yungcigsmoker
Member
13738342:broto said:
"I don't have an argument so I'll refer to ad-hominems to look cool on the internet"
10/19/2016 Debate
- Thread starter Snowpeck
- Start date
"I don't have an argument so I'll refer to ad-hominems to look cool on the internet"
S.J.W
Active member
13738340:Josh__Peck said:
Further to my point, yes classic liberalism was right wing. But there was a shift in the 60's and 70's away from protectionist policy. Now, you have both left wing and right wing political parties with free trade, free enterprise,etc,etc.
Enter Donald Trump, arguing for protectionist policy is the complete opposite of classic liberalism, and yet he represents the right wing party in America. So please tell me how you can claim liberalism is right wing ideology when your presidential candidate wants protectionist policy? And before you claim Trump has never stated he doesn't want protectionist policy. Well NAFTA and other free trade agreements mean countries can trade free of quotas, or tariffs. When Trump says he's going to re-negoiate the trade deals, the only way is to re-introduce quotas and tariffs.
Checkmate.
yungcigsmoker
Member
13738344:S.J.W said:
>Implying I honestly support Trump
S.J.W
Active member
13738345:Josh__Peck said:
Never said you supported Trump. I'm asking how you can currently claim liberalism is a right wing ideology when the current Republican presidential candidate opposes free trade deals and wants to re-negoiote them. It's a simple question. Are you going to answer it?
yungcigsmoker
Member
Furthermore Trump does not represent "The right-wing party". He represents the republican party. Hillary Clinton represents the Democratic party, which is also right wing. The only American politicians who could be considered left wing are Sanders and Stein (and even then it's a stretch)
yungcigsmoker
Member
13738350:S.J.W said:
Liberalism is a right wing ideology regardless of who is the current republican candidate.
Frozinballz
Member
On another note..
"A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of Independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
George Washington
S.J.W
Active member
13738351:Josh__Peck said:
13738354:Josh__Peck said:
Thanks for completely proving my point. Both Democrats, and republicans (pre Trump) since the end of protectionist policy have advocated for free trade and free market. Aka, economic liberalism. You're completely forgetting that politics changes. And if you went back to the 50's with tariffs and quotas, yes the democrat party would be considered right wing. But since the abolishment of protectionist policy, social and fiscal policies have been the main driver of someones political beliefs. You probably saw one political compass which put the democrats and republicans fairly close together and now think you're being edgy by saying Democrats are right wing. And if that's the case, then the majority of major political parties are right wing...
S.J.W
Active member
13738367:JAHpow said:
"we should not allow those on the no fly list to buy guns"
NRA"HOW FUCKING DARE THEY, THIS IS A BREACH OF OUR FREEDOMS, OH MY GOD WE NEED TO BLOCK THIS LEGISLATION. TERRORISTS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BUY GUNS!!!!!"
The thing is, I don't give two shits about guns.
S.J.W
Active member
13738404:S.J.W said:
If you want to have the highest rate of gun deaths a year, highest suicide rate, highest mass murder rate, etc,etc. Go ahead, keep your guns. I'm never moving to America so if your shit hole cesspool just keeps killing each other, hopefully there'll be no America left.
S.J.W
Active member
13738409:McNoche said:
implying that talking about guns means someone cares about guns. If you want to shoot each other, have a toddler shoot you, have a person with a mental disorder shoot you, a terrorist shoot you. Go ahead. Keep your guns. Like I said, I'm never going to move to America. Your high death rate at the hands of guns has no effect on me what so ever. Now I'm going to go watch Inferno tonight, and not have to worry about being shot.
Frozinballz
Member
13738407:S.J.W said:
Holy shit angry keyboard warrior.
On a bender or what? Fucking crazy! So you want no America left? Its getting heated in here haha
BrawnTrends
Active member
13738389:Frozinballz said:
On another note..
"A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of Independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
George Washington
"More than 33,000 Americans are killed by guns each year. It’s time to act. As President, I'll take on the gun lobby and fight for commonsense reforms to keep guns away from terrorists, domestic abusers, and other violent criminals—including comprehensive background checks and closing loopholes that allow guns to fall into the wrong hands."
