U.S. father fatally shoots son mistaken for intruder

GeorgesAbitbol · January 15, 2016

You have got to be kidding me. You are insinuating (aTomsLife) is ignorant??? This poster is articulate and well versed on gun ownership in America. If you and other anti-gun posters were to stop your simple minded hysterical anti-gun rants, and read his posts, you would have a better understanding of America's 2nd Amendment.

We know the second amendment, it was written a long time ago and is now outdated, the only ignorance is to still think it doesn't need to be modified to fit semi auto, kids rifles,...this is ignorance!

As well as ignoring the facts and numbers:

just look at this global comparison with France, a country pro gunners think should have its own second amendment

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/France/United-States/Crime

Now we all know USA is a violent country, culture of violence is praised rather than avoided.

Well maybe it is time to MODERNIZE the laws, don't you think?

"Culture of violence" you say...that's rich coming from a continent that started TWO world-wars that killed tens of millions of people in the last century...and it was that so called "culture of violence" that saved Europe's bacon in those two wars.

All ten of those Amendments were written a long time ago...any other's you don't like and would like to get rid of?

The English pointing fingers, some things never change. Yet...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

And for a more in depth analysis of your hypocrisy:

http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/

You should really read the pages you link as the first one contradict the second one....

aTomsLife · January 15, 2016

We know the second amendment, it was written a long time ago and is now outdated, the only ignorance is to still think it doesn't need to be modified to fit semi auto, kids rifles,...this is ignorance!

As well as ignoring the facts and numbers:

just look at this global comparison with France, a country pro gunners think should have its own second amendment

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/France/United-States/Crime

Now we all know USA is a violent country, culture of violence is praised rather than avoided.

Well maybe it is time to MODERNIZE the laws, don't you think?

"Culture of violence" you say...that's rich coming from a continent that started TWO world-wars that killed tens of millions of people in the last century...and it was that so called "culture of violence" that saved Europe's bacon in those two wars.

All ten of those Amendments were written a long time ago...any other's you don't like and would like to get rid of?

The English pointing fingers, some things never change. Yet...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

And for a more in depth analysis of your hypocrisy:

http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/

You should really read the pages you link as the first one contradict the second one....

If you think that, then you didn't read the whole thing, Georges.

The second contradicts the finding that England is 5-times as bad, but it's still comparably as bad and by some measures even worse.

Edit: The point being, your sanctimonious attitude is plain ol' BS hypocricy.

Edited January 15, 2016 by aTomsLife

GeorgesAbitbol · January 15, 2016

You should really read the pages you link as the first one contradict the second one....

The English pointing fingers, some things never change. Yet...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

And for a more in depth analysis of your hypocrisy:

http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/

If you think that, then you didn't read the whole thing, Georges.

The second contradicts the finding that England is 5-times as bad, but it's still comparably as bad and by some measures even worse.

Edit: The point being, your sanctimonious attitude is plain ol' BS hypocricy.

as yours is not?

Please YOU have to read both articles, I wont make you cry and quote both articles here....

aTomsLife · January 15, 2016

You should really read the pages you link as the first one contradict the second one....

The English pointing fingers, some things never change. Yet...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html

And for a more in depth analysis of your hypocrisy:

http://blog.skepticallibertarian.com/2013/01/12/fact-checking-ben-swann-is-the-uk-really-5-times-more-violent-than-the-us/

If you think that, then you didn't read the whole thing, Georges.

The second contradicts the finding that England is 5-times as bad, but it's still comparably as bad and by some measures even worse.

Edit: The point being, your sanctimonious attitude is plain ol' BS hypocricy.

as yours is not?

Please YOU have to read both articles, I wont make you cry and quote both articles here....

I have read both articles, unlike you, and both show that you and a number of other posters need to get off your soap boxes. There is no way you had a chance to read the second article given how fast you replied. So here is the crux of why I posted it:

Due to fundamental differences in how crime is recorded and categorized, it’s impossible to compute exactly what the British violent crime rate would be if it were calculated the way the FBI does it, but if we must compare the two, my best estimate‡ would be something like 776 violent crimes per 100,000 people. While this is still substantially higher than the rate in the United States, it’s nowhere near the 2,034 cited by Swann and the Mail.

Edited January 15, 2016 by aTomsLife

Lex Talionis · January 15, 2016

You reap what you sow. But ultimately it's been the NRA that has been sewing these poisonous seeds. Taking their argument to its logical end – this is what you get.

OMGImInPattaya · January 15, 2016

"Culture of violence" you say...that's rich coming from a continent that started TWO world-wars that killed tens of millions of people in the last century...and it was that so called "culture of violence" that saved Europe's bacon in those two wars.

You have got to be kidding me. You are insinuating (aTomsLife) is ignorant??? This poster is articulate and well versed on gun ownership in America. If you and other anti-gun posters were to stop your simple minded hysterical anti-gun rants, and read his posts, you would have a better understanding of America's 2nd Amendment.

We know the second amendment, it was written a long time ago and is now outdated, the only ignorance is to still think it doesn't need to be modified to fit semi auto, kids rifles,...this is ignorance!

As well as ignoring the facts and numbers:

just look at this global comparison with France, a country pro gunners think should have its own second amendment

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/France/United-States/Crime

Now we all know USA is a violent country, culture of violence is praised rather than avoided.

Well maybe it is time to MODERNIZE the laws, don't you think?

All ten of those Amendments were written a long time ago...any other's you don't like and would like to get rid of?

yeah culture of violence.

Please let me know in which modern country you can find those kind of rifles or company?

www.crickett.com

Show me a country in europe where you can buy at the same place a uzi and your groceries

Name some countries in europe which have the stupid "stand your ground" law.

Name one country in europe where you have a tv channel dedicated to gun selling and promotion...

It is also funny to see how you speak about world war when usa started or was implicated in most of the modern wars (do you want an extensive list?)

Did you have a look at the wesite i gave you (you can compare with other european countries)? I highly doubt about it otherwise you wouldn;t try to argue about

the violence culture of USA.

Just open the tv in USA and browse the channels.

As far as I know there are not a lot of countries which praise gun ownership as USA or rely on an outdated amendment.

and yes you can change it, because it is an amendment...

But nobody wants to change it...only you ?

And you really are clueless mate. Like I said, at least the American "culture of violence" didn't engulf the world in two world wars; nor try to wipe an entire etho-religious group off the face of the earth! And you have the gall to call Americans violent...as opposed to you "cultured" Europeans I suppose.

The more salient point, however, in relation to this thread, is that other countries are free to live and govern themselves however they want...most Americans couldn't give a rat's arse what you do. We only ask that you do the same in return...we have no desire to be like any other nation...get it?

And as I've said before,if America is so awful in your eyes, how do you explain the following facts:

1. Number ONE destination for immigration of people from all corners of the world,

2. Number ONE destination for higher education for people from all countries of the world, and

3. Number TWO in international tourist arrivals of all countries of the world!

I guess it's not such a bad place after all.

Edited January 15, 2016 by OMGImInPattaya

lostboy · January 15, 2016

to aTomsLife

Since my more interesting post has been lost without trace in last night’s internet crash and would have been removed anyway, plus the too many text blocks problem stopping me replying directly to your post, I shall simply say the following:

There are more guns per head of the population in Thailand than there are in the US and they effect they have had on governments tyranny has been absolutely zilch.

It’s exactly the same in the US, none of the guns in private hands are going to have any effect on the US government. To say otherwise is totally nonsensical. Wacco to you.

Nobody is bothering with your pathetic statistics because the only relevance they have is that 11,000 (in one year) people died unnecessarily. How many died in other countries with reasonable gun controls? – very, very few. You can’t count things like the Paris attacks as they are an act of war.

Check out where article 2 originated from and let me know if the same statute is still in place and if people are weeping their hearts out over their loss of liberties.

It’s perfectly possible under US law to restrict the sale and ownership of different types of weapons (eg Bowie Knives) without restricting individual rights. Article 2 is as out of date as article 3 is in 2016.

Article 5 of the US constitution says:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, etc.

Thus it is a total fallacy that you have an INALIENABLE right to bear arms. It can be removed at any time.

Thanks for the commendation on my writing, but actually I gave up on yellow journalism when I stopped reading the SCMP in 1985.

Americans would react far differently to a military coup than did the Thais. Think whatever you want, though. If I'm correct in presuming you an Englishman, you wouldn't be the first to underestimate our fortitude.
No one is bothering with my statistics because they demonstrate the weakness people like you suffer with visceral stimuli. You let your emotions get in the way of reason: of the 11,000 deaths--again less than even half of 1% of all U.S. deaths per year--a very significant plurality of them are gang related. In other words, the weapons involved are illegally possessed and thus fall outside the impact any further regulations might have.
I know that restrictions are perfectly legal. My arguments are rooted in the belief that there is regulation enough already.
The right to self defense is inalienable. In the United States, gun ownership is part and parcel of that right. That it can be removed any time is a theory that can and will never see the light of day, barring another civil war. For all intents and purposes, then, bearing arms is an inalienable right intrinsic to the existence of the nation. Any allusions otherwise are simply academic and, thus, are of no real interest to me.
My yellow journalism remark has nothing to do with your writing, but with you falling victim to anecdotal reporting. Stories like the OP are tantamount to shining a flashlight on a mouse to create a shadow the size of an elephant: 85,000 shootings per year in a population of 320,000,000 = .00027% of the population directly impacted. Yet you argue that's reason enough to scrap our Constitution...
Oh god your ignorance is so funny. Yellow journalism, SCMP, its almost an art to winding up you second amendmentists.
Don't you feel ashamed that a cog Brit has to quote you your own constitution only to find that really you dont respect any of it, except the bit you need to keep your toys.

