Church of Christ Shooting: 2 Dead, 1 Critical In White Settlement, Texas

a reply to: chr0naut
Oh now its "little"
No more of that bs vast expanse of reaching islands?

Yep
Fear
That made you hand over your arms and the God given right to defend yourselves.

One old armed texan is worth scores of you.

There were already laws in place before that Brenton Tarrant shooting in Christchurch

The police did NOT follow those laws and procedures

People were shot by a madman

Law abiding citizens were punished

Imagine if somebody did something like got drunk, drove, ran someone over and killed them.
If THAT happened, all licensed drivers would be banned from owning cars that has more than two doors

And morons would support the new car ban because it would stop people from drinking and driving.

Brenton Tarrant didn’t steal a firearm from licensed firearm holders. He bought it. Because the police failed to do their job. So law abiding citizens were punished

Well, very very few of them. The VAST MAJORITY refused to hand anything over.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: chr0naut
We have the 2nd
You hate that it works
See texas

That is the core,no?

One old armed texan shows you the way....

Stomp your feet all you like, had that old armed texan been in christchurch many many lives would have been saved.

You have 1000 gun deaths per day and, apparently, a somewhat oppressive and authoritarian government that you cannot trust.

Isn't the 2nd supposed to save lives and defend against that?

That Texan wasn't in Christchurch and could only have responded after to the first killings. People would still have died. If the gunman had been unable to get any firearms, how many would have died in the same time-frame? Probably, the attack may never have started.

He WAS unable to get any firearms. Because of the law.

Derp

The law that stated that he needed to have two referees testimony, in one on one questioning by the police, that he was a fit and proper person.

The law wasn’t followed. By the police. Nor by Mr Tarrant. He hadn’t even been in the country for 8 months and nobody thought ‘well I better actually check this applicant’

His referees had never met him in person and none of them was his family member.

And those who did NOT break any law nor risk any life, were punished. (To leftist applause)

Maybe more laws will help though. Maybe a real dumb law like, restrict semi auto rifles (semi auto large caliber pistols with high capacity magazines are NOT banned or restricted at all under the new ineffective law changes. Because they don’t look mean and scary)

In the USA however, gun ownership is a RIGHT

And always will be. No matter how loud the ‘reeee’

a reply to: chr0naut
You have 1000 gun deaths per day 
Wow
Nice lie
www.newsweek.com...
177
Not nearly the 1000 lie you stated
Typical

Oh and the 2nd is to prevent our govt from doing what others have done and disarm their citizens.
Self defense is a byproduct.

May,...if,...we dont have to worry about that here.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: chr0naut

Nor is it a true summation of my response.

That’s your opinion, anyway. If you’re going to go on long winded rants about your opinion of other people’s rights, you can handle having your opinion given the same treatment. My opinion of your rant is that rather than answer the question posed, you ducked it.

I gave one answer to your question, then I posted a link to a site that provides more answers to the same question. If you think that is ducking the question you posed, then it is pointless debating.

You are clearly just shouting into the echo chamber for validation and I'm clearly taking the adversarial. I know I will be shouted down for my opinion.

As you should do when discussing things. Kudos to you for being upfront about not caring enough to do so.

I gave you one answer off the top of my head. I pointed you to a page with 37 other points that answer the question. I cared about your question enough to answer it. You are the one who doesn't seem to care about hearing the answers to your question.

The question was which other rights in the BoR and amendments are you willing to treat as you would treat the second. It is very much germane to your treatment of the 2nd. But by all means, blame what you think I would do for your unwillingness to answer the question.

The first 10 Amendments are the Bill of Rights. As linked, the whole Constitution is full of holes.

You could, but nobody asked you point out flaws in other amendments.

WTF was your question, then? I'll re-quote it: "Question: which of the rest of the bill of rights or other amendments would you be okay placing this level of restriction and control on?" The answer clearly is all those that are flawed, ineffectual and do not achieve what they are written to do. I thought you might have understood this, it isn't so hard to put two and two together.

The question asked was what other amendments would you treat the same way as you wish to see the 2nd treated.

If you’re going to preemptively blame me for your unwillingness to answer a question, it seems awful silly to blame me for not answering it while simultaneously answering a question I didn’t even ask.

I answered your initial question. You ignored the answers given, as I suggested you would. I think that's a 100% successful profile.

