S1xty
|
  |
| Joined: 25 Oct 2009 |
| Total Posts: 2712 |
|
|
| 24 May 2016 12:01 AM |
defend the Constitution ... against all enemies, foreign and domestic
So does this mean that everybody enlisted in the military should be slaughtering liberals for their nonstop attack on the Constitution and in particular the 2nd Amendment and 1st Amendment (freedom of religion)
Not politically biased -- just wondering. I have only stated facts. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
koopaNGC
|
  |
| Joined: 25 Apr 2010 |
| Total Posts: 23249 |
|
|
| 24 May 2016 12:05 AM |
| Yes, we must blindly follow these arcane scriptures that allow Americans to easily kill each other, and have their beliefs restrict and harass others who can not follow theirs. Obviously these amendments are something we should blindy praise and glorify. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
marshsay
|
  |
| Joined: 21 Jul 2008 |
| Total Posts: 25199 |
|
|
| 24 May 2016 12:08 AM |
MY RELIGION SAYS I'M ALLOWED TO MURDER PEOPLE IF YOU DON'T GIVE ME A LEGAL EXCEPTION SO I CAN MURDER PEOPLE YOU'RE RESTRICTING MY FREEDOM OF RELIGION!!! |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
S1xty
|
  |
| Joined: 25 Oct 2009 |
| Total Posts: 2712 |
|
|
| 24 May 2016 12:08 AM |
Ah yes
Of course -- not like the statistics prove that guns are used in self defense 87 more times than used in crimes.
Sorry to slaughter you kid. Come back when you're willing to deny my facts |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
S1xty
|
  |
| Joined: 25 Oct 2009 |
| Total Posts: 2712 |
|
|
| 24 May 2016 12:09 AM |
| "* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.[3]" |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
S1xty
|
  |
| Joined: 25 Oct 2009 |
| Total Posts: 2712 |
|
|
| 24 May 2016 12:14 AM |
And by the way if guns were illegal -- I could go buy military, automatic versions, of the weapons you so fear. Online. Anonymously.
I have seen the websites. They exist. They are real.
Prohibition NEVER HAS and NEVER WILL work.
Another nice statistic:
"* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.[5]" |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
marshsay
|
  |
| Joined: 21 Jul 2008 |
| Total Posts: 25199 |
|
|
| 24 May 2016 12:15 AM |
i'm actually on OP's side for gun rights coincