Political Roundtable - Part VII

[dckingsfan]

Well that's the most idiotic argument of all.

"We've already flooded the United States with guns so now we have no choice but to keep pumping out guns."

NO!!!!!!!!!!

"We've flooded the United States with tools whose explicit purpose is to commit an unforgiveable sin - taking a human life. In order to save the souls of the residents of the United States it is a moral imperative to ban the manufacture and import of all guns and if a gun owner does not turn over their gun voluntarily they most have an evil intent and we should therefore send a SWAT team to their house and pry their stupid stupid instrument of evil out of their stupid stupid hands."

It really amazes me that people could view this issue any other way. The second amendment as interpreted by NRA lawyers is purely evil and unsupportable by moral people. It shocks me that we have such a large portion of people in this country obsessed with supporting the ownership and manufacture of a tool whose sole purpose is to condemn you to hell.

Well, speaking of idiotic arguments, that was a fine one.

I live on a farm in rural North Carolina and have several guns.I have zero intention of taking a human life unless it was to defend my own or that of my family (well, I wouldn't **** with my dogs either, they're family). I'm surrounded by wildlife that would be happy to kill my dogs (7), the cat, or probably me. That doesn't take into account the family that lives right down the road that is certifiably crazy (oldest son is in prison for murder (beat someone to death with a baseball bat. guns? who needs a stinkin' gun?). The two times I've called the police the quickest turn around time was about 25 minutes. The only lives I've taken belonged to a few copperheads. I put a serious scare into a coyote once, but I missed. He did get the message

Now I'm supposed to put all of that at risk so you sleep a little better at night and feel good about yourself in your little suburban utopia? I don't think so. Maybe I should just move to the city because God knows that will be safer after you've gotten rid of all the guns, right? I don't hunt either, and don't allow others to do it here either, and I've been offered some nice cash to let people. I've got more deer than you can shake a stick at. The thought of killing a non-predator disgusts me.

So, I'm not obsessed with guns, I didn't even have one until I moved here, but they're something that living in place like this that only makes sense.

So yea, you better send that SWAT team. Actually, around here, it would take a hell of a lot more than a SWAT team to start taking the guns. And arguments like the one you posted? That will really help the cause.

Funny, I got rid of my rifle & shotgun when I moved from the countryside (in the west) to the Bethesda area. It is hard for my neighbors to understand why you would ever need a gun (guess you have to have been there). I think this is what complicates the issue even more - how do you ban guns in cities but not in the country - where are the boundaries?

I think if you could ban guns you would save a bunch of lives - I think you would save even more lives if you ban cars. And the issue isn't as dissimilar as you would think. Folks that have them don't want to give up their guns or cars.

[JWizmentality]

.
Wow. I'm just amazed at how quickly public opinion has changed over the confederate flag and things associated with the Confederacy.

It's clear that it'll come down at the South Carolina state house grounds. But look at everyone falling over themselves to join the bandwagon. To wit:

-- Lots of local and national politicians are suddenly anti Confederate flag.
-- MS *Republican* politicians calling for removal of the Confederate flag portion of their state flag.
-- Mitch McConnell calling for removal of statuary honoring Confederate leaders from the KY state house.

The Confederate flag has no real national defenders right now. And I note that it's withstood attack from protest after other racially-charged incidents in the past.

In other issues, public opinion has changed quickly too. The acceptance of gay marriage seems like it happened overnight. And suddenly, with no specific thing that pushed so many people to change their opinions. Same thing with the general acceptance of decriminalizing weed.

The speed of change in public opinion is just mind-boggling to me.

I don't think it's necessarily a matter of people changing their opinions quickly. People have always held their beliefs, but the status quo prevented people from speaking up or giving two sh*ts about it honestly. I've never considered anything about the confederacy "honorable." Not the people who fought for it or their cause. They can rot in hell for all I care, right up their with the Nazis. The only thing that's changed is we now have a rallying cry and maybe we can change the staus quo.

[Cramer]

Well that's the most idiotic argument of all.

"We've already flooded the United States with guns so now we have no choice but to keep pumping out guns."

NO!!!!!!!!!!

"We've flooded the United States with tools whose explicit purpose is to commit an unforgiveable sin - taking a human life. In order to save the souls of the residents of the United States it is a moral imperative to ban the manufacture and import of all guns and if a gun owner does not turn over their gun voluntarily they most have an evil intent and we should therefore send a SWAT team to their house and pry their stupid stupid instrument of evil out of their stupid stupid hands."