This was fun though, thanks.

Ditto. You actually did a lot better than others in this debate.

a reply to: chr0naut

You have a string of previous posts where you accuse me of lying

That's because you are a liar. You have a string of posts longer than mine that prove that.

And I tire of your childish, dishonest antics. It was funny for a while. Good day.

TheRedneck

a reply to: chr0naut

I gave one answer to your question, then I posted a link to a site that provides more answers to the same question. If you think that is ducking the question you posed, then it is pointless debating.

No you didn’t. I asked a specific question. You talking about problems you see with other amendments is cool and all but doesn’t answer the question that was asked. So yes, you ducked the question that was actually asked, and yes it is pointless debating. Why you said that and wrote an essay after saying it is a little baffling but cool.

You are clearly just shouting into the echo chamber for validation and I'm clearly taking the adversarial. I know I will be shouted down for my opinion.

Not really. What you’re doing is coming up with excuses to blame me for you not wanting to participate in a discussion, even as you participate in the discussion. If I was shouting into the echo chamber I probably wouldn’t be offering suggestions to you for better, stronger arguments to use against my points.

I gave you one answer off the top of my head. I pointed you to a page with 37 other points that answer the question. I cared about your question enough to answer it. You are the one who doesn't seem to care about hearing the answers to your question.

I care about the question I asked. I don’t care about an unasked question you want to answer, using my question as your pivot point. No amount of smarmy condescension on your part changes the very, very basic fact that you still have yet to answer the original question, blamed what you think I might do with your answer for your lack of answer, and continue to type essays nonetheless.

The first 10 Amendments are the Bill of Rights. As linked, the whole Constitution is full of holes.

Good job. Still not what I asked. Repeating yourself isn’t going to change the narrative to what you want.

The answer clearly is all those that are flawed, ineffectual and do not achieve what they are written to do.

That’s an answer to a question not asked. I didn’t ask you which amendments you thought were perfect.

thought you might have understood this, it isn't so hard to put two and two together.

It’s not hard to read what’s written and answer it, or decline to answer it. You’ve somehow managed to decline to answer what was asked while simultaneously answering something that wasn’t asked at all. It’s not hard to put two and two together, yet somehow you’ve done it and come up with 13.

I answered your initial question. You ignored the answers given, as I suggested you would.

“Which other amendments would you treat the same way you want to see the 2nd treated, chronaut?” “Well they’re all flawed, shamrock, here read this website on why they’re all flawed.” That’s cool and all, but it doesn’t answer the question. End of story.

I think that's a 100% successful profile.

I’m not surprised, as you seem to believe declaring yourself victorious means something. I’d call you deluded.

Ditto. You actually did a lot better than others in this debate.

I only wish you’d done as well as you think you have. Hell, I wish we’d had an actual debate instead of you showing up for one but arguing against questions not even asked. I’m really not interested in continuing to discuss anything with somebody who insists on blaming others for his/her lack of participation while continuing to participate in essay form, so with that I’ll go ahead and cease our interaction. Toodles

a reply to: chr0naut

TextWhen you are a little country like NZ, it's harder for government to be 'other' than us. Everyone knows someone...

You touch on a point here you often miss, we have multiple cities with a larger population than New Zealand and millions more acres of land. Staying on top of the crooks in DC is harder for us.

Since my vote only impacts my state, but never touch a pelosi or a McConnell.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: chr0naut

TextWhen you are a little country like NZ, it's harder for government to be 'other' than us. Everyone knows someone...

You touch on a point here you often miss, we have multiple cities with a larger population than New Zealand and millions more acres of land. Staying on top of the crooks in DC is harder for us.

Since my vote only impacts my state, but never touch a pelosi or a McConnell.

That might be more valid if communication, from vast numbers of people and over vast distances, was difficult.

Perhaps you could post a tweet to the POTUS, for instance (if he hasn't blocked you).

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: chr0naut

You have a string of previous posts where you accuse me of lying

That's because you are a liar. You have a string of posts longer than mine that prove that.

And I tire of your childish, dishonest antics. It was funny for a while. Good day.

TheRedneck

I do have a string of posts. That part is true.

Your constant, and near immediate insistence, that everyone who has an opinion different from your own, is a liar, is simply untrue.

An untruth is a lie. You begin your post by accusing people of lies, without any substantiation for your accusation. You are lying.