Why are Democrats silent when a bus load of children are killed by a drunk driver?

We_are_accountable

@We_are_accountable

The silence is deafening. I guess I made my point.

Plaffelvohfen

IGNORE

TKDB

@Plaffelvohfen

Why do you say "Ignore," for?

There are 11 states in the U.S. that allow adults to enable kids with alcohol, in their own homes.

And it's a fact that kids, introduced to alcohol at a young age, are 6 times more likely to become alcoholics verses those kids, who didn't get introduced to alcohol by the adults in their own homes.

Happy_Killbot

@We_are_accountable Most people who regularly use this website already disagree with gun control. On top of that, you just make all the same ignorant arguments I have told you before you shouldn't make because they undermine your own position.

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/65539/#Comment_65539

The argument you make is very close to the emboldened one and is weak for the reason stated:

...I would typically try to avoid the following for reasons stated in parenthesis.

• The country had lower rates of gun violence in the past when guns were more common (The gun numbers per person have fluctuated but mathematically there is no correlation and the older data is not reliable)
• Only mentally ill people are responsible for gun crime (This is completely false. Many of the perpetrators had no record of mental illness and some were even living stable lives)
• American culture is mostly to blame for increases in gun violence, therefore it is not the weapons fault and we would be better off banning violent TV (It is true that hollywood glamorizes guns and influences gun culture, but this argument proposes censorship as a means of fixing gun violence and no rational person would believe that it would work. It is also exactly the kind of policy that gun owning citizens should be fighting against )
• No restriction abortion/separation of church and state is the cause of increased immorality (these arguments are classic non-sequitur)
• There are tons of stabbings in nations that have gun control laws, meaning that the criminals are still a problem (This argument you have to be careful with, because presented like this is very weak. When presented as "behind every gun is a criminal" or "guns don't kill people, people kill people" which is one of the favorite arguments of gun advocates, it is lightly stronger but still weak as a convincing argument, because it misses the point entirely that the gun-control  crowd is trying to make, which is that you can do less damage with a knife than you can with a gun. For this reason, I typically try to avoid this argument altogether.)

Simply put, your argument is: "Alcohol related drunk drivers kill far more children than guns do, so if the purpose is to save lives, democrats should therefore be more focused on preventing drunk drivers."

First off, this argument is a non-sequitur. The fact that people die from both guns and drunks is evidence enough that there needs to be focus on both. For example Cardiovascular disease kills the most people, but neither major party freaks out about this, so by your logic both parties would be guilty of not having their priorities straight. If you want to demonize alcohol to make guns a "lesser devil" you do not therefore make them something positive.

Your argument contains nothing but straw men when you refer to the arguments made by gun-control advocates. If you want to debate effectively, you need to at the least be able to understand what the other's argument is, and when you drop straw men it makes you look like you have no idea what you are talking about. Debate is supposed to be about knowing if something you think is , but you seem more interested in thinking that everyone else is and your beliefs are golden.

The way you present your arguments is as usual, dishonest and in general makes you look weak, as if you have no idea what you are talking about.

We_are_accountable

@Happy_Killbot

It would be nice if you ever grasped the point of debates.

Since I have to once again explain it to you...

This debate is to show that the Democrat war on Guns has little to do with SAVING LIVES! Can you grasp the point?

My debate is showing how drunk driving is a much bigger killer of children then these mass shootings in schools and elsewhere. The fact that they do not politicize every terrible drunk driving catastrophy is because saving lives has NOTHING to do with their fixation over Gun control.

I am not driving people away from pro gun stances by stating this fact! GET REAL AND START HELPING TO DISPELL THE DECEPTION FROM THE LEFT. There are many ways to open the minds of voters to the phony lies from Democrats over their so called concerns for loss of life.

Back ground checks on repeat DWI offenders, before selling them alcohol, would have an immediate effect on drunk driving deaths. I do not want this, but if Democrats truly wanted to save lives, alcohol is a much bigger killer. My debate shows their true motives. If you can not understand how this will educate the electorate, then you are the one hurting the Pro Gun positions.

Stop insulting those trying to protect our Gun rights. I AM NOT hurting our cause!

Happy_Killbot

@We_are_accountable

If you are trying to make a statement about gun-control advocates appealing to emotion, you should call them out on that.

What you are saying is: The democrats are clearly not interested in saving lives because if they were, they would focus on bigger killers such as alcohol related traffic accidents

It's still a non-sequitur for the same reasons.

Just because there are things out there that maybe should be a bigger priority doesn't mean that they are not looking to save lives by putting common sense restrictions on guns.

Consider this analogy to show the fallacy in your reasoning:

Alice doesn't like snakes. Bob doesn't like mosquitoes but doesn't mind snakes. Alice tells bob that we should get rid of all the snakes because they can kill people. Bod says to Alice that this is silly because mosquitoes kill way more people, and reasons that Alice must not be interested in helping people survive.

You are making the same fallacy here.

We_are_accountable

@Happy_Killbot

Your analogy does not apply because Democrats never say they do not like guns, as Alice said she does not like snakes. If Alice had said she had no problem with snakes but wants to save lives, then your analogy would fit.

Democrat reasoning for gun restrictions on so called assault rifles, is to cut down on the number of peoplel being killed at one event. They have no problem with a few people getting killed. If saving lives were their main focus, Guns would not be their priority.
It would be paramout to spending all their time saving 5 deaths per year from hang gliding, while saying nothing about so many more deadly killers.

Let's say Alice did say she is ok with snakes, but only wants to rid the planet of those bad assault snakes that kill more people at a time. Bob could say we could save more people by ridding the planet of mosquitoes. They could both be correct and I get your point.
The sad part is that Democrats do not just want the so called assault rifles. Their goal is taking all our guns one step at a time as they have done in Europe.

The problem with your analogy is that Guns are not killers on their own, such as a snake or Mosquito. It takes a killer behind the gun. He is the culprit, not the weapon of choice.

I do agree that my argument does not make the Democrat's war on guns incorrect, which I have never refuted. If we banned all guns, then there would obviously be fewer deaths by guns. Would there be fewer deaths all together? Maybe, who knows. Maybe more people would die from Trucks, bombs, poison, etc.

