Most gas station owners are not wealthy. What gets stolen from them basically come out of their paycheck. I can?t blame them for this as I would do the same.
Originally posted by: Oderus
Originally posted by: Vic
I'm of the firm opinion that Canada buries its crime and poverty statistics somehow.
Somehow... that's rich.
I once drove through Detroit with my family and was shocked to see that no gas stations in the US allows you to fill up before paying. Weren't you the one telling me that I don't trust the common people? Your hypocracy is amazing.
Originally posted by: Vic
And you misunderstand completely. What I was pointing out is that your argument is fundementally flawed. If the people vote in and vote out the government as they see fit, choosing from amongst themselves who will serve and who will not, then the people ARE the government.Originally posted by: Oderus
Vic you are sadly misinformed. I never admitted to hating or distrusting the common people nor that prohibition is the cause of any ailment. Which thread are you reading anyway?Originally posted by: Vic
Anti-gun nuts like Oderus are hilarious. They openly admit that they hate and distrust the common people and that prohibition legislation is the cause to all ails. Their banner is an ostrich with its head in the sand.
My question for him: if the people cannot be trusted with guns, then how can we trust the government with guns, as the government is the people?
We can trust the government as long as they are trustworthy. When they become untrustworthy we vote them out of power. Your overly simplification of goverment = people is absurd. Politicians do not live like the common people so it's hardly accurate to imply such a statement.
And are not the police (and all other government employees) also "the people"? Or did they lose their right to be among "the people" when they put on the badge? And yet the police will still be armed under your system while the rest of the people will not, thus you establish castes of privilege, those who have the right to use deadly force to protect themselves and those who do not.
And as to the living conditions of the politicians, that is so irrelevant as to be absurd to bring it up. Are you suggesting that no one but politicians live that way? Of course not. The people are represented by the widest range.
Basically, you're just another Ivory Tower elitist. Daddy Gubment knows best, the people must be controlled for their own good, etc. Your argument is logically flawed to its core, and fundamentally unworkable, but I know that that will not stop your idealism.
Originally posted by: Vic
As are your strawmen.Originally posted by: Oderus
Somehow... that's rich.Originally posted by: Vic
I'm of the firm opinion that Canada buries its crime and poverty statistics somehow.
I once drove through Detroit with my family and was shocked to see that no gas stations in the US allows you to fill up before paying. Weren't you the one telling me that I don't trust the common people? Your hypocracy is amazing.
Originally posted by: Oderus
Originally posted by: Vic
And you misunderstand completely. What I was pointing out is that your argument is fundementally flawed. If the people vote in and vote out the government as they see fit, choosing from amongst themselves who will serve and who will not, then the people ARE the government.Originally posted by: Oderus
Vic you are sadly misinformed. I never admitted to hating or distrusting the common people nor that prohibition is the cause of any ailment. Which thread are you reading anyway?Originally posted by: Vic
Anti-gun nuts like Oderus are hilarious. They openly admit that they hate and distrust the common people and that prohibition legislation is the cause to all ails. Their banner is an ostrich with its head in the sand.
My question for him: if the people cannot be trusted with guns, then how can we trust the government with guns, as the government is the people?
We can trust the government as long as they are trustworthy. When they become untrustworthy we vote them out of power. Your overly simplification of goverment = people is absurd. Politicians do not live like the common people so it's hardly accurate to imply such a statement.
And are not the police (and all other government employees) also "the people"? Or did they lose their right to be among "the people" when they put on the badge? And yet the police will still be armed under your system while the rest of the people will not, thus you establish castes of privilege, those who have the right to use deadly force to protect themselves and those who do not.
And as to the living conditions of the politicians, that is so irrelevant as to be absurd to bring it up. Are you suggesting that no one but politicians live that way? Of course not. The people are represented by the widest range.
Basically, you're just another Ivory Tower elitist. Daddy Gubment knows best, the people must be controlled for their own good, etc. Your argument is logically flawed to its core, and fundamentally unworkable, but I know that that will not stop your idealism.
Poor grammer aside, if you supposing that the people ARE the goverment just because they vote them in then you have a point.
Police are citizens when off duty yet while at work, they are extensions of the goverment. They uphold the law based on whichever laws were passed by the government. Police officers from both our countries always ask that people do not take the law into their own hands. This is for everyone's protection, not just for the Police.
I've never suggessted that politicians live in a way different from everyone else. I said that politicians do not live like the common people. Try re-reading my post.
Your last line made me laugh. Thanks.
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Oderus
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Oderus
Prohibiting handguns will have a positive effect on deaths in your country, they have in mine. Those various groups like the NRA (we don't have an NRA with as much political pull thankfully) and others don't really care about how many people die each year. They always repeat that lame statement time and time again, guns don't kill people, people do. Guns don't kill people if people wouldn't use guns.
I don't understand the relevance of your comment about liquor stores, please explain.
Why you would jump to the conclusion that because you are 'pro-citizen' you would be made to suffer is unthinkable.
I too am glad that the US is not more like Canada. If it was, why would anyone live in Canada?
You mean like England where other categories of violent crime skyrocketed after their ban? You would merely trade one type of assault for another. Canada's population is also far more homogeneous than ours so it is hard to make the argument that your solution would work for us with much certainty.
Legalize and watch drug related violence (a huge chunk of the overall problem, especially in the US) quickly drop to almost nil.
FYI: You are really pro-government and anti-citizen (rights at least). We are in this position becase our governemnts have stuck their noses into places they don't belong by selling many of us on the idea that protecting us from ourselves is necessary and desirable (and that they should set most of those standards).
Again, you have focused on the symptom and not the problem.
Wow.. I knew ignorance and racism was bad in the US but I didn't think I would read it here... "Canada's population is also far more homogeneous than ours so it is hard to make the argument that your solution would work for us with much certainty."
"Legalize and watch drug related violence (a huge chunk of the overall problem, especially in the US) quickly drop to almost nil." I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or just agreeing with what I've been saying.
"FYI: You are really pro-government and anti-citizen (rights at least)." You've got 1 out of 2 right here. I'm not anti-citizen, I'm pro-life. If the rights of one person means that other people are going to die or suffer than that right must not prevail. Like abusing my freedom of speech by littering a hip-replacement parking lot with ball bearing just because it's my right. That is wrong.
You think deaths related to guns is a symptom? That's weak.
I like how you can't refute one of my points and so decide to insult me instead.
As to your "pro-life" position: You better be out there working to make alcohol, cars, blunt objects, half full buckets of water, and the like illegal as well. That people can be injured or killed in the abuse of some rights is something that we accept as part of the price of having them. Some of us don?t desire to live in a rubber room for our own protection.
Guns are not the cause of gun violence. That is like saying the existence screwdrivers make people screw things in all on their own without reason.
Originally posted by: AragornTK
It's stupid to listen to anything foreigners have to say about domestic issues guys, different strokes for different folks and whatnot. Canadians love being liberal pussies with no handguns and a serious drug problem, where we prefer to have less drugies(legally) and a method of personal protection.
Why don't you canucks just go smoke a joint and mellow out, maybe go get an injection at the local methadone clinic...
Listening to canadians about US policy is like listening to Bill Gates about being poor. They have no experience with it, and nobody likes them anyway
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Oderus
Originally posted by: Vic
I'm of the firm opinion that Canada buries its crime and poverty statistics somehow.
Somehow... that's rich.
I once drove through Detroit with my family and was shocked to see that no gas stations in the US allows you to fill up before paying. Weren't you the one telling me that I don't trust the common people? Your hypocracy is amazing.
Brilliant, you drew that entire conclusion from visiting one very limited area of the US.
I'm sure I could manage to only visit one crappy area of Canada and draw a similarly flawed generalization.
The statement actually is quite telling of his thought process, demonstrating that he sees no difference between public and private interests, just his personal whims.Originally posted by: rdubbz420
Most gas station owners are not wealthy. What gets stolen from them basically come out of their paycheck. I can?t blame them for this as I would do the same.Originally posted by: Oderus
Originally posted by: Vic
I'm of the firm opinion that Canada buries its crime and poverty statistics somehow.
Somehow... that's rich.
I once drove through Detroit with my family and was shocked to see that no gas stations in the US allows you to fill up before paying. Weren't you the one telling me that I don't trust the common people? Your hypocracy is amazing.