It really amazes me that people could view this issue any other way. The second amendment as interpreted by NRA lawyers is purely evil and unsupportable by moral people. It shocks me that we have such a large portion of people in this country obsessed with supporting the ownership and manufacture of a tool whose sole purpose is to condemn you to hell.

Well, speaking of idiotic arguments, that was a fine one.

I live on a farm in rural North Carolina and have several guns.I have zero intention of taking a human life unless it was to defend my own or that of my family (well, I wouldn't **** with my dogs either, they're family). I'm surrounded by wildlife that would be happy to kill my dogs (7), the cat, or probably me. That doesn't take into account the family that lives right down the road that is certifiably crazy (oldest son is in prison for murder (beat someone to death with a baseball bat. guns? who needs a stinkin' gun?). The two times I've called the police the quickest turn around time was about 25 minutes. The only lives I've taken belonged to a few copperheads. I put a serious scare into a coyote once, but I missed. He did get the message

Now I'm supposed to put all of that at risk so you sleep a little better at night and feel good about yourself in your little suburban utopia? I don't think so. Maybe I should just move to the city because God knows that will be safer after you've gotten rid of all the guns, right? I don't hunt either, and don't allow others to do it here either, and I've been offered some nice cash to let people. I've got more deer than you can shake a stick at. The thought of killing a non-predator disgusts me.

So, I'm not obsessed with guns, I didn't even have one until I moved here, but they're something that living in place like this that only makes sense.

So yea, you better send that SWAT team. Actually, around here, it would take a hell of a lot more than a SWAT team to start taking the guns. And arguments like the one you posted? That will really help the cause.

Funny, I got rid of my rifle & shotgun when I moved from the countryside (in the west) to the Bethesda area. It is hard for my neighbors to understand why you would ever need a gun (guess you have to have been there). I think this is what complicates the issue even more - how do you ban guns in cities but not in the country - where are the boundaries?

I think if you could ban guns you would save a bunch of lives - I think you would save even more lives if you ban cars. And the issue isn't as dissimilar as you would think. Folks that have them don't want to give up their guns or cars.

lol....yea, Bethesda, probably not a real need for a gun. In the country, having a gun is kind of like having a shovel or a weed whacker. It's just a tool you kind of need to have. I didn't have a gun when we moved and I met a local sheriff, and not your prototypical southern sheriff, a wonderful guy with a great family. He brings his wife here to shoot in the woods (they take picnic basket with them) and his sons to ride their dirt bikes. He has a 5 year old that can ride standing up on the bike but his legs are too short to stop, he has to ride up to his father. Cute as hell. Anyway, when I first met him it was up by the road and we were talking and I said I didn't have a gun and he looks at me, looks around, back at me and I get....what are you stupid? Take a look around here......do you know the calls I get about things everyday? He said basically that anything that comes into your yard with fangs needs to be shot or you're going to have a problem. When I woke up with a pack of coyotes raising hell in the middle of the night outside the bedroom window (talk about an uncomfortable way to wake up), I was at the gun store the next day. And the snakes, the **** snakes. I hate snakes. The closest neighbor has stables and he said he needed a black snake. Had one living in his tack room for a couple of years and now hes gone and he had a copperhead in there. "If I see one are you expecting me to catch it and bring it over?" Just call me and I'll send one of the girls over. A conversation you aren't likely to have in Bethesda.

[dckingsfan]

A conversation you aren't likely to have in Bethesda.

hahaha - no! It is just "different" here...

[Zonkerbl]

Over the past 11 years, 28,000 children and teens have been killed by guns.

http://gunwars.news21.com/2014/at-least-28000-children-and-teens-were-killed-by-guns-over-an-11-year-period/

How many children's lives are your gun rights worth?

What's idiotic is supporting the manufacture, sale, and ownership of child murderers.

[Zonkerbl]

Oh and **** farms. I grew up in a farm town and all I have to say is, move to the city.

[fishercob]

Oh-kaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.

[Induveca]

Oh and **** farms. I grew up in a farm town and all I have to say is, move to the city.

Have you been snorting coke today? Ha. Manic stuff.

[nate33]

Over the past 11 years, 28,000 children and teens have been killed by guns.

http://gunwars.news21.com/2014/at-least-28000-children-and-teens-were-killed-by-guns-over-an-11-year-period/

How many children's lives are your gun rights worth?

What's idiotic is supporting the manufacture, sale, and ownership of child murderers.

