Why could we not respond the same way when faced with a person holding a force that could lead to death?
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 ?
clearly, there is a hierarchy in our right to self defense. There is natural hierarchy. But I’m not talking about the natural hierarchy. I’m talking about the hierarchy the law imposes. In a gun fight, cop vs civilian. Both have guns. The law will protect the cop under the right to self defense if they kill the civilian. But the law will not defend the right to self defense were the civilian to kill the cop.
If each person's health becomes the responsibility of society, there will be a whole host of things that society can justify barring individuals from, for the sake of their health.
That is possible. And that is currently what is happening all over the world including the US. In order to spare the health others , people’s liberties are taken away. We all hate it. It is annoying. Thank goodness I’m not In the US because I would really hate limiting my liberties for Americans. And to be honest, the reason I left the US is because I would NEVER sacrifice anything for a society like the US. I hate them all. Profoundly. I left because why be part of a society if you can’t sacrifice something for its survival. Might as well be a lone wolf...
Being a lone wolf isn’t a bad thing by the way. I’m just annoyed by the preaching of individualism. Just leave. Leave to live with your family, off the grid. Do not call yourself American or part of a society because we can never truly assure individual liberty when you are part of a society. It doesn’t work that way.
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.
if you suppose that the right to bear arms stems from your right to defend yourself, logic and fact quickly bring us to a place that makes no sense ( at least that doesn’t make sens for me) making the initial statement absurd.
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.
No one pretends that a gun could only potentially be used to defend oneself. Everyone who carries a gun does so because it is a lethal weapon (that means it can kill things). No one anywhere has ever pretended otherwise.
Killing a killer preserves the life of those whom would be the killers victim. Having a lethal weapon would accomplish that task. That is how killing can save innocent lives.
The fact that you refer to three people for your crowd appeal fallacy (on a site where you have been hundreds) says a lot. It's right up there with your appeal.to authority in the King of the World at the UN.
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.
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.
You would respond to a post like this by saying that someone should take me aside for a chat. You've created a whole character of me based mostly on the straw men you attack while loosing arguments. You would call the windmill mad while you tilt at it.
You deny or deflect when questioned on things you say , now you’re running from questions asked as in you claim health care should not be at a cost to others yet gun violence costs American taxpayers 230 billion dollars a year and you’re fine with that I don’t blame you fleeing as you have no defence
Also you’re now claiming humans don’t decide fundamental rights but cannot explain who does ......bet you keep running coward
Look at that! You finally admit I answered your stupid question.
More deflection, you stupidly claimed fundamental human rights don’t exist 😂😂 You said humans don’t decide them yet being the prize idiot you are after 2 days this is your best response 😂😂😂
What was the name of the guy who decided DNA was fundamental to.life?
You need to lie down your insanity is escalating alarmingly
Americans downplay the fact a gun is a lethal weapon designed to kill by using ridiculous language as in “ a gun is a tool “ and “ guns don’t kill people . People kill people”
Americans you included state they have a gun for protection then spend all their time telling how they live in a very safe society , typically every position you hold you end up contradicting and then deny you’re doing so
It's not only a gun on the ground. Legally speaking, an armed person is not a lethal threat merely by being armed. That goes for cops and civilians. Some states allow people to openly carry firearms. Cops don't get to just shoot them for that. There needs to be more than mere possession. Just as armed civilians are not legally a lethal threat by merely being armed, neither are police.
There have been cases where a person shooting at cops plead self defense and eventually won. The only way to do that is if you can show you had no way of knowing it was a cop. The idea being that the officer is trying to effect an arrest, which they have the authority to do and you can fight it in court.
Did you leave the US for another country? Or are you a Sovereign Citizen within the geographic borders of the US? If you're in another country, do you like those people more?
There have been cases where a person shooting at cops plead self defense and eventually won. The only way to do that is if you can show you had no way of knowing it was a cop. The idea being that the officer is trying to effect an arrest, which they have the authority to do and you can fight it in court.
The fact that the person is or isn’t a cop shouldn’t be a condition to whether your self-defense is valid or not. But as you stated, if you can demonstrate you be don’t know the person was a cop you can legally shoot.
My point stands though: the US presents as a land where self-defense is a natural right and that through the right to bear arms, that right is protected. But you still can’t shoot a cop when a cop can shoot you. so we are all born with the right to self defense.... except when the threat is presented by a cop. In that case your right to self defense is taken away?
Did you leave the US for another country? Or are you a Sovereign Citizen within the geographic borders of the US? If you're in another country, do you like those people more?
Haha, I left the US as a law abiding citizen. I left to live in another country. The truth it took me 10 years. I lived in 2 counties before being where I am now.