What I am trying to do is to show the motive of Democrats, which I believe is control of the people. Just as they have done in most Communist and Socialist nations. It's not about saving lives.

Sure we could all give up our freedoms to protect ourselves, freedoms to target shoot, freedoms to hunt, and there would be fewer deaths by guns. We all know the downside risks to freedom, but we also know the greater upside to freedom. The ability to prevent a dictatorship from controlling our lives.

The bottom line is that I am trying to educate people to the Left's motives around gun control. It's not about saving lives. Their ultimate goal is taking our guns.

I want you to keep fighting your fight with regards to our Constitutional right's to gun ownership because that will be the ultimate victory in courts.

I will fight them on every front because the bottom line? The voters will ultimately decide by supporting these anti Gun politicians, or keeping them out of office. The people have the control, and I'm trying to educate them, as are you. We are on the same side, and we are both helping our case, not hurting it.

I want people to understand that Democrats are coming after our guns, including our hunting rifles, hand guns, etc.
Their definition of assault rifles makes many of our hunting rifles illegal, and it is only their first step. When we ask them to describe an assualt rifle, they never are willing to admit it includes guns in our homes. 

Happy_Killbot

@We_are_accountable ; The analogy is to demonstrate the fallacy in your reasoning, it is not supposed to correlate with gun control in any way, so you totally missed the point.

Your argument doesn't demonstrate that the saving lives motive is non-existent, you should go back to the drawing board and start over.

We might have similar views, but we are not exactly on the same side. I view you as a lose cannon at best, and that is something I don't want to associate with, because the way you debate causes those who are genuinely curious about what side to be on to be more likely to move to the opposition. Remember, debate is never about convincing your interlocutor, it is always about convincing a third party who can be assumed to be indifferent or undecided. When you present arguments, the goal should be to say things that would be universally understood, not just things that make sense to you, which is why there is so much emphasis on logical fallacies and ration arguments.


Like everything in politics, the most important thing is usually what is never said or discussed. Here is what the gun debate is really about, and the true reason for gun control:

For gun control, that thing is ownership of private property.  The purpose of weapons is defense from invaders and those seeking to steal your assets. The reason gun control advocacy is becoming so popular, is because fewer and fewer people own land and capital assets. The purpose of weapons is to protect that property and those assets. The goal here is not to take away the guns, no, that is just silly conspiracy nonsense. You have to look deeper into the core motivations of people to find out what the underlying purpose is.

Our neo-liberal system will tend to concentrate power and wealth into the hands of just a few people, eventually making it so that gun ownership is unnecessary, and at this point people will not need to give up their guns, because they already won't have any with no purpose to own them. At this point, gun control will win.

Consequentially, this is also the solution to the gun control debate. When all land and resources become centralized, then nobody needs to own weapons. The more people own land and resources, the more people will want guns to protect those assets. The solution is to put more money into the hands of ordinary citizens, so that they will be able to use that to purchase the assets that will then require protection.

smoothie

I would like to add the debate of drunk driving is a bipartisan issue and not something very debatable between these two major parties. Comparing this to a gun-control debate is frankly unrealistic

Most drunk driving deaths are the result of the driver's negligence and not bloodlust. If a driver wanted to kill somebody they wouldn't need alcohol at all. A better analogy would be "car-control" which we already have plenty of.

xlJ_dolphin_473

I do not believe that alcohol should be banned. It is the driver's responsibility to drive safely, and they will be austerely punished if they drink-drive.

We_are_accountable

@Happy_Killbot

First off, I can not believe you actually think it is a conspiracy theory that the Left, in the Democrat Party, want to take our guns? Are you serious?
You are the very people I'm trying to educate. We already see some Democrats comng out of the closet admitting their goal is taking our guns!

You will call them the fringe Left in the Party, and nothing to worry about. Every extreme issue we have today started out with these so called fringe groups. Guess, what? Those extreme fringe positions are now accepted by the vast majority of the Party.

Remember when Democrats said they were Pro life?
Remember when they did not support No Restriction late term abortions?
Remember when Democrats said they were against Gay marriage?
Remember when Democrats said they supported the Hyde Amendment?
Remember when Democrats said they did not want to force public schools to allow Transgender boys in girl's sports?
Remember when Democrats said they did not want to allow illegal immigrants on our welfare system?
Remember when Democrats said they did not want LGBT groups talking to our children in public schools?

I could go on and on. I have lived long enough to witness all the denials of their Party being taken over by so called "fringe groups".
What used to be extreme is now their norm.

I 100% guarantee you that the Democrat Party's ultimate goal is taking our guns, exactly in the same manner as European nations have done. Did you know that approximately 100 years ago, England started their slow never ending process of gun regulations and restrictions, and have finally acheieved their goals of taking most of the guns from private citizens?

The only possible explanation why you are blind to what the Democrat Party has become, is because you still vote for them? With all the flip fops from these Democrats over the past years, you have the nerve to call me a loose cannon when seeing through their denials?

Yes, I want to educate and convince a third Party debater to the extreme phoniness of the Democrat Party, and how they will always deny their true motive and gaols, so to get your vote. I'm funny that way, I would like people to understand the Left's true motives, and gve examples of statistics on Drunk driving deaths etc. to get my point across. It's not about saving lives, it's about taking our guns!

Democrats are proven liars and have no core values to prevent them from flip flopping on every issue of our land.

Let me ask you a simple question... do you actually believe that if the Democrat Party's true goal were taking our guns, they would admit it? They would be laughed off the stage if they were to admit such an extreme position. They are doing with guns what they have done with abortion, LGBT agendas, illegal immigrants, etc. etc.
They slowly peck away at the boundaries of an issue, never seeming too extreme, until a large enough percentage of the electorate has become desensitized to their outright support of an extreme position.

As Obama told us before his first election, that he was against Gay marriage, AND THEN FLIP FLOPPED AFTER GETTING ELECTED, this is the modus operandi of their Party! He not only flip flopped, he was a cheer leader for Gay marriage!
I am the one being rational here. To ignore the never ending progression of the Democrat Party's extremisim, would be insane.

