Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

The Gun Grab Begins


OverSword

Recommended Posts

First there was an outcry for the AR-15 to be banded. Now Deerfield wants it plus certain handguns & shotguns.

Next it'll be your great grandpa's double barrel shotgun that's been passed down for generations.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/5/2018 at 11:56 AM, Dark_Grey said:

The propaganda is starting to take hold over common sense. Why didn't they think of this sooner? Put a student's face out front and start roping in the sympathy and attention of the upcoming generation since the older generation sees what's going on.

I thought it was pretty funny when all those high school kids who protested to have guns banned, violating 2nd Amendment rights, and for more safety measures in schools came back to transparent backpacks and whatever other privacy invasions/checks they have to go through now.  All of a sudden they were protesting that they're rights are being violated...

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, OverSword said:

Not yet.  Just wait until the cell phone zombie PC generation is the majority of voters and you will see a real effort to undermine our constitution. 

It may seem that way now, but you have to remember it's because they're currently lower on the economic class totem pole. See the funny thing is, when many are young and are trying to work their way up the ladder of success, but they don't have a house, vehicle, money, etc., and they feel like they're not getting anywhere fast enough, well they tend to lean politically left...at first. But then the years go by and they get older and a little more wiser, because they climbed the ladder a little higher and they gained more material things in life, their own vehicles, house, saved money, etc. Well then, guess what? Their political views tend to lean more to independent or to the right\conservative and they tend to vote Republican most of the time. Lol, unless somebody like Trump comes around.

Anyway, that's what happened to me in my youth and the same thing happened to my father in his youth...he was a hippie living in California in the early sixties and blindly believed in socialism back then. :D You wouldn't have known it now if you meet him. Criticizes the left\liberal all the time and loves capitalism - he should since he made out pretty well before he retired.

So just keep that in mind, OS. ;)

Edited by Gunn
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gunn said:

It may seem that way now, but you have to remember it's because they're currently lower on the economic class totem pole. See the funny thing is, when many are young and are trying to work their way up the ladder of success, but they don't have a house, vehicle, money, etc., and they feel like they're not getting anywhere fast enough, well they tend to lean politically left...at first. But then the years go by and they get older and a little more wiser, because they climbed the ladder a little higher and they gained more material things in life, their own vehicles, house, saved money, etc. Well then, guess what? Their political views tend to lean more to independent or to the right\conservative and they tend to vote Republican most of the time. Lol, unless somebody like Trump comes around.

Anyway, that's what happened to me in my youth and the same thing happened to my father in his youth...he was a hippie living in California in the early sixties and blindly believed in socialism back then. :D You wouldn't have known it now if you meet him. Criticizes the left\liberal all the time and loves capitalism - he should since he made out pretty well before he retired.to vote.

So just keep that in mind, OS. ;)to vote

When I registered to vote, I had no idea what the political parties platforms were. I was just encouraged to vote.  So just basically picked one out of the hat and chose Democrat. But over the years I became aware of the parties platforms and realized I had more Conservative then Liberal views.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/5/2018 at 3:41 PM, DingoLingo said:

heh.. God given right.. its not a god given right to own a gun my friend.. 

Then you are limited and unimaginative in your thinking.  Trying to tell someone from the Commonwealth who John Locke is, is like trying to tell someone in America who Thomas Jefferson is.  Actually, that’s not really a good example.

http://www.crf-usa.org/foundations-of-our-constitution/natural-rights.html 

As a man of the Enlightenment, Jefferson was well acquainted with British history and political philosophy. He also had read the statements of independence drafted by Virginia and other colonies as well as the writings of fellow revolutionaries like Tom Paine and George Mason. In composing the declaration, Jefferson followed the format of the English Declaration of Rights, written after the Glorious Revolution of 1689.

Most scholars today believe that Jefferson derived the most famous ideas in the Declaration of Independence from the writings of English philosopher John Locke. Locke wrote his Second Treatise of Government in 1689 at the time of England's Glorious Revolution, which overthrew the rule of James II.

