Liberal logic
- Thread starter Walleye70
- Start date
You should really do some research on the term assault rifle. The general public can't legally purchase a true assault rifle. You need special federal permits to purchase and own selective fire weapons. The AR-15 that can be purchased at your local gun dealer isn't an assault rifle, it's a standard .223 sporting rifle. You call it an assault rifle because of the way it looks and not the way it operates.
It's not a deflection. He's stating, as I did, that your premise is false; which makes the rest of your argument irrelevant.
Liberals argue that we should be investing aggressively to protect the world from the ravages climate change. Cons dismiss that concern and want to ramp up fossil fuel use.
Please explain how liberals are the ones who don't care about the lives of unborn children.
You (I assume) are talking about abortion but in practically every other sense, it's liberals who care and cons care less or not at all.
Almost exactly what happens in any HROT discussion of climate change. With the roles reversed, obviously.
So far the extra scrutiny of people coming here has worked quite well.
Can we say the same about extra scrutiny of gun transactions?
Find a way to chuckle every now and then.
There it is right there. Nobody is "blaming" islam, but that's the mantra on the left against the right.
This liberal regularly argues that some of the reasons for barring certain people from buying a gun are bad ideas and often unconstitutional. There's a lot of conversation lately to expand those reasons to add people who have ever seen a shrink or had any "mental health" issues. More bad ideas.
We need better regulation. That may or may not mean more regulation.
I will say this, though, the strategy of arresting young black males at a high rate so they can't legally get guns is an interesting strategy.
That's an argument that I frequently aim at cons. Nice to see someone else using it. In this particular case, the logical errors have already been pointed out several times in this thread.
So . . . freedom and rights only matter if they have been specifically mentioned in the constitution?
Typical authoritarian thinking.
That "natural causes" guy is the absolute worst. More people die at his hands than anything else. Except maybe in Syria.
Oooooh! I like this. If I were good at digital art I would put a fetus in place of the pencil and have a great justification for abortions.
Or I could put an elephant in there and have a good argument for banning the GOP.
I can see your point but you don't get more uncaring then "It's entirely ok for another person to kill you for any reason they see fit."
I'm not sure that I agree. Wasn't this last shooting done by a lady who supposedly got extra scrutiny that failed to turn up some rather obvious lies? Then there was the Boston bomber guys who also should have tripped some triggers. I'm not sure screening people for terror or guns is a panacea. It might be the best option available, but it has some rather glaring limits.
Do you think there is a right of foreigners to move to this contry? The UN declaration of rights might agree, but I doubt many others would.
He already told you we had a racism problem. Now you're mad he didn't repeat himself? Ain't nobody got time for that.
I am not aware of this. Are you meaning fetus's and just using the term "babies" generically to make you opposition more dramatic? Just keep picking that scab Walleye.
This picture right here sums up the problems that we've had with race in a beautiful little nutshell.
I'm wondering what would happen if you attacked a cop and tried to steal his gun? Would we then have white on white crime?
Fetus is a word, a baby is a baby. You guys can use stats all you want, so you can continue to support abortion which was brought forth via a racist white woman who wished to trim down the black population.
Legally.....when it is born..alive.
One cannot take a deduction for a child if it has been stillborn and full term....
morally..that is for each and every one of us to determine...it is not for you to tell me.
So, you can carve them up until birth, because they haven't seen the light of day and they are not Babies?
Those are your words..and 22 you will never find solace in this issue looking at it that way..I don't think. It is NOT your business what other folks do. It just isn't.
Don't worry about it. They are MY morals...not yours. I promise, my morals will not harm you in any way. As long as you tend to YOUR business, I could care less what you or others do. Don't impose your morals or your ethics on me. I had enough of that crap at work.
We make what people do our business more and more everyday.
The semantics of fetus vs. baby is just a trick to try and dehumanize the process to make it easier to support.
No, it's a statement that counters yours perfectly. If you want it to be though, I suppose it works.
Latest posts
-
-
-
Brauns, Mulvey Taking Advantage of Added Minutes Down the Stretch
- Latest: Eliot Clough