Military coupe in America, fortitude, scrap the constitution, it gets better and better, I just can't stop laughing.

Thanks for going ahead and making my day!

There is currently a move afoot to call a Constitutional Convention of the States to discuss Constitutional Amendments

The Governor of Texas has so far lined up 15 other states that are interested in addressing some problems in the Constitution.

It will take 38 of the 50 States to agree on any new Amendments or changes to existing ones.

The proposed Amendments are:

1. Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.

2. Require Congress to balance its budget.

3. Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law.

4. Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from preempting state law.

5. Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

6. Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.

7. Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution.

8. Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.

9. Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation.

You will notice the Bill of Rights is not under consideration for change. Should the Constitutional Convention take place, it will be the perfect time for all you gun controllers to show up and raise your voices.

But you knew all this anyway...didn't you?

Yes, such a Constitutional Convention would be a perfect time to deal with the anachronisms of language that appear in the 2nd Amendment. Perhaps you might tell us Chuck, how to persuade the person who created your 9 point agenda to include consideration of the 2nd Amendment? Clearly you are not being serious. Just as the Governor of Texas is not being serous. 15 States is far short of what is required. But what the Hell. Right Wing Governors work so hard to reduce the size of potentially tyrannical governments that I guess they need busy work to fill in time. Unless they are planning a defence against an invasion by the Federal Government that is.

Everything is bigger in Texas? Even the piles of bull crap.

lostboy · January 15, 2016

You have got to be kidding me. You are insinuating (aTomsLife) is ignorant??? This poster is articulate and well versed on gun ownership in America. If you and other anti-gun posters were to stop your simple minded hysterical anti-gun rants, and read his posts, you would have a better understanding of America's 2nd Amendment.

Thank you, CMNightRider. Much like all the others, our snide English friend above didn't address any of my points directly, so I'm through responding to him. And I think the attached quote sums things up nicely:

What is there to address. All you have done is throw out all the tropes. Everything you painstakingly wrote is just the same old argument from the Right. The silly attempts at statistical analysis, the whole defend against the tyrannical Federal government nonsense, protect freedom. Everything. Look at any gun related thread, all the responses are there. Been there done that. Why should people bother doing again with your paltry offerings?

Why not come up with something new? If you can't, then you should work on your style. Some of the pro-gun sort have their own particular way of expressing themselves. What is being said is tired, irrelevant and boring but at least the way they say it is interesting. I mean who can resist waiting for the deluge of right wing news articles by one poster who will start off by 'let me just offer this...' Or who can wait to count the number of question marks, exclamation marks and kindergarten insults, ironically usually about immaturity, from another one of the lunatic set?

So we will add you to the list. I guess for you, supercilious is the game? Sorry to say that to make that work, you actually do need to be better than others. So you may want to check out the box headed 'Misattributed' in this link about Socrates https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Socrates I have been a long admirer of the Philosopher and have used his Socratic Method frequently. Just putting his name to a string of words to make yourself look intelligent does not really work if you fail to check your sources. Oh well, I will keep on looking for others who can carry this stuff off in a style that you have yet to develop.

aTomsLife · January 15, 2016

You have got to be kidding me. You are insinuating (aTomsLife) is ignorant??? This poster is articulate and well versed on gun ownership in America. If you and other anti-gun posters were to stop your simple minded hysterical anti-gun rants, and read his posts, you would have a better understanding of America's 2nd Amendment.

Thank you, CMNightRider. Much like all the others, our snide English friend above didn't address any of my points directly, so I'm through responding to him. And I think the attached quote sums things up nicely:

What is there to address. All you have done is throw out all the tropes. Everything you painstakingly wrote is just the same old argument from the Right. The silly attempts at statistical analysis, the whole defend against the tyrannical Federal government nonsense, protect freedom. Everything. Look at any gun related thread, all the responses are there. Been there done that. Why should people bother doing again with your paltry offerings?

Why not come up with something new? If you can't, then you should work on your style. Some of the pro-gun sort have their own particular way of expressing themselves. What is being said is tired, irrelevant and boring but at least the way they say it is interesting. I mean who can resist waiting for the deluge of right wing news articles by one poster who will start off by 'let me just offer this...' Or who can wait to count the number of question marks, exclamation marks and kindergarten insults, ironically usually about immaturity, from another one of the lunatic set?

So we will add you to the list. I guess for you, supercilious is the game? Sorry to say that to make that work, you actually do need to be better than others. So you may want to check out the box headed 'Misattributed' in this link about Socrates https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Socrates I have been a long admirer of the Philosopher and have used his Socratic Method frequently. Just putting his name to a string of words to make yourself look intelligent does not really work if you fail to check your sources. Oh well, I will keep on looking for others who can carry this stuff off in a style that you have yet to develop.

Regardless of who said the quote, the words remain true, as evidenced by your pathetic ad hominem personal attacks.

Your reply is nothing more than a rant, wherein you don't address any of the points I raised and think you can get around it by saying they're "overused" and they've been responded to elsewhere. That's no kind of an argument, and such an admirer of the Socratic Method should realize as much.

What's really been 'overused' are emotionally-driven personal attacks like yours. They've become the trademark of the left. Whenever your false narratives are invalidated, all you can do is name call, e.g., tell me to go work on my "style."

lostboy · January 15, 2016

You have got to be kidding me. You are insinuating (aTomsLife) is ignorant??? This poster is articulate and well versed on gun ownership in America. If you and other anti-gun posters were to stop your simple minded hysterical anti-gun rants, and read his posts, you would have a better understanding of America's 2nd Amendment.

Thank you, CMNightRider. Much like all the others, our snide English friend above didn't address any of my points directly, so I'm through responding to him. And I think the attached quote sums things up nicely:

What is there to address. All you have done is throw out all the tropes. Everything you painstakingly wrote is just the same old argument from the Right. The silly attempts at statistical analysis, the whole defend against the tyrannical Federal government nonsense, protect freedom. Everything. Look at any gun related thread, all the responses are there. Been there done that. Why should people bother doing again with your paltry offerings?

Why not come up with something new? If you can't, then you should work on your style. Some of the pro-gun sort have their own particular way of expressing themselves. What is being said is tired, irrelevant and boring but at least the way they say it is interesting. I mean who can resist waiting for the deluge of right wing news articles by one poster who will start off by 'let me just offer this...' Or who can wait to count the number of question marks, exclamation marks and kindergarten insults, ironically usually about immaturity, from another one of the lunatic set?

So we will add you to the list. I guess for you, supercilious is the game? Sorry to say that to make that work, you actually do need to be better than others. So you may want to check out the box headed 'Misattributed' in this link about Socrates https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Socrates I have been a long admirer of the Philosopher and have used his Socratic Method frequently. Just putting his name to a string of words to make yourself look intelligent does not really work if you fail to check your sources. Oh well, I will keep on looking for others who can carry this stuff off in a style that you have yet to develop.

Regardless of who said the quote, the words remain true, as evidenced by your pathetic ad hominem personal attacks.

Your reply is nothing more than a rant, wherein you don't address any of the points I raised and think you can get around it by saying they're "overused" and they've been responded to elsewhere. That's no kind of an argument, and such an admirer of the Socratic Method should realize as much.

What's really been 'overused' are emotionally-driven personal attacks like yours. They've become the trademark of the left. Whenever your false narratives are invalidated, all you can do is name call, e.g., tell me to go work on my "style."

There you go. Superciliousness and disdain again. Not really working for you. Just throwing in a few latin terms makes you look no smarter just like your Socrates thing. If the words remain valid, then why not put your own name to them instead of dishonestly claiming they belong to someone else. BTW the emoticon thing really doesn't help your attempt at defining a style either. I have seen some use them with great precision and context. Just throwing one in because you've run out of words is a bit weak.

You want line by line? What's the point. Google gun myths. It's all there. What will you do in response? Just repeat the crap you've already presented. You do it above. The trademark of the Left. Emotionally driven. False narrative. You actually live in a world where you believe that anything you have claimed on the issue of guns has invalidated anything? Your silly numbers? Your calls to constitutionality? Your retreat into cultural bias?

You may also want to read a bit more about Socrates and then you will realise that your own personal attacks about rhetorical style and the use of the Socratic Method do not actually reflect the reality of the content of my post and leaves quite a large chunk of your foot remaining in your mouth.

So Pot. Kettle. Black. Yet again. Please consider my recommendation to make your drivel more interesting; more 'Stylish'. After all, if we have to endure the same things for the hundredth time, making it interesting to read. That way we can overlook your intellectual dishonesty and painful attempts at disdain.

Edited January 15, 2016 by lostboy

aTomsLife · January 15, 2016

What is there to address. All you have done is throw out all the tropes. Everything you painstakingly wrote is just the same old argument from the Right. The silly attempts at statistical analysis, the whole defend against the tyrannical Federal government nonsense, protect freedom. Everything. Look at any gun related thread, all the responses are there. Been there done that. Why should people bother doing again with your paltry offerings?

Why not come up with something new? If you can't, then you should work on your style. Some of the pro-gun sort have their own particular way of expressing themselves. What is being said is tired, irrelevant and boring but at least the way they say it is interesting. I mean who can resist waiting for the deluge of right wing news articles by one poster who will start off by 'let me just offer this...' Or who can wait to count the number of question marks, exclamation marks and kindergarten insults, ironically usually about immaturity, from another one of the lunatic set?