Locke wrote that all individuals are equal in the sense that they are born with certain "inalienable" natural rights. That is, rights that are God-given and can never be taken or even given away. Among these fundamental natural rights, Locke said, are "life, liberty, and property."

Locke believed that the most basic human law of nature is the preservation of mankind. To serve that purpose, he reasoned, individuals have both a right and a duty to preserve their own lives. Murderers, however, forfeit their right to life since they act outside the law of reason.

Locke also argued that individuals should be free to make choices about how to conduct their own lives as long as they do not interfere with the liberty of others. Locke therefore believed liberty should be far-reaching.

By "property," Locke meant more than land and goods that could be sold, given away, or even confiscated by the government under certain circumstances. Property also referred to ownership of one's self, which included a right to personal well being. Jefferson, however, substituted the phrase, "pursuit of happiness," which Locke and others had used to describe freedom of opportunity as well as the duty to help those in want.

The purpose of government, Locke wrote, is to secure and protect the God-given inalienable natural rights of the people. For their part, the people must obey the laws of their rulers. Thus, a sort of contract exists between the rulers and the ruled. But, Locke concluded, if a government persecutes its people with "a long train of abuses" over an extended period, the people have the right to resist that government, alter or abolish it, and create a new political system.

Jefferson adopted John Locke's theory of natural rights to provide a reason for revolution. He then went on to offer proof that revolution was necessary in 1776 to end King George's tyranny over the colonists. 

 

Obama tried to keep the “long train of abuses” as short as possible and still usurp the Constitution.  Luckily, the system worked and thwarted the goal.

we did not give up all guns.. they banned certain classes of guns..

Just the most important ones.

 

and we agreed..

You gave up a key right.  You let someone exploited your liberty which you took for granted.

 

you know there is a small push to lift those restrictions.. but over all.. australians do not want those bans lifted..

Some are starting to come to their senses.

 

we are happy that we do not have massacres anymore..

Massacres are defined as 4 or more killed??  Doing a quick google of crime in Australia, a report with the following comes up:

 

Melbourne – ramming:  12 hurt

Endeavour Hills – stabbing:  2 hurt attacker killed

Sydney – Hostage crisis:  3 killed including gunman

Parramatta – shooting:  1 killed

Minto – stabbing:   1 hurt

Quenbeyan – stabbing:  1 killed 3 hurt

Brighton – shooting:  2 killed including gunman and 3 hurt

 

Firstly, I’m sure this is just the tip of the iceberg.  Now none of these meet the requirement for a massacre but I imagine that more deaths occur as non-massacres.  Last year, over 650 were killed in Chicago.  In London (the safest city in Europe) has just recorded its 60th murder this year.  Here in Albuquerque, we’ve just had our 12th murder in something like 3 weeks.  All in separate incidents.

 

we are not afraid to send our kids to school because we do not have to worry about some student going nuts and taking a array of weapons to school to kill his/her class mates..

Just have to worry about some creep abducting a child from a playground.  In 2012 China, 22 children were stabbed?

 

we can walk the streets and not worried about some random decide to go on a shooting spree.. 

Just have to worry about your child crossing the street and being hit.  We just had an incident like that.  Took the life of a 12 year old girl.  It was a senseless accident.  No one was at fault.  This has been a dangerous crosswalk for generations.  It was just a matter of time.

 

 

so hey.. keep your guns.. it is your right.. live with the thought that it may be your kid/nephew/neice etc that could get gunned down while attending their class.. 

I have that fear from any accident or disaster.  But if it is a shooter, I hope and pray that there are more good guys with guns that can and will react to the incident.  For a shooter, a school is an easy target.  There are means to protect the school from that.  Other events like tornadoes, there isn’t much you can do.

 

But to keep this in perspective, a child has more of a chance to be killed in a car accident or die from cancer by far.

 

but should that day come.. and I pray to the gods it never does.. just remember.. that it was your choice not to make a change..  