I am the one discussing what this gun deabte is really about... it's about taking our guns one step at a time! You keep fighting the good fight when it comes to the Constitution protecting our rights, and i will continue showing everyone what deceptive extremists these Democeat Politicians have become.

For you to equate the acceptance of gun control as the fault of income disparity is laughable. Socialist nations are the first ones to take guns! Corrupt Governments with too much power over the people, take guns to hold onto that power.
You sound like Bernie Sanders telling us all how it's those rich people to blame for everything.

People living in apartments need guns for protection just as much, or more, then any person who owns land.

There will ALWAYS be evil in this world, and we will ALWAYS need guns, no matter how rich or poor you are.

You sound like a Democrat who is trying to hold onto some memory of a past Democrat Party. You want to deny what you see with your own eyes. You want to keep your guns, while electing those bent on taking them. You are so easily deceived by this extreme Party.
My eyes are wide open, and have yet to be wrong about what Democrat's truly stand for.

We_are_accountable

@xlJ_dolphin_473

That's my point, I also do not want to have back ground checks on alcohol. I want people behind the weapon to be responsible, and to be punished when they kill others, whether with guns or cars. It's not the weapon, it's the person behind the weapon.

xlJ_dolphin_473

We_are_accountable said:

@xlJ_dolphin_473

That's my point, I also do not want to have back ground checks on alcohol. I want people behind the weapon to be responsible, and to be punished when they kill others, whether with guns or cars. It's not the weapon, it's the person behind the weapon.

In that case, I agree with you. 

We_are_accountable

@smoothie

The entire point of this debate is to show that the Democrat's war on guns has NOTHING to do with saving ives. Socialists always want to disarm the people to make it easier to control the masses.

Happy_Killbot

@We_are_accountable I want you to know, I didn't read past the first sentence because it is clear from that that you either didn't read or didn't comprehend what I wrote.

I do not in any way think that the DNC having many gun control advocates is a conspiracy, I am speaking against that belief.

We_are_accountable

@Happy_Killbot

If you refuse to read other's opinions, it proves how unbending you are to different points of view. I can't debate that type of arrogance.

Happy_Killbot

@We_are_accountable Okay... So did you read what I wrote then? I'm sure you would want things to be fair right?

I do not think that the DNC has a conspiracy to take everyone's guns away, that is just ludicrous, why would you think that I would think that?

We_are_accountable

@Happy_Killbot

Yes, I read your words. I will admit I do not open all of the many sites you sometimes post. Too many sites at once shuts me down

I do not believe all Democrats conspire on what steps they must take to slowly erode our gun rights. I believe there are radical Democrat Socialists who absolutely do do this. The theme to many of my debates is a warning that the Democrat Party is being taken over by their extreme Left base.

Trump labled some of the new freshment Democrats as the squad. I believe these are some of the extreme Left Democrats who pushed Pelosi to impeach Trump. She did not want to do so and was pressured to do so. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is one of the Squad members who is helping Bernie Sander's election campaign. Have you noticed Sanders is a Socialist and the Democrat front runner?

You would probably deny that the Democrat Party is becoming Socialists as well. Would you have called that a conspiracy also? Seventy six percent of Democrats polled said they would be wlling to vote for a Socialist if he were their nominee.

Guess what? I will bet you that those same 76% would vote for a Democrat who said his goal was to take our guns. If you are a Democrat, I understand your hesitancy to believe what we are so clearly seeing in your Party.

It is happening, and the powers to be in the Party want to take our guns. They simply do not have enough voters on board at this time. When enough of the electorate is suffieciently brainwashed to fear guns, you will see a flip flop as quickly as Obama became a cheer leader for Gay marriage. As quickly as Joe Biden was pressured to flip flop on the Hyde Amendment.

Why do you think with each mass shooting, the Left pushes their anti Gun scare tactics. They are instilling fear into the electorate! They are conditioning the people to fear guns as they do with every other agenda they have. Fear is their modus operandi.

These so called moderate Democrats have a choice to make. Get on board with their Left wing base, or lose funding for elections. I guarantee you these extreme Left Democrats want to take our guns. Some have already admitted it.

Happy_Killbot

@We_are_accountable I don't know why you would be looking to Trump to defend your gun rights, when he backs red flag gun laws, so he would be implicated in any "Democratic conspiracy"

There is no conspiracy on the left to take away people's guns. What the left wants is common sense gun laws, such as background checks, mandatory waiting periods, buy back programs, and manufacturing standards, the latter of which I agree with because I don't want to buy faulty weapons.

You aren't educating anyone on anything, you are just going to push people farther away if anything. The best way to actually convince people of something is to make them think they thought of it, which is basically impossible on the internet, and it is even more impossible when what you are saying isn't grounded in reality.

I have told you above what gun control is actually about, but the question is, what are you doing to stop the problem from it's root, or in other words, are you doing anything to support individuals who desire private land ownership?

We_are_accountable

@Happy_Killbot

So you choose to just ignore all the precident i have given you to the other issues that Democrats once said they opossed.

You know the saying... fool me once shame on you, fool me a hundred times,shame on me.

How many times will Democrats have to flip flp before you stop believing a word out of their mouth?

Trump passed no federal red flag law. He said he might be in favor of some type of red flag law keeping guns out of the hands of someone who was deemed an extreme risk to the public. I have no problems with preventing criminals from getting guns, but how the law was worded would be very important. I believe you would need more evidence then the say so from one person, a jilted spouse, or an angry co worker, etc.

Trump is a big time pro gun advocate and to compare the red flag law to what Democrats want is crazy.

I have no idea why you are trying to equate private land ownership with guns. Gun owners come from all walks of life. Some rent, some own homes, some are rich, etc. etc.

Happy_Killbot

@We_are_accountable If you support laws that keep weapons out of the hands of potentially dangerous people, then you are on the same page as most democrats. The DNC is not going to be able to completely ban weapons, and that isn't their goal.

Remember, they are just taking stances that the population supports, which is how they got elected into power in the first place. So the gun laws they do support are ones that the population supports.

The question then becomes: "What circumstances would lead someone to support gun laws?"

The answer is fairly straight forward: No use or desire to own the weapons which will be restricted and a perceived high potential for those weapons to be a danger or detriment to that individual, or the individual's conception of society.

