goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: kstatefreak42 on January 12, 2013, 01:13:11 PM
-
Has been getting his salad tossed al week. Arguing emotion over fact.
-
Has been getting his salad tossed al week. Arguing emotion over fact.
if you're referring to that interview with that guy who wrote "bullies," then you're absolutely wrong.
-
Has been getting his salad tossed al week. Arguing emotion over fact.
if you're referring to that interview with that guy who wrote "bullies," then you're absolutely wrong.
You mean the one where Morgan was citing completely fraudulent "statistics"?
-
Has been getting his salad tossed al week. Arguing emotion over fact.
if you're referring to that interview with that guy who wrote "bullies," then you're absolutely wrong.
You mean the one where Morgan was citing completely fraudulent "statistics"?
maybe?
which statistics were fraudulent?
-
Has been getting his salad tossed al week. Arguing emotion over fact.
if you're referring to that interview with that guy who wrote "bullies," then you're absolutely wrong.
You mean the one where Morgan was citing completely fraudulent "statistics"?
maybe?
which statistics were fraudulent?
http://youtu.be/I8D8b51EwrI
The U.K. has a higher violent crime rate than South Africa. We should totally follow their lead.
-
Has been getting his salad tossed al week. Arguing emotion over fact.
if you're referring to that interview with that guy who wrote "bullies," then you're absolutely wrong.
You mean the one where Morgan was citing completely fraudulent "statistics"?
maybe?
which statistics were fraudulent?
http://youtu.be/I8D8b51EwrI
The U.K. has a higher violent crime rate than South Africa. We should totally follow their lead.
:lol: Sweet news program there, eastcat.
-
People wanting to deport him for his opinion are rough ridin' stupid
-
Has been getting his salad tossed al week. Arguing emotion over fact.
if you're referring to that interview with that guy who wrote "bullies," then you're absolutely wrong.
You mean the one where Morgan was citing completely fraudulent "statistics"?
maybe?
which statistics were fraudulent?
http://youtu.be/I8D8b51EwrI
The U.K. has a higher violent crime rate than South Africa. We should totally follow their lead.
:lol: Sweet news program there, eastcat.
Thanks man, made it myself.
-
People wanting to deport him for his opinion are rough ridin' stupid
Agreed. I'm very pro-gun, but I'm also pro-Constitution and anti-logical fallacy. The First Amendment gives Piers Morgan the right to bitch about the Second Amendment. A ton of pissed off overemotional rednecks conveniently overlooked the "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" portion of the Constitution they claim to love so dearly.
That being said, Morgan is ignoring facts in order to argue his agenda. He's also an bad person - if I, as an American, hosted a news show in another country, I wouldn't argue that their civil rights should be taken away and that their most treasured legal document is wrong.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi160.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ft190%2FGLC79%2Fpiers.jpg&hash=40e2a280f31a0575ea26fb51f9f93b3cf9b64b06)
-
I'm also pro-Constitution
will you still be when we change it again or just pro-this version?
-
What does 2nd highest crime rate in the EU have to do with the US or guns? Why does the US side not state a similar stat instead of completely unrelated? That graphic is a joke (on its own, maybe it makes sense in context with what Piers said)
-
america looks like a bunch of pussies trying to ban guns just because a couple of mass shootings.
-
I'm also pro-Constitution
will you still be when we change it again or just pro-this version?
Depends on the change, although probably yes. I don't see the US ever doing something as dumb as adding an amendment for prohibition again, or repealing something like the 13th Amendment.
-
I'm so pro constitution and 2nd amendment that i think every citizen in the US should be allowed, maybe even required, to own and use a musket just in case we all have to form a people's army to defend ourselves against an external threat.
-
What does 2nd highest crime rate in the EU have to do with the US or guns? Why does the US side not state a similar stat instead of completely unrelated? That graphic is a joke (on its own, maybe it makes sense in context with what Piers said)
It is intended to show that banning guns does not equal an end to crime. But you knew that.