Our Founding Fathers made the change.  As I’ve said, there are some things more precious than life.  It’s not that we put our guns before our children’s lives.  It’s our duty to pass on our rights to our children so that they can cherish them as much as we have. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Then you are limited and unimaginative in your thinking.  Trying to tell someone from the Commonwealth who John Locke is, is like trying to tell someone in America who Thomas Jefferson is.  Actually, that’s not really a good example.

http://www.crf-usa.org/foundations-of-our-constitution/natural-rights.html 

As a man of the Enlightenment, Jefferson was well acquainted with British history and political philosophy. He also had read the statements of independence drafted by Virginia and other colonies as well as the writings of fellow revolutionaries like Tom Paine and George Mason. In composing the declaration, Jefferson followed the format of the English Declaration of Rights, written after the Glorious Revolution of 1689.

Most scholars today believe that Jefferson derived the most famous ideas in the Declaration of Independence from the writings of English philosopher John Locke. Locke wrote his Second Treatise of Government in 1689 at the time of England's Glorious Revolution, which overthrew the rule of James II.

Locke wrote that all individuals are equal in the sense that they are born with certain "inalienable" natural rights. That is, rights that are God-given and can never be taken or even given away. Among these fundamental natural rights, Locke said, are "life, liberty, and property."

Locke believed that the most basic human law of nature is the preservation of mankind. To serve that purpose, he reasoned, individuals have both a right and a duty to preserve their own lives. Murderers, however, forfeit their right to life since they act outside the law of reason.

Locke also argued that individuals should be free to make choices about how to conduct their own lives as long as they do not interfere with the liberty of others. Locke therefore believed liberty should be far-reaching.

By "property," Locke meant more than land and goods that could be sold, given away, or even confiscated by the government under certain circumstances. Property also referred to ownership of one's self, which included a right to personal well being. Jefferson, however, substituted the phrase, "pursuit of happiness," which Locke and others had used to describe freedom of opportunity as well as the duty to help those in want.

The purpose of government, Locke wrote, is to secure and protect the God-given inalienable natural rights of the people. For their part, the people must obey the laws of their rulers. Thus, a sort of contract exists between the rulers and the ruled. But, Locke concluded, if a government persecutes its people with "a long train of abuses" over an extended period, the people have the right to resist that government, alter or abolish it, and create a new political system.

Jefferson adopted John Locke's theory of natural rights to provide a reason for revolution. He then went on to offer proof that revolution was necessary in 1776 to end King George's tyranny over the colonists. 

 

Obama tried to keep the “long train of abuses” as short as possible and still usurp the Constitution.  Luckily, the system worked and thwarted the goal.
 

Just the most important ones.

 

 

You gave up a key right.  You let someone exploited your liberty which you took for granted.

 

 

Some are starting to come to their senses.

 

 

Massacres are defined as 4 or more killed??  Doing a quick google of crime in Australia, a report with the following comes up:

 

Melbourne – ramming:  12 hurt

Endeavour Hills – stabbing:  2 hurt attacker killed

Sydney – Hostage crisis:  3 killed including gunman

Parramatta – shooting:  1 killed

Minto – stabbing:   1 hurt

Quenbeyan – stabbing:  1 killed 3 hurt

Brighton – shooting:  2 killed including gunman and 3 hurt

 

Firstly, I’m sure this is just the tip of the iceberg.  Now none of these meet the requirement for a massacre but I imagine that more deaths occur as non-massacres.  Last year, over 650 were killed in Chicago.  In London (the safest city in Europe) has just recorded its 60th murder this year.  Here in Albuquerque, we’ve just had our 12th murder in something like 3 weeks.  All in separate incidents.

 

 

Just have to worry about some creep abducting a child from a playground.  In 2012 China, 22 children were stabbed?

 

 

Just have to worry about your child crossing the street and being hit.  We just had an incident like that.  Took the life of a 12 year old girl.  It was a senseless accident.  No one was at fault.  This has been a dangerous crosswalk for generations.  It was just a matter of time.

