kabLe

The most popular and voted for president in the last 200 years can’t improvise on a simple press run? And this guys got the codes? on a real note, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with having cue cards, but this one looks like it was made for someone who’s not supposed to be doing what he’s currently doing. Having notes with information is one thing, having a bulletin that says sit in your seat for a president who is already viewed as weak and a mess, not helping our situation.

Allegedly

im literally baby sitting

Seems like we were both correct based on this. However I have a feeling jazzy will come in and tell me I'm severely wrong and we are only a democracy. But I'm willing to concede that I was half wrong based on the information I looked up versus what @BoMprovided. My overall point is that we are still different from other countries, that is an undeniable fact. What works in China isn't going to work in the USA. You argument was that it works in the rest of the world so then it would work here without considering any other variables. What worked in another country for them doesn't mean it's going to work here. If you aren't willing to accept that then yes you are being close minded as you are not considering other perspectives or the fact that culture, lifestyle, values, etc would have something to do with if banning guns would work in America or not. I'm perfectly willing to concede that there is a possibility that it does work and everything works out for the best however I'm also willing to look at the other side and give it more thought than simply, banning guns = less gun violence. For all you know banning guns = south says no and starts civil war. If they were willing to start a civil war over slavery which they viewed as they had a fundamental right to own slaves as they were their property, what makes you think it would be any different with guns? Are you willing to gamble a civil war on that? If you are, kudos to you for being stagnant in your beliefs not many people can do that, however I have a feeling the bloodshed from a Civil War will quickly out pace every mass shooting event put together. You should at least concede that banning guns could have a net negative effect on the country overall rather than lets just get rid of gun violence.

But we are not a democracy? It's not close minded. I'm not drawing based on opinion or interpretation. I looked it up and we are not a democratic form of government.

Nice tree though

In your words how much fact based evidence do I need to provide to prove that the US is not a democracy.

GG Your just like Gentoo I hate to tell you chief. Only difference is which side of the aisle you stand on. Both just as unwilling to see the other side no matter what. Actually, I'd say your worse because anything anyone has said you refuse to give even a little ground on their opinion unless they objectively agree guns should be banned lol. Your head is just as far in the sand in regard to banning guns as Gentoos is on keeping them. I'm not hating on you for your belief system nor will I belittle or insult you for those views in the same regard that you've attempted to do to me but you clearly are no longer interested in seeing eye to eye or coming to some kind of middle ground on our views. At the end of the day, regardless of your opinion, our country is structured and operated different than a lot of countries, and no other country has ever had as many guns in circulation for as long as we have so no you don't have any evidence that in American society banning guns would either work or even be listened to. Your just assuming everyone is like you and would lay down their firearms in a buy back program and in 10 years we would be good to go. I've already conceded that stricter gun control could be a good thing but I also never refuted that it wouldn't. I simply disagree that banning guns would be effective at all due to the way our population has continually told the Federal government to eat paint based on other points in our history where they tried to restrict something that was already heavily in circulation. There was never a point in history where we had a bombing problem or 1:2 ratio on population to bombs owned. I appreciate the dialogue though.

Well you made the argument that America isn't so different from other countries and I made the counter argument that it was? Literally the basis of our country is different than every other country and the left wants to assimilate while the right wants to keep the status quo. I'm not arguing stricter gun control wouldn't be better but you need to think further then "dur hurr guns kill people so lets get rid of guns" if someone wants to shoot up an elementary school they are going to find a way to do it or are incompetent. If they want to cause maximum pain and shock value, they will find a way to do it. With or with out guns. Have you ever asked yourself why he ran into an elementary school and didn't go into a more heavily populated corporate office? Because as shocking and vile as that would be, he knew full well going into an elementary school was going to cause more pain than anything else. I've also not said anything about freedom nor have I made the argument anywhere that the rest of the world hasn't banned guns. If culture doesn't matter, why are there racial quotas for jobs and schools? And why do so many people on the left argue that diversity is a great thing? If all the people in America wanted it, then it would be voted through and we wouldn't be having this conversation. We are having it because half the country wants it and the other half doesn't. I'm also not adamant on the American experiment thing, but ignoring the fact that we are the first, and only country with the structure of government that we have, and then saying that doesn't matter or that it would still work because it worked in other countries is disingenuous. We are not a democracy? We are a republic who's representatives are elected through a democratic process. You dodged most of my response though. If you are going to call out a logical fallacy, you should make sure you are also not using a logical fallacy. Just because it works for one country under a VERY specific set of circumstances does not mean it will work here. I'm not saying stricter control is a bad thing, but I'm more attacking your argument that in your perfect version of America, all guns are off the table. The only thing you reason out is that its not realistically possible to do that at this point in time. If they can strike down the second amendment, why not the first? Why stop there? True this is a logical fallacy however that's why you don't point one out unless its egregious. Because unless our country is a 1:1 mirror of another who's banned guns and it worked than you have no evidence to suggest it would work at all. Your evidence suggesting it would work is just as palpable as the government becoming tyrannical. Thinking long term and potential side effects/unintended effects is one giant logical fallacy no? It's possible that banning guns leads to more in fighting and then we have Civil War 2? If you think all people are just as ready as gentoo to protect their rights which I would wager there's enough in the South alone if you actually strip the second amendment. Also, you didn't address the part where the rights of the people come from the people in America whereas in the majority of other countries, rights are afforded to you by the government. I don't know about you, but that seems like a very big difference. Ask anyone from North korea which one they'd prefer. As far as your graph for prohibition, it's funny how that slight dip from before/after almost perfectly coincides with the ending of the Great Depression. In 1940, you see a sharp spike and I'm sure you are aware that the Great Depression ended in 1939. A year later people were recovering and were in a much better financial position than they were during the 5 years after prohibition had ended. Is it so far removed from reality that a year later after one of the worst economic crisis in American history, people started to drink more? Lastly, when I said diversity I did not mean left vs right. We have the biggest mix of cultures on this planet. If diversity is so important in the work place because of the huge range of ideas and experiences, why would this not logically carry over to your view on weaponry? If you don't think there would be differing opinions and life styles and how that could affect how you view weaponry, then we might be at an impasse. I'm gonna be honest, you seem more close minded about it than anyone else I've talked to about gun control. Those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it.