-
I'm so pro constitution and 2nd amendment that i think every citizen in the US should be allowed, maybe even required, to own and use a musket just in case we all have to form a people's army to defend ourselves against an external threat.
That is a good point, dlew. People are conveniently forgetting about aliens and the threat they pose to the human race.
-
What does 2nd highest crime rate in the EU have to do with the US or guns? Why does the US side not state a similar stat instead of completely unrelated? That graphic is a joke (on its own, maybe it makes sense in context with what Piers said)
It is intended to show that banning guns does not equal an end to crime. But you knew that.
Anybody who thinks banning guns ends crime is stupid. My point is that it is trying to make a comparison between countries using information that does not correlate from one country to the other.
Also, if you pick the right statistic you can say what you want.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/schoo-shooting-how-do-u-s-gun-homicides-compare-with-the-rest-of-the-world/
-
What does 2nd highest crime rate in the EU have to do with the US or guns? Why does the US side not state a similar stat instead of completely unrelated? That graphic is a joke (on its own, maybe it makes sense in context with what Piers said)
It is intended to show that banning guns does not equal an end to crime. But you knew that.
Anybody who thinks banning guns ends crime is stupid. My point is that it is trying to make a comparison between countries using information that does not correlate from one country to the other.
Also, if you pick the right statistic you can say what you want.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/schoo-shooting-how-do-u-s-gun-homicides-compare-with-the-rest-of-the-world/
who said that banning guns ends crime? are you stupid? why are you talking about something no one said?
-
What does 2nd highest crime rate in the EU have to do with the US or guns? Why does the US side not state a similar stat instead of completely unrelated? That graphic is a joke (on its own, maybe it makes sense in context with what Piers said)
It is intended to show that banning guns does not equal an end to crime. But you knew that.
Anybody who thinks banning guns ends crime is stupid. My point is that it is trying to make a comparison between countries using information that does not correlate from one country to the other.
Also, if you pick the right statistic you can say what you want.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/schoo-shooting-how-do-u-s-gun-homicides-compare-with-the-rest-of-the-world/
who said that banning guns ends crime? are you stupid? why are you talking about something no one said?
Can you read the post that I quoted saying that it was meant to show that banning guns does not equal an end to crime? I was saying anyone that argued otherwise is stupid. Now that I drew that completely logical link and explicitly wrote it out for you, can you follow the logic or is your capacity beneath that of a 6 year old?
-
I'm so pro constitution and 2nd amendment that i think every citizen in the US should be allowed, maybe even required, to own and use a musket just in case we all have to form a people's army to defend ourselves against an external threat.
The musket was the AR-15 of it's day.
-
What does 2nd highest crime rate in the EU have to do with the US or guns? Why does the US side not state a similar stat instead of completely unrelated? That graphic is a joke (on its own, maybe it makes sense in context with what Piers said)
It is intended to show that banning guns does not equal an end to crime. But you knew that.
Anybody who thinks banning guns ends crime is stupid. My point is that it is trying to make a comparison between countries using information that does not correlate from one country to the other.
Also, if you pick the right statistic you can say what you want.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/12/14/schoo-shooting-how-do-u-s-gun-homicides-compare-with-the-rest-of-the-world/
who said that banning guns ends crime? are you stupid? why are you talking about something no one said?
because the the left wing losers in la la land think that gun confiscation will lead to pure peaceful Barry B utopia.
-
because the the left wing losers in la la land think that gun confiscation will lead to pure peaceful Barry B utopia.
nobody actually thinks that and framing the argument as if people do just muddies the entire conversation up more than it already is
-
Besides this guy, I've never known anyone named "Piers."
-
I'm so pro constitution and 2nd amendment that i think every citizen in the US should be allowed, maybe even required, to own and use a musket just in case we all have to form a people's army to defend ourselves against an external threat.