So we will add you to the list. I guess for you, supercilious is the game? Sorry to say that to make that work, you actually do need to be better than others. So you may want to check out the box headed 'Misattributed' in this link about Socrates https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Socrates I have been a long admirer of the Philosopher and have used his Socratic Method frequently. Just putting his name to a string of words to make yourself look intelligent does not really work if you fail to check your sources. Oh well, I will keep on looking for others who can carry this stuff off in a style that you have yet to develop.

Regardless of who said the quote, the words remain true, as evidenced by your pathetic ad hominem personal attacks.

Your reply is nothing more than a rant, wherein you don't address any of the points I raised and think you can get around it by saying they're "overused" and they've been responded to elsewhere. That's no kind of an argument, and such an admirer of the Socratic Method should realize as much.

What's really been 'overused' are emotionally-driven personal attacks like yours. They've become the trademark of the left. Whenever your false narratives are invalidated, all you can do is name call, e.g., tell me to go work on my "style."

There you go. Superciliousness and disdain again. Not really working for you. Just throwing in a few latin terms makes you look no smarter just like your Socrates thing. If the words remain valid, then why not put your own name to them instead of dishonestly claiming they belong to someone else. BTW the emoticon thing really doesn't help your attempt at defining a style either. I have seen some use them with great precision and context. Just throwing one in because you've run out of words is a bit weak.

You want line by line? What's the point. Google gun myths. It's all there. What will you do in response? Just repeat the crap you've already presented. You do it above. The trademark of the Left. Emotionally driven. False narrative. You actually live in a world where you believe that anything you have claimed on the issue of guns has invalidated anything? Your silly numbers? Your calls to constitutionality? Your retreat into cultural bias?

You may also want to read a bit more about Socrates and then you will realise that your own personal attacks about rhetorical style and the use of the Socratic Method do not actually reflect the reality of the content of my post and leaves quite a large chunk of your foot remaining in your mouth.

So Pot. Kettle. Black. Yet again. Please consider my recommendation to make your drivel more interesting; more 'Stylish'. After all, if we have to endure the same things for the hundredth time, making it interesting to read. That way we can overlook your intellectual dishonesty and painful attempts at disdain.

Yes, if you're going to bother responding to me, I would like a reply to my actual arguments. Clearly, all you have are insults and unsubstantiated insinuations.

But boy, I bet you think you sound smart. Projection anyone?

boomerangutang · January 15, 2016

...and American ~~rednecks~~ gun lovers can justify it by saying the dad was just part of a well-armed militia. Now if the mom shoots the dad in revenge, is that also justified?

lostboy · January 15, 2016

What is there to address. All you have done is throw out all the tropes. Everything you painstakingly wrote is just the same old argument from the Right. The silly attempts at statistical analysis, the whole defend against the tyrannical Federal government nonsense, protect freedom. Everything. Look at any gun related thread, all the responses are there. Been there done that. Why should people bother doing again with your paltry offerings?

Why not come up with something new? If you can't, then you should work on your style. Some of the pro-gun sort have their own particular way of expressing themselves. What is being said is tired, irrelevant and boring but at least the way they say it is interesting. I mean who can resist waiting for the deluge of right wing news articles by one poster who will start off by 'let me just offer this...' Or who can wait to count the number of question marks, exclamation marks and kindergarten insults, ironically usually about immaturity, from another one of the lunatic set?

So we will add you to the list. I guess for you, supercilious is the game? Sorry to say that to make that work, you actually do need to be better than others. So you may want to check out the box headed 'Misattributed' in this link about Socrates https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Socrates I have been a long admirer of the Philosopher and have used his Socratic Method frequently. Just putting his name to a string of words to make yourself look intelligent does not really work if you fail to check your sources. Oh well, I will keep on looking for others who can carry this stuff off in a style that you have yet to develop.

Regardless of who said the quote, the words remain true, as evidenced by your pathetic ad hominem personal attacks.

Your reply is nothing more than a rant, wherein you don't address any of the points I raised and think you can get around it by saying they're "overused" and they've been responded to elsewhere. That's no kind of an argument, and such an admirer of the Socratic Method should realize as much.

What's really been 'overused' are emotionally-driven personal attacks like yours. They've become the trademark of the left. Whenever your false narratives are invalidated, all you can do is name call, e.g., tell me to go work on my "style."

There you go. Superciliousness and disdain again. Not really working for you. Just throwing in a few latin terms makes you look no smarter just like your Socrates thing. If the words remain valid, then why not put your own name to them instead of dishonestly claiming they belong to someone else. BTW the emoticon thing really doesn't help your attempt at defining a style either. I have seen some use them with great precision and context. Just throwing one in because you've run out of words is a bit weak.

You want line by line? What's the point. Google gun myths. It's all there. What will you do in response? Just repeat the crap you've already presented. You do it above. The trademark of the Left. Emotionally driven. False narrative. You actually live in a world where you believe that anything you have claimed on the issue of guns has invalidated anything? Your silly numbers? Your calls to constitutionality? Your retreat into cultural bias?

You may also want to read a bit more about Socrates and then you will realise that your own personal attacks about rhetorical style and the use of the Socratic Method do not actually reflect the reality of the content of my post and leaves quite a large chunk of your foot remaining in your mouth.

So Pot. Kettle. Black. Yet again. Please consider my recommendation to make your drivel more interesting; more 'Stylish'. After all, if we have to endure the same things for the hundredth time, making it interesting to read. That way we can overlook your intellectual dishonesty and painful attempts at disdain.

Yes, if you're going to bother responding to me, I would like a reply to my actual arguments. Clearly, all you have are insults and unsubstantiated insinuations.

But boy, I bet you think you sound smart. Projection anyone?

I challenge you on multiple points. You are unable to interpret them? Not very difficult. It is all there. You are not being asked to read tea leaves or interpret Sanskrit. Is this a game? You wish me to restate and reargue points that I make to save you the bother of understanding them? Well, if you can't see the arguments, then I'm afraid I can't really help you. Should I set them out differently? Perhaps use bold headings and try to articulate line by line? Would emoticons help you? I really can't respond to your demand to reply to your "actual arguments" when I have responded but they have gone straight over your head.

Projection? What's that. Some psychological term? Another attempt at trying to look smart.

Happy to debate all points. I made responses on the Socratic Method. I made responses on the logical fallacies and tautologies of the pro-gun mob. Don't blame me if you don't have the chops to deal with them and cannot respond. Maybe get your little fingers working to find another internet meme to post to clinch your compelling argument. Perhaps a little Cicero or maybe even some Rousseau or Kant. Those are the ones who postulate the concept of the sovereign rights of the individual that forms the basis of the US Constitution and the pro 2A argument. But no, stay with the superficial, supercilious, sophomoric crap you've been peddling the past couple of days.

Edited January 15, 2016 by lostboy

aTomsLife · January 15, 2016

Regardless of who said the quote, the words remain true, as evidenced by your pathetic ad hominem personal attacks.

Your reply is nothing more than a rant, wherein you don't address any of the points I raised and think you can get around it by saying they're "overused" and they've been responded to elsewhere. That's no kind of an argument, and such an admirer of the Socratic Method should realize as much.

What's really been 'overused' are emotionally-driven personal attacks like yours. They've become the trademark of the left. Whenever your false narratives are invalidated, all you can do is name call, e.g., tell me to go work on my "style."

There you go. Superciliousness and disdain again. Not really working for you. Just throwing in a few latin terms makes you look no smarter just like your Socrates thing. If the words remain valid, then why not put your own name to them instead of dishonestly claiming they belong to someone else. BTW the emoticon thing really doesn't help your attempt at defining a style either. I have seen some use them with great precision and context. Just throwing one in because you've run out of words is a bit weak.

You want line by line? What's the point. Google gun myths. It's all there. What will you do in response? Just repeat the crap you've already presented. You do it above. The trademark of the Left. Emotionally driven. False narrative. You actually live in a world where you believe that anything you have claimed on the issue of guns has invalidated anything? Your silly numbers? Your calls to constitutionality? Your retreat into cultural bias?

You may also want to read a bit more about Socrates and then you will realise that your own personal attacks about rhetorical style and the use of the Socratic Method do not actually reflect the reality of the content of my post and leaves quite a large chunk of your foot remaining in your mouth.

So Pot. Kettle. Black. Yet again. Please consider my recommendation to make your drivel more interesting; more 'Stylish'. After all, if we have to endure the same things for the hundredth time, making it interesting to read. That way we can overlook your intellectual dishonesty and painful attempts at disdain.

Yes, if you're going to bother responding to me, I would like a reply to my actual arguments. Clearly, all you have are insults and unsubstantiated insinuations.

But boy, I bet you think you sound smart. Projection anyone?

I challenge you on multiple points. You are unable to interpret them? Not very difficult. It is all there. You are not being asked to read tea leaves or interpret Sanskrit. Is this a game? You wish me to restate and reargue points that I make to save you the bother of understanding them? Well, if you can't see the arguments, then I'm afraid I can't really help you. Should I set them out differently? Perhaps use bold headings and try to articulate line by line? Would emoticons help you? I really can't respond to your demand to reply to your "actual arguments" when I have responded but they have gone straight over your head.

Projection? What's that. Some psychological term? Another attempt at trying to look smart.