Originally posted by: Oderus
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Oderus
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Oderus
Prohibiting handguns will have a positive effect on deaths in your country, they have in mine. Those various groups like the NRA (we don't have an NRA with as much political pull thankfully) and others don't really care about how many people die each year. They always repeat that lame statement time and time again, guns don't kill people, people do. Guns don't kill people if people wouldn't use guns.
I don't understand the relevance of your comment about liquor stores, please explain.
Why you would jump to the conclusion that because you are 'pro-citizen' you would be made to suffer is unthinkable.
I too am glad that the US is not more like Canada. If it was, why would anyone live in Canada?
You mean like England where other categories of violent crime skyrocketed after their ban? You would merely trade one type of assault for another. Canada's population is also far more homogeneous than ours so it is hard to make the argument that your solution would work for us with much certainty.
Legalize and watch drug related violence (a huge chunk of the overall problem, especially in the US) quickly drop to almost nil.
FYI: You are really pro-government and anti-citizen (rights at least). We are in this position becase our governemnts have stuck their noses into places they don't belong by selling many of us on the idea that protecting us from ourselves is necessary and desirable (and that they should set most of those standards).
Again, you have focused on the symptom and not the problem.
Wow.. I knew ignorance and racism was bad in the US but I didn't think I would read it here... "Canada's population is also far more homogeneous than ours so it is hard to make the argument that your solution would work for us with much certainty."
"Legalize and watch drug related violence (a huge chunk of the overall problem, especially in the US) quickly drop to almost nil." I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or just agreeing with what I've been saying.
"FYI: You are really pro-government and anti-citizen (rights at least)." You've got 1 out of 2 right here. I'm not anti-citizen, I'm pro-life. If the rights of one person means that other people are going to die or suffer than that right must not prevail. Like abusing my freedom of speech by littering a hip-replacement parking lot with ball bearing just because it's my right. That is wrong.
You think deaths related to guns is a symptom? That's weak.
I like how you can't refute one of my points and so decide to insult me instead.
As to your "pro-life" position: You better be out there working to make alcohol, cars, blunt objects, half full buckets of water, and the like illegal as well. That people can be injured or killed in the abuse of some rights is something that we accept as part of the price of having them. Some of us don?t desire to live in a rubber room for our own protection.
Guns are not the cause of gun violence. That is like saying the existence screwdrivers make people screw things in all on their own without reason.
I actually refuted 2 points if you cared to read my entire post and I didn't insult you. I stated that your response was ignorant and racist. If you had not said anything ignorant or racist I wouldn't have replied.
If you need an explanation on why I think your comment was ignorant and racist here goes. You said that Canada is far less homogenous than the US which implies 2 things, 1) you know nothing about the level of diveristy in Canada (which makes your comment ignorant) and 2) It's a racist statement to imply that due to your 'higher level of diversity' your crime is higher. That pretty much blames the non-whites in the US.
Your other ramblings are a pathetic attempt to make sense. I've not once mentioned anything about restricting "...alcohol, cars, blunt objects, half full buckets of water, and the like" so where's your point? If i'm anti-gun I must be anti-half full bucket of water?
Is education in the US voluntary?
Originally posted by: rdubbz420
Originally posted by: Oderus
Originally posted by: Vic
I'm of the firm opinion that Canada buries its crime and poverty statistics somehow.
Somehow... that's rich.
I once drove through Detroit with my family and was shocked to see that no gas stations in the US allows you to fill up before paying. Weren't you the one telling me that I don't trust the common people? Your hypocracy is amazing.
Most gas station owners are not wealthy. What gets stolen from them basically come out of their paycheck. I can?t blame them for this as I would do the same.
Originally posted by: Oderus
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Oderus
Originally posted by: Vic
I'm of the firm opinion that Canada buries its crime and poverty statistics somehow.
Somehow... that's rich.
I once drove through Detroit with my family and was shocked to see that no gas stations in the US allows you to fill up before paying. Weren't you the one telling me that I don't trust the common people? Your hypocracy is amazing.
Brilliant, you drew that entire conclusion from visiting one very limited area of the US.
I'm sure I could manage to only visit one crappy area of Canada and draw a similarly flawed generalization.