The musket was the AR-15 of it's day.
Very valid point. Unless you're an idiot and just assume no harm will ever come to US citizens as long as we just give up our arms.
-
I'm so pro constitution and 2nd amendment that i think every citizen in the US should be allowed, maybe even required, to own and use a musket just in case we all have to form a people's army to defend ourselves against an external threat.
The musket was the AR-15 of it's day.
Very valid point. Unless you're an idiot and just assume no harm will ever come to US citizens as long as we just give up our arms.
Now what's the modern day equivalent to "a well regulated militia"?
-
I'm so pro constitution and 2nd amendment that i think every citizen in the US should be allowed, maybe even required, to own and use a musket just in case we all have to form a people's army to defend ourselves against an external threat.
The musket was the AR-15 of it's day.
Very valid point. Unless you're an idiot and just assume no harm will ever come to US citizens as long as we just give up our arms.
Now what's the modern day equivalent to "a well regulated militia"?
What does it matter? The SCOTUS already ruled the 2nd Amendment is an individual right in Heller vs. D.C.
-
I'm so pro constitution and 2nd amendment that i think every citizen in the US should be allowed, maybe even required, to own and use a musket just in case we all have to form a people's army to defend ourselves against an external threat.
The musket was the AR-15 of it's day.
Very valid point. Unless you're an idiot and just assume no harm will ever come to US citizens as long as we just give up our arms.
Now what's the modern day equivalent to "a well regulated militia"?
What does it matter? The SCOTUS already ruled the 2nd Amendment is an individual right in Heller vs. D.C.
What's your point?
-
I'm so pro constitution and 2nd amendment that i think every citizen in the US should be allowed, maybe even required, to own and use a musket just in case we all have to form a people's army to defend ourselves against an external threat.
The musket was the AR-15 of it's day.
Very valid point. Unless you're an idiot and just assume no harm will ever come to US citizens as long as we just give up our arms.
Now what's the modern day equivalent to "a well regulated militia"?
What does it matter? The SCOTUS already ruled the 2nd Amendment is an individual right in Heller vs. D.C.
What's your point?
You don't need to be a member of a militia to keep arms.
-
Now what's the modern day equivalent to "a well regulated militia"?
What does it matter? The SCOTUS already ruled the 2nd Amendment is an individual right in Heller vs. D.C.
What's your point?
You don't need to be a member of a militia to keep arms.
no one is arguing whether or not it's legal for people to own guns. i thought we were playing around with what the framers meant by the second amendment.
-
Now what's the modern day equivalent to "a well regulated militia"?
What does it matter? The SCOTUS already ruled the 2nd Amendment is an individual right in Heller vs. D.C.
What's your point?
You don't need to be a member of a militia to keep arms.
no one is arguing whether or not it's legal for people to own guns. i thought we were playing around with what the framers meant by the second amendment.
OK how 'bout this, the people need to be armed in order to regulate the militia.
-
Now what's the modern day equivalent to "a well regulated militia"?
What does it matter? The SCOTUS already ruled the 2nd Amendment is an individual right in Heller vs. D.C.
What's your point?
You don't need to be a member of a militia to keep arms.
no one is arguing whether or not it's legal for people to own guns. i thought we were playing around with what the framers meant by the second amendment.
So, the framers intended the right to bare arms to only include the weapons of the day? Seems pretty short sighted.
-
Now what's the modern day equivalent to "a well regulated militia"?
What does it matter? The SCOTUS already ruled the 2nd Amendment is an individual right in Heller vs. D.C.
What's your point?
You don't need to be a member of a militia to keep arms.
no one is arguing whether or not it's legal for people to own guns. i thought we were playing around with what the framers meant by the second amendment.