Happy to debate all points. I made responses on the Socratic Method. I made responses on the logical fallacies and tautologies of the pro-gun mob. Don't blame me if you don't have the chops to deal with them and cannot respond. Maybe get your little fingers working to find another internet meme to post to clinch your compelling argument. Perhaps a little Cicero or maybe even some Rousseau or Kant. Those are the ones who postulate the concept of the sovereign rights of the individual that forms the basis of the US Constitution and the pro 2A argument. But no, stay with the superficial, supercilious, sophomoric crap you've been peddling the past couple of days.

"There you go. Superciliousness and disdain again. Not really working for you. Just throwing in a few latin terms makes you look no smarter just like your Socrates thing. If the words remain valid, then why not put your own name to them instead of dishonestly claiming they belong to someone else. BTW the emoticon thing really doesn't help your attempt at defining a style either. I have seen some use them with great precision and context. Just throwing one in because you've run out of words is a bit weak."

All personal attacks. Where's your argument here? Asking me why I don't put my name to a quote I didn't say?

You want line by line? What's the point. Google gun myths. It's all there. What will you do in response? Just repeat the crap you've already presented. You do it above. The trademark of the Left. Emotionally driven. False narrative. You actually live in a world where you believe that anything you have claimed on the issue of guns has invalidated anything? Your silly numbers? Your calls to constitutionality? Your retreat into cultural bias?

Do I want line by line? No, but directly addressing even a single point I made would've been nice... Then you tell me to Google gun myths. Is that your argument? The rest is all personal attacks and, again, unsubstantiated insinuations wherein you seem to think you invalidate my observations just by pointing them out.

"You may also want to read a bit more about Socrates and then you will realise that your own personal attacks about rhetorical style and the use of the Socratic Method do not actually reflect the reality of the content of my post and leaves quite a large chunk of your foot remaining in your mouth."

My response to the above was directed at you, a person who claimed an appreciation for argumentation, but was resorting to logical fallacy. I wasn't accusing you of misusing the Socratic method per se, just that someone as well learned as you should argue better than you do. Guess you couldn't comprehend...

So Pot. Kettle. Black. Yet again. Please consider my recommendation to make your drivel more interesting; more 'Stylish'. After all, if we have to endure the same things for the hundredth time, making it interesting to read. That way we can overlook your intellectual dishonesty and painful attempts at disdain.

Your conclusion is premised on a false assumption--that I was mistaking your rhetoric as an attempt at the Socratic method--and thus is another fallacy. The rest is more personal attacks.

lostboy · January 15, 2016

There you go. Superciliousness and disdain again. Not really working for you. Just throwing in a few latin terms makes you look no smarter just like your Socrates thing. If the words remain valid, then why not put your own name to them instead of dishonestly claiming they belong to someone else. BTW the emoticon thing really doesn't help your attempt at defining a style either. I have seen some use them with great precision and context. Just throwing one in because you've run out of words is a bit weak.

You want line by line? What's the point. Google gun myths. It's all there. What will you do in response? Just repeat the crap you've already presented. You do it above. The trademark of the Left. Emotionally driven. False narrative. You actually live in a world where you believe that anything you have claimed on the issue of guns has invalidated anything? Your silly numbers? Your calls to constitutionality? Your retreat into cultural bias?

You may also want to read a bit more about Socrates and then you will realise that your own personal attacks about rhetorical style and the use of the Socratic Method do not actually reflect the reality of the content of my post and leaves quite a large chunk of your foot remaining in your mouth.

So Pot. Kettle. Black. Yet again. Please consider my recommendation to make your drivel more interesting; more 'Stylish'. After all, if we have to endure the same things for the hundredth time, making it interesting to read. That way we can overlook your intellectual dishonesty and painful attempts at disdain.

Yes, if you're going to bother responding to me, I would like a reply to my actual arguments. Clearly, all you have are insults and unsubstantiated insinuations.

But boy, I bet you think you sound smart. Projection anyone?

I challenge you on multiple points. You are unable to interpret them? Not very difficult. It is all there. You are not being asked to read tea leaves or interpret Sanskrit. Is this a game? You wish me to restate and reargue points that I make to save you the bother of understanding them? Well, if you can't see the arguments, then I'm afraid I can't really help you. Should I set them out differently? Perhaps use bold headings and try to articulate line by line? Would emoticons help you? I really can't respond to your demand to reply to your "actual arguments" when I have responded but they have gone straight over your head.

Projection? What's that. Some psychological term? Another attempt at trying to look smart.

Happy to debate all points. I made responses on the Socratic Method. I made responses on the logical fallacies and tautologies of the pro-gun mob. Don't blame me if you don't have the chops to deal with them and cannot respond. Maybe get your little fingers working to find another internet meme to post to clinch your compelling argument. Perhaps a little Cicero or maybe even some Rousseau or Kant. Those are the ones who postulate the concept of the sovereign rights of the individual that forms the basis of the US Constitution and the pro 2A argument. But no, stay with the superficial, supercilious, sophomoric crap you've been peddling the past couple of days.

"There you go. Superciliousness and disdain again. Not really working for you. Just throwing in a few latin terms makes you look no smarter just like your Socrates thing. If the words remain valid, then why not put your own name to them instead of dishonestly claiming they belong to someone else. BTW the emoticon thing really doesn't help your attempt at defining a style either. I have seen some use them with great precision and context. Just throwing one in because you've run out of words is a bit weak."

All personal attacks. Where's your argument here? Asking me why I don't put my name to a quote I didn't say?

You want line by line? What's the point. Google gun myths. It's all there. What will you do in response? Just repeat the crap you've already presented. You do it above. The trademark of the Left. Emotionally driven. False narrative. You actually live in a world where you believe that anything you have claimed on the issue of guns has invalidated anything? Your silly numbers? Your calls to constitutionality? Your retreat into cultural bias?

Do I want line by line? No, but directly addressing even a single point I made would've been nice... Then you tell me to Google gun myths. Is that your argument? The rest is all personal attacks and, again, unsubstantiated insinuations wherein you seem to think you invalidate my observations just by pointing them out.

"You may also want to read a bit more about Socrates and then you will realise that your own personal attacks about rhetorical style and the use of the Socratic Method do not actually reflect the reality of the content of my post and leaves quite a large chunk of your foot remaining in your mouth."

My response to the above was directed at you, a person who claimed an appreciation for argumentation, but was resorting to logical fallacy. I wasn't accusing you of misusing the Socratic method per se, just that someone as well learned as you should argue better than you do. Guess you couldn't comprehend...

So Pot. Kettle. Black. Yet again. Please consider my recommendation to make your drivel more interesting; more 'Stylish'. After all, if we have to endure the same things for the hundredth time, making it interesting to read. That way we can overlook your intellectual dishonesty and painful attempts at disdain.

Your conclusion is premised on a false assumption--that I was mistaking your rhetoric as an attempt at the Socratic method--and thus is another fallacy. The rest is more personal attacks.

There you go. Revert to default Style. I say you do, you say you don't line by line, with convenient headings. Let's call this the Sandbox Method. Back and forth, ad infinitum.

The Socratic Method is a fancy way of saying Questioning. Fortunately, in modern Grammar and unknown to the Ancient Greeks, we are blessed with a punctuation mark that indicates a question. If you look carefully at my posts, then you may notice one or two. The is an invitation to respond, to engage, to rebut. You avoid this by claiming ad hominem. You may want to consider the difference between ad hominem and satire and ridicule. Pricking pomposity is not de facto ad hominem.

I count six separate challenges to points that you made. You avoid each one. You claim your observations are valid in the face of direct evidence otherwise but are unwilling to stand by your statements. Look at the six challenges. Happy to argue either one. You won't. Your thing is to regurgitate the polemic of the pro gun mob that is repeated and repeatedly debunked ad nauseous on TVF and every other social media site. If you had googled gun myths, you would have found all the material there. But I guess you want to stay consistent with our 'Style' and that is bore everyone to death with endless repetitions of the passe. Arguing tit for tat endlessly line by line until people get bored with the game.

Continue responding by claiming personal attack. It certainly avoids the need for any actual analysis. You want soft balls? Sorry, I don't do that. you can't comprehend the discussion, you are quite allowed to pass on to other things and just engage with those who want to play your game.

Seriously, any of the six openings I gave. Happy to oblige. I am a full service antagonist.

aTomsLife · January 15, 2016

Yes, if you're going to bother responding to me, I would like a reply to my actual arguments. Clearly, all you have are insults and unsubstantiated insinuations.

But boy, I bet you think you sound smart. Projection anyone?

I challenge you on multiple points. You are unable to interpret them? Not very difficult. It is all there. You are not being asked to read tea leaves or interpret Sanskrit. Is this a game? You wish me to restate and reargue points that I make to save you the bother of understanding them? Well, if you can't see the arguments, then I'm afraid I can't really help you. Should I set them out differently? Perhaps use bold headings and try to articulate line by line? Would emoticons help you? I really can't respond to your demand to reply to your "actual arguments" when I have responded but they have gone straight over your head.

Projection? What's that. Some psychological term? Another attempt at trying to look smart.

Happy to debate all points. I made responses on the Socratic Method. I made responses on the logical fallacies and tautologies of the pro-gun mob. Don't blame me if you don't have the chops to deal with them and cannot respond. Maybe get your little fingers working to find another internet meme to post to clinch your compelling argument. Perhaps a little Cicero or maybe even some Rousseau or Kant. Those are the ones who postulate the concept of the sovereign rights of the individual that forms the basis of the US Constitution and the pro 2A argument. But no, stay with the superficial, supercilious, sophomoric crap you've been peddling the past couple of days.