And:
“I do support comprehensive background checks, and to close the gun show loophole, and the online loophole, and what's called the Charleston loophole, and to prevent people on the no-fly list from getting guns,” said Clinton.
It's never been about taking guns away.
It just seems rational and logical, unless you're a mentally ill convicted felon that's a no-fly list, of course.
Frozinballz
Member
13738426:S.J.W said:
Haha
Go fuck a cockshaft
yungcigsmoker
Member
13738401:S.J.W said:
American politics are almost entirely based in the upper right wing of the political spectrum.
yungcigsmoker
Member
The democratic party isnt considered leftist just because they're not as right leaning ad the republican party. Its a right wing ideology because of its policies and principles.
yungcigsmoker
Member
13738413:S.J.W said:implying that talking about guns means someone cares about guns. If you want to shoot each other, have a toddler shoot you, have a person with a mental disorder shoot you, a terrorist shoot you. Go ahead. Keep your guns. Like I said, I'm never going to move to America. Your high death rate at the hands of guns has no effect on me what so ever. Now I'm going to go watch Inferno tonight, and not have to worry about being shot.
"I prefer dangerous freedom to peaceful slavery"
JAHpow
Active member
13738407:S.J.W said:
Then get comfortable, it'll take a while for .0001% of the population dieing at the hands of someone or themselves with a gun to make a dent.
13738413:S.J.W said:implying that talking about guns means someone cares about guns. If you want to shoot each other, have a toddler shoot you, have a person with a mental disorder shoot you, a terrorist shoot you. Go ahead. Keep your guns. Like I said, I'm never going to move to America. Your high death rate at the hands of guns has no effect on me what so ever. Now I'm going to go watch Inferno tonight, and not have to worry about being shot.
No one here worries about getting shot. Except Chicago, and they banned guns.
BrawnTrends
Active member
13738445:JAHpow said:
Obviously, all they have to do is go to Indiana, buy guns, bring them back, shoot people.
Strict gun laws could only work if every state is on the same page.
yungcigsmoker
Member
13738474:BrawnTrends said:
Because that's totally how the weapons blackmarket works.
Strict gun laws won't work in America. We have too many guns in circulation.
Furthermore America has:
A large scale drug war (It's being toned down but it's still very much alive)
Soaring heroin and other drug addiction rates
Extremely high crime rates in highly populated urban areas (due to the above factors as well as high poverty rates).
Poor mental health treatment
These contribute to gun violence more than any other factor. Gun laws are not the solution.
yungcigsmoker
Member
The US should annex Canada after they get overrun by refugees and their citizens begin starving to death due to their increasing socialization.
BrawnTrends
Active member
13738479:Josh__Peck said:
Well, yes, actually, it is.
https://mic.com/articles/127842/this-is-how-chicago-gets-flooded-with-illegal-guns#.aaxUGylRV
arnie_grape
Active member
13738215:Frozinballz said:
so you are telling me that if an obvious muslim walks into a gun store in lets say arizona, they will be treated the same as any old joe shmoe honkey?
BrawnTrends
Active member
13738528:GORILLAWALLACE said:
Everything is possible in this country. The Orlando shooter had bought an AR-15 and a handgun at a Florida gun store juste 10 days before the shooting, even though he had been investigated twice by the FBI for ties to terror networks in the previous years.
No big deal...
californiagrown
Active member
13738479:Josh__Peck said:
The issue is guns are incredibly dangerous in the wrong hands. Significantly more dangerous than a knife, or bow and arrow, etc.
Cars can be just as dangerous, but still not quite. But cars are necessary and serve a super important purpose beyond killing and fun.
And that is the argument for draconian gun laws. The only real use for most guns is killing and fun... and your fun shouldn't outweigh my safety. Which I frankly agree with.
Frozinballz
Member
Most people that are capable of killing and would actually go through with an attack have connections to get their hands on a gun regardless of any laws. Like josh-peck said there are way too many guns already in circulation. Good luck rounding all the guns up from bad people, because Ill tell you what I am a good person but even myself wouldn't turn any gun over to a very possibly corrupt government until they show up at my doorstep aiming one at me.