So, the framers intended the right to bare arms to only include the weapons of the day? Seems pretty short sighted.
well, yeah.
i think it's more likely that they intended to apply the second amendment to weapons that they conceived of rather than intending to apply it to weapons drastically different than anything of which they could conceive. "best" case scenario, guns of the time could kill about 3 guys per minute if each individual shot was lethal and you were mega fast at reloading. (legal) modern guns can kill, what, 40ish under the same circumstances? Maybe more? i really don't know.
then again, maybe you're right and the framers didn't intend for their to be any limitation on the kinds of arms people should be allowed to bear, but then that means that they wouldn't have any issue with automatic weapons or switch blades or grenade launchers either. what a pickle.
OK how 'bout this, the people need to be armed in order to regulate the militia.
what? i was asking that if an AR-15 is the modern day musket, what's the modern day milita?
-
Piers Morgan is a rough ridin' idiot, but so are people who believe that there is a single purpose for civilians to have automatic assault weapons. What a pickle.
-
I'm pretty mad at myself for reading an entire thread about what Piers Morgan thinks.
-
Only 28th in Gun Homicides!!!!
-
because the the left wing losers in la la land think that gun confiscation will lead to pure peaceful Barry B utopia.
nobody actually thinks that and framing the argument as if people do just muddies the entire conversation up more than it already is
Yes they do, lots of them. These people are so deluded you'd think they grew up in a work camp.
-
Now what's the modern day equivalent to "a well regulated militia"?
What does it matter? The SCOTUS already ruled the 2nd Amendment is an individual right in Heller vs. D.C.
What's your point?
You don't need to be a member of a militia to keep arms.
no one is arguing whether or not it's legal for people to own guns. i thought we were playing around with what the framers meant by the second amendment.
So, the framers intended the right to bare arms to only include the weapons of the day? Seems pretty short sighted.
Yes, the 2nd amendment is unique in that it was implicitly the only amendment intended to be frozen in time. Just trying to "unmuddy" the argument. . .
-
OK how 'bout this, the people need to be armed in order to regulate the militia.
what? i was asking that if an AR-15 is the modern day musket, what's the modern day milita?
i thought we were playing around with what the framers meant by the second amendment.
-
Piers Morgan is a rough ridin' idiot, but so are people who believe that there is a single purpose for civilians to have automatic assault weapons. What a pickle.
Big difference between semiautomatic and fully automatic dude. Only one is currently legal.
-
Now what's the modern day equivalent to "a well regulated militia"?
What does it matter? The SCOTUS already ruled the 2nd Amendment is an individual right in Heller vs. D.C.
What's your point?
You don't need to be a member of a militia to keep arms.
no one is arguing whether or not it's legal for people to own guns. i thought we were playing around with what the framers meant by the second amendment.
So, the framers intended the right to bare arms to only include the weapons of the day? Seems pretty short sighted.
well, yeah.
i think it's more likely that they intended to apply the second amendment to weapons that they conceived of rather than intending to apply it to weapons drastically different than anything of which they could conceive. "best" case scenario, guns of the time could kill about 3 guys per minute if each individual shot was lethal and you were mega fast at reloading. (legal) modern guns can kill, what, 40ish under the same circumstances? Maybe more? i really don't know.
then again, maybe you're right and the framers didn't intend for their to be any limitation on the kinds of arms people should be allowed to bear, but then that means that they wouldn't have any issue with automatic weapons or switch blades or grenade launchers either. what a pickle.
OK how 'bout this, the people need to be armed in order to regulate the militia.
what? i was asking that if an AR-15 is the modern day musket, what's the modern day milita?
People owned private cannons/artillery and mortars during the revolutionary war and war of 1812, not to mention private frigates that had more firepower that many modern navy ships of the time. The founding fathers obviously didn't have problems with the lethality of weapons owned.
The frigate Alliance was the most modern/powerful naval ship in the U.S. navy during the revolutionary war. The continental congress turned around and sold it to some dude on the streets of Philadelphia named Jon Coburn for $28,000 all up (armed) after it was over.
-
I bet Jon Coburn crushed tons of tail.