You can say what you want and get all the back up you need, I'm still willing to have a talk with you about it and try to see eye to eye whereas you want me to completely cave to your ideals.

The fact that me and Gentoo are willing to have a civilized conversation and you resort to saying we are so lost you won't respond with anything other than the above proves my point completely.

Republicans are willing to hear the lefts argument whereas the left thinks they are the god. If you can't acknowledge your opponent you will never find common ground.

I'm almost positive that our country is the only country where the people gave rights to the citizens and the government is there to protect them. Isnt that why we are called the American experiment? Every other government gives their citizens their rights but we are by the people for the people? Feel free to tell me I'm wrong as I'll admit I'm not the most educated on that. But if that's the case, then other countries citizens don't have inalienable rights in the same respect that Americans do. Are we not the only republic with democratically elected representatives? I don't find that graph accurate. According to the graph your saying NOBODY between 1919-1933 drank alcohol at all? It was illegal and nobody was like hell yeah man me I drink that shit every day. I could be reading that graph wrong but to me it says 0 liters were consumed by American citizens between those time frames which is A B S O L U T E L Y wrong and therefore that graph is not accurate? Prohibition was such a failure they reverted it? Also, I don't see anywhere in the bill of rights that says alcohol consumption was an inalienable right that shall not be infringed upon. Considering we are "the american experiment", I would say uhhh yeah, we are different from the rest of the world. Isn't that why everyone still wants to come here? You can say that we aren't as popular as we used to sure, but anyone who escaped real authoritarianism will tell you this is absolutely the land of opportunity unlike most other countries. Freedom to bear arms being apart of that uniqueness. By saying there are only 4 other countries that have around the same gun laws (which i dont know which countries but I'm like 99.99% positive they don't have the same population or as many guns in total as we do, which again, makes us unique) You say prohibition worked but they obviously only did it for about 15 years for a reason, most likely because it didn't work. I don't think historically that graph is accurate nor do I think you would find one that is accurate because again, I doubt in 1925 people were like, I'll tell this guy the absolute truth that I'm still drinking alcohol and in 100 years they'll no I was on the right side of history. I digress. Sure you could say that weed is mostly harmless, on the other hand it could be categorized as a mind altering substance, same as heroin, which is why its also categorized the same as heroine...that harmless drug to the federal government is worse than cocaine. You also did not address my point about you using a logical fallacy of hasty generalization to assume that just because it worked in other countries who have a different way of life and a different governmental setup that it would work in America? I'm going to hold you to that. You also then used another hasty generalization to make the same assumption again. "What makes you think the US is more different than the entire world?" We are also very different from the rest of the world. We are probably the absolute most diverse country on Earth. I don't see any other country even entertaining taking in as many people from different backgrounds as we do, and if you do, in most countries you have to assimilate to them. Whereas our country promotes diversity of cultural background. Or is China more culturally diverse then us? This doesn't have anything to do with the gun debate but more just prove that you saying because x worked in the rest of the world it would work here. You don't take into account anything about the American way of life other than because of that way of life we probably won't ever ban guns but you still think it would work if we did.

Is assuming that just because guns are banned legally that it would then be a direct cause to decreasing gun violence or that it would even work in our society because it worked (on a much smaller scale) in other countries not a hasty generalization? @BoM weeds been illegal for almost 100 years if not longer and it’s only increased in use with states also saying fuck the federal government and allowing legal purchase. Is there any proof that this would not happen with guns and can you even make the argument that it would be effective without making a logical fallacy? weed, heroine, any drug, prohibition, I’d say there’s more evidence that in American society the government saying the use of something that was heavily part of everyone’s lifestyle is banned has effectively done nothing to actually decrease its use so what evidence is there that in American society if somehow they banned guns that it would actually decrease the amount that there are in our country or their use without trying to draw a parallel to another society?