 

 

 

I have that fear from any accident or disaster.  But if it is a shooter, I hope and pray that there are more good guys with guns that can and will react to the incident.  For a shooter, a school is an easy target.  There are means to protect the school from that.  Other events like tornadoes, there isn’t much you can do.

 

But to keep this in perspective, a child has more of a chance to be killed in a car accident or die from cancer by far.

 

 

Our Founding Fathers made the change.  As I’ve said, there are some things more precious than life.  It’s not that we put our guns before our children’s lives.  It’s our duty to pass on our rights to our children so that they can cherish them as much as we have. 

 

yes there have been stabbings.. but the point of Gun Control is to reduce the gun related crimes.. 

Now forget any statistics the NRA and such put out.. the fact is.. Gun Control has worked here>> 

Homicide by gun has dropped dramatically since 1996

so has.. Assault  by firearm.. Suicide by gun.. Also armed robbery with a firearm as well.. 

we are 22 years into the gun control.. and not one massacre with guns since.. 

Previous to that.. we had close to one a year.. 


that is a fact. its not a myth.. Gun control can and does work.. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Firstly, I’m sure this is just the tip of the iceberg.  Now none of these meet the requirement for a massacre but I imagine that more deaths occur as non-massacres.  Last year, over 650 were killed in Chicago.  In London (the safest city in Europe) has just recorded its 60th murder this year.  Here in Albuquerque, we’ve just had our 12th murder in something like 3 weeks.  All in separate incidents.

London safest city in Europe? Really?
Do you have a source?
 



 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God given rights eh?  So I don't have any because I'm an Atheist?

I do find the concept absurd...how can rights be given by something which doesnt exist, or at least cant be proven to exist?  If we cant be certain that he existed how can we be certain that even if he (sorry, He), does exist that he actually gave anyone those rights?  

I cant even see the basis for some of Lockes ideas. Preservation of mankind is basic human law? what absolute nonsense!  I could write you a catalogue of indidents going back millennia that demonstrate that humans are not bound to any such law.  Certainly nobody and nothing is doing much to enforce such a law. The only reason mankind hasnt wiped itself out is its drive to reproduce...reproduce, not preserve (except in a limited fashion for a short time after reproduction, after that its survival is its own problem).  

I can't help thinking Lockes writings would have really been improved if he'd met Darwin. 

 

The surest rock upon which to base those rights is not God. Its Humans...

 

 

Edited by Torchwood
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, OverSword said:

You are confusing lack of belief in organized religion with atheism.  But IMO you do not have to have a belief in a God to believe in rights endowed by a creator as the creator could easily just be the universe itself and most of us do believe in the universe I'm guessing.

In the context of this conversation however aren't you placing priority of the "god given" right to own guns over the "god given" right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (emphasis on the life) ? 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

Try and remember what it was like in School. Do you really think that surrendering or running away makes you anything but a better victim?

In Camden and the gang max you had to be a predator or prey. The predators didn't like prey that wasn't afraid or fought back.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DingoLingo said:

yes there have been stabbings.. but the point of Gun Control is to reduce the gun related crimes.. 

Now forget any statistics the NRA and such put out.. the fact is.. Gun Control has worked here>> 

Homicide by gun has dropped dramatically since 1996

so has.. Assault  by firearm.. Suicide by gun.. Also armed robbery with a firearm as well.. 

we are 22 years into the gun control.. and not one massacre with guns since.. 

Previous to that.. we had close to one a year.. 


that is a fact. its not a myth.. Gun control can and does work.. 

Might not want to be so sure on your statement that gun control works.

Since you dont want NRA statistics, which makes sense since it is Australia, I figured I might as well use statistics from the Australian Board of Statistics.