If we look at the demographic of those who have these views, we will find that they are:

• Predominantly female: 58% v 40% male
• slightly younger, 18-29 56%
• low income < $30k 56%
• liberal Democrat 74%
• Catholic 62%
• Urban 57%

https://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/old-assets/pdf/gun-control-2011.pdf

So the question here, is what is the connection between gun ownership and property right? The connection has to do with what each individual is allowed to do on his or her land. Private property is supposed to basically function as a mini country, on your land your rules, and if you want to set any kind of laws of your own, you are allowed to enforce those rules as necessary within the confines of the law. However, shifting demographics, and especially people moving into cities and suburbs makes this type of political theory mostly irrelevant, because people no longer are truly property owners, they either rent or live in an area that is secure enough that gun ownership would be unnecessary, so without a use for weapons they become a liability. Once this happens, it would seem to make more sense to the citizens that guns are not only unnecessary, but dangerous.

This is what the connection is, not an equality, but rather a dependency. When people own their own land and assets, there is a use for guns. When people don't, they become a liability.

Any state, city, or county that has unfavorable property laws, will inevitably trend toward gun control policy over time. Favorable property rights can reverse that, because it creates a strong incentive to own guns, and therefore a strong incentive to oppose gun control legislation.

We_are_accountable

@Happy_Killbot

You just said something that reinforces my remarks on how the Democrat Party instills fear in the electorate to acheive their ultimate goals. This is their modus operandi!

You said... "Remember, they are just taking stances that the population supports, which is how they got elected into power in the first place. So the gun laws they do support are ones that the population supports.

The question then becomes: "What circumstances would lead someone to support gun laws?"

NO, the Democrat Party is not simply taking stances that the population supports. They are the ones shaping public opinion with all their anti gun fear mongering with every shooting!
You can not be so blind to what they have been doing for decades with their gun control rhetoric! They condition the electorate with whatever issue they embrace. It is non stop indoctrination! NON STOP! They condition people to Big Brother's political correctness, not the other way around.

This is why I say that saving lives is not the Democrat Party's motive with Gun control. They instill fear in the electorate on one weapon of choice... the Gun!
They are shaping public opinion with fear tactics, just as they do with every policy they support. Their ultimate goal is taking our guns just as so much of Europe has done. The Democrat Party has a love affair with Socialist Europe.

Do you actually think the electorate was dwelling on "Climate Change" before the Left's decades long environmental crusade against fossil fuels?
Do you think the electorate was actually dwelling on Gay marriage before the Left started non stop cheer leading LGBT agendas all over the air waves?
Do you actually think America was demanding that every public school should change their history books to speak about Transgender and Gay figures?
Do you think America is demanding that we start forcing all schools to allow boys, who think they are girls, into our daughter's sports?
The Democrat Party and liberal media are the bully pulpit of America's conscience.

 

If you look at gun deaths and crime, it is not a huge problem in suburbs, rural America, places with the greatest land ownership. The vast majority of gun deaths happen in big cities where there is very little porperty ownership.
You say that non property owners live in areas that are secure enough where gun ownership would be unnecessary.

Big cites are not safe at all. The police never get to a shooting until after the fact! People do not feel safe in Big cities. They need personal protection from all the crime and gun violence. Property owners in rural areas feel very safe, and own guns for a variety of reasons.

Happy_Killbot

@We_are_accountable There is something so fundamentally wrong with your logic I'm not sure how to properly address it.

Does change happen?

We_are_accountable

@Happy_Killbot

Yes change happens, and it happens as a result of who controls the messaging. So many people are so easily conditioned to whatever Government or the media, or our schools, wants them to believe.

We_are_accountable

@Happy_Killbot

There is something fundamentally wrong with your blindness to this political correctness being pushed on the people. You are showing me how hard it is to break through your conditioning.

Happy_Killbot

@We_are_accountable So is all change always brought about by changing the message, or can other things such as the physical environment change things too?

We_are_accountable

@Happy_Killbot

Yes, physical environment can effect change to a point, but what we see with every physical change, is politicians using it to their advantage and thereby sensationalizing the issue. Whether it be a mass shooting, severe storms, corona virus, etc. etc., there will be corrupt politicians exaggerating the impacts of changes, using them for politcal purposes. This is when Government will shape public opinions, not the other way around.

Has the climate changed over the past decade? Sure it has, but it is not all the fault of fossil fuels. All this doomsday prognostication is pure political grandstanding and low end voters will suck it right up.

Most of these mass shootings would have gone forward even with all the Democrat Gun restrictions being implemented. Many of the shootings happened because the shooter got his gun from a family member, or theft, etc. and the new laws would not have prevented it. But this never stops the Democrat Party from blaming lack of restrictions.

Change happens for many reasons, but most of this LGBT hysteria has been politically and media driven. No question about that fact.

AlofRI

We_are_accountable said:

@Happy_Killbot

Yes change happens, and it happens as a result of who controls the messaging. So many people are so easily conditioned to whatever Government or the media, or our schools, wants them to believe.

This is really kind of . WHY would ANYONE teach things we don't want people to believe?? One doesn't need to be "conditioned" to believe things there is EVIDENCE to BELIEVE! Believing things there is NO evidence to believe is REAL idiocy! I don't know of any public school that teaches non-factual or non-theoretical (with non-factual/theoretical backup). They teach what is KNOWN or legitimately theorized and let free minds believe what they consider FACT! They take it from there and either prove or disprove what they learned was fact!

That is unlike a religious schools where they "condition" minds to believe things there is NO evidence of, except for an ancient book that is "considered" fact …. 'cause earlier minds were conditioned by parents, or salesmen of invisible products! I DO agree THAT is the result of who controls the messaging! The "controllers" do NOT encourage the re-thinking of the "facts". THEY want strict support of the "messaging" they have learned. Public (government) education encourages taking the "facts learned" and go from there …. WHEREVER they lead!

Your "facts" lead to your "God" … or HELL if one finds they DON'T!  A REALLY "well conditioned" mind! 

Happy_Killbot

@We_are_accountable Climate change is severely accelerated by the expulsion of CO2 into the environment via the burning of fossil fuels, that isn't doomsday propaganda, that is just the harsh reality of our world. If we fail to do something about fossil fuels, the planet will become much less habitable than it currently is and there will be all kinds of economic and civil issues resulting from that.