Maybe I missed it but I don't see anywhere that Gentoo said he believes that without the second amendment our government will absolutely become a bunch of cunts. Though if they were, guns would be a big deterrent no? The second amendment was specifically put in as a counter measure to any possibility that it ever happens yes? I don't know what your views on Donald Trump but in general we both know many of the people who say the government would never do that when it comes to the gun debate also called donald trump authoritarian and acted as if they were terrified he was going to shatter all precedents and seize power for good. Feel free to tell me I'm wrong but a lot of people I know that are anti gun and believe the government would never be so authoritarian that we would need to defend ourselves from them, were also equally terrified that the day would come when trump seizes all power of government and they would be forced to take up arms and defend themselves...in fact they were so terrified they voted in the worst US president in the history of our country when all in all, our country was much better off. I guess my point is it's a bit short sighted to say, banning guns shouldn't be off the table because the government would never be so cunty as to become full authoritarian once we are properly de-armed.( I also understand that you said you realize it would never realistically happen, but what I'm pulling out of your argument is that if it WERE a realistic possibility, you would be all for a total ban?) Is it likely? Who's to say. Rome was around for 700 years before it collapsed and we aren't even half way there. But I personally wouldn't put it passed because "da gubbament" is just a bunch of cunts and if you ever get a real shitty bunch of cunts who are all on the same page as far as fuck the little guy, could spell trouble.

This for @Greggy G i personally believe there will never be a compromise because one side of the aisle says let’s compromise between them being outright legal and having restrictions while the other side says let’s compromise between them being outright illegal and having restrictions. As in the current climate, our country was founded on the principle that they should be available to anyone and everyone and the compromise was restrictions via background checks and other various tickboxes that if you check off your not eligible. From my point of view, I see people asking to compromise further with more restrictions. I personally don’t see how you can ask a group of people to compromise on something that they are already in the power position on. They already compromised on limiting gun sales to people who fail a background check or have recorded history of mental health issues, and now your asking them to compromise by restricting certain guns. You may be able to say it’s a logical fallacy to say in another 10 years someone may run into a school and kill 5 people people with a legally obtained glock 17 with a legal mag of 5 bullets. Should we then restrict at that point in time people from being able to buy Glock 17s? My question is where do we draw the line and say it’s not the guns fault it’s the persons fault or the processes fault? Why are we so ready to put more restrictions on who can own a gun in a country that was founded on the principle that anyone and every can own a gun just because whoever is advocating for more restrictions doesn’t think it’s likely to happen to the point that nobody can get a gun.

That’s a shit take in a gun control debate to come in and say “other countries don’t have this problem” you don’t provide any supporting evidence, you don’t even provide a list of countries that I’ve supposedly fixed their problem. You haven’t even stated what the problem is. UK has more knife violence then the US. Guess we solved that problem before it became a problem….by legalizing guns.

So whats your plan Manny? Should we get rid of the second amendment altogether? Okay lets do it. Whats step 1? Putting in legislation that bans the sale and possession of any and all firearms? Okay I'm with you. So how do we go about getting rid of the guns people have already paid for to legally own that we have decided are now illegal? Do you go to their house and ask them nicely to turn them in? Probably going to go with firearms to collect their firearms, ya know just in case. Also, how do you force them to turn in their guns without invading their privacy and becoming a tyrannical form of government which would probably make people not want to give you their guns? Okay, now after flexing your tyranny over the period of a year you've finally got rid of all the registered firearms. Now what? No more gun violence? What about the people who didn't have a registered firearm? Also, jumbo shrimp is an oxymoron, america having a unique problem of being flooded with hundreds of millions of guns to an extent no other country has ever had or currently has and it being a difficult problem to solve, is not an oxy moron. You're just fucking retarded.

So you think an insane psycho won’t learn to build a bomb or simply drive an SUV through a school? I figured it would be obvious but gun control will not stop mass killings. You could get rid of every gun in America and people will still find a way to commit atrocities. Saying this could have been avoided had we gotten rid of guns is disingenuous and does nothing to solve the actual problem.

See y’all next month

Bump. I plan on moving forward this weekend so if anyone has last minute ideas please let me know!

Shut up you stupid old white guy the fuck do you know about it

Oh hell nah now you’ve gone too far. Casual sex is the best. You can just bounce when your done no pillow talk.

This paragraph screams looking for societal utopia in which you will never find. Life is hard for everyone. Some start at a different position. I don't think I've seen one republican say if the mother is going to die she still has to go through with the pregnancy. Feel free to call me out if I'm wrong but you better cite a legitimate source. Theres more stock piles of baby formula at the border warehouse than in the Target up the road from the border. If your point is since they voted against it, which I'm also positive you don't know fully what was in that bill, they don't care about babies, then the left doesn't care about Americas babys. Also, I was an unplanned pregnancy with a father who was never financially responsible enough to even pay child support. Lived in the shelter for a good portion of my life and when he wasnt in the shelter he was living on a friends couch in which I would go share that couch with him at someone elses house. Not the worst situation but surely not the best. Still would rather have not been aborted.

It’s been proven that babies are not self aware which is what I assumed you were alluding too. If you mean conscious as in contextually what the word means then your just completely wrong. Use correct terms or don’t argue lol. I don’t think you understand the difference between instinct and being self aware