Might as well start with the homicides.  Your argument that homicide by gun has dropped drastically is rather misleading.  In 1995 the number of people murdered by guns in Australia was 67 while in 1996 those murdered by gun was approximately 100 people, I say approximately cause for 1996 I was only able to find total number murdered and the percentage murdered with a gun.  In 2016 the amount of people murdered with a gun was 32.  That is a drop of approximately 50%, which is significant percent wise but in terms of people it's a rather small number, especially considered between the early 1980's to mid 1990's the amount of homicide by gun dropped by about 20 to 25 people.  But there is more to this also, the total homicide rate in 1995 was 321 murders, in 1996 there was 311 murders, and in 2016 there was 227 murders and when you look at more data, too lazy to type out each year, of homicide rates there has been a largely steady decline since the 1980's.  Interestingly the amount of murders done by non fire arm weapons have gone up percentage wise.  In 1995, 154 of the 321 murders done were with non firearm weapons or 48%.  In 1996, 140 of the 311 murders were also done with a non firearm weapon or 45%.  In 2016, 125 of the 227 murders were with a non firearm weapon or 55%.  Ultimately arguing that gun control had a significant impact in homicides in Australia is a very weak argument as homicide rates had already been dropping steadily for the past 15 years before the gun control measures were introduced and seemingly had no significant impact on an already decreasing trend.

As for your statement on massacres with guns is straight up wrong.  While I may not necessarily agree with the definition of a massacre as it's used today, I think it should require more then 3 or 4 people shot, but according to the list of massacres in Australia wiki page in December 2014 had the Sydney siege where a gun man held 28 people hostage and 3 people ended up killed, October 2014 there was the Wedderburn Shooting where 3 people were killed, September 2014 was the Hunt family murders were a man shot and killed his entire family and himself, April of 2011 had the Hectorville siege where 3 were killed and 3 injured, October of 2002 had the Monash University shooting with 2 dead and 5 injured, and in Octover of 1999 there was the Wright St Bikies murders which had 3 killed and 2 wounded in a biker feud.  With gun control since 1996 there has been 6 mass shootings as they are currently defined which is more then your claim of zero.  While I disagree with so few people being shot considered a mass shooting the definition is about the same in America and Australia so it is a fair comparison.

Suicide rate of Australia has remained fairly consistent since at least the early 1990's till today so not quite sure what argument you are trying to make, I'm too lazy to check the actual claim of suicide by gun dropping significantly cause I honestly dont see the point when about the same percentage of the population has been committing suicide for decades.

As for assault and robbery by fire arm I'll have to look into those at a later time but it seems from the general crime stats from Australia that gun control hasnt had much of an effect on reducing crime, at best it shifted crimes done with guns to crimes done with other weapons slightly.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Gunn said:

It may seem that way now, but you have to remember it's because they're currently lower on the economic class totem pole. See the funny thing is, when many are young and are trying to work their way up the ladder of success, but they don't have a house, vehicle, money, etc., and they feel like they're not getting anywhere fast enough, well they tend to lean politically left...at first. But then the years go by and they get older and a little more wiser, because they climbed the ladder a little higher and they gained more material things in life, their own vehicles, house, saved money, etc. Well then, guess what? Their political views tend to lean more to independent or to the right\conservative and they tend to vote Republican most of the time. Lol, unless somebody like Trump comes around.

Anyway, that's what happened to me in my youth and the same thing happened to my father in his youth...he was a hippie living in California in the early sixties and blindly believed in socialism back then. :D You wouldn't have known it now if you meet him. Criticizes the left\liberal all the time and loves capitalism - he should since he made out pretty well before he retired.

So just keep that in mind, OS. ;)

if you are not a liberal at 20 you have no heart, if you are not conservative by 40 you have no brain

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Flog said:

London safest city in Europe? Really?
Do you have a source?

My mistake…’safest city in the world’ directly from the Mayor’s mouth.

 

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a wolf is on the hunt a sees 2 prey animals. A porcupine and a lamb. Which prey animal is the wolf most likely to attack?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, DingoLingo said:

yes there have been stabbings.. but the point of Gun Control is to reduce the gun related crimes.. 

Now forget any statistics the NRA and such put out.. the fact is.. Gun Control has worked here>> 

Homicide by gun has dropped dramatically since 1996

so has.. Assault  by firearm.. Suicide by gun.. Also armed robbery with a firearm as well.. 

we are 22 years into the gun control.. and not one massacre with guns since.. 