Most of those "children" were young adults age 16-19 dying in gang violence. According to that article, only 2700 died who were age 15 and younger and presumably much more innocent. For comparison, in the same time period, about 8000 kids age 15 and younger died in accidental drowning incidents.

SWIMMING POOLS MUST BE BANNED!!!

Anyone who owns or operates a swimming pool is a MURDERER! Why can't you idiots understand this!!!!!!!

[crackhed]

have to admit i'm torn on this issue. i see and appreciate both sides

but something nate (and others) said earlier that weighs heavily.. this is a nation founded on the principle of the right to bear arms, and u can't go around collecting them from everyone. just won't happen. and further restriction overwhelmingly impacts the lawful not the lawless.

the problem isn't lawful owners, but criminals and the unstable elements in our society. having said that, the criminals and the unstable elements seem to get easy access to guns mostly because its legal and a founding principle of our country, resulting in a that society is flooded with them.

gun rights owners have to admit its too easy for the wrong people to get them, and anti-gun advocates have to admit that legal gun owners are not the problem. not sure there's middle ground here <punt>

[crackhed]

Over the past 11 years, 28,000 children and teens have been killed by guns.

http://gunwars.news21.com/2014/at-least-28000-children-and-teens-were-killed-by-guns-over-an-11-year-period/

How many children's lives are your gun rights worth?

What's idiotic is supporting the manufacture, sale, and ownership of child murderers.

Most of those "children" were young adults age 16-19 dying in gang violence. According to that article, only 2700 died who were age 15 and younger and presumably much more innocent. For comparison, in the same time period, about 8000 kids age 15 and younger died in accidental drowning incidents.

SWIMMING POOLS MUST BE BANNED!!!

Anyone who owns or operates a swimming pool is a MURDERER! Why can't you idiots understand this!!!!!!!

there's a small problem with this argument.

guns do only one thing really well... kill. won't slice ur potatoes right

[popper]

I'm not sure I even understand the problem with killing anymore. For some, it's ok to kill 700,000 human fetuses per year, for our govt. leaders, it's ok to kill American citizens without due process. And for others, it's ok to kill thousands in foreign lands without a congressional Declaration of War. What difference does it make at this point (maybe Hillary was right). Country settings in the US include millions of people that use their guns to kill deer, turkey, waterfowl, etc. Is it better to eat penned cattle killed with a bolt than it is to eat meat hunted with a gun? The mental gymnastics required to justify or condemn the various methods of killing and the choice of targets in this country is very difficult for a logical person to comprehend.

[popper]

I'm not sure I even understand the problem with killing anymore. For some, it's ok to kill 700,000 human fetuses per year, for our govt. leaders, it's ok to kill American citizens without due process. And for others, it's ok to kill thousands in foreign lands without a congressional Declaration of War. What difference does it make at this point (maybe Hillary was right). Country settings in the US include millions of people that use their guns to kill deer, turkey, waterfowl, etc. Is it better to eat penned cattle killed with a bolt than it is to eat meat hunted with a gun? The mental gymnastics required to justify or condemn the various methods of killing and the choice of targets in this country is very difficult for a logical person to comprehend.

Edit - Why is it wrong to kill humans, animals, etc. with guns or poison or bombs or automobiles or cattle bolts or drones?

[pineappleheadindc]

^

Because not everyone thinks that life begins at conception. And just because YOU do doesn't make it so.

Accordingly, you are trying to advance an argument based on a premise that not everyone shares.

---------

And if you DO subscribe to life begins at conception, think about the fact that there are proven links to alcohol, tobacco and environmental toxins to causing miscarriage. Since toxins cause the "killing of an innocent life", will you now, at least figuratively, agree that we should try Andrew N. Liveris, Chairman of Dow Chemical, for multiple counts of murder and subject to the death penalty?

As over-the-top as that sounds, it's the logical extension of your position.

[pineappleheadindc]

.

Ladies and Gentlemen -- Senator. Tim. Scott. (R-SC)

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1U-DB_wknBY&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]

Transcript (link)

Transcript of Senator Tim Scott’s Speech on the U.S. Senate Floor

Thank you Mr. President

I stand before you today, before the nation, not as a Senator, not as an elected official, but as a humble South Carolinian. The past week has been one of terrible tragedy – and amazing unity.

Last Wednesday night, we experienced an unimaginable tragedy. Nine men and women…nine mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, sons, daughters lost forever.

The hateful and racist actions of one deranged man have changed 9 families forever; it has changed South Carolina forever, Charleston forever.