"There you go. Superciliousness and disdain again. Not really working for you. Just throwing in a few latin terms makes you look no smarter just like your Socrates thing. If the words remain valid, then why not put your own name to them instead of dishonestly claiming they belong to someone else. BTW the emoticon thing really doesn't help your attempt at defining a style either. I have seen some use them with great precision and context. Just throwing one in because you've run out of words is a bit weak."

All personal attacks. Where's your argument here? Asking me why I don't put my name to a quote I didn't say?

You want line by line? What's the point. Google gun myths. It's all there. What will you do in response? Just repeat the crap you've already presented. You do it above. The trademark of the Left. Emotionally driven. False narrative. You actually live in a world where you believe that anything you have claimed on the issue of guns has invalidated anything? Your silly numbers? Your calls to constitutionality? Your retreat into cultural bias?

Do I want line by line? No, but directly addressing even a single point I made would've been nice... Then you tell me to Google gun myths. Is that your argument? The rest is all personal attacks and, again, unsubstantiated insinuations wherein you seem to think you invalidate my observations just by pointing them out.

"You may also want to read a bit more about Socrates and then you will realise that your own personal attacks about rhetorical style and the use of the Socratic Method do not actually reflect the reality of the content of my post and leaves quite a large chunk of your foot remaining in your mouth."

My response to the above was directed at you, a person who claimed an appreciation for argumentation, but was resorting to logical fallacy. I wasn't accusing you of misusing the Socratic method per se, just that someone as well learned as you should argue better than you do. Guess you couldn't comprehend...

So Pot. Kettle. Black. Yet again. Please consider my recommendation to make your drivel more interesting; more 'Stylish'. After all, if we have to endure the same things for the hundredth time, making it interesting to read. That way we can overlook your intellectual dishonesty and painful attempts at disdain.

Your conclusion is premised on a false assumption--that I was mistaking your rhetoric as an attempt at the Socratic method--and thus is another fallacy. The rest is more personal attacks.

There you go. Revert to default Style. I say you do, you say you don't line by line, with convenient headings. Let's call this the Sandbox Method. Back and forth, ad infinitum.

The Socratic Method is a fancy way of saying Questioning. Fortunately, in modern Grammar and unknown to the Ancient Greeks, we are blessed with a punctuation mark that indicates a question. If you look carefully at my posts, then you may notice one or two. The is an invitation to respond, to engage, to rebut. You avoid this by claiming ad hominem. You may want to consider the difference between ad hominem and satire and ridicule. Pricking pomposity is not de facto ad hominem.

I count six separate challenges to points that you made. You avoid each one. You claim your observations are valid in the face of direct evidence otherwise but are unwilling to stand by your statements. Look at the six challenges. Happy to argue either one. You won't. Your thing is to regurgitate the polemic of the pro gun mob that is repeated and repeatedly debunked ad nauseous on TVF and every other social media site. If you had googled gun myths, you would have found all the material there. But I guess you want to stay consistent with our 'Style' and that is bore everyone to death with endless repetitions of the passe. Arguing tit for tat endlessly line by line until people get bored with the game.

Continue responding by claiming personal attack. It certainly avoids the need for any actual analysis. You want soft balls? Sorry, I don't do that. you can't comprehend the discussion, you are quite allowed to pass on to other things and just engage with those who want to play your game.

Seriously, any of the six openings I gave. Happy to oblige. I am a full service antagonist.

There I go? I revert to the default style? You say I do, I say I don't?

Here above is the equivalent of your "argument" style.

Thanks for the laugh, but you're about as good at antagonizing as you are at making valid arguments.

lostboy · January 15, 2016

"There you go. Superciliousness and disdain again. Not really working for you. Just throwing in a few latin terms makes you look no smarter just like your Socrates thing. If the words remain valid, then why not put your own name to them instead of dishonestly claiming they belong to someone else. BTW the emoticon thing really doesn't help your attempt at defining a style either. I have seen some use them with great precision and context. Just throwing one in because you've run out of words is a bit weak."

All personal attacks. Where's your argument here? Asking me why I don't put my name to a quote I didn't say?

You want line by line? What's the point. Google gun myths. It's all there. What will you do in response? Just repeat the crap you've already presented. You do it above. The trademark of the Left. Emotionally driven. False narrative. You actually live in a world where you believe that anything you have claimed on the issue of guns has invalidated anything? Your silly numbers? Your calls to constitutionality? Your retreat into cultural bias?

Do I want line by line? No, but directly addressing even a single point I made would've been nice... Then you tell me to Google gun myths. Is that your argument? The rest is all personal attacks and, again, unsubstantiated insinuations wherein you seem to think you invalidate my observations just by pointing them out.

"You may also want to read a bit more about Socrates and then you will realise that your own personal attacks about rhetorical style and the use of the Socratic Method do not actually reflect the reality of the content of my post and leaves quite a large chunk of your foot remaining in your mouth."

My response to the above was directed at you, a person who claimed an appreciation for argumentation, but was resorting to logical fallacy. I wasn't accusing you of misusing the Socratic method per se, just that someone as well learned as you should argue better than you do. Guess you couldn't comprehend...

So Pot. Kettle. Black. Yet again. Please consider my recommendation to make your drivel more interesting; more 'Stylish'. After all, if we have to endure the same things for the hundredth time, making it interesting to read. That way we can overlook your intellectual dishonesty and painful attempts at disdain.

Your conclusion is premised on a false assumption--that I was mistaking your rhetoric as an attempt at the Socratic method--and thus is another fallacy. The rest is more personal attacks.

There you go. Revert to default Style. I say you do, you say you don't line by line, with convenient headings. Let's call this the Sandbox Method. Back and forth, ad infinitum.

The Socratic Method is a fancy way of saying Questioning. Fortunately, in modern Grammar and unknown to the Ancient Greeks, we are blessed with a punctuation mark that indicates a question. If you look carefully at my posts, then you may notice one or two. The is an invitation to respond, to engage, to rebut. You avoid this by claiming ad hominem. You may want to consider the difference between ad hominem and satire and ridicule. Pricking pomposity is not de facto ad hominem.

I count six separate challenges to points that you made. You avoid each one. You claim your observations are valid in the face of direct evidence otherwise but are unwilling to stand by your statements. Look at the six challenges. Happy to argue either one. You won't. Your thing is to regurgitate the polemic of the pro gun mob that is repeated and repeatedly debunked ad nauseous on TVF and every other social media site. If you had googled gun myths, you would have found all the material there. But I guess you want to stay consistent with our 'Style' and that is bore everyone to death with endless repetitions of the passe. Arguing tit for tat endlessly line by line until people get bored with the game.

Continue responding by claiming personal attack. It certainly avoids the need for any actual analysis. You want soft balls? Sorry, I don't do that. you can't comprehend the discussion, you are quite allowed to pass on to other things and just engage with those who want to play your game.

Seriously, any of the six openings I gave. Happy to oblige. I am a full service antagonist.

There I go? I revert to the default style? You say I do, I say I don't?

Here above is the equivalent of your "argument" style.

Thanks for the laugh, but you're about as good at antagonizing as you are at making valid arguments.

I knew you wouldn't accept the challenge.

No memes? No pithy sayings misattributed to minds far greater than yours?

I am sincerely sorry that your educational grounding wasn't sufficient to go beyond literal interpretations of cultural stereo-types. No grounding in the rules of rhetoric or indeed the rules of etiquette. No familiarity with the structure and use of logic. No real knowledge of the real sayings and uttering of historically great figures for you to use in your keyboard battles against the nasty Lefties.

It is becoming so boring correcting your misunderstandings and misinterpretations. An antagonist is someone who opposes a protagonist. In this case you are the protagonist for unfettered gun freedom in the US. There is no ipso facto correlation between the noun antagonist and the verb antagonise. It's like talking to a brick wall sometimes.

aTomsLife · January 15, 2016

There you go. Revert to default Style. I say you do, you say you don't line by line, with convenient headings. Let's call this the Sandbox Method. Back and forth, ad infinitum.

The Socratic Method is a fancy way of saying Questioning. Fortunately, in modern Grammar and unknown to the Ancient Greeks, we are blessed with a punctuation mark that indicates a question. If you look carefully at my posts, then you may notice one or two. The is an invitation to respond, to engage, to rebut. You avoid this by claiming ad hominem. You may want to consider the difference between ad hominem and satire and ridicule. Pricking pomposity is not de facto ad hominem.

I count six separate challenges to points that you made. You avoid each one. You claim your observations are valid in the face of direct evidence otherwise but are unwilling to stand by your statements. Look at the six challenges. Happy to argue either one. You won't. Your thing is to regurgitate the polemic of the pro gun mob that is repeated and repeatedly debunked ad nauseous on TVF and every other social media site. If you had googled gun myths, you would have found all the material there. But I guess you want to stay consistent with our 'Style' and that is bore everyone to death with endless repetitions of the passe. Arguing tit for tat endlessly line by line until people get bored with the game.

Continue responding by claiming personal attack. It certainly avoids the need for any actual analysis. You want soft balls? Sorry, I don't do that. you can't comprehend the discussion, you are quite allowed to pass on to other things and just engage with those who want to play your game.

Seriously, any of the six openings I gave. Happy to oblige. I am a full service antagonist.

There I go? I revert to the default style? You say I do, I say I don't?

Here above is the equivalent of your "argument" style.

Thanks for the laugh, but you're about as good at antagonizing as you are at making valid arguments.

I knew you wouldn't accept the challenge.

No memes? No pithy sayings misattributed to minds far greater than yours?