Are you debunking my statement that you CAN pay for gas before filling up?
LMAO!! :laugh:Originally posted by: Oderus
Poor grammer aside
More to the point, the concept of government is a fiction. An abstract. Something we made up amongst ourselves. It exists only because we all agree it exists. That you do not understand this very basic premise of government is the logical flaw at the core of your argument.if you supposing that the people ARE the goverment just because they vote them in then you have a point.
Police are citizens when off duty yet while at work, they are extensions of the goverment. They uphold the law based on whichever laws were passed by the government. Police officers from both our countries always ask that people do not take the law into their own hands. This is for everyone's protection, not just for the Police.
I've never suggessted that politicians live in a way different from everyone else. I said that politicians do not live like the common people. Try re-reading my post.
Your last line made me laugh. Thanks.
That btw is some seriously funny sh!t. Back to your middle school, little boy!I've never suggessted that politicians live in a way different from everyone else. I said that politicians do not live like the common people. Try re-reading my post.
Stupid analogy? Without question. Privately-owned gas stations are not the government. The owner of the gas station on his own and individually chooses whether he wants to let people fill up before paying or not, not the law of the land. You didn't point out any hypocrisy of mine, as I do not own a gas station, and therefore I do not get to decide. Nor does this issue have any relevence whatsoever to the argument.Originally posted by: Oderus
It's a major difference in society which I understand. My point was that Vic was accusing me of not trusting people with guns (and buckets half-full of water apparantly) yet no one working in a gas station in the US trusts clients to fill up before paying. I was pointing out his hypocracy and not trying to challenge why gas stations don't allow people to fill before paying. All gas stations in Canada allow you to fill up before paying because our society trusts people. Flawed? perhaps. Ideal? absolutely.
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Oderus
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Oderus
Originally posted by: K1052
Originally posted by: Oderus
Prohibiting handguns will have a positive effect on deaths in your country, they have in mine. Those various groups like the NRA (we don't have an NRA with as much political pull thankfully) and others don't really care about how many people die each year. They always repeat that lame statement time and time again, guns don't kill people, people do. Guns don't kill people if people wouldn't use guns.
I don't understand the relevance of your comment about liquor stores, please explain.
Why you would jump to the conclusion that because you are 'pro-citizen' you would be made to suffer is unthinkable.
I too am glad that the US is not more like Canada. If it was, why would anyone live in Canada?
You mean like England where other categories of violent crime skyrocketed after their ban? You would merely trade one type of assault for another. Canada's population is also far more homogeneous than ours so it is hard to make the argument that your solution would work for us with much certainty.
Legalize and watch drug related violence (a huge chunk of the overall problem, especially in the US) quickly drop to almost nil.
FYI: You are really pro-government and anti-citizen (rights at least). We are in this position becase our governemnts have stuck their noses into places they don't belong by selling many of us on the idea that protecting us from ourselves is necessary and desirable (and that they should set most of those standards).
Again, you have focused on the symptom and not the problem.
Wow.. I knew ignorance and racism was bad in the US but I didn't think I would read it here... "Canada's population is also far more homogeneous than ours so it is hard to make the argument that your solution would work for us with much certainty."
"Legalize and watch drug related violence (a huge chunk of the overall problem, especially in the US) quickly drop to almost nil." I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or just agreeing with what I've been saying.
"FYI: You are really pro-government and anti-citizen (rights at least)." You've got 1 out of 2 right here. I'm not anti-citizen, I'm pro-life. If the rights of one person means that other people are going to die or suffer than that right must not prevail. Like abusing my freedom of speech by littering a hip-replacement parking lot with ball bearing just because it's my right. That is wrong.
You think deaths related to guns is a symptom? That's weak.
I like how you can't refute one of my points and so decide to insult me instead.
As to your "pro-life" position: You better be out there working to make alcohol, cars, blunt objects, half full buckets of water, and the like illegal as well. That people can be injured or killed in the abuse of some rights is something that we accept as part of the price of having them. Some of us don?t desire to live in a rubber room for our own protection.
Guns are not the cause of gun violence. That is like saying the existence screwdrivers make people screw things in all on their own without reason.
I actually refuted 2 points if you cared to read my entire post and I didn't insult you. I stated that your response was ignorant and racist. If you had not said anything ignorant or racist I wouldn't have replied.
