Jump to content

bad_teammate

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    20804
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Posts posted by bad_teammate

  1. 7 hours ago, seven said:

    If people actually thought abortion was murder or a genocide or whatever I'd think they would do something drastic like kill the abortion doctors and stone the sluts. I'd be pretty pissed if doctors were murdering a few million 2yr olds every year. How can you sit back and do nothing to stop the genocide? 

    But they don't do anything because deep down they know there is a difference between a fetus and a baby. 

    We can wrap this thread up now 

    amen

  2. 16 minutes ago, JBJ said:

    Select-fire exceeds common use.

    Why?

    Make an argument. Explain your rationale. You're just throwing dust in the air and hoping you aren't forced to actually engage with the conversation.

    16 minutes ago, slorch said:

    I am saying there is no need for further restriction to achieve a safer society.  Guns are not the problem.  People are.

    If guns are not at least part of the problem, why have any restrictions on them at all?

    Quote

    Let's do everything else but actually address the issue-  irresponsible human behavior.

    Who here advocates not punishing the violent offenders? Who ANYWHERE advocates not punishing the violent offenders?

  3. 35 minutes ago, JBJ said:

    I'd say the current restrictions on those items don't need to be changed for civilians. I would increase the restrictions on local law enforcement.

    I'll further my explanation: most importantly - they don't have a common use.  Explosives in general are are still accessible to professions who use them. And serious hobbyists are willing to go through the costs and wait to get them. 

    Outside of suppressors, I have no problems with current restrictions.  Expanding those restritions to weapons with common uses (pistols, rifles, shotguns, knives, axes, saws) is what I am against.

    What "common use" does an AR-15 have that a select-fire SCAR-H or even the LMG M249 would not have? You are basically arguing that the laws we have right now are fine because they are the laws we have right now.

    And why are you guys so evasive when asked simple questions?

    Should I be able to own and carry a full-auto M249? Should I be able to buy a newly manufactured one?

    Should I be able to own, carry, and purchase new the other things? (frags, mortars, and claymores)

  4. 4 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

    The DoobieWah post is not the one you brought up as an example.

    You're wrong. See post #113 and the conversation that follows. That entire chain of communication was predicated on DoobieWah's attempt to use late-term abortion pictures to characterize abortion writ large and Stros continued by doing the same thing later.

    I'm not sure what you're trying to do, but maybe stop.

  5. 8 minutes ago, JBJ said:

    There is a semi-auto M249, so you can own and carry it.  It is one of the few legal belt-fed weapons.

    The others aren't "arms" in the normal sense and don't have a common use, so people don't give a shit.

    Should I be able to own and carry a full-auto M249? Should I be able to buy a newly manufactured one?

    Should I be able to own, carry, and purchase new the other things? (frags, mortars, and claymores)

    Come on, buddy, they aren't hard questions.

  6. 33 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

    So what this boils down to is:

    1) Statistically rare cases should not be the basis of arguments

    2) Unless they are arguments you like.

    The only distinction you’ve drawn between the two extreme cases is your assertion that late-term abortions were implied to be a majority of abortions. Which, of course, no one implied, in just the same way that, as you correctly point out, no one implied only cases of rape/incest/life of the mother should be allowed in the first trimester. Your “argument” is based only on your arbitrary decision.

    It would have been much less tortuous to say “Don’t use arguments I don’t like” instead of  pretending there was some sort of logical principle at work.

    That's exactly what Stros is doing in post #118.

    He is asked:

    So, Mr. Pro-Life, what about rape and incest? Is rape-baby murder OK?
     

    And he responds with late-term abortion pics.

  7. 15 minutes ago, staboner said:

    i dunno man. we got plenty of teacher child sex stories over here

    banging a 60 something year old grandma while you are PM of the country that invented the word "pussy" and in you are in your 30s? 

    firmly not winning IMO

    Minimum 2 mistresses.

  8. 17 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

    So you're OK with current restrictions yet you cannot even begin to imagine how some people might think those restrictions need to be somewhat tighter.

    That's logical.

    slorch commonly exhibits reactionary thinking at its finest. The worldview and attention span of a goldfish.

  9. 2 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

    I see. But those mentioning cases of rape/incest/life of the mother as arguments for abortion writ large are not arguing those are the majority of abortions. 

    That’s an astounding distinction you’re able to draw there. 

    Who is doing that? I don't know of any pro-abortion-rights person who argues that elective 1st trimester abortions should be illegal except in cases of the trifecta. I might be wrong, but I'd be interested to see someone argue that.

    What people who are pro-abortion-rights do is probe the depth of commitment anti-abortion-rights folks have by asking the the anti-abortion folks, "Hey, do you oppose a 1st trimester abortion even in the case of rape/incest/life-of-the-mother?"

    Quote

    Acknowledgement on the pro-abortion side  that there is going to be a time before birth where it is going to be illegal to abort a viable fetus.

    As a pro-abortion-rights person who talks with others like me, the most common thought is that late-term abortions should only be allowed in the trifecta circumstance.

  10. 18 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

    If basing an argument on statistical rarities is purposefully dishonest, it’s time to retire the rape/incest/life of the mother trifecta.

    Has someone argued that the majority of abortions are rape/incest/life of the mother motivated?

    Has anyone characterized abortion as primarily consisting of women in those situations?

    16 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

    Gun murders in schools are statistically very rare too. Does that mean the anti gun people are being purposely dishonest?

    ... when they say... what?

  11. 35 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

    Does the Constitution protect your right to own an atom bomb?

    Gun nuts dodge these questions constantly.

    - Should I be able to own and carry an M249?

    - Should I be able to own and carry frags?

    - Should I be able to own and carry mortars?

    - Should I be able to own and carry claymores?

  12. 8 hours ago, Stros said:

    Do babies at 24 weeks have nerves that let them feel pain? YES

    Do they have the brain structures necessary to actually experience pain at 24 weeks as opposed to the mere capability to carry the signal? NO

    I think you're actually going into a fruitful part of the discussion, but let's not be misleading with our language. As mentioned ad infinitum, late-term abortions are (thankfully) extremely rare, and everyone involved in the discussion wishes for that to remain true. Holding up late-term abortions as the basic concept for legal abortion when it is an extreme statistical rarity is purposefully dishonest.

  13. 2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

    I don’t. Bought a non compliant policy now that the mandate is gone. And have encouraged others to do so. All the coverage I need with much lower premiums and deductibles.

    ITT Johnny Sack demonstrates his deep knowledge of how insurance pools work

×
×
  • Create New...