Latest On Sunday's Joel Osteen Megachurch Mass Shooter

a reply to: chr0naut

I can't lie if I directly quote you, unless you lied in your original post bud.

Obviously if I am asking you I don't. But sure, think what you want

Maybe this is your clue that you shouod really do more research on the actual problem with guns in the US rather than making assumptions looking from the outside. Especially from where you live.


Better sources and yet you refuse to look into the real problem. You want to assume and make wild accusations about the perceived problem.

a reply to: chr0naut

So your answer, as expected, is to put in place "laws" that are pretty much already in place.

Man, if only someone had thought of that before you.


Almost as if I said earlier in this thread that one of the biggest issues is that none of the accountability is there.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: chr0naut

I can't lie if I directly quote you, unless you lied in your original post bud.

So, your line of reasoning is that if I were to quote you directly, then you must believe that anything I say, at any other time or in any other place, cannot possibly be a lie? - That isn't well reasoned.

It is also a line of argument that reveals a level of self-deception because you cannot seem to see the difference between the what I posted (all of it - not just a few words out of context) and how you reported it.

The lie was not in the partial bit of sentence that you quoted directly, but was in the rest of the posts. It was a twisting of the truth, which you are continuing to do. If you were being untruthful, then you were lying.

Maybe this is your clue that you should really do more research on the actual problem with guns in the US rather than making assumptions looking from the outside. Especially from where you live.

Better sources and yet you refuse to look into the real problem. You want to assume and make wild accusations about the perceived problem.

The argument 'that someone cannot make a comment on a place where they don't live' is also just total nonsense.

The US does have a gun proliferation problem, it also has some stupid outdated legislation based upon fear of a situation that a proliferation of weapons cannot solve. It also has politicians that seem incapable of doing what is required to ensure national and personal security.

Armed vigilantism leads to uprisings, which most usually lead to tyranny.

With all the deepening partisan divisions, distrust of government, and open armed militarism happening there, the 2nd Amendment and disenfranchised factions are driving the USA to a crisis point which it may not survive.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: chr0naut

So your answer, as expected, is to put in place "laws" that are pretty much already in place.

They are not "pretty much in place". If the US states or cities have implemented gun control regulations at all, it has been piecemeal and un-cordinated.

Man, if only someone had thought of that before you.

Almost as if I said earlier in this thread that one of the biggest issues is that none of the accountability is there.

Other countries already do these things and they have driven down firearm related deaths and injuries, and have not led to tyranny. Nearly everyone has thought of, and done these things, before.

A new study puts the US’s gun problem in a global perspective. It’s really bad.

a reply to: chr0naut

So, your line of reasoning is that if I were to quote you directly, then you must believe that anything I say, at any other time or in any other place, cannot possibly be a lie? - That isn't well reasoned.

Are you naturally this dense or do you have to try at it?

I gave a direct quote of an entire sentence you said, and you said I lied. So that means you lied to begin with. Not that hard to understand dude, well for most of us.


I would have no problem with you commenting on the "gun problem" in the Us, if, you actually knew what you were talking about instead of the little blurbs you read on MSM. Come here, live it and then let me know what you really think the problem is. But, we all know you won't do that, and you won't yield to those that live it every day that might know a lot more about the subject than you do. But yet here we are still debating this simple topic that you know little to nothing about.

a reply to: chr0naut

Let's break this down for you, again, and maybe this time read it slow and you might understand it a little better.

make owning an illegal firearm itself a crime

Already a crime to own illegal firearms, try again

Then you would define all future purchases of firearms by any other means than than the approved, registered, licensed and qualifying means as an illegal purchase, where both seller and buyer receive the same automatic sentences as other firearm infractions.

All sales are already legal, if all the laws are followed. IE. private sales are legal in almost all states, unless the buyer or seller is lying about the legality of it. Which is a crime.....

The firearms/s need to be licensed to ensure they are fit for purpose, will not discharge unexpectedly, and will not explode upon use.

All firearms are sold from the manufacturer with safety features and inspections, and if they are found to have an issue they are recalled and replaced or fixed.