In a small aspect this mirrors legalizing pot. Just because pot is illegal in many states and has been for so long, doesn't mean people are going to stop smoking weed. Stoners will be stoners and they will have connections to get it. Since when was smoking weed not a thing when it was illegal in every state of America. Yes I understand weed is tenfold less dangerous than guns, but the concept still applies.
In a small aspect this mirrors legalizing pot. Just because pot is illegal in many states and has been for so long, doesn't mean people are going to stop smoking weed. Stoners will be stoners and they will have connections to get it. Since when was smoking weed not a thing when it was illegal in every state of America. Yes I understand weed is tenfold less dangerous than guns, but the concept still applies.
californiagrown
Active member
13738588:Frozinballz said:
How do you explain Australia, and their near absence of gun violence following the 1980ish banning of most guns?
BrawnTrends
Active member
13738590:californiagrown said:
Or in Switzerland, fourth on the list for number of guns per capita. And yet gun violence there is minimal.
Maybe it has to do with training? Swiss people have to go through military training (or at least civil service) when they reach a certain age.
It's too bad that corrupt congress, being in the NRA's pocket, is banning research on guns, because it would be interesting to see if veterans are less prone to gun violence than the civilian folks.
californiagrown
Active member
13738604:BrawnTrends said:
The argument is cultural. Especially in Switzerland where it is less diverse, and generally more wealthy.
I am a big fan of having to pass a basic gun profiency test to be able to own a gun.
BrawnTrends
Active member
13738605:californiagrown said:
Maybe Switzerland wasn't the best example. What about Serbia? Second on that list, with 75 guns per 100 habitants and yet the murder rate is 1.2 per 100,000 population. The US is at 3.9 murder per 100,000 population (with 112 guns per 100 habitants).
californiagrown
Active member
13738626:BrawnTrends said:
Id interested to see how murder rates are affected in the years after a country has gone to war.
yungcigsmoker
Member
13738590:californiagrown said:
Australia's experience with gun laws cannot be assimilated with what America's experience would be.
californiagrown
Active member
13738677:Josh__Peck said:
Why not, specifically?
If not, can we learn anything from the example, or do you think it totally does not apply?
Gods_Father
Active member
13738426:S.J.W said:
You're aware there are guns in Canada, right?
yungcigsmoker
Member
13738680:californiagrown said:
Because Australia and the U.S. are not in anyway synonomous with:
Crime rates
Mental health
Economic strength and poverty levels
Drug addiction rates
Racial homogeneity/diversity
And many other factors
californiagrown
Active member
13738691:Josh__Peck said:
Really? From the stats I have seen, much of what you listed are similar enough between the two countries for a logical comparison.
BrawnTrends
Active member
13738695:californiagrown said:
You're very hopeful...
yungcigsmoker
Member
13738695:californiagrown said:
Australia:
Population- 23 million.
Urban population of 89%
47th highest crime rates in the world
Ranked 5th highest in economic freedom
USA:
Population- 318 million
Urban population of 80%
30th highest crime levels in the world
Ranked 11th in economic freedom
Yeah totally similar
yungcigsmoker
Member
On a closing note, I don't support gun bans because they would not work in the US, I don't support them because it infringes on property rights.
californiagrown
Active member
13738710:Josh__Peck said:
Outside of the total population, yes, those numbers are pretty darn similar haha. For sure similar enough to compare.
arnie_grape
Active member
13738682:Gods_Father said:
yeah the difference is we don't just let any retard fill up a shopping cart full and walk out.
Frozinballz
Member
13738713:californiagrown said:
Different country, different people, different stats, opposite side of the world. C'mon
californiagrown
Active member
13738715:Frozinballz said:
Stats are pretty darn similar. Similar settler/wild west heritage. Idk, what specifically means we can't use any aspect of Australia's situation for comparison?
Do you think any aspect of their situation can be used to analyze America's gun situation?