Democratic field boils down to four-jackasses race

And we still have an overpopulation problem in America.

 

I think we are both smarter than this. "Truly Enlightened" is just my Tag. It does not represents me personally, anymore than a "Creasy Tvedt", represents you personally. But using someone's tag for an "Ad Hominem" Trump-like attack, should be beneath you.

Since you said "That one in particular smells like bullcrap", what are the others that smell like bullcrap? Here is another fact to add to your worldly knowledge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_v...eath_rates_in_high-income_countries,_2010.svg

Lets just forget about the above statistics, and lets just look at all crimes of violence(mugging, robbery, rape, murder, homicide, manslaughter, gang and mass shootings, and all crimes of violence). This adds up to about 383 victims/100,000 people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States. This means that you have a 99.62% chance of not becoming a victim of any violent crime in a year(383/100,000 X 100= 0.383%). But lets go even further. Lets double those statistics for 10 years. this means you now have a 93% chance of never becoming a victim of a violent crime(383 X 2)/ 100,000= 0.076 X 100= 7.6%), in the next 10 years as well.

You are much more likely to die from cancer, smoking, obesity, or of natural causes, than by any act of gun violence. But of course, this is only what the statistics tell me.

 

I forgot to add, the founding fathers idea of a well regulated malitia was an armed population out of which. The 18- 45 year old able bodied men were already capable of shooting and fighting before the country needed they to secure the free state. Thus they made it the" right of the people", a term in the bill of rights that always meant each individual, to keep and bear arms.

 

How is it inherently irrational to have gun control laws(?) and regulations? Wouldn't it be more irrational to not have any? The only way gun control laws can kill, is if the laws promoted the act of killing. If so, what laws are you talking about? I'm not aware of any gun laws passed since 2016.

Also, why do you think the DP, is doing everything to keep Tulsi's message from reaching a larger audience? Is there something in her message that threatens them? Do you think that this is what a Democracy is suppose to stand for?

Also, it is the State that must determine what is a "well regulated militia". Having more guns than cars, without regulations, is not my definition of a "well regulated militia" There are certainly people much older owning guns. What are the people preparing against? Do they think the US army will take over their state? Their homes, or family? What?

 

Gun control laws are irrational because they can only make it more difficult for the law abiding to obtain guns. Criminals will always have easy access to every kind of gun.

The 2nd amendment was drafted to encourage a well armed citizenry.

 

Same thing. But I don't know any commie, so I can't be certain.
But I do know sharpie boy. Lying to the public.

 

The DNC candidates are essentially communists.

 

And?
Still better than sharpie boy.

 

Another boring waste of bandwidth post lacking any merit worthy content whatsoever!

 

Why all the straw man? If you don't want to answer my questions, just don't answer them. No one has said that the 2nd Amendment DOES protect your hunting privileges. No one has said that felons, children, and the mentally ill were NOT prevented from legally purchasing firearms. No one asked you if you believe PEOPLE should be able to purchase firearms? The question was, "Do you think that every citizen(all people) should be allowed to own and bear firearms? Since you agree with prohibiting gun ownership to convicted felons, the mentally ill, and children, you must believe that NOT "all people" should be allowed to keep and bear arms. This makes your statement self-contradictory. No one has mentioned anything about buying military vehicles. I have no idea what owning my old Willys Jeep, has to do with gun reform. So, please, just the questions I ask, not the questions you think I asked. This is called a misrepresentation and a straw man. Both are fallacies.

I certainly disagree that all citizens should be able to purchase any firearms they want. This will eventually lead to the ownership of any lethal weapon. Maybe in the future, our citizenry will be able to purchase even nukes.

Does it not beg the question why all these organizations/foundations must exist in the first place? Without hunters killing animals, there would be fewer conservation organizations trying to conserve their numbers. I'm also certain that all the Big Horn Sheep, really appreciate everything those hunters must go through, to obtain the right to go out and kill them. Other than self-defence, or food, I see no rational justification for taking the life of any unarmed and defenceless animal. I wish they were armed enough to be able to protect themselves. If you really need to prove your bravery and manhood, by hunting and killing defenseless animals, then try using a knife only. At least it is fairer. These truly brave humans(one was 4 only used their bare hand to kill two dangerous animals. Both in self-defence. This is what true man vs. beast really looks like.

, and https://metro.co.uk/2013/05/27/shep...are-hands-after-squeezing-its-throat-3810110/​

How does any rational human being get off on the hunting, stalking, and killing of a living creature? Because it is profitable, and feeds into some irrational blood-lust narrative, and the feeling of inadequacy and insecurity. https://www.idausa.org/campaign/wild-animals-and-habitats/hunting/ Pay close attention to why no rational person would ever think that hunting IS conservation?

It is what both animal activists and animal conservationists share in common, that is what's relevant. Not their motives. Both share the same concerns about animal safety, their habitat, the survival of their species, their right to life, and relieving their suffering. Characterizing the passion of animal activists as an "irrational affection", does not paint a true picture of their beliefs. It is dismissive, condescending, and self-serving. But guilt always need to be addressed, and truth is always relative, right?

So, let me summarize.
You believe that everyone should keep and bear, any kind of weapon they can afford. Including, fully autos, high capacity mags and clips, rocket launchers. machineguns, etc.
You believe that no one should be prohibited from keeping and bearing firearms, no matter if they are a credible threat to themselves or society as a whole.
You believe that the 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, and should not be regulated or limited.
You believe that the 2nd Amendment makes no distinction between the citizenry and the militia.
Oh. and you believe that all people have the right to buy used military vehicles.