I am sincerely sorry that your educational grounding wasn't sufficient to go beyond literal interpretations of cultural stereo-types. No grounding in the rules of rhetoric or indeed the rules of etiquette. No familiarity with the structure and use of logic. No real knowledge of the real sayings and uttering of historically great figures for you to use in your keyboard battles against the nasty Lefties.

It is becoming so boring correcting your misunderstandings and misinterpretations. An antagonist is someone who opposes a protagonist. In this case you are the protagonist for unfettered gun freedom in the US. There is no ipso facto correlation between the noun antagonist and the verb antagonise. It's like talking to a brick wall sometimes.

So an antagonist doesn't antagonize? Yeah okay, thanks, I'll remember that.

As for your "challenge." Please. I wrote more than a dozen posts on this topic, none of which you responded to directly. You then task me with Googling your argument for you, as if I never read the Left's take on things, as if I'm going to come back here and report to you my findings. Talk about delusions of grandeur (that's another psychological term, by the way. You can Google it.)

All you do is level insults without backing anything up, yet had the gall to call me sophomoric. Remember what I said before about projection?

aTomsLife · January 15, 2016

verb (used with object), antagonized, antagonizing.

1.

to make hostile or unfriendly; make an enemy or antagonist of:

His speech antagonized many voters.

MiKT · January 15, 2016

to aTomsLife

Since my more interesting post has been lost without trace in last night’s internet crash and would have been removed anyway, plus the too many text blocks problem stopping me replying directly to your post, I shall simply say the following:

There are more guns per head of the population in Thailand than there are in the US and they effect they have had on governments tyranny has been absolutely zilch.

It’s exactly the same in the US, none of the guns in private hands are going to have any effect on the US government. To say otherwise is totally nonsensical. Wacco to you.

Nobody is bothering with your pathetic statistics because the only relevance they have is that 11,000 (in one year) people died unnecessarily. How many died in other countries with reasonable gun controls? – very, very few. You can’t count things like the Paris attacks as they are an act of war.

Check out where article 2 originated from and let me know if the same statute is still in place and if people are weeping their hearts out over their loss of liberties.

It’s perfectly possible under US law to restrict the sale and ownership of different types of weapons (eg Bowie Knives) without restricting individual rights. Article 2 is as out of date as article 3 is in 2016.

Article 5 of the US constitution says:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, etc.

Thus it is a total fallacy that you have an INALIENABLE right to bear arms. It can be removed at any time.

Thanks for the commendation on my writing, but actually I gave up on yellow journalism when I stopped reading the SCMP in 1985.

Americans would react far differently to a military coup than did the Thais. Think whatever you want, though. If I'm correct in presuming you an Englishman, you wouldn't be the first to underestimate our fortitude.
No one is bothering with my statistics because they demonstrate the weakness people like you suffer with visceral stimuli. You let your emotions get in the way of reason: of the 11,000 deaths--again less than even half of 1% of all U.S. deaths per year--a very significant plurality of them are gang related. In other words, the weapons involved are illegally possessed and thus fall outside the impact any further regulations might have.
I know that restrictions are perfectly legal. My arguments are rooted in the belief that there is regulation enough already.
The right to self defense is inalienable. In the United States, gun ownership is part and parcel of that right. That it can be removed any time is a theory that can and will never see the light of day, barring another civil war. For all intents and purposes, then, bearing arms is an inalienable right intrinsic to the existence of the nation. Any allusions otherwise are simply academic and, thus, are of no real interest to me.
My yellow journalism remark has nothing to do with your writing, but with you falling victim to anecdotal reporting. Stories like the OP are tantamount to shining a flashlight on a mouse to create a shadow the size of an elephant: 85,000 shootings per year in a population of 320,000,000 = .00027% of the population directly impacted. Yet you argue that's reason enough to scrap our Constitution...
Oh god your ignorance is so funny. Yellow journalism, SCMP, its almost an art to winding up you second amendmentists.
Don't you feel ashamed that a cog Brit has to quote you your own constitution only to find that really you dont respect any of it, except the bit you need to keep your toys.

Military coupe in America, fortitude, scrap the constitution, it gets better and better, I just can't stop laughing.

Thanks for going ahead and making my day!

You have got to be kidding me. You are insinuating (aTomsLife) is ignorant??? This poster is articulate and well versed on gun ownership in America. If you and other anti-gun posters were to stop your simple minded hysterical anti-gun rants, and read his posts, you would have a better understanding of America's 2nd Amendment.

I'm insinuating nothing. I made a plain statement of fact. He obviously does not know what the SCMP is and thus is unable to appreciate how I am sending up his pathetic "yellow journalism" insinuation. That makes him far, far too ignorant to be posting on Thai Visa.

He may be an expert on gun ownership, but it obviously limits the rest of his interlect. Do you think he even knows where Thailand is? It's not far from Hong Kong and very near Vietnam son, surely even you have heard of that place.

You too are making me roll-up. Jumping in with accusations of "simple minded hyterical anti-gun rants" makes me doubt that you can understand plain English, let alone understand irony or sarcasm.

Read all my posts, especially the ones from the week before lasts gun debate before you put your foot in your mouth yet again.

Now we have the "who started the world wars" brigade chiming in, more and more free entertainment.

One last little word. Somebody asked about other amendments that need amending. I already pointed out the third as a good example of something that needs to be bought up to date, plus quite a few more could do with tweeking. I notice your expert, expertly avoids the ligitimate issues that I have raised, so I shall go on laughing.

All the psudo Greek philosophy! Gun nut psudo interlectuals trying to make out they can justify a huge number of unessessary deaths with psudo logic. Wow, f. . ing amazingly funny............if it wasn't so pathetic.

lostboy · January 15, 2016

I knew you wouldn't accept the challenge.

No memes? No pithy sayings misattributed to minds far greater than yours?

I am sincerely sorry that your educational grounding wasn't sufficient to go beyond literal interpretations of cultural stereo-types. No grounding in the rules of rhetoric or indeed the rules of etiquette. No familiarity with the structure and use of logic. No real knowledge of the real sayings and uttering of historically great figures for you to use in your keyboard battles against the nasty Lefties.

It is becoming so boring correcting your misunderstandings and misinterpretations. An antagonist is someone who opposes a protagonist. In this case you are the protagonist for unfettered gun freedom in the US. There is no ipso facto correlation between the noun antagonist and the verb antagonise. It's like talking to a brick wall sometimes.

So an antagonist doesn't antagonize? Yeah okay, thanks, I'll remember that.

As for your "challenge." Please. I wrote more than a dozen posts on this topic, none of which you responded to directly. You then task me with Googling your argument for you, as if I never read the Left's take on things, as if I'm going to come back here and report to you my findings. Talk about delusions of grandeur (that's another psychological term, by the way. You can Google it.)

All you do is level insults without backing anything up, yet had the gall to call me sophomoric. Remember what I said before about projection?

I read the crap you posted in the dozen posts in a never ending tit for tat because your stiff neck refuses to allow you to <deleted>. I responded to them. I was your antagonist on this issue. Clearly you are antagonised by that and so are spending time at midnight on a Friday searching for dictionary definitions to argue a point of grammar. Yes, people, like you, are antagonised by antagonists. But, and I will say this again, there is no ipso facto correlation between the words. Some people are not antagonised by antagonists. In fact the welcome debate.

The fact that you are so easily antagonised demonstrates your intellectual dishonesty. You are not doing this for the debate. You are deriving some personal gratification from this exercise of stirring up other people. You are acting in bad faith. If you operated in good faith you would have identified and responded to any of the six openings I gave to you in my satirical attack on your right wing, vacuous, superficial comments made in that dozen posts. But you didn't. You claimed personal attacks. You responded in kind.

Really no need to offer excuses for not taking on the challenge of an antagonist. You can simply acquiesce and go get some sleep. Since you are clearly the type of stiff neck who has to get the last word, let me just say that white is black and you can respond by saying no it isn't and we can terminate this fun and futile exercise. You know. Your Sandbox Method of Dialectic. Go make a meme for that. Just don't put a picture of Socrates on it.

aTomsLife · January 15, 2016

I knew you wouldn't accept the challenge.

No memes? No pithy sayings misattributed to minds far greater than yours?

I am sincerely sorry that your educational grounding wasn't sufficient to go beyond literal interpretations of cultural stereo-types. No grounding in the rules of rhetoric or indeed the rules of etiquette. No familiarity with the structure and use of logic. No real knowledge of the real sayings and uttering of historically great figures for you to use in your keyboard battles against the nasty Lefties.

It is becoming so boring correcting your misunderstandings and misinterpretations. An antagonist is someone who opposes a protagonist. In this case you are the protagonist for unfettered gun freedom in the US. There is no ipso facto correlation between the noun antagonist and the verb antagonise. It's like talking to a brick wall sometimes.

So an antagonist doesn't antagonize? Yeah okay, thanks, I'll remember that.

As for your "challenge." Please. I wrote more than a dozen posts on this topic, none of which you responded to directly. You then task me with Googling your argument for you, as if I never read the Left's take on things, as if I'm going to come back here and report to you my findings. Talk about delusions of grandeur (that's another psychological term, by the way. You can Google it.)

All you do is level insults without backing anything up, yet had the gall to call me sophomoric. Remember what I said before about projection?

I read the crap you posted in the dozen posts in a never ending tit for tat because your stiff neck refuses to allow you to <deleted>. I responded to them. I was your antagonist on this issue. Clearly you are antagonised by that and so are spending time at midnight on a Friday searching for dictionary definitions to argue a point of grammar. Yes, people, like you, are antagonised by antagonists. But, and I will say this again, there is no ipso facto correlation between the words. Some people are not antagonised by antagonists. In fact the welcome debate.

