LonJowett
-
Posts
310 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by LonJowett
-
-
8 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:
Since we are talking about the actions of a crazy person who wants to kill at any cost, this idea achieves nothing.
You're saying there is no way to make it more difficult for a psychopathic teenager to arm himself to the teeth so we should just let him do what he wants?
-
15 minutes ago, betsy said:
EH????
Here's a simpler question.
Is it legal to make bombs?
No, you answered nothing. That seems to be what you always do. Spew a bunch of gibberish about abortions and smart phones and how hypothetical questions are hypothetical, then say you responded and run away saying bye bye.
Yes, making a bomb does not appear to be protected under the second amendment. Do you disagree with that? As per your response, do you think it's pointless to ban bomb-making because the bad guys don't follow the rules anyway?
-
How about another simple question that you won't answer? If an American created his own nuclear weapon, would it infringe his second amendment rights to take it away from him?
-
1 hour ago, betsy said:
When life has no value - what do you expect?
When kids grow up in a society that doesn't value "certain" lives - of course, respect for any life will go down the drain. All you need is something to justify it.
We're getting what we've been sowing. There's a consequence to everything. You think things will get any better?
I knew you would try to avoid the question. That's why I used all caps. I'll try again to emphasize how determined you are to avoid answering.
DO YOU FEEL THERE SHOULD BE ANY LIMIT WHATSOEVER TO THE DEGREE OF WEAPONS ALLOWED UNDER THE SECOND AMENDMENT? If yes, what is that limit? If no, then you are saying there is no point to even try and nobody would ever want nuclear weapons anyway and smart phones are watching us and what about abortion?
-
1
-
1
-
-
The school in Florida had an armed guard. It didn't work. That's just a ridiculous distraction to sell more guns.
-
8 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:
No, it is not a deflection to point out the failed logic of gun grabbers.
Calling people names is never an argument. It just shows a lack of ability to discuss the issue.
I would ask whether there are any weapons you feel should be restricted, but I don't think you've thought the issue through enough to provide a response. Perhaps an anecdote about Trudeau would make it seem like you know what you're talking about.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, betsy said:
I never heard of any American jihadi that's lobbying for the right to bear nuclear arms - so, you lost me there.
Furthermore, if an American jihadi - though the left loves to use the term "home-grown" - although the jihadi most likely got roots from places that do jihad for fun - lobbies for the right to bear nuclear arms - shouldn't that raise the red flag, sound the alarm with flashing lights and bells, and whistles? Chances are - he's got mental health problems!
Tell me, Lon. What jihadi in his right mind would want to argue for his right to bear nuclear arms?
The question was based on a hypothetical scenario. Rather than choose to answer it, you decided to question why anyone would ask a hypothetical question.
I will be more direct. Hal was honest enough to admit that he feels there should be some sort of limit under the second amendment, although he was unwilling to express why he felt that limit should come after weapons that can shoot hundreds of rounds in a minute.
I will phrase it in a way that will be difficult for you to obfuscate: DO YOU FEEL THERE SHOULD BE ANY LIMIT WHATSOEVER TO THE DEGREE OF WEAPONS ALLOWED UNDER THE SECOND AMENDMENT? If yes, what is that limit? If no, then American jihadis with nuclear ambitions are okay to you?
I look forward to your refusal to answer.
-
When the questions get too embarrassing to answer, it's always best to change the subject to Canada.
-
1
-
-
15 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:
I'm more interested in what a gun will do than I am about it's name or how intimidating it looks. The AR-15 on its own is no more or no less dangerous than any semi-auto rifle, it just happens to be the name brand that people choose.
I'm more interested in what they can do as well, as well as what they can easily be adapted to do. Again, why do you draw the line after rifles that are capable of firing hundreds of rounds in a minute?
(I find you usually have to ask a question about five times around here to get any kind of response, and then they just call you a troll for asking too much.)
-
Why do you draw the line after the AR-15? If it's "obvious" some should be banned, why not make that line those weapons like the AR-15 that (by design or through modification) are capable of discharging hundreds of rounds in a minute?
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, Hal 9000 said:
An AK-47 is a fully automatic machine gun. An AR-15 is not.
So you are saying there should be some sort of arbitrary limit set for the types of weapons allowed under the second amendment?
-
1
-
-
You're not answering the question again. How is your argument for inclusion of assault rifles under the second amendment different from an American jihadi arguing for the right to bear nuclear arms? It's a simple question about your own position that you should be able to answer.
-
1 hour ago, betsy said:
Guns are means of protection, and for hunting. That it can kill, isn't the problem. It's still the people who's handling them.