Politicians who talk about it are not trying to grab power except inso far as it is useful to do so, because if the oil mongols are still in power they will continue to profit from the consumption of fossil fuels.

You really shouldn't say things like "The crimes would have happened anyways because they got their guns elsewhere" because this is actually a strong argument to ban all guns.

There still isn't a problem with LGBTQ persons, and after all the harassment and mistreatment they have endured because people seem to think they are "Immoral and hated by god" I think it is only moral that they receive equal institutional protection.

We_are_accountable

@AlofRI

When you can actually admit your unbelievable hypocrisy, and stop your double standards, we will talk.

NEWSFLASH, homosexuality and Trangenderism is not natural normal science. It is a bunch of LGBT activists trying to indoctribate our children to a lie! No one is trying to force religious teachings into public schools. You are so patheticall deceptive, it's embarrassing.

IGNORE

We_are_accountable

@Happy_Killbot

Again you twist what we on the Right are concerned with. We are not saying that fossil fuels have no impact on greenhouse gasses, we are saying it is not all about fossil fuels, and that the planet we know will not end in a few decades. This is hysteria from a Democrat Party using the issue for political purposes. Their draconian answers would destroy America' economy and do nothing to force China and other nations to equally change.

Again you bring this LGBT hysteria down to a Christian issue of homosexuality being a sin. You do not hear me saying this, but here you are STILL pushing the deception.

This issue has much more to do with the Science of Biology then religion. These unnatural sexual orientations ARE NOT NORMAL AND SHOULD NEVER BE TAUGHT TO OUR CHILDREN IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS AS BEING SO!

It has nothing to do with equality, it has everything to do with indoctrination!

Happy_Killbot

@We_are_accountable The only people who are saying the world is ending is the super far left green party nuts that most democrats won't touch with a 30 foot pole, everyone know this.

The thing with LGBTQ issues is, I have yet to see a single reason that anyone would be opposed to them being allowed to marry that isn't based on religion. If you have an argument that has nothing to do with religion, make it now.

Sexual desires and even homosexual desires are perfectly normal, please stop saying they are not, unless you want to have a formal debate on that subject.

We_are_accountable

@Happy_Killbot

I am opposed to Gay marriage for the simple fact that it goes against your evolution, and against Science, whereby male and females are designed to come together in a natural union.

If you waste my time with the ludicrous rhetoric of so called Gay animals, we are done here.

You ask me why I should care? I've explained many times. I am all about our children growing up learning the natural science of Biology, and the natural design of our sexuality.

When society embraces unnatural unions with a Government sanctioned marriage contract, we are telling our impressionable children that Gay marriages are normal and maybe something to experiment with. Our children deserve to be taught SCIENCE. Stop with all this LGBT political correct lunacy.

Few people were fighting against civil unions whereby Gays could be afforded the same benefits as Heterosexuals. But this was not their ultimate goal as I keep telling you. Their goal is to force everyone to embrace an unnatural sexual orientation, just so they can feel more secure about themselves.

Christianity and evolution comes together and agrees when it comes to our natural sexuality and design. Why do you deny Science? It's none of my business but i suspect you are Gay. I've found that most often, it will be Gay people trying to ridiculle those trying to protect our children from LGBT indoctrination. Who else would worry so about being denied the right to condition our children?

Happy_Killbot

@We_are_accountable Do you have a reason that isn't an appeal to nature fallacy?

I will not accept any argument that is blatantly fallacious.

If you cared for your kids you would teach them about the reality of homosexuality and not your make-believe assertion that it is in any way wrong or unnatural, because it is a part of nature, like it or not.

We_are_accountable

@Happy_Killbot

Like it or not, it will never be a natural part of nature. It has nothing to do with Christianity calling it a sin. It goes against nature itself and the reason I will never teach my kids to embrace it as normal.

I will tell my kids to treat everyone with love and respect no matter their differences, but i will never lie to them for the sake of insecurity from Gay activists. When children are mature enough to understand sexual orientations, this is the time when questions are asked, and education is given. You can teach your kids that it is normal and I will teach mine it is not.

Either way, no one has the right to indoctrinate my children, and no one has the right to indoctrinate your children. These issues should never be part of a public school's corriculum.

Happy_Killbot

@We_are_accountable So you would lie to your kids because of your ideology?

What evidence do you have that homosexuality is not a part of nature, when it clearly is?

CYDdharta

Happy_Killbot said:

Like everything in politics, the most important thing is usually what is never said or discussed. Here is what the gun debate is really about, and the true reason for gun control:

For gun control, that thing is ownership of private property.  The purpose of weapons is defense from invaders and those seeking to steal your assets. The reason gun control advocacy is becoming so popular, is because fewer and fewer people own land and capital assets. The purpose of weapons is to protect that property and those assets. The goal here is not to take away the guns, no, that is just silly conspiracy nonsense. You have to look deeper into the core motivations of people to find out what the underlying purpose is.

Our neo-liberal system will tend to concentrate power and wealth into the hands of just a few people, eventually making it so that gun ownership is unnecessary, and at this point people will not need to give up their guns, because they already won't have any with no purpose to own them. At this point, gun control will win.

Consequentially, this is also the solution to the gun control debate. When all land and resources become centralized, then nobody needs to own weapons. The more people own land and resources, the more people will want guns to protect those assets. The solution is to put more money into the hands of ordinary citizens, so that they will be able to use that to purchase the assets that will then require protection.

This is inaccurate.  Since 1965, home ownership has been fairly steady, fluctuating between 62.9% to 69.2%.  It's been on the upswing since the 2nd quarter of 2016.  OTOH,in 2019, the number of household that own one of more guns rivels 2013 for the lowest gun ownership rate.

CYDdharta

Happy_Killbot said:

There is no conspiracy on the left to take away people's guns. What the left wants is common sense gun laws, such as background checks, mandatory waiting periods, buy back programs, and manufacturing standards, the latter of which I agree with because I don't want to buy faulty weapons.

