At 1/15/13 11:52 AM, LemonCrush wrote:
The Bill of Rights? That doesn't mean shit to the government anymore, clearly, as many amendments are frequently overridden.
Where and when? The Patriot Act does trample or seemingly trample on many rights (mostly ones about privacy), but a lot of what I anticipate you're going to quote is still illegal.
There is hardly any limit. In case you haven't noticed, the government currently dictated what we eat, who we can marry, what we can own, dictates what we must buy, and dictates what consenting adults can consume. Fuck that shit. Not to mention the fucking Gestapo you have to deal with everytime you wanna fly somewhere...and thier insane amount of machine guns.
The TSA are not the Gestapo. You are doing it again, taking legitimate criticisms and dramatizing them thus harming your otherwise valid points.
Do you really need examples? There's an entire prison only a few miles away from florida, housing 100's of prisoners with no trial or due process.
Yes, and the President has repeatedly promised to close it, but yeah, at this point I'll believe it when I see it.
It's now a legal requirement to give money to large corporations/conglomerates.
Are you talking about the affordable care act? It's basically just what we were doing already with car insurance. But I would have prefered universal healthcare myself.
We;re bombing every country that looks at us wrong.
Not every one. But too many yes.
It has gotten exponentially worse since the Bush adminstration, and will continue to do so.
I think if you actually look at Obama's record you'll see he's started to right some of those mistakes, but many are still in place. Hopefully it gets better.
OK, what makes him different? What exactly prevents him from becoming a dictator?
The Constitution and his stated beliefs and following of executive order and attempts to work with Congress. The rest I won't dignify. You're frankly an idiot if you can't see how this President or any Pres is different from Hitler.
It could happen. They have the power.
No they don't. You're just making shit up now. Or listening to Alex Jones. I'm not dignifying conspiracy theories.
A) The loans weren't actually repaid (look back to your "actual events vs. media" argument)
The auto industry has by almost every report I've read. Most banks have paid it back, and with interest.
B) There should be ZERO link between industry and the government
So it would have been better to let those industries fail and cause a depression? Ok...
Oh ok. Murdering people is okay, as long as the technology is different. Got it.
You made an absurd statement, I pointed out the absurdity. War is not the same as murder, but HOW one makes war is a legitimate subject for criticism.
Name a time when the government was given an inch, but didn't take a mile
That's not how this works. You argue the slippery slope, I point out it's fallacy. These are facts.
We don't agree here, what are you taling about?
The fact that it seems we do in principal agree, but you think because you rephrased what I said it's different.
It is EXACTLY the same. You're missing the bigger picture here, and that's the problem. You don't see the potential danger. When the government is given power like that, they always abuse it.
Again, slippery slope is fallacy! It's not an acceptable way to debate. You're arguing hysteria, emotion, not on facts. You're also making comparisons that don't apply. You just heap crap onto crap.
It was called that, yes. But the ban was actually based on cosmetic features of guns, much like this proposed one is.
Ammo capacity, rate of fire, things like this is purely cosmetic? I'm not a big gun guy but even I know that's ridiculous.
Which guess what? Is on the public.
The quote I posted a little while ago...paraphrase to the point of "It's the worst tragedy in our memories, so we owe it to the country to have some people give a little more..."
Show me where he said it was THE worst. Because that is not how I remember him saying it.
I don't know if you noticed, but criminals do not give a flying fuck about what is illegal or not.
And again I say if that's the attitude, then we shouldn't have any laws and everybody should do whatever the fuck they want as long as it's in the name of protecting themselves. This is the logical end point to your argument.
And what separates us, exactly?
Slippery slope is slippery. Also there's a lot of difference between our current and past society, and the societies you mentioned. You're not equipped to speak on the issue you're trying to raise, so please stop.
Then you're an ignorant fool.
Ad hominem. The fallacies just keep on piling up!
Obama pays GE. GE owns NBC.
Aaaand once again you prove how little you know! GE SOLD NBC to Comcast a year or two back. Thanks for proving how little you actually know.
I agree. However, the government does not think see it this way. Hence why their trying to force a ban on guns based on cosmetics, instead of focusing on laws that keep guns out of unsafe hands.
Again, I fail to see how making bans to keep assault weapons, which are demonstrably different from handguns, out of the public's hands is merely a ban on "cosmetics".
You didn't post any.
Yeah I did. My posts are loaded with them. Like when I point out all your fallacies.
There are regulations and rules already. Obviously, as we can see, it doesn't solve the problem. In fact, you could even say regulations like "gun free zones" contribute to the problem.
How so? Also if the current regulations don't solve the problem, why then is the answer "drop all regulations" instead of "well, let's make some better ones"?
1) I don't support the NRA
Well, then whatever sources your using (which are probably friendly, or getting info from the NRA) are lying.
2) The president does not need to listen to Congress, and has already stated he will go around them if he needs too
He actually does, and going around them isn't usually the best idea for presidents to do.
3) He hasn't done shit about guns one way or another...just like every other issue...until it's politically convenient for him
Go look up his record on guns up to now. You'll see anytime he's done anything legislatively on the issue, it's been favorable to gun owners/enthusiasts.
Joe Biden has said it on camera.
Obama has also disavowed things Biden has said in the past. I have a hard time believing if he tried to ban by executive order it would hold up to scrutiny.
Exactly. And she should not have been allowed to own them.
Ok, so then doesn't that mean we have to go back and try to tighten up regulations to make sure people like her don't in the future?
This is a moot point because the government is talking about restricting guns based on LOOKS, instead of who can get ahold of them
Again, show me what you mean by "looks" and "cosmetics". Because all I hear is banning assault type weapons. Which are not merely cosmetically different from a handgun, they are FUNCTIONALLY different as well.
And yet, here we are, in 2013, with millions of guns that have never even been aimed at a human.
Oh bullshit that you can back up that "millions of guns" statement.
Isn't that odd. YOu saying they're made to kill. And yet so many of them not being used to kill. Weird.
Well, it's disgusting to me how you pull numbers and ideas out of your ass and slap them down like they're real facts. Get real.