These are not the beliefs of a Constitutional Originalist. These are the beliefs of a Constitutional Fundamentalist. The difference is, one can change with the evidence, the latter can't. Knowing this, can we simply agree to disagree?

 

The 2nd Amendment says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". Where in this Amendment does it say or imply a "well armed citizenry"? Nowhere. It was drafted in the 18th century, only to encourage the states to create a "well regulated militia"(I.e. National Guard), out of its armed citizenry, to protect the States from the Federal Government. What do you think the Civil War was about? Do you think all the citizenry should prepare themselves for another Civil War? Why should our citizenry be well armed?

Your chances of being a victim of gun violence is less than 1%. That means more than 99% of all people will not be a victim of gun violence. It is the millions of animals being killed every year, that is the results of our armed citizenry. Not protecting our freedom rights

 

Yes, every on who passes a background check should be able to buy any firearm they want.
You brought up military vehicles when you mentioned the Abrams. As soon as they are obsolete i hope people can buy them.

You don't know the first tjing about hunters or hunting so I'll ask you not to make gross generalizations about it because you are talking out of ignorance.

 

Oh no, I know more than just the first thing about hunters, and hunting. I know that sacrifice, altruism, and guts, separate us from the other animals. Which category do you think hunting for sport falls under? Guts, Altruism, or Sacrifice? So, please don't assume things that you clearly don't know. I have been there, done that, and I certainly know why most sport hunters enjoy their "so-called" sport. They hunt for power and dominance over what they kill. They hunt for money for what they kill. They hunt to maintain the same level of dopamine in the brain. That is, Oxytocin(the bonding molecule). Serotonin(happiness and well-being), Adrenaline(fight or flight/alertness), and Endorphins(stress and pain relievers). These are the addictive chemical cocktails that drive sport hunters. They deliver the same emotional buzz, as gambling or skydiving. Except, it is not just self that must suffer to maintain the buzz. My comments are not just "gross overgeneralizations". My comments are based on many years of experience, and at least 3 years of related studies. People I have hunted could actually shoot back. I think that it is you who is talking out of ignorance.

Did you really think, when I asked you if you thought people should be allowed to own an Abrams Tank, that I was really asking you, if people should be allowed to own obsolete military vehicles? Is that the story you're going with? If so, there may exist a comprehension gap, that may be too far to bridge.

I agree again, that everyone passing gun background checks, should be allowed to bear and keep guns. I'm surprised you don't consider this, also an attack on your 2nd Amendment rights. The problem is all people will change as they age. I would add cognitive and IQ testing, as people age, as part of the testing. Should people be allowed to own silencers, and armour piercing rounds as well? Why do you think the government are trying to restrict certain weapons from people? How does the government discern which people are good, and which are bad? Clearly, you are not interested in the truth, or having an open mind. So again, can we just agree to disagree?

 

1. Government seeks more gun control becauae it gives government more control.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with saving lives. Gun control advocates just want to control other people

 

You just proved you know nothing about hunting.

 

To both of your posts, I thoroughly and completely disagree with you. I try very hard to establish a train of thought, to help you understand the foundation for my assertions. You present no foundation, or any evidence to support your assertions You simply insinuate that I know nothing about hunting, without evidence. Or, that the government wants more gun control, only because the governments seeks power to control us all. Again, without any evidence. It couldn't possibly be because of the mothers and families of the victims of gun violence, were begging the government to do something to protect their love ones? Right? I guess my almost 50 years of hunting, military, law enforcement, teaching, and studies experiences, give me no insight into the gun culture? Right?

Again, it is you that is proving how little you do know. Other than the soundbites of the NRA, and other socialist gun organizations you've chosen to parrot, what evidence can you posit to this discourse? If all you are going to do is simply make one empty assertion after another, then we are done here. You are free to have your own opinion, but not your own logic.

 

You use lots of words to say nothing.

Every word of what you posted is your opinion!!! None of it was factual.

Every humter here who reads your post will know you don't know crap about hunters or hunting.. you think it's some macho power trip killing spree. You refer to the animals as defenseless HA! That right there shows how woefully ignorant you really are. Ignorant about animals and the animals kingdom in general.
If the animals are so helpless why are hunter success rates so low?

As for the basis of my argument all i need is the 2nd ammendment ..

 

You are too attached to your obvious error. Without the 3/5th clause the political power of white slave holders in the South would have been permanently entrenched in Washington.

Frederick Douglass was right. You are wrong.

 

"[T]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". There is no ambiguity there. The right to bear arms is clearly an individual right.

Whenever government succeeds in effectively preventing its people from carrying arms all crime predictably soars - including gun crime.

More Guns = Less Crime

 

The big issue though is that the amount of crime in no way diminishes the right to keep and bear arms.

The amount of people talking increases the number of bad things said about people, should we curtail the right to free speech more?

 

Yet more nonsensical blather without any substance.

Then again that is all that the white nationalists have to defend the odious practice of slavery and the subsequent Southern racism.

Sad!

 

Are you accusing me of defending slavery?

 

Correct. The right to bear arms is a fundamental human right.

 

That is what the founding fathers wrote and thought..

 

Human history supports their thinking.