We already have background checks and manufacturing standards.  Waiting periods have never been shown to reduce crime, neither have buy back programs, though buy backs have been a great way for criminals to get rid of evidence.

We_are_accountable

@CYDdharta

I agree with you. I am positive that the Democrat Party's ultimate goal is taking our guns as they have done in Europe.

They will never admit it until they have scared enough of the electorate to fear guns.

CYDdharta

We_are_accountable said:

@CYDdharta

I agree with you. I am positive that the Democrat Party's ultimate goal is taking our guns as they have done in Europe.

They will never admit it until they have scared enough of the electorate to fear guns.

Some do.

ZeusAres42

CYDdharta said:

Happy_Killbot said:

There is no conspiracy on the left to take away people's guns. What the left wants is common sense gun laws, such as background checks, mandatory waiting periods, buy back programs, and manufacturing standards, the latter of which I agree with because I don't want to buy faulty weapons.

We already have background checks and manufacturing standards.  Waiting periods have never been shown to reduce crime, neither have buy back programs, though buy backs have been a great way for criminals to get rid of evidence.

@CYDdharta What is your point here? Are you suggesting that because you think the gun restrictions already put in place don't do much that there should be no restrictions at all? 

MayCaesar

Your problem, OP, is not that your positions are wrong per se, but that the way you choose to support them is logically so deeply flawed, it actually makes even those who hold the same positions as you want to criticize them. I agree with you on gun control, and I agree that the Democratic party is the one that goes the hardest after the guns - but, at the same time, you chose a very weak way to demonstrate it. The fact that Democrats do not talk about every single issue does not mean that their position on those issues they do talk about is dishonest.

You just have poor debating habits. Instead of throwing in a bunch of emotional argument and hoping to incite similar emotions in others, you should spend more time and effort properly structuring your argument, making it logically consistent, thinking of potential criticisms and adjusting your statements so they take those into account. Simply yelling "Democrats are bad-bad-bad!" all the time only makes you look like an immature person. Pretty bad recommendation for someone who claims they know better than most other parents how to raise kids.

CYDdharta

ZeusAres42 said:

@CYDdharta What is your point here? Are you suggesting that because you think the gun restrictions already put in place don't do much that there should be no restrictions at all? 

Just pointing out that these "common sense" gun laws lack common sense.

MayCaesar

We_are_accountable said:

@Happy_Killbot

I am opposed to Gay marriage for the simple fact that it goes against your evolution, and against Science, whereby male and females are designed to come together in a natural union.

Marriage has zero to do with evolution; it is a societal construct. There is no marriage in nature; there is no marriage between animals other than humans, and not even all human cultures have marriages.

Marriage is nothing more than the governmental recognition of the claim that two people love each other and want to be considered a couple. There is no reference to gender anywhere here, nor should it be.

There are valid arguments against homosexual marriage, but, as usual, you missed the mark. You would have a better argument on the practical grounds, claiming, say, that allowing homosexual marriages would slightly reduce the number of heterosexual marriages, which could have some long-term effects on the population scale that some people might see as undesirable.
But "it is against evolution" is not a valid argument. It is a lazy way to essentially say, "Someone told me that homosexual marriages are wrong, so they are wrong, albeit I do not know why". In fact, it is not against evolution by definition: if it was against evolution, then, by definition, it would not exist.

Perhaps you are starting to see the problem with your arguments now? It is not that your claims are bad; it is that your reasoning almost always is.

Happy_Killbot

@CYDdharta Land ownership and capital assets is separate from home ownership, because we have to take into consideration the location of home owners. Those who live in suburbs are much less likely to own a gun that those who live in cities, because there is less of a need for one. Where you live is just as important as well as who you are. People moving into cities and suburbs has had a drastic effect on the willingness of people to support gun rights.

Proving this relationship is a bit intensive, but I will do my best to explain it simply.

First thing is first, most gun owners tend to live in rural areas or small towns. Nothing controversial or surprising there.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/10/rural-and-urban-gun-owners-have-different-experiences-views-on-gun-policy/

However, at the same time more people have moved into cities and suburbs. This movement lessens the need for weapons and creates the cultural stigma which leads to decreased gun ownership, and eventually support for gun laws.

The theory, is that the return of private land ownership would have a positive effect on the support for gun rights, by creating an incentive to own guns, and increasing the public outlook on guns in general.

Not all states have safety standards for the manufacture of guns, so your assertion that there are is false. In many of these states, manufacture of "junk guns" (i.e. best way to lose a hand and an eye) is permissible.
https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/state-law/50-state-summaries/design-safety-standards-state-by-state/

Similarly, not all states require a background check, so again your assertion is objectively false.
https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/universal-background-checks/

Waiting periods are not meant to reduce crime, but rather to prevent suicide. When people are emotionally compromised, they usually need a period to calm down and then they will be fine. Guns make it much to easy for someone to end their own life. Waiting periods have been shown to reduce the firearm suicide rate by 7-11%. Gun deaths by suicide account for about 60% of all gun related deaths.
https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/gun-sales/waiting-periods/

If your goal was to make me be the devil's advocate, congratulations you have done that. I support gun ownership and am myself a bit of a gun nut, and while I support the 2nd amendment, I will not do so in a way that is deliberately disingenuous.

CYDdharta

Happy_Killbot said:

@CYDdharta Land ownership and capital assets is separate from home ownership, because we have to take into consideration the location of home owners. Those who live in suburbs are much less likely to own a gun that those who live in cities, because there is less of a need for one. Where you live is just as important as well as who you are. People moving into cities and suburbs has had a drastic effect on the willingness of people to support gun rights.

Proving this relationship is a bit intensive, but I will do my best to explain it simply.

First thing is first, most gun owners tend to live in rural areas or small towns. Nothing controversial or surprising there.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/07/10/rural-and-urban-gun-owners-have-different-experiences-views-on-gun-policy/

However, at the same time more people have moved into cities and suburbs. This movement lessens the need for weapons and creates the cultural stigma which leads to decreased gun ownership, and eventually support for gun laws.

The theory, is that the return of private land ownership would have a positive effect on the support for gun rights, by creating an incentive to own guns, and increasing the public outlook on guns in general.