Previous to that.. we had close to one a year.. 


that is a fact. its not a myth.. Gun control can and does work.. 

I’m just responding to acknowledge.  DarkHunter has already made the point.  Yes, gun control reduced gun related crime but it didn’t reduce crime hardly at all because people found other ways to commit crime.  Gun crime is actually a very minor part of the big picture.  Gun crime is like a sparkler that burns brightly and gets people’s excitement up, but then just fizzles out.  And I’ll say again that far more people die from car accidents and disease than from gun crime.  I wouldn’t call it a total waste of time and effort, but imagine if that interest was put into saving lives on the road or from cancer?  But, I find it interesting how you skipped my points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Torchwood said:

God given rights eh?  So I don't have any because I'm an Atheist?

This is not about whether GOD exists or not.  That you don’t believe is fine.  But even that you don’t believe, GOD has given you the same Rights.  That’s all you need to know.

 

I do find the concept absurd...how can rights be given by something which doesnt exist, or at least cant be proven to exist?  If we cant be certain that he existed how can we be certain that even if he (sorry, He), does exist that he actually gave anyone those rights?  

Actually, all you can prove is that you don’t believe GOD exists.  Let’s leave it at that.  Who else would have given them to us?  Have you read the book “Lord of the Flies” or seen the movie?  The gist is what happens to Man that has not received morals from GOD, but develops their own morals.  The two sets of morals are polar opposites.  If GOD did not exist, then there’d be only one set of morals. 

 

I cant even see the basis for some of Lockes ideas.

Obviously, and I wouldn’t expect you to.

 

Preservation of mankind is basic human law? what absolute nonsense!  I could write you a catalogue of indidents going back millennia that demonstrate that humans are not bound to any such law.  Certainly nobody and nothing is doing much to enforce such a law. The only reason mankind hasnt wiped itself out is its drive to reproduce...reproduce, not preserve (except in a limited fashion for a short time after reproduction, after that its survival is its own problem).  

Reproduction is Preservation.  One must protect the seed to survive.  Those incidents you speak of confirm the level of Man’s depravity of morals and laws.  So where did Preservation of mankind come from if not from GOD?

 

I can't help thinking Lockes writings would have really been improved if he'd met Darwin. 

Or visa versa.  Darwin does not disprove GOD.  Millerism spread world wide by 1840.  It got people interested in the Bible again.  Even though Jesus did not return, Darwin and Wallace probably read the Bible.  And through quantum entanglement, came up with the idea of Natural Selection independently.  Genesis 1 is a top level outline of evolution.  Both these men focused on what the scriptures were saying and unlocked the secret and then went out and proved it (or postulated the theory)

 

The surest rock upon which to base those rights is not God. Its Humans...

Really?  Just earlier, you said Man was not capable of such rights.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

brb

Edited by Torchwood
well something went wrong with the editing there...give us a mo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RavenHawk said:

This is not about whether GOD exists or not.  That you don’t believe is fine.  But even that you don’t believe, GOD has given you the same Rights.  That’s all you need to know.

Ah, Wooly thinking at its best...

Quote

Actually, all you can prove is that you don’t believe GOD exists.

EXACTLY! And that's all you can prove too!   If the only part you can prove is that you believe its true then you've proven nothing of value at all.

Quote

Who else would have given them to us?  

Who said anyone had to?  Why can we not have made them for ourselves?  It would certainly explain why we have so many competing ideologies, religions, systems of govt, etc, and then spent all our time claiming every single one of them was the only way to live,  if we had, yer know, just made 'em up as we went along over millions of years...

Quote

Reproduction is Preservation.

No its not; tutankhamun is pretty well preserved, but hasn't done much reproduction recently.

Quote

So where did Preservation of mankind come from if not from GOD?

Please demonstrate that it actually exists before we discuss where it comes from; just because the species has lasted this long doesn't mean it will last forever, and the universe is full of things that could do it quite apart from the things we are able to do to ourselves. Doesn't even require divine intervention...