The fact that you are so easily antagonised demonstrates your intellectual dishonesty. You are not doing this for the debate. You are deriving some personal gratification from this exercise of stirring up other people. You are acting in bad faith. If you operated in good faith you would have identified and responded to any of the six openings I gave to you in my satirical attack on your right wing, vacuous, superficial comments made in that dozen posts. But you didn't. You claimed personal attacks. You responded in kind.

Really no need to offer excuses for not taking on the challenge of an antagonist. You can simply acquiesce and go get some sleep. Since you are clearly the type of stiff neck who has to get the last word, let me just say that white is black and you can respond by saying no it isn't and we can terminate this fun and futile exercise. You know. Your Sandbox Method of Dialectic. Go make a meme for that. Just don't put a picture of Socrates on it.

Yes, I was antagonized by your clear intent to antagonize me. Once again, you seem to think pointing out my valid observations makes them invalid. Obviously I had my reasons not to welcome debate with you: you told me my argument was shit, but then wouldn't explain.

But, sure, I'm the one who's intellectually dishonest here. Whatever helps you sleep better tonight.

MiKT · January 15, 2016

I knew you wouldn't accept the challenge.

No memes? No pithy sayings misattributed to minds far greater than yours?

I am sincerely sorry that your educational grounding wasn't sufficient to go beyond literal interpretations of cultural stereo-types. No grounding in the rules of rhetoric or indeed the rules of etiquette. No familiarity with the structure and use of logic. No real knowledge of the real sayings and uttering of historically great figures for you to use in your keyboard battles against the nasty Lefties.

It is becoming so boring correcting your misunderstandings and misinterpretations. An antagonist is someone who opposes a protagonist. In this case you are the protagonist for unfettered gun freedom in the US. There is no ipso facto correlation between the noun antagonist and the verb antagonise. It's like talking to a brick wall sometimes.

So an antagonist doesn't antagonize? Yeah okay, thanks, I'll remember that.

As for your "challenge." Please. I wrote more than a dozen posts on this topic, none of which you responded to directly. You then task me with Googling your argument for you, as if I never read the Left's take on things, as if I'm going to come back here and report to you my findings. Talk about delusions of grandeur (that's another psychological term, by the way. You can Google it.)

All you do is level insults without backing anything up, yet had the gall to call me sophomoric. Remember what I said before about projection?

I read the crap you posted in the dozen posts in a never ending tit for tat because your stiff neck refuses to allow you to <deleted>. I responded to them. I was your antagonist on this issue. Clearly you are antagonised by that and so are spending time at midnight on a Friday searching for dictionary definitions to argue a point of grammar. Yes, people, like you, are antagonised by antagonists. But, and I will say this again, there is no ipso facto correlation between the words. Some people are not antagonised by antagonists. In fact the welcome debate.

The fact that you are so easily antagonised demonstrates your intellectual dishonesty. You are not doing this for the debate. You are deriving some personal gratification from this exercise of stirring up other people. You are acting in bad faith. If you operated in good faith you would have identified and responded to any of the six openings I gave to you in my satirical attack on your right wing, vacuous, superficial comments made in that dozen posts. But you didn't. You claimed personal attacks. You responded in kind.

Really no need to offer excuses for not taking on the challenge of an antagonist. You can simply acquiesce and go get some sleep. Since you are clearly the type of stiff neck who has to get the last word, let me just say that white is black and you can respond by saying no it isn't and we can terminate this fun and futile exercise. You know. Your Sandbox Method of Dialectic. Go make a meme for that. Just don't put a picture of Socrates on it.

Now, now boys, this is not amusing, please get back to telling us why it was perfectly acceptable for a man to shoot his own son.

chuckd · January 15, 2016

Oh god your ignorance is so funny. Yellow journalism, SCMP, its almost an art to winding up you second amendmentists.
Don't you feel ashamed that a cog Brit has to quote you your own constitution only to find that really you dont respect any of it, except the bit you need to keep your toys.

Military coupe in America, fortitude, scrap the constitution, it gets better and better, I just can't stop laughing.

Thanks for going ahead and making my day!

There is currently a move afoot to call a Constitutional Convention of the States to discuss Constitutional Amendments

The Governor of Texas has so far lined up 15 other states that are interested in addressing some problems in the Constitution.

It will take 38 of the 50 States to agree on any new Amendments or changes to existing ones.

The proposed Amendments are:

1. Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.

2. Require Congress to balance its budget.

3. Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law.

4. Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from preempting state law.

5. Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

6. Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.

7. Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution.

8. Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.

9. Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation.

You will notice the Bill of Rights is not under consideration for change. Should the Constitutional Convention take place, it will be the perfect time for all you gun controllers to show up and raise your voices.

But you knew all this anyway...didn't you?

Yes, such a Constitutional Convention would be a perfect time to deal with the anachronisms of language that appear in the 2nd Amendment. Perhaps you might tell us Chuck, how to persuade the person who created your 9 point agenda to include consideration of the 2nd Amendment? Clearly you are not being serious. Just as the Governor of Texas is not being serous. 15 States is far short of what is required. But what the Hell. Right Wing Governors work so hard to reduce the size of potentially tyrannical governments that I guess they need busy work to fill in time. Unless they are planning a defence against an invasion by the Federal Government that is.

Everything is bigger in Texas? Even the piles of bull crap.

Permit me to give you some information as it relates to a Constitutional Convention.

The Constitution may be Amended by a Constitutional Convention which can be called by 2/3rd of both Houses of Congress, OR, a request from 2/3rd of the various States Legislatures for a Convention to be held.

Following that, for an Amendment to be ratified would require a 3/4th vote of the States Legislatures in approval.

In other words, an Amendment would require the approvals of 34 States Legislatures to establish a convention and the approvals of 38 States Legislatures to pass an Amendment.

Sounds like an insurmountable problem, right? Perhaps not so much after all.

After the 2008 election when the Republicans lost the White House and Both Houses of Congress, a decision was taken by the RNC to try and gain some control in the various states Legislatures and both Houses of Congress.

In 2009 Republicans had control in only 14 State Legislatures.

Today Republicans control both the governor’s mansion and legislature in 24 states, 70 of the nation’s 99 state legislative chambers, both chambers in 30 states, plus Nebraska’s single chamber, and 31 governor’s mansions.

Now not quite so far away from the magic 34 and 38 totals.

Let us address your question of dealing with the "anachronisms of language" in the 2nd Amendment. To put it rather bluntly, there are no ways to address your demand. However, not to cause you and your friends on the left wing too much distress, the 2nd Amendment can be repealed entirely by a later Amendment. As an example, the 21st Amendment repealed prohibition, which has made every drunken Democrat party politician imminently happy since.

My suggestion is for you and your supporters to petition any Republican governor asking them to call a Constitutional Convention in order to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Be sure and tell them you are Australian and most of your supporters are of the same nationality. The Governor you select might be more impressed if a British citizen were to make the request however.

To recap, the Republicans currently hold majorities in 70 of the 99 Legislatures and the Nebraska single Legislature. They only need an additional 5 more to hold a super majority.

Your bull crap comment was unnecessary and rather childish in the long run.

lostboy · January 15, 2016

There is currently a move afoot to call a Constitutional Convention of the States to discuss Constitutional Amendments

The Governor of Texas has so far lined up 15 other states that are interested in addressing some problems in the Constitution.

It will take 38 of the 50 States to agree on any new Amendments or changes to existing ones.

The proposed Amendments are:

1. Prohibit Congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one State.

2. Require Congress to balance its budget.

3. Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from creating federal law.

4. Prohibit administrative agencies—and the unelected bureaucrats that staff them—from preempting state law.

5. Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

6. Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law.

7. Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution.

8. Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.

9. Allow a two-thirds majority of the States to override a federal law or regulation.

You will notice the Bill of Rights is not under consideration for change. Should the Constitutional Convention take place, it will be the perfect time for all you gun controllers to show up and raise your voices.

But you knew all this anyway...didn't you?

Yes, such a Constitutional Convention would be a perfect time to deal with the anachronisms of language that appear in the 2nd Amendment. Perhaps you might tell us Chuck, how to persuade the person who created your 9 point agenda to include consideration of the 2nd Amendment? Clearly you are not being serious. Just as the Governor of Texas is not being serous. 15 States is far short of what is required. But what the Hell. Right Wing Governors work so hard to reduce the size of potentially tyrannical governments that I guess they need busy work to fill in time. Unless they are planning a defence against an invasion by the Federal Government that is.

Everything is bigger in Texas? Even the piles of bull crap.

Permit me to give you some information as it relates to a Constitutional Convention.

The Constitution may be Amended by a Constitutional Convention which can be called by 2/3rd of both Houses of Congress, OR, a request from 2/3rd of the various States Legislatures for a Convention to be held.

Following that, for an Amendment to be ratified would require a 3/4th vote of the States Legislatures in approval.

In other words, an Amendment would require the approvals of 34 States Legislatures to establish a convention and the approvals of 38 States Legislatures to pass an Amendment.

Sounds like an insurmountable problem, right? Perhaps not so much after all.

After the 2008 election when the Republicans lost the White House and Both Houses of Congress, a decision was taken by the RNC to try and gain some control in the various states Legislatures and both Houses of Congress.

In 2009 Republicans had control in only 14 State Legislatures.