But, what we saw from the 9 families at last Friday’s bond hearing was simple, it was powerful, and absolutely the best of who we are as Americans.

Just a few minutes ago I was back in the Cloakroom and I had the opportunity to talk to one of the victim’s son, Daniel Simmons Jr. And I was talking to him back there and I said, “Is there anything you want me to share when I go on the floor of the Senate?” He said, “Please, share that God cares for his people. God still lives.”

And I was amazed. And then he said with great enthusiasm and energy, a sense of excitement, that this evil attack would lead to reconciliation, restoration, and unity in our nation.

Those were powerful words.

It is with great sadness and amazing hope that our future as a nation has been changed. It has been changed because one person decided to murder nine. It has been changed because the response of those nine families has been so courageous, so inspiring. And if you will permit me I will read the names of those nine individuals.

We honor the Reverend Sharonda Coleman-Singleton, a beloved teacher, coach at Goose Creek High School. Her son Chris has shown us all what an amazing mother she was through his strength over the past six days.

We honor Cynthia Hurd, whose love for education has been shared with so many over her 31 years as a librarian in the public library system.

We honor Susie Jackson, who at 87 years young still offered her beautiful voice to the choir, and had recently returned from visiting her family in Ohio.

We honor Ethel Lee Lance, who served her church with pride, whose daughter calls her the “strong woman who just tried to keep her family together.”

We honor Depayne Middleton-Doctor, who dedicated her life to serving the poor and helping her students as an enrollment counselor at Southern Wesleyan University.

We honor, my good friend, Reverend Clementa Pinckney, an amazing man of faith, a great dad and a wonderful father.

We honor Tywanza Sanders, beloved son of Tyrone and Felicia, whose warmth and heartfelt spirit has kept us moving.

We honor the Reverend Daniel Simmons, Senior, whose granddaughter said, “My granddaddy was an amazing man. It seemed like every time he spoke it was pure wisdom.”

And we honor Pastor Myra Thompson, who served the Lord with grace and dignity. She loved her children, her grandchildren and her great-grandchildren.

If you would just pause for 9 seconds, a second for each one I would appreciate it.

(Pause)

Thank you.

In closing, I want to thank all of my colleagues in the Senate and in the House for their kind words over the past week, and for the prayers that continue to come into our city from across the nation.

We are Charleston. We are South Carolina. And we are absolutely united.

And we are committed to replacing hate with love, pain with kindness, and ill will and hostility with good will and comfort.

I yield to Senator Graham.

[popper]

^

Because not everyone thinks that life begins at conception. And just because YOU do doesn't make it so.

Accordingly, you are trying to advance an argument based on a premise that not everyone shares.

---------

And if you DO subscribe to life begins at conception, think about the fact that there are proven links to alcohol, tobacco and environmental toxins to causing miscarriage. Since toxins cause the "killing of an innocent life", will you now, at least figuratively, agree that we should try Andrew N. Liveris, Chairman of Dow Chemical, for multiple counts of murder and subject to the death penalty?

As over-the-top as that sounds, it's the logical extension of your position.

With respect Pine, I'm not aware of any scientist that doesn't know that life begins at conception. I'd be happy to debate anyone that believes otherwise. Regarding your point that toxins, produced and marketed by Dow or any other company, do sometimes result in the death and or injury to humans, I say, it is undeniable. We have a judicial system that's set up to adjudicate such injury. In fact, trial lawyers make billions per year doing so. If the injury caused by the toxins involves criminal intent on the part of company executives, then we also have thousands of govt prosecutors to adjudicate such injury. It's a shame that 700,000 innocent human fetuses haven't the same right to representation.

[Wizardspride]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gm4-q_B_Iw0&spfreload=10[/youtube]

[crackhed]

^

Because not everyone thinks that life begins at conception. And just because YOU do doesn't make it so.

Accordingly, you are trying to advance an argument based on a premise that not everyone shares.

---------

And if you DO subscribe to life begins at conception, think about the fact that there are proven links to alcohol, tobacco and environmental toxins to causing miscarriage. Since toxins cause the "killing of an innocent life", will you now, at least figuratively, agree that we should try Andrew N. Liveris, Chairman of Dow Chemical, for multiple counts of murder and subject to the death penalty?

As over-the-top as that sounds, it's the logical extension of your position.

