He's got plugs in bucko. That reaction has nothing to do with his ears hurting.



Dumbass miscers indeed.

You fkn make me laugh. You've provided no sources - ever - because there wouldn't be any legit ones to support your inane babble. No amount of effort would get you anywhere, you don't need to use laziness as an excuse.

10s of millions of armed Americans could overtake the government? Give me a break. Theres absolutely no way a large group could organize - not in this country. No one even gets along: PC culture is pathetically strong and racism is becoming more apparent in parallel to ignorance and obliviousness to the fact that people need to get along for a culture and country to progress as whole. Nowhere here is there a place where everyone gets along unconditionally. Bigotry runs rampant and at the end of the day, selfishness is the base of everyone's motives. Let's be real - America would be one of the last 'first world' countries on the face of the earth to have a group that big come together for anything. Not that there ever would be a 'tyrannical government' in the first place. Thinking such is nothing more than fear mongering.

Why the first do you keep spewing sh!t about the Taliban? They're a damn organization in a war-torn impoverished country half a world away. They mean absolutely nothing in comparison to the U.S. and therefore your argument is useless in this debate.

You're such a dreamer and wishful thinker Focused on such arbitrary ideations - thinking that if there's danger on one side of the earth, it equates to that on the other side. Regardless of it being the home of the most powerful military in the world in which any conflict they would have a drastic home field advantage.

I can't tell if it's such romanticism or absurd obsession that you think you could ever be in a potential situation of overthrowing the government - regardless of how many people 'came together'. Yes, such is a common theme amongst movies, books and the like but they're all fictional. This is the real world buddy. No such thing is possible. The fact that so many Americans need to concern themselves with being able to overthrow their government whilst pretending to be incessantly patriotic is completely paradoxical.

Don't even bother responding without factual information and stop throwing your pathetic excuses around. Feminine emotional statements would do nothing but dig you into a deeper hole of damaged credibility.

You shut the fuk up bitch, I'm gonna neg you

What's the point of having gun debates on the misc? Nobody on either side will change their view so why do we continue to have 30+ page threads of this.

As they did AK wielding folks in Afghanistan and Iraq, ending those wars...

Wtf are you blithering on about? That guy is wearing ear protection.

Look at that, an essay when your point can be summarized in 3 sentences.
- This guy is stupid
- The country is too socially divided to come together and fight
- No sources

Same whining and bitching that goes on for 13 pages.

"My opinion was that if we had a common enemy we should get together commonly"

I have friends and family in the military, good luck ordering them into our cities to kill the people they swore to protect.

There is no military "home field advantage" unless there is a foreign invader.

You have yet to post an instance where the United States government succeeded in ending an insurgency. Do I fantasize about this? No, I'd rather not live in a warzone and see my family die. Am I being a realist? Yes, the civilian population could destroy the government in drawn-out combat.

Now, feel free to cry and moan about my lack of sources.

cliffs
- low test Med-Student is afraid of guns
- Thinks owning a gun puts him at high risk to shoot himself, just on principle of ownership

To summarize the above: you've insulted my character numerous times (i.e. ad hominem attacks - completely fallacious), have provided no strong support for your stance (i.e. arguments from ignorance - completely fallacious) of which is spurred by baseless fantasies of fear (fallaciously appealing to emotion) whilst repeatedly attempting to spin the direction towards things with absolutely no relevance (i.e. straw man arguments - completely fallacious). In terms of a logical debate, you have absolutely nothing to stand on, yet you continue to ramble on. And yes, I've stopped providing you with sources because really - why would I even waste my time? I know you're not referring to them by any means.

You are an example of an extreme right wing bigots who wants to go shooting his guns (and/or support others doing so) at the expense of the deaths of numerous people in this country (homicides, active shooting victims, mass shooting victims). Those with your perception seem so convinced that the second amendment supports your right to your trigger happy fantasies - it absolutely does not. If you think so, please read the amendment again and attempt to critically analyze each word and deduce all underlying meanings.

Interestingly, I read recently that individuals such as yourself are completely incapable of debating using the logic centers of their brain: your amygdala continues to rev up as you push arguments of baseless fear and expect you it to get somewhere. You absolutely cannot handle ambiguity and become completely stressed at any hint of changing what you've become used to - regardless of absurdity. You have not provided a single logical argument throughout these posts providing to be a classic example of such.
1. Kanai, R. Political orientations are correlated with brain structure in young adults.Current Biology.2011;21:677-680.
2. Schreiber D. Red brain, blue brain: Evaluative processes differ in democrats and republicans.PLOS one.2013;8(2):e52970.

The AMA - the leading authority for medical professionals, has declared firearm violence to be a public crisis. As such, they are actively lobbying for gun control as of this past month.