If you need an explanation on why I think your comment was ignorant and racist here goes. You said that Canada is far less homogenous than the US which implies 2 things, 1) you know nothing about the level of diveristy in Canada (which makes your comment ignorant) and 2) It's a racist statement to imply that due to your 'higher level of diversity' your crime is higher. That pretty much blames the non-whites in the US.
Your other ramblings are a pathetic attempt to make sense. I've not once mentioned anything about restricting "...alcohol, cars, blunt objects, half full buckets of water, and the like" so where's your point? If i'm anti-gun I must be anti-half full bucket of water?
Is education in the US voluntary?
No, you didn't refute anything, though now you are actually taking a clumsy stab at it. Reread my post and perhaps consult a dictionary (you can?t even paraphrase what I said properly). You inferred that I was ignorant and racist, that is an insult in my book.
My argument is that modern, developed homogenous populations have far less gun crime. Switzerland is a prime example. Canada is in the same boat as you do have a relatively homogenous population and relatively low gun crime statistics.
Alcohol (or insert any number of things) kills more people than guns by far every year and is not required for human existance. If you are so "pro-life" you should be against it too.
Another backhanded insult, how original.
Originally posted by: Vic
LMAO!! :laugh:Originally posted by: Oderus
Poor grammer aside
More to the point, the concept of government is a fiction. An abstract. Something we made up amongst ourselves. It exists only because we all agree it exists. That you do not understand this very basic premise of government is the logical flaw at the core of your argument.if you supposing that the people ARE the goverment just because they vote them in then you have a point.
Police are citizens when off duty yet while at work, they are extensions of the goverment. They uphold the law based on whichever laws were passed by the government. Police officers from both our countries always ask that people do not take the law into their own hands. This is for everyone's protection, not just for the Police.
I've never suggessted that politicians live in a way different from everyone else. I said that politicians do not live like the common people. Try re-reading my post.
Your last line made me laugh. Thanks.
That btw is some seriously funny sh!t. Back to your middle school, little boy!I've never suggessted that politicians live in a way different from everyone else. I said that politicians do not live like the common people. Try re-reading my post.
While you are baselessly insulting everyone, let me join in just for fun. You are a complete fool. And before you complain, let me point out that that single statement carried as much weight and validity as your lengthy post quoted here.Originally posted by: Oderus
No, I inferred that your COMMENT was racist and ignorant. I never said YOU were ignorant or racist. When you can comprehend the difference, let me know.
You also have no clue what you are talking about which confirms that not only was your statement ignorant and racist but you ARE ignorant and racist. (yes, this time I am insulting you) Read the definition of homegeneous..
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=homogenous
adj : all of the same or similar kind or nature; "a close-knit homogeneous group"
Your comment suggest that our crime is lower because we have less non-whites or that we have less ethnicities overall, which is absurd and ignorant. (I guess my comment about being ignorant and racist still holds) Thanks.
Alcohol and drugs should be legalized as we should have the freedom to choice what we like. If I drink at home I hurt no one, if I smoke a joint I'm also not hurting anyone. Guns have no purpose in life other than to cause harm. There's no magic there.
My last comment about education was a shot at you. You know nothing about Canada and you're also a racist bigot. Thank god you live in the US, please don't move here.
Originally posted by: Vic
While you are baselessly insulting everyone, let me join in just for fun. You are a complete fool. And before you complain, let me point out that that single statement carried as much weight and validity as your lengthy post quoted here.Originally posted by: Oderus
No, I inferred that your COMMENT was racist and ignorant. I never said YOU were ignorant or racist. When you can comprehend the difference, let me know.
You also have no clue what you are talking about which confirms that not only was your statement ignorant and racist but you ARE ignorant and racist. (yes, this time I am insulting you) Read the definition of homegeneous..
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=homogenous
adj : all of the same or similar kind or nature; "a close-knit homogeneous group"
Your comment suggest that our crime is lower because we have less non-whites or that we have less ethnicities overall, which is absurd and ignorant. (I guess my comment about being ignorant and racist still holds) Thanks.