Taking someone's life in the commission of a crime is an automatic natural-life sentence usually with only specific conditional chance of parole upon conviction. However, convicted murderers may still have full right of appeal, but they must continue to serve their sentence until the time they are exonerated. Parole may be granted if the convict is deemed to have fully financially compensated the close families of the victim/s and the court system costs and imprisonment related costs, to the satisfaction of the court.

Killing someone is already illegal, but again we are circling back to what I have said several times for you. The US judicial system does not hold everyone to the same standard, that is the problem there.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: chr0naut

Are you naturally this dense or do you have to try at it?

I gave a direct quote of an entire sentence you said, and you said I lied. So that means you lied to begin with. Not that hard to understand dude, well for most of us.

The context of the posts was about the election of Presidential candidates, and even the sentence you quoted included the qualifier "for candidates" that you seem not to have noticed in your paraphrase.

If you genuinely believed that I was talking about any type of ballot, out of context with the discussion, then that speaks of a miniscule attention span. But I suspect you are making the totally out of context 'point' merely to be argumentative.

The point you have been making misrepresents the truth. It is a lie.

I would have no problem with you commenting on the "gun problem" in the Us, if, you actually knew what you were talking about instead of the little blurbs you read on MSM.

How could you even know what I do and don't know? That argument is spurious, ad hominem and clearly invalid.

The little blurbs I read on the media are backed by historical events, government statistics, academic studies, and comparisons to the situations in other countries. If you have better data, from more credible sources, present it.

Come here, live it and then let me know what you really think the problem is.

Does one have to know that being chained up, in pain, with broken limbs, in an overflowing septic tank, is an awful situation only by experiencing it? The argument that I have not experienced something therefore I cannot discuss it is a nonsense.

But, we all know you won't do that, and you won't yield to those that live it every day that might know a lot more about the subject than you do. But yet here we are still debating this simple topic that you know little to nothing about.

Too right I won't go and live in the US. A nation where rights leading to quality of life are either ignored or are secondary to the acquisition of wealth by all means necessary, and where citizens cannot self-regulate in unity to defend from crime or tyranny, but they must carry around weapons to try and do so, as fearful, isolated and otherwise undefended individuals.

originally posted by: PorkChop96
a reply to: chr0naut

Let's break this down for you, again, and maybe this time read it slow and you might understand it a little better.

make owning an illegal firearm itself a crime

Already a crime to own illegal firearms, try again

Then you would define all future purchases of firearms by any other means than than the approved, registered, licensed and qualifying means as an illegal purchase, where both seller and buyer receive the same automatic sentences as other firearm infractions.

All sales are already legal, if all the laws are followed. IE. private sales are legal in almost all states, unless the buyer or seller is lying about the legality of it. Which is a crime.....

And that is the problem. Currently, almost all private sales are legal, regardless of if they follow full registration, licensing, psych eval, or not.

You have to change the existing laws, to change them. If they are insufficient or unfair, then you cant quote the existing laws as a reason not to change them.

The firearms/s need to be licensed to ensure they are fit for purpose, will not discharge unexpectedly, and will not explode upon use.

All firearms are sold from the manufacturer with safety features and inspections, and if they are found to have an issue they are recalled and replaced or fixed.

But firearms may be modified, damaged, or degrade over time, invalidating that manufacturing inspection.

You can't register a car with no brakes or dodgy steering, even if it was good when originally manufactured. It should be the same with firearms, and even easier to check because they are simpler machines.

Taking someone's life in the commission of a crime is an automatic natural-life sentence usually with only specific conditional chance of parole upon conviction. However, convicted murderers may still have full right of appeal, but they must continue to serve their sentence until the time they are exonerated. Parole may be granted if the convict is deemed to have fully financially compensated the close families of the victim/s and the court system costs and imprisonment related costs, to the satisfaction of the court.

Killing someone is already illegal, but again we are circling back to what I have said several times for you. The US judicial system does not hold everyone to the same standard, that is the problem there.

Unequal laws, got it. Perhaps they should fix that?

Also, don't murderers get short sentences in the US?

True justice would be - life for life (not just a few years of free accommodation and meals) - and I'm not talking about death penalties - taking yet another life, which compounds the crime, I am talking about symmetrical compensatory retribution.

They released body cam footage and it is insane. The shooting when on a lot longer than I thought it did. I cannot believe more were not killed.

Link