With respect Pine, I'm not aware of any scientist that doesn't know that life begins at conception. I'd be happy to debate anyone that believes otherwise. Regarding your point that toxins, produced and marketed by Dow or any other company, do sometimes result in the death and or injury to humans, I say, it is undeniable. We have a judicial system that's set up to adjudicate such injury. In fact, trial lawyers make billions per year doing so. If the injury caused by the toxins involves criminal intent on the part of company executives, then we also have thousands of govt prosecutors to adjudicate such injury. It's a shame that 700,000 innocent human fetuses haven't the same right to representation.

my understanding of this issue is viability, not conception

[pineappleheadindc]

^

Because not everyone thinks that life begins at conception. And just because YOU do doesn't make it so.

Accordingly, you are trying to advance an argument based on a premise that not everyone shares.

---------

And if you DO subscribe to life begins at conception, think about the fact that there are proven links to alcohol, tobacco and environmental toxins to causing miscarriage. Since toxins cause the "killing of an innocent life", will you now, at least figuratively, agree that we should try Andrew N. Liveris, Chairman of Dow Chemical, for multiple counts of murder and subject to the death penalty?

As over-the-top as that sounds, it's the logical extension of your position.

With respect Pine, I'm not aware of any scientist that doesn't know that life begins at conception. I'd be happy to debate anyone that believes otherwise. Regarding your point that toxins, produced and marketed by Dow or any other company, do sometimes result in the death and or injury to humans, I say, it is undeniable. We have a judicial system that's set up to adjudicate such injury. In fact, trial lawyers make billions per year doing so. If the injury caused by the toxins involves criminal intent on the part of company executives, then we also have thousands of govt prosecutors to adjudicate such injury. It's a shame that 700,000 innocent human fetuses haven't the same right to representation.

I know of nobody who thinks that a zygote is a life.

And if life begins at conception, then the Dow CEO is guilty of murder. The judicial system is not "set up to adjudicate such injury. In fact trial lawyers make billions per year doing so." (Nice insert of the conservative boogie man "trial lawyers", they're almost as bad as....egads...TEACHERS). BUT trial lawyers aren't involved on the prosecution side....it is the state that must prosecute the Dow CEO for murder under your scenario. Those prosecutors are governmental officials who could (physically, not under the law) prosecute the Dow CEO FOR MURDER at any time. So why don't they -- including directly elected prosecutors who are, themselves, quite conservative.

Because the LAW does not recognize a zygote as a "life". And your sincere *belief* that it is so does not make it so under the law.

[popper]

^

Because not everyone thinks that life begins at conception. And just because YOU do doesn't make it so.

Accordingly, you are trying to advance an argument based on a premise that not everyone shares.

---------

And if you DO subscribe to life begins at conception, think about the fact that there are proven links to alcohol, tobacco and environmental toxins to causing miscarriage. Since toxins cause the "killing of an innocent life", will you now, at least figuratively, agree that we should try Andrew N. Liveris, Chairman of Dow Chemical, for multiple counts of murder and subject to the death penalty?

As over-the-top as that sounds, it's the logical extension of your position.

With respect Pine, I'm not aware of any scientist that doesn't know that life begins at conception. I'd be happy to debate anyone that believes otherwise. Regarding your point that toxins, produced and marketed by Dow or any other company, do sometimes result in the death and or injury to humans, I say, it is undeniable. We have a judicial system that's set up to adjudicate such injury. In fact, trial lawyers make billions per year doing so. If the injury caused by the toxins involves criminal intent on the part of company executives, then we also have thousands of govt prosecutors to adjudicate such injury. It's a shame that 700,000 innocent human fetuses haven't the same right to representation.

I know of nobody who thinks that a zygote is a life.

And if life begins at conception, then the Dow CEO is guilty of murder. The judicial system is not "set up to adjudicate such injury. In fact trial lawyers make billions per year doing so." (Nice insert of the conservative boogie man "trial lawyers", they're almost as bad as....egads...TEACHERS). BUT trial lawyers aren't involved on the prosecution side....it is the state that must prosecute the Dow CEO for murder under your scenario. Those prosecutors are governmental officials who could (physically, not under the law) prosecute the Dow CEO FOR MURDER at any time. So why don't they -- including directly elected prosecutors who are, themselves, quite conservative.

Because the LAW does not recognize a zygote as a "life". And your sincere *belief* that it is so does not make it so under the law.

We know that organisms exist when we demonstrate that they consume nutrients. Only living organisms do so. Therefore they are then demonstrability alive. All zygotes consume nutrients so therefore your comment that a zygote is not a life is false.