The country I live in now has many flaws and its share of idiots ( like all places) but the people fundamentally have less hate in their hearts.
My point stands though: the US presents as a land where self-defense is a natural right and that through the right to bear arms, that right is protected.
Which of course is silly because by arming people you only create an increased need for self-defence which wouldn't be there otherwise. You also create a state of paranoia where people are worried their assailants might be better armed, which ultimately leads to a culture of one-upmanship.
The country I live in now has many flaws and its share of idiots ( like all places) but the people fundamentally have less hate in their hearts.
Many Americans who spend a lot of time abroad (especially in Europe) eventually reach the point where they no longer understand the United States and have no desire to return there.
Which of course is silly because by arming people you only create an increased need for self-defence which wouldn't be there otherwise.
Yessss!
Many Americans who spend a lot of time abroad (especially in Europe) eventually reach the point where they no longer understand the United States and have no desire to return there.
I never understood the US... I never felt like it is the country I should live in. I do not hold a lot of its values. I have lived in Europe. I didn’t stay because I didn’t feel it either. But yes, definitely don’t see myself living in the US anymore.
Tame Talking African grey Parrots. I have beautiful African grey Parrots tame talking parrots very healthy and active parrots best age for train no bite very good around the kids I can deliver on cheap price all in the US,Canada
Many Americans who spend a lot of time abroad (especially in Europe) eventually reach the point where they no longer understand the United States and have no desire to return there.
"Many" is a subjective term. When referring to a country that is on net immigration prone and has the highest population of immigrants in the world, this is one of your many baseless statements.
Being well travelled is what makes me glad to be here.
We are perfectly aware that you consider yourself privileged to have never left the delusional bubble you live in, but other Americans are more open-minded than that. They are prepared to seek value in other cultures and other ways of life, rather than stick their fingers in their ears and refuse to listen to any point of view other than their own.
Kitchen knives are for chopping vegetables with you contemptible idiot. If you believed they would protect you then you would not feel the need to own seven guns, we would not be having this conversation, and I would not be laughing at you for being such a paranoid psychopath.
The knife that murdered a local woman a while back may have been for chopping vegetables. If only she had a gun for self defense, that vegetable chopper may not have gotten her.
If you believed they would protect you then you would not feel the need to own seven guns
You haven't asked me what those are all for. You think I carry around 7 guns? My nail gun would protect me against boards. My kitchen knife would protect me from vegetables, and maybe even some fruit.
Here's a question, is the number of guns you own infinitely small; or just 0?
we would not be having this conversation
You and I don't have conversations. You troll with stupid shit, and sometimes I engage it.
It really seems that the parts you quote are the only parts you read.
Absolutely. I try to avoid reading your irrelevant platitudes whenever possible. You can't form a coherent argument, stay on topic, or even write three consecutive sentences without contradicting yourself.
The fact that a person is or is not a cop is relevant insofar as the cop is operating properly in their official capacity. If a cop becomes an active mass shooter, on be would be prosecuted for killing them. But if the cop is attempting to arrest you, your self defense occurs in the court room.
You better ease up my friend surely you must be terrified mocking resident tough guy Amarel .....he has six guns and a knife 🔪 and a wife 🐄 with mace .........I’m quaking 😱
Pretty much everyone else calls me two couch Amarel on account of me owning two couches. Yeah you heard right. TWO couches. Also, I have seven guns now and a whole kitchen full of knives.
Wow I thought you were done! I think I will end this here because I feel like I am arguing with a bad lawyer.
I mistakenly embarked on this ship hoping we will discuss the nuances of the law and its many contradictions on the subject of gun ownership, right to self-defense and where the police (government) stands in all of this. But you just keep stating the obvious. It’s ok. I thank you for taking the time to answer me.
Wow I thought you were done! I think I will end this here because I feel like I am arguing with a bad lawyer.
You are arguing with a complete unadulterated moron and a coward. The man seeks power over others always, which is why he feels the need to own seven different firearms. He quite simply is not worth your time.
If you were arguing with a bad lawyer who merely states the obvious in the service of wrong position, one would think a response would come easily. That is unless the position is right.
When an argument can be made with obvious points, it more effectively demonstrates a factual basis, which is much more difficult to counter. As appears to be the case here
Buy 2C-B Online In AustraliaBlue Domino MDMABuy Crystal MDMA For Sale OnlineBuy MDMA Powder Online Australia
Buy liquid LSD Online MelbourneBuy Gel Tabs Acid Online In AustraliaBuy LSD Blotters Online AustraliaLSD Crystal For Sale Onlinebuy-blue-mm-sprinklez-online-in-queenslandbuy-confetti-cookies-dough-cream
