Ban democrats from owning guns

[Jaxx]

here's the deal: there's a singular reason, only one, why america has had, does have, and will always have, a problem with guns and gun violence. it's because we are genetically twisted around the concept of guns as a tool. our inception as a country? accomplished only by gun violence after words failed us. some of the greatest events in our history, that tested our resolve as a nation? wars, only winnable by gun violence. even today, who are some of the most sacrosanct people in our entire culture? soldiers, war veterans, those who have served our country and risked their lives to preserve ours and our way of life.
no matter what you do, no matter what you say, it's not a matter of taking us from our guns. it's taking our guns out of us. the psychological standpoint of today's americans is based singlemindedly on the concept that we, as a nation, only exist of because of guns, and only continue to exist because of guns. you can't change anything in this country until you change the mindset.

also systemically eradicate the rednecks

[Ad Bot]

[TeslaCoil]

also systemically eradicate the rednecks

A'hyuck, i knew ya'll silly northernur's were plottin somthin'.

[Kimon]

So I'm an starfish for telling you you're wrong.
K.

Well the fact that you said that kind of like an starfish makes me think that you would act like an starfish if I got in a debate with you.

[Harm94]

Are you saying the OP's statistics are correct?

Just a bad attempt at sarcasm.

Not only do I not believe statistics immediately if they're on a graph without a source citation,

Statistics are bullstuff to me. You can argue all you want, but when someone asks for proof such as graphs, pie charts, percentages, people will just look at you and say fake, or call you stupid.

also systemically eradicate the rednecks

and gangs

[SWAT One]

So you are okay with discrimination? I bet that you're only okay with it as long as you aren't that "specific group". Would you like to know about previous wartime discrimination in the US? It just strikes me as incredibly ignorant when people say things like that.

No, racism is a different scenario.

Take 1896 America when the Socialist party nearly won a federal election to place a candidate in the presidency.  Suppose that this took place in 1950s America, and an election turned violent, threatening the sovereignty of the US Government at the time.  Would Truman hesitate to quell this dangerous threat?  Would any president?  I do not doubt though, that Congress would be more than willing to react, and that more than an executive order would be issued.

Edit: Added bonus, the bold parts completely contradict each other.

It is if you take my quote out of context and ignore conditions set against the latter phrase.

I don't mind if a single group isn't allowed guns, unless they are selected by political party relevant to the opposing side [(with the general understanding that they are an actual, determined threat)].

I was pointing out a specific scenario in which I detest such an action.  For instance, I agree that interning the Japanese in WWII was not based on any known threat.  There was more than reasonable doubt of many of their innocences.  The same goes for America's general assumption after 9/11/2001, that all muslims were a detriment to the peace and security of American society.

If you want to be ironic, it strikes me as surprising when people point out something with ignorance, and then assume that they brown townyzed all points and then claim that I am speaking from a subjective point-of-view.

[Harm94]

I heard during the 1992 Los Angeles riots, shop keepers would protect their property with fire arms from looters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots#Preparations

[Daedalus]

Well the fact that you said that kind of like an starfish makes me think that you would act like an starfish if I got in a debate with you.

Not really - I think this is a misinterpretation. I don't mean to be aggressive at all with that post. I'm just wondering why exactly I'm an starfish for being opinionated.

[devildogelite]

Not really - I think this is a misinterpretation. I don't mean to be aggressive at all with that post. I'm just wondering why exactly I'm an starfish for being opinionated.

Because it's against his opinion.

[Anybody]

Vermont had 4 gun murders, 8 total murders in 2011. The chart shows Vermont as being a high gun crime area. Therefore, the image shows false information.

most gun crimes aren't murders, if you pistol whip a motherforgeter it's a gun crime

[Nonnel]

Wow, eight pages of arguing from a joke topic.

[Doomonkey]

Vermont had 4 gun murders, 8 total murders in 2011. The chart shows Vermont as being a high gun crime area. Therefore, the image shows false information.

Murder is one thing. Crimes involving guns is another. 500,000 crimes involving guns occurred in 2005. There are definitely enough crimes for the entirety of New England to be lit up. So the chart in the OP may be correct.

[Harm94]

The irony is strong with the hollywood elite.

[Kalphiter]

reagan was actorerr!!

[Harm94]

reagan was actorerr!!

ronald raygun was also a dirty repooblicon!

[Kalphiter]

The irony is strong with the hollywood elite.

I can see how this is hypocrisy because the difference between reality and fiction is unrecognized by the Republican party.