At the end of the day I really can't tell what your stance is: as is there are an exceedingly high number of firearm homicides (issue #1 I care about) and instances of firearm violence (issue #2 I care about) in this country. I've debated solely towards matters that should bring these magnitudes down [1] - while having to wade through your incessant baseless fallacious babble. Personal firearms have been shown to be used more so for offensive purposes rather than defensive purposes, and in situations of defense - prove to be nearly worthless [2]. Further, the exceedingly high number of deaths at home in households with firearms further justifies the impracticality of having them in the home [3,4].
1. Kalesan, B. Firearm legislation and firearm mortality in the USA: A cross-sectional, state-level study.Lancet. 2016;387:1847-55.
2. Hemenway D. The relative frequency of offensive and defensive gun uses: Results from a national survey.Violence and Victims.2000;15(3):257-272.
3. Miller M. State level homicide victimization rates in the US in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003.Social Sciences & Medicine.2007;64:656-664.
4. Siegel, M. The relationship between gun ownership and firearm homicide rates in the United States, 1981-2010.Am J Public Health.2013;103:2098-2105.

From the rambling you've provided - it seems that you have no concern for the deaths and disabilities such victims are left with. This is astounding. If this is not the case, nothing you've said has suggested as such. Nor have you provided any possible solutions.

So I'm guessing Canadian Lifter knows more about 2nd amendment issues than the supreme court? That's about all I've gotten out of this thread.

When are you going to become a US supreme court justice Canadian Lifter?

1. You do understand that it was Justice Scalia who made the ruling in theHellercase?
2. You do realize that Scalia is irrefutably known to be heavily biased in his rulings?
3. He coincidentally died at an outing with other members of a gun club - oh, the irony

Do you seriously think that a single individual - regardless of being on the Supreme Court or not (of probably one of the most politically biased countries in the Western hemisphere in terms of decision making) could push an agenda without understanding it to its fullest extent? Such could be riddled with biases, such was his personality.

I mean, really, this is the entire purpose of repeatability and laws of large numbers in scientific reasoning - so that biases/ideologies/opinions are whittled out and all that's left are facts. Such is not so in a Supreme Court ruling. There is no demand for complete understanding by those in power. There is a large potential for bias, and potentially - corruption.

You know why they never make movies about zombie pandemic outbursts in Europe? BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE GUNS AND WE WOULD ALL BE DEAD!

I have a hockey stick and a good piece of Hickory. Let's just hope that I don't run into that many at once.

I believe everyone is biased and that's why I find it odd how you're ranting and raving in here about a biased supreme court justice who made the wrong call yet you don't seem to see the irony that you're just as biased but in the other direction.

Granted, there's a process to amend the constitution and it's been used many times. However the fascists seem to be out in force lately about wanting to bypass that method and just use executive action to ban things they don't like even though the courts (as biased as you think they are) ruled that people have a right to defend themselves. Add in made up words like "assault rifles" and you have some new classification of a weapon that doesn't really exist in which the straw-man argument can be used as often as needed by the left.

Like I said, if you understand the law better, you should be challenging the court rulings somehow. I get more upset by laws that are wrong when they limit personal freedom (weed laws for example) as opposed to getting bent out of shape for laws that allow freedom (gun laws) even if I do/don't agree with them. It's strange how upset the liberals get over the latter type.

Who the **** care about the murder rate? 99% of people that killed had it coming (drugs/crime, revenge, associating with those kinds of people, etc) or committed suicide. Almost no one gets randomly killed.

I don't feel at risk of getting murdered, ever.

1. Please elaborate on how the ability for you to by an AK, AR, handgun, shotgun, sniper rifle, etc equates to allow[ing] freedom? There are numerous other countries in the world who've been establish to have freedom, yet firearms are restricted and controlled in their sale.
2. I'm Canadian and you define me as a liberal. I have no political involvement whatsoever. In person, I'm the least political person you'll ever meet except for several issues, including gun violence for which the facts are glaringly obvious. Further, the logic I get from pro-gunners is glaringly absentand yet, somehow - they find a reason to justify countless deaths and injuries from these weapons.

I am absolutely not conservative in thinking - yet you define me as a liberal. Care to elaborate on your reasoning for resorting to such false dilemma? I am absolutely not liberal in thinking either. I find liberals ridiculous at times, and conservatives ridiculous (although more often) at times. Yet, at the end of the day if you can make a logical argument supported with facts - I will agree with you without question. No such argument has ever been provided by the pro-gunner crew and people die or are maimed because of such ignorance. America is one of the only 'first world' countries I can think of who suffers from this ignorance and absurdity.1. You strongly exaggerate your 99% statistic - please provide stats. How do you feel about those who are innocent (in your case, the 1%) who are shot and killed/maimed? The toddlers/children at home who die because of gun accidents or shoot someone unknowingly as they don't understand the concept of a weapon.What's your justification for this?This is supposed to be a civilized country, for which absolutely no justification should exist. If you were to be shot tomorrow, would you feel comfortable knowing that others had said the issue?

2. So, because you feel safe in your surroundings you feel like the issue of gun violence doesn't pertain to you? Is this the extent of your ignorance, essentially stating: I'm fine so I don't care, everyone else can deal with it'?

Lol @ some fathead Canadien ******* whining and crying about US laws