Interesting theory, but there are a few flaws in it.  First, Americans are no longer moving to the cities;

Why So Many Americans Are Saying Goodbye to Cities

Second, suburbanites are more likely to own guns than city-dwellers;

Among adults who live in rural areas, 46% say they own a gun. By comparison, 28% of adults who live in the suburbs and even fewer – 19% – in urban areas own a gun.

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/americas-complex-relationship-with-guns/

Not all states have safety standards for the manufacture of guns, so your assertion that there are is false. In many of these states, manufacture of "junk guns" (i.e. best way to lose a hand and an eye) is permissible.
https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/state-law/50-state-summaries/design-safety-standards-state-by-state/

Not all states have specific safety standards for chain saws or meat grinders, either.  They are not needed and, like state firearms safety standards, would be superfluous.  There are federal laws and standards.  If a firearms was manufactured that failed to meet federal safety standards, they'd be quickly sued out of business, just like any other produce.

Similarly, not all states require a background check, so again your assertion is objectively false.
https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/background-checks/universal-background-checks/

Federal law requires a background check for every new gun purchase.

Waiting periods are not meant to reduce crime, but rather to prevent suicide. When people are emotionally compromised, they usually need a period to calm down and then they will be fine. Guns make it much to easy for someone to end their own life. Waiting periods have been shown to reduce the firearm suicide rate by 7-11%. Gun deaths by suicide account for about 60% of all gun related deaths.
https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/gun-sales/waiting-periods/

Waiting periods haven't been proven to prevent suicides.  People find other ways of killing themselves.

Waiting periods for firearm acquisition. Waiting periods for firearm acquisition require a specified delay between application for and acquisition of a firearm. Waiting periods have been established by the federal government and by states to allow time to check the applicant’s background or to provide a “cooling-off ” period for per-sons at risk of committing suicide or impulsive acts against others. Studies of the effects of waiting periods on violent outcomes yielded inconsistent results: some indicated a decrease in violent outcome associated with the delay and others indicated an increase. As noted previously, one study of the interim Brady Law indicated a statistically significant reduction in firearms suicide among persons aged>55 years associated with the waiting period requirement of the interim law. Several studies suggested a partial “substitution effect” for suicide (i.e., decreases in firearms suicide are accompanied by smaller increases in suicide by other means).

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/rr/rr5214.pdf

Additionally, I find it odd and hypocritical that someone who would advocate for abortion would care about the suicide rate.  If you're not worried about the most innocent lives being sacrificed, why would you be so concerned by volunteers?  Among the more popular mantras are "keep your laws off my body" and "my body is sovereign".  There is no greater authority any person or organization can have than being able to choose the time, method and circumstances of one's death.  This domination of a person's choice comes at a substantial price.  The primary reason people give for buying firearms is self-defense.  People have been killed waiting for the state to approve their means of self-defense.  There are more effective means of preventing suicides.

If your goal was to make me be the devil's advocate, congratulations you have done that. I support gun ownership and am myself a bit of a gun nut, and while I support the 2nd amendment, I will not do so in a way that is deliberately disingenuous.

Yet that's precisely what you're doing.

Happy_Killbot

@CYDdharta

While it is true that people are not moving into the cities and those who live in suburbs are more likely to own guns, these two points are not the most relevant, because gun ownership is not the best indicator of likelihood to support gun control laws. The theory doesn't have anything to say about if someone is more or less likely to own a gun, although I think it would be highly likely there would be correlation. About 42% of the US population owns at least one firearm, however 76% support stricter gun control laws, so there has to be at least an 18% overlap. The theory is to predict if someone is going to be in support of or opposed to gun control laws. It is therefore, more important to look at decreasing rural populations than increasing suburban populations.

Not all states have specific safety standards for chain saws or meat grinders, either.  They are not needed and, like state firearms safety standards, would be superfluous.  There are federal laws and standards.  If a firearms was manufactured that failed to meet federal safety standards, they'd be quickly sued out of business, just like any other produce.

There are no federal laws on the design and manufacture of firearms in the US, however there are restriction on imports of certain parts and weapons. That is why you can't get the Chinese made QBZ-95 in the states despite the fact that they are much cheaper to produce and very reliable. If it was legal in the US, I would predict that its popularity would surpass that of the AR-15.

It is possible for someone to sue a gun manufacturer for a defective product should a safety fail or designed safety characteristic not function properly, however this would require that the weapon be proved to be defective and the safety feature did not function as intended. If someone builds there own firearm, a "junk gun" that has no safety features, it may be difficult to sue the manufacturer. This doesn't apply to most commercial guns and doesn't apply to any weapons produced for military use, because the military does have firearm safety requirements for all weapons in order for them to be fielded.

Federal law requires a background check for every new gun purchase.

Federal laws requiring background checks only apply to licenced firearm dealers, which accounts for 78% of all gun sales in the US. This is the "gun show loophole" people sometimes mention, Thus it is still false.

Waiting periods haven't been proven to prevent suicides.  People find other ways of killing themselves.

The effects are low, but they are still there enough that someone could argue they are effective. A good counter argument would be that if someone needs a gun for protection in a hurry due to life threatening scenario, it may be potentially detrimental to have waiting periods.

Additionally, I find it odd and hypocritical that someone who would advocate for abortion would care about the suicide rate.  If you're not worried about the most innocent lives being sacrificed, why would you be so concerned by volunteers?  Among the more popular mantras are "keep your laws off my body" and "my body is sovereign". 

I don't advocate for abortion. I have my own secret third stance which simply put is that technological development, and in particular male equivalent birth control, os the solution to the abortion debate. Simply put, babies which are never conceived can not be aborted, and the best way to do that is by decoupling sex from pregnancy through the use of technology. It's a win-win for everyone.

That being said, I do tend to lean towards abortion rights because I value bodily autonomy as much as I value property rights, and basically see them as being the same thing. A fetus growing inside a woman against her will is an unwelcome invader, and she should have the right to depose that invader the same way you can kick someone off your property if they don't belong there.

There is no greater authority any person or organization can have than being able to choose the time, method and circumstances of one's death.  This domination of a person's choice comes at a substantial price.  The primary reason people give for buying firearms is self-defense.  People have been killed waiting for the state to approve their means of self-defense.  There are more effective means of preventing suicides.