Quote

Or visa versa.  Darwin does not disprove GOD.  Millerism spread world wide by 1840.  It got people interested in the Bible again.  Even though Jesus did not return, Darwin and Wallace probably read the Bible.  And through quantum entanglement, came up with the idea of Natural Selection independently.  Genesis 1 is a top level outline of evolution.  Both these men focused on what the scriptures were saying and unlocked the secret and then went out and proved it (or postulated the theory)

Never said he did...but I think Locke would have been better informed.   And you don't know what Quantum Entanglement is.

Quote

Really?  Just earlier, you said Man was not capable of such rights.

I did not, I asserted that wherever those rights come from there is nothing to suggest they are found naturally lying around like Hydrogen and Gravity, and nothing to suggest they are god-given due to the frikking enormous question mark hanging over the existence of God.  The only place that actually can be demonstrated to exist that could have generated them is HUMANS!

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Hawkin said:

When I registered to vote, I had no idea what the political parties platforms were. I was just encouraged to vote.  So just basically picked one out of the hat and chose Democrat. But over the years I became aware of the parties platforms and realized I had more Conservative then Liberal views.

Yeah it was a similar thing for me as well, although I had some idea what the Dem platform was, but mostly influenced by classmates and liberal teachers. Hell, it might had even been peer pressure back then because it was the thing to be part of.

 

2 hours ago, Hawkin said:

If a wolf is on the hunt a sees 2 prey animals. A porcupine and a lamb. Which prey animal is the wolf most likely to attack?

Both! The lamb first, then the porcupine second because he thinks he's going to need a toothpick after eating the lamb. Did I mention this particular wolf is a little bit mentally handicap from the rest of the pack? :D He don't learn so well.

The right answer; The lamb of course. The easiest prey or target without quills.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Torchwood said:

He was released without charge this afternoon.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43676359

 

Because thats how its supposed to work...

No, it's not supposed to work like that. A supposedly free country has freedom of speech, a democratic system in which people can freely say and write what they feel and think, especially humor that may contain obscene or unpopular content. This liberty of communication is sacrosanct, and subjective "hate speech" is no exception to this rule. Any attempt to censor political ideas, that question the political system, should be vigorously challenged.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Flog said:

London safest city in Europe? Really?
Do you have a source?

Come on, man. That was obvious sarcasm.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, mark66 said:

there is a question always when countries go to war. which side god takes? i have the answer to that. god is on the side of the country that has the most artillery.

How do you explain colonial America and enslaved Haiti, which won their freedom by decisively beating the British and the French, respectively? Both European powers had the most artillery. They dominated Europe too. Maybe God didn't get the memo.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Paranormal Panther said:

How do you explain colonial America and enslaved Haiti, which won their freedom by decisively beating the British and the French, respectively? Both European powers had the most artillery. They dominated Europe too. Maybe God didn't get the memo.

Ain't it amazing how the Left always tries to trumpet the glory of a regular military's ability to crush a popular uprising ... when the Left is the establishment and the populists are, well, all the people they accuse of being Populists these days.

Anyone that wins an election that isn't a Leftist, in other words.

 

And of course, as we all know, the Establishment military always wins.

Just like in Yugoslavia in 1941-1944... oops.

Or against Communist rule in Eritrea .... oh no, wait...

How about Indonesian uprisings against Dutch rule right after WW2? :rolleyes:

 

You know, it would be a shorter list to show insurgency campaigns that failed.  You on the Left may want to try to find some examples of that, you will need the encouragement provided thereby when you finally make your move. 

Not that you will win, mind you. From the way you guys talk, you have already convinced yourselves that you would be more likely to blow your own feet off with a cannon, even if the barrel was 12 feet long.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps we should also have the right to carry bazooka's.

You know, since the military has them.

And let's not forget grenades, mortar rounds, machine guns and, oh, nuclear weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talk about "road rage" if powerful weapons were commonly available.

Or a dispute with your neighbor's barking dog.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.