Today Republicans control both the governor’s mansion and legislature in 24 states, 70 of the nation’s 99 state legislative chambers, both chambers in 30 states, plus Nebraska’s single chamber, and 31 governor’s mansions.

Now not quite so far away from the magic 34 and 38 totals.

Let us address your question of dealing with the "anachronisms of language" in the 2nd Amendment. To put it rather bluntly, there are no ways to address your demand. However, not to cause you and your friends on the left wing too much distress, the 2nd Amendment can be repealed entirely by a later Amendment. As an example, the 21st Amendment repealed prohibition, which has made every drunken Democrat party politician imminently happy since.

My suggestion is for you and your supporters to petition any Republican governor asking them to call a Constitutional Convention in order to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Be sure and tell them you are Australian and most of your supporters are of the same nationality. The Governor you select might be more impressed if a British citizen were to make the request however.

To recap, the Republicans currently hold majorities in 70 of the 99 Legislatures and the Nebraska single Legislature. They only need an additional 5 more to hold a super majority.

Your bull crap comment was unnecessary and rather childish in the long run.

For future reference, there is no need to ask for my permission to post on TVF. You have my blessing in perpetuity. However, it would please me greatly if you could post information that was pertinent to the point that I was making, instead of diverting off into other areas.

To wit. You announce the intention of the Texas Governor to mobilise sufficient support to call for a Constitutional Convention. You announce the Amendments proposed for that Constitutional Convention. Some advocates of removing gun controls argue that the Second Amendment does not allow for such laws to be made. I am just stating what I understand are the foundation issues at play here.

You say that the 2nd Amendment can't be amended. It has to be repealed and/or replaced. I will accept that. I do not withdraw my view that the language in the 2nd Amendment is anachronistic but I do accept that it cannot be re-written through the Constitutional Assembly process.

Now that said, what was my issue? My issue is that I do not know who controls the agenda of a Constitutional Convention. Perhaps you can tell me. it is a serious question. My assumption is that the Convener of the Convention proposes the Agenda. How then, with the Agenda that you describe so focussed on the whole State's Rights and limitation of the Federal Government's powers could any one propose an Amendment to repeal/replace the 2nd Amendment to facilitate more harmonisation and effectiveness in gun regulation. Is the scope of the Convention open to any qualified person to include a proposal. I would imagine there must be some process similar to how a ballot initiative is included in the California election process.

You spent a lot of time detailing the focus of the proposed Constitutional Convention which does not include the issue of gun control. That was the issue to which I responded.

You also play on the assumption that Republican dominance of State Legislatures would automatically translate into support for the call by the Governor of Texas for a Constitutional Convention to pass amendments to limit Federal Government's powers. I do not believe such an assumption warranted. Unless the RNC is more Machiavellian that I believed and can deliver such support on command, then there can be no automatic assumption that the required numbers can be mustered. If they can, then fine. That's what the system is there for. But I would be wary of slippery slopes with constitutional gamesmanship along the lines of Tom Delay and the gerrymandering of electoral boundaries. And I will not be churlish enough to deny that both sides play that game.

So I don't see your problem with my question. Apart from some silly chauvinism that you keep expressing in terms of non Americans having and expressing a view on American related issues. But you know as well as I do that under the TVF rules, that whole thing is a complete non starter. And I do not apologise for my dig at the politics of Right Wing Governors and their ideologically driven policies, like Kansas Governor Brownback bankrupting his State through tax cuts and former Texas Governor Perry deregulation agenda contributing to the 2013 explosion of the West Fertiliser Plant in your old home town. I am allowed these digs, including the bull crap one, because that is the nature of the ideological discourse.

So to recap, you keep telling everyone who wants to deal with the 2nd Amendment to go have a Constitutional Convention. You announce that there is an initiative to establish a Constitutional Convention. I merely ask how do gun control advocates get the issue of the 2nd Amendment on the Agenda of that Constitutional Convention. And this gets up your nose why?

OMGImInPattaya · January 16, 2016

I knew you wouldn't accept the challenge.

No memes? No pithy sayings misattributed to minds far greater than yours?

I am sincerely sorry that your educational grounding wasn't sufficient to go beyond literal interpretations of cultural stereo-types. No grounding in the rules of rhetoric or indeed the rules of etiquette. No familiarity with the structure and use of logic. No real knowledge of the real sayings and uttering of historically great figures for you to use in your keyboard battles against the nasty Lefties.

It is becoming so boring correcting your misunderstandings and misinterpretations. An antagonist is someone who opposes a protagonist. In this case you are the protagonist for unfettered gun freedom in the US. There is no ipso facto correlation between the noun antagonist and the verb antagonise. It's like talking to a brick wall sometimes.

So an antagonist doesn't antagonize? Yeah okay, thanks, I'll remember that.

As for your "challenge." Please. I wrote more than a dozen posts on this topic, none of which you responded to directly. You then task me with Googling your argument for you, as if I never read the Left's take on things, as if I'm going to come back here and report to you my findings. Talk about delusions of grandeur (that's another psychological term, by the way. You can Google it.)

All you do is level insults without backing anything up, yet had the gall to call me sophomoric. Remember what I said before about projection?

I read the crap you posted in the dozen posts in a never ending tit for tat because your stiff neck refuses to allow you to <deleted>. I responded to them. I was your antagonist on this issue. Clearly you are antagonised by that and so are spending time at midnight on a Friday searching for dictionary definitions to argue a point of grammar. Yes, people, like you, are antagonised by antagonists. But, and I will say this again, there is no ipso facto correlation between the words. Some people are not antagonised by antagonists. In fact the welcome debate.

The fact that you are so easily antagonised demonstrates your intellectual dishonesty. You are not doing this for the debate. You are deriving some personal gratification from this exercise of stirring up other people. You are acting in bad faith. If you operated in good faith you would have identified and responded to any of the six openings I gave to you in my satirical attack on your right wing, vacuous, superficial comments made in that dozen posts. But you didn't. You claimed personal attacks. You responded in kind.

Really no need to offer excuses for not taking on the challenge of an antagonist. You can simply acquiesce and go get some sleep. Since you are clearly the type of stiff neck who has to get the last word, let me just say that white is black and you can respond by saying no it isn't and we can terminate this fun and futile exercise. You know. Your Sandbox Method of Dialectic. Go make a meme for that. Just don't put a picture of Socrates on it.

Now, now boys, this is not amusing, please get back to telling us why it was perfectly acceptable for a man to shoot his own son.

Did anyone say that...post the quote....otherwise think about dropping the straw-man arguments! They really make your case weaker than it already is.

neverdie · January 16, 2016

bit rich coming from the team of weak arguments.

It's perfectly reasonable to Slaughter children in the name of a piece of paper.

Duh !

aTomsLife · January 16, 2016

bit rich coming from the team of weak arguments.

It's perfectly reasonable to Slaughter children in the name of a piece of paper.

Duh !

Says a guy coming from the side that won't substantiate any of their arguments, and are now doubling down on a straw man.

No one is debating whether or not gun deaths are tragic. All untimely death is, of course.

The question remains, though, of whether current data warrants a change to the Constitution. For those who say it does, it's well past your turn to provide evidence based on more than just emotional appeals, erroneous claims to satire, or just plain old vitriol.

Edited January 16, 2016 by aTomsLife

neverdie · January 16, 2016

bit rich coming from the team of weak arguments.

It's perfectly reasonable to Slaughter children in the name of a piece of paper.

Duh !

Says a guy coming from the side that won't substantiate any of their arguments, and are now doubling down on a straw man.

No one is debating whether or not gun deaths are tragic. All untimely death is, of course.

The question remains, though, of whether current data warrants a change to the Constitution. For those who say there is, it's well past your turn to provide evidence based on more than just emotional appeals, erroneous claims to satire, or just plain old vitriol.

Blood and guts on television isn't enough for you?

Do you want all murdered infants and children delivered to your doorstep.

The Australians have shown you what to do, so be a good lad and run along.

A good example of the fact that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Stupid is, as stupid does.

CMNightRider · January 16, 2016

bit rich coming from the team of weak arguments.

It's perfectly reasonable to Slaughter children in the name of a piece of paper.

Duh !

Says a guy coming from the side that won't substantiate any of their arguments, and are now doubling down on a straw man.

No one is debating whether or not gun deaths are tragic. All untimely death is, of course.

The question remains, though, of whether current data warrants a change to the Constitution. For those who say there is, it's well past your turn to provide evidence based on more than just emotional appeals, erroneous claims to satire, or just plain old vitriol.

Blood and guts on television isn't enough for you?

Do you want all murdered infants and children delivered to your doorstep.

The Australians have shown you what to do, so be a good lad and run along.

A good example of the fact that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Stupid is, as stupid does.

The Australians have shown America what NOT to do as far as gun control. It is so bad in Australia, that the police can visit a registered gun owner unannounced, and ask to see if their guns are locked up and check if the ammunition is locked up in another place. If the home owners gun is not locked up, or heaven forbid loaded, the gun owner can expect to pay a hefty fine. If an Australian home owner were to shoot an intruder, they can expect to loose their firearm and spend time in prison.

What I find refreshing, is the countless hysterical posts made by the ThaiVisa anti-gun posters, are nothing more than hot air with absolutely no effect on gun owners in America.

Gun control in America is all about sight alignment, breathing, and trigger squeeze.

As far as the father that shot his son, not everyone is born with common sense. This incident reminds me of the saying, "life is tough but even tougher if you are stupid."

Sign In

U.S. father fatally shoots son mistaken for intruder

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members

Announcements

Topics

Popular Now