If you're going along that line of argument - you should scream for cigarettes to be banned. They serve no other purpose but for enjoyment. And while you're at it - scream for processed food too, to be banned.
Btw, you can always scream that we go back to the cart-and-horse mode of transportation. Not that it will eliminate accidents, I'm sure.
And, aren't those people trying to kill their enemies - or anyone they want to? Who's been making threats wanting to annihilate a whole nation with n
If you can't differentiate NKorea from us.......oh boy, is it safe to give you any guns?
What a silly comment.
Nukes don't kill people. People kill people. The second amendment was written before nuclear weapons and assault weapons existed. If we can apply it to future weapons technology like assault weapons, we can apply it to nukes.
Again, please explain how your position differs from the argument that a well regulated American jihadist militia has the right to pursue nuclear arms technology. Don't just change the subject or make personal attacks like the other guy. Try to defend your position.
-
10 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:
There is no argument, especially from Canada, try as you might to inject yourself.
Exactly. Ultimately your position argues that American jihadists have the right to a nuclear militia. And changing the subject to Canada doesn't make that argument any less stupid.
I don't think your Russian bot-masters are going to give you the coherent argument you are looking for though. Perhaps an anecdote about Trudeau will help you feel better about yourself.
-
1
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:
Already address above....I have already possessed "nukes" and it wasn't because of the 2nd Amendment.
No, never address. Still waiting. Can't find a coherent argument? Try changing the subject to Canada. The irrelevant statements about your "self" failed to distract from your inability to make an argument.
-
1
-
-
48 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:
No they don't....only desperate gun grabbers make that kind of argument.
Guns have killed far more people than "nukes" ?
That is textbook cowering to avoid an argument. It even resorted to childish name-calling to bring home my point. So you're saying American jihadists have the right to nukes to form a self-regulating militia? I'll take your avoidance of the question as a sign you're waiting for your Russian bot-masters to give you some talking points so you can express your position clearly.
-
Funny how anyone who feels assault weapons should be protected by the second amendment can never make an argument why the second amendment doesn't apply to nukes. That's an argument they cower from and try desperately to avoid. Ask it and they start creating Twitter posts about how you're an actor being paid by Soros, because they know they're completely out of their depth.
-
3
-
-
4 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:
The term "Assault Rifle" is nothing but a political manipulation.
Yes, it should be called a bubble maker or a daisy chain. I swear the arguments are getting stupider and stupider since the Russian bots started giving them their talking points.
-
8 hours ago, betsy said:
Nothing is perfect!
Some will slipped through the cracks!
Just look at our vetting and screening for terrorists! How many had gotten in???
If you're going to scream for banning guns because of people slipping through the cracks - then you should be screaming at Trudeau to ban immigration! Same principle.
What terrorists has Trudeau let in? What are you even talking about? Are you just making up unrelated anecdotes to change the subject from your willingness to maintain the status quo for future school shootings?
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, betsy said:
It's not the guns. It's the people who handle the guns.
There are lots of people killed by car crash, or hit by cars. I don't think there's anyone who actually blamed the cars.
Cars are made to transport; guns are just made to kill. Nonsense doesn't makes sense just by repeating it over and over.
Why are they trying to to prevent Iraq and North Korea from getting nukes? It's not the killing machines that kill, it's the people that are using them! If you don't let them have nukes, are you going to take away their cars next?
Debating with right-wingers has become difficult since Obama drove them over the edge and they started babbling gibberish they read online as if it were an argument that makes sense.
-
8 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:
American liberals and progressives don't know or give a crap about "Patrick Brown"....they only wanted "their guy" to win no matter how many women he assaulted.
You're mistaken again. Trump wasn't their guy at all.
-
16 minutes ago, betsy said:
Is there no process like that yet for the mentally unstable?
Obama put one in place but Trump got rid of it because Obama put it in place. Way to go, eh?
-
So you're saying Trump should implement the sanctions against Russia that Congress demanded? Do you think he should condemn Russian interference? Do you think he should apologize for misleading the American people by saying Russian interference was a hoax? Are sad you can't delete my questions rather than answer them?
-
On 23/12/2017 at 3:58 PM, taxme said:
Merry Christmas.
The best part about Trump is he makes his defenders look very, very stupid and they're rarely even smart enough to notice.
http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-barack-obama-christmas-758794
The second amendment is failing the USA : Another school shooting!
in Federal Politics in the United States
Posted
No, it wouldn't work. They wouldn't be able to match the shooters' assault weapons, and they wouldn't have kevlar vests and body armour, and they wouldn't have the advantage of surprise that the shooter would have. The most likely result would be students getting shot by frustrated, underpaid teachers.