Alcohol and drugs should be legalized as we should have the freedom to choice what we like. If I drink at home I hurt no one, if I smoke a joint I'm also not hurting anyone. Guns have no purpose in life other than to cause harm. There's no magic there.
My last comment about education was a shot at you. You know nothing about Canada and you're also a racist bigot. Thank god you live in the US, please don't move here.
Originally posted by: Oderus
Originally posted by: Vic
While you are baselessly insulting everyone, let me join in just for fun. You are a complete fool. And before you complain, let me point out that that single statement carried as much weight and validity as your lengthy post quoted here.Originally posted by: Oderus
No, I inferred that your COMMENT was racist and ignorant. I never said YOU were ignorant or racist. When you can comprehend the difference, let me know.
You also have no clue what you are talking about which confirms that not only was your statement ignorant and racist but you ARE ignorant and racist. (yes, this time I am insulting you) Read the definition of homegeneous..
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=homogenous
adj : all of the same or similar kind or nature; "a close-knit homogeneous group"
Your comment suggest that our crime is lower because we have less non-whites or that we have less ethnicities overall, which is absurd and ignorant. (I guess my comment about being ignorant and racist still holds) Thanks.
Alcohol and drugs should be legalized as we should have the freedom to choice what we like. If I drink at home I hurt no one, if I smoke a joint I'm also not hurting anyone. Guns have no purpose in life other than to cause harm. There's no magic there.
My last comment about education was a shot at you. You know nothing about Canada and you're also a racist bigot. Thank god you live in the US, please don't move here.
I'm not baselessly insulting everyone. Get your facts straight. I'm just insulting you and it's not baseless. Your a racist bigot.
Also when referring to a statement I made, don't just say, "that statement".
A spelling mistake is a grammatical error. Not that your own posts aren't rife with many errors of their own. What is worse is that the sentence of mine that you claimed had a grammatical error was actually grammatically correct.Originally posted by: Oderus
Spelling mistakes or typos does not constitute a grammatical error.
Your inability to understand the basic logical concept of government does not validate your argument. The people are the government. It exists exactly as I said, something we made up amongst ourselves and only exist because we all agree it does. I invite you to logically refute that statement, and not with fallacies based on your misunderstanding (as in the Nancy Drew strawman). How about this? If the people did not exist, would government exist? Answer that.Goverment doesn't exist? Now your reaching. Politicians are the government, it's no fiction. Nancy Drew is fiction. You have no logic.
And long haul truck drivers and airline pilots "live in a way different from everyone else." So what? It's not a lack of understanding here. Your arguments simply have no merit. They're fully of poor analogies and overgeneralizations.What don't you understand about my last line? The fact that I seperate everyone with common? You think that means the same thing?
HAHAHA!!!Originally posted by: K1052
Hey, grammar king, I think you meant You're and not Your.Originally posted by: Oderus
Originally posted by: Vic
While you are baselessly insulting everyone, let me join in just for fun. You are a complete fool. And before you complain, let me point out that that single statement carried as much weight and validity as your lengthy post quoted here.Originally posted by: Oderus
No, I inferred that your COMMENT was racist and ignorant. I never said YOU were ignorant or racist. When you can comprehend the difference, let me know.
You also have no clue what you are talking about which confirms that not only was your statement ignorant and racist but you ARE ignorant and racist. (yes, this time I am insulting you) Read the definition of homegeneous..
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=homogenous
adj : all of the same or similar kind or nature; "a close-knit homogeneous group"
Your comment suggest that our crime is lower because we have less non-whites or that we have less ethnicities overall, which is absurd and ignorant. (I guess my comment about being ignorant and racist still holds) Thanks.
Alcohol and drugs should be legalized as we should have the freedom to choice what we like. If I drink at home I hurt no one, if I smoke a joint I'm also not hurting anyone. Guns have no purpose in life other than to cause harm. There's no magic there.
My last comment about education was a shot at you. You know nothing about Canada and you're also a racist bigot. Thank god you live in the US, please don't move here.
I'm not baselessly insulting everyone. Get your facts straight. I'm just insulting you and it's not baseless. Your a racist bigot.
Also when referring to a statement I made, don't just say, "that statement".
Welcome to the club, Vic.