I'm not sure if you are trying to make an argument in support of suicide here, but I suppose I agree, provided that everyone around that individual maintains the right to try and talk them out of it and/or give them help if they are mentally unstable and therefore unfit to make choices for themselves.

CYDdharta

Happy_Killbot said:

@CYDdharta

While it is true that people are not moving into the cities and those who live in suburbs are more likely to own guns, these two points are not the most relevant, because gun ownership is not the best indicator of likelihood to support gun control laws. The theory doesn't have anything to say about if someone is more or less likely to own a gun, although I think it would be highly likely there would be correlation. About 42% of the US population owns at least one firearm, however 76% support stricter gun control laws, so there has to be at least an 18% overlap. The theory is to predict if someone is going to be in support of or opposed to gun control laws. It is therefore, more important to look at decreasing rural populations than increasing suburban populations.

"Stricter gun control laws" is an amorphous phrase. I don't consider myself to be a supporter of stricter gun control laws, but I would support mandatory minimums for using a firearm in the commission of a crime.

There are no federal laws on the design and manufacture of firearms in the US, however there are restriction on imports of certain parts and weapons. That is why you can't get the Chinese made QBZ-95 in the states despite the fact that they are much cheaper to produce and very reliable. If it was legal in the US, I would predict that its popularity would surpass that of the AR-15.

You really believe that?  Try selling gun that's made entirely of polymer and ceramics.  In fact, the QBZ-95 carbine you mentioned is illegal in the US as A] it's capable of selective-fire and B] it's overall length doesn't meet federal minimum standards for a rifle.  It wouldn't be popular here as the round it fires is non-standard.  It would be expensive to use.

It is possible for someone to sue a gun manufacturer for a defective product should a safety fail or designed safety characteristic not function properly, however this would require that the weapon be proved to be defective and the safety feature did not function as intended. If someone builds there own firearm, a "junk gun" that has no safety features, it may be difficult to sue the manufacturer. This doesn't apply to most commercial guns and doesn't apply to any weapons produced for military use, because the military does have firearm safety requirements for all weapons in order for them to be fielded.

You can sue people (or companies) for just about anything.  If a firearms manufacturer sells a firearm that is unsafe, they can be sued, likely successfully.  If someone builds their own firearm for their own use, they have no one to sue.  If they manufacture a firearm for sale, trade, as a gift, etc., etc., it's a completely different story.  The manufacturer is legally liable for the gun's design.

Federal laws requiring background checks only apply to licenced firearm dealers, which accounts for 78% of all gun sales in the US. This is the "gun show loophole" people sometimes mention, Thus it is still false.

All new guns must be transferred by a federally licensed firearms dealer.  Secondary sales are relatively unregulated, but then again, they are unregulatable.  No law will stop the private sale of guns.  It is already illegal for a private seller to sell a gun to a felon or anyone else who isn't allowed to own a gun.  Thus, my point stands.

Happy_Killbot

@CYDdharta

"Stricter gun control laws" is an amorphous phrase. I don't consider myself to be a supporter of stricter gun control laws, but I would support mandatory minimums for using a firearm in the commission of a crime.

I am somewhat cutting corners here for the sake of brevity, but I think the point I am trying to drive is clear, that there is a connection between gun control support and property rights or ownership, where those who have no land or property ownership will be more likely to support stricter gun laws. I suppose to define what I mean by "stricter gun control laws" is that if we polled someone on a standard number of gun control policies, some enacted some proposed, that we could generate a score for each individual that would represent their openness to gun control policy. The collective of these scores should be shown to have a negative correlation with things like land ownership and a positive correlation with things like local gun violence.

You really believe that?  Try selling gun that's made entirely of polymer and ceramics.  In fact, the QBZ-95 carbine you mentioned is illegal in the US as A] it's capable of selective-fire and B] it's overall length doesn't meet federal minimum standards for a rifle.  It wouldn't be popular here as the round it fires is non-standard.  It would be expensive to use.

The reasons it is banned in the US are much deeper than just just not meeting certain requirements, it is much more political. They can't have us all shooting Chinese weapons now can they? I mean it is literally the primary weapon of the PLA and there would definitely be a market in the US if there was no ban, a complete reversal on the traditional paradigm of the US military industrial complex. I think any increases in ammo costs would be quickly negated through imports or perhaps through local manufacture, so should the US open up to the sale (which isn't going to happen) I think high ammo price would only be a temporary inconvenience if it happened at all.

You can sue people (or companies) for just about anything.  If a firearms manufacturer sells a firearm that is unsafe, they can be sued, likely successfully.  If someone builds their own firearm for their own use, they have no one to sue.  If they manufacture a firearm for sale, trade, as a gift, etc., etc., it's a completely different story.  The manufacturer is legally liable for the gun's design.

The point I was making is that the weapon doesn't have to have any design features, so it may be possible for a gun manufacturer to just make a gun that isn't safe and as long as they never advertise as such they technically can't be sued. I am not a legal expert on this matter but that is how I would read these laws, that they can sue if a designed safety failed, but if the weapon is designed to be unsafe or is misused technically there is nothing that can be done about it.

All new guns must be transferred by a federally licensed firearms dealer.  Secondary sales are relatively unregulated, but then again, they are unregulatable.  No law will stop the private sale of guns.  It is already illegal for a private seller to sell a gun to a felon or anyone else who isn't allowed to own a gun.  Thus, my point stands.

This is just true on the technicality of the use of the word "new" meaning first sale from a licenced weapons dealer. However I think we can both agree that because not all guns sold are new, that technically there is a way to get around background checks through the purchase of second hand weapons.

I would agree that no law is going to stop illegal activity, (obviously) but I don't like this argument specifically because it can be easily rebutted simply by stating that guns can't be illegally obtained if they don't exist. At any rate, this leads to the core of the debate which is about the logistics of having an armed public, for which the founding fathers had the right idea for the right reasons. The people should be allowed to fight against an oppressive government as a last resort against tyranny. This will be especially important in a world that is looking less and less US dominated, with authoritarian powers and regimes taking a larger control of the global resources. Although it is unspeakable, It is far from impossible that we may have to fight on US soil in the coming decades.