Originally posted by: Vic
HAHAHA!!!Originally posted by: K1052
Hey, grammar king, I think you meant You're and not Your.Originally posted by: Oderus
Originally posted by: Vic
While you are baselessly insulting everyone, let me join in just for fun. You are a complete fool. And before you complain, let me point out that that single statement carried as much weight and validity as your lengthy post quoted here.Originally posted by: Oderus
No, I inferred that your COMMENT was racist and ignorant. I never said YOU were ignorant or racist. When you can comprehend the difference, let me know.
You also have no clue what you are talking about which confirms that not only was your statement ignorant and racist but you ARE ignorant and racist. (yes, this time I am insulting you) Read the definition of homegeneous..
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=homogenous
adj : all of the same or similar kind or nature; "a close-knit homogeneous group"
Your comment suggest that our crime is lower because we have less non-whites or that we have less ethnicities overall, which is absurd and ignorant. (I guess my comment about being ignorant and racist still holds) Thanks.
Alcohol and drugs should be legalized as we should have the freedom to choice what we like. If I drink at home I hurt no one, if I smoke a joint I'm also not hurting anyone. Guns have no purpose in life other than to cause harm. There's no magic there.
My last comment about education was a shot at you. You know nothing about Canada and you're also a racist bigot. Thank god you live in the US, please don't move here.
I'm not baselessly insulting everyone. Get your facts straight. I'm just insulting you and it's not baseless. Your a racist bigot.
Also when referring to a statement I made, don't just say, "that statement".
Welcome to the club, Vic.
I would love for him to point out a single statement that justifies him calling me a racist bigot. I have clearly demonstrated that gun ownership is a right of ALL the people. Clearly he has been unable to refute this argument and has simply turned to baseless personal attacks ever since. As it is, I take a lot of offense at being called a "racist bigot" out the blue, with neither cause nor reason for it, and I think a little mod clean-up and some vacation time for Oderus should be in order here if he can't play nicely.
Originally posted by: Oderus
Alcohol and drugs should be legalized as we should have the freedom to choice what we like. If I drink at home I hurt no one, if I smoke a joint I'm also not hurting anyone. Guns have no purpose in life other than to cause harm. There's no magic there.
Originally posted by: Vic
A spelling mistake is a grammatical error. Not that your own posts aren't rife with many errors of their own. What is worse is that the sentence of mine that you claimed had a grammatical error was actually grammatically correct.Originally posted by: Oderus
Spelling mistakes or typos does not constitute a grammatical error.
Your inability to understand the basic logical concept of government does not validate your argument. The people are the government. It exists exactly as I said, something we made up amongst ourselves and only exist because we all agree it does. I invite you to logically refute that statement, and not with fallacies based on your misunderstanding (as in the Nancy Drew strawman). How about this? If the people did not exist, would government exist? Answer that.Goverment doesn't exist? Now your reaching. Politicians are the government, it's no fiction. Nancy Drew is fiction. You have no logic.
And long haul truck drivers and airline pilots "live in a way different from everyone else." So what? It's not a lack of understanding here. Your arguments simply have no merit. They're fully of poor analogies and overgeneralizations.What don't you understand about my last line? The fact that I seperate everyone with common? You think that means the same thing?
Here's one: you appear to support drug legalization (and rightly so). Do you actually believe that gun prohibition will be any more successful than drug prohibition has been? Of course it won't. Many of the same logical reasonings that tell us that drugs should be legal also tell us that guns should be legal.
You misunderstand. The issue has nothing to do with drugs' effects or with guns' effects, but with the (inherent lack of) effectiveness of prohibition. Outlawing guns will not make guns disappear, nor reduce crime, it will simply disarm the law-abiding. In the meantime, drugs properly used are no more harmful than guns lawfully used, which is not at all.Originally posted by: sandorski
There's a big difference between Drug and Gun Prohibition. Drugs bring Pleasure, escape, and often Addiction to the User. Guns do not have any of those effects. Drugs are consumed and used up, Guns are not. Though people could live without either, people who have done Drugs are more likely to want them again(often due to addiction), certainly some want Guns after experiencing them, but it's an entire different motivation for them and certainly not one as compeling as the motivation for more Drugs. Some may feel safer having a gun for protection, but only the crazy ones obsess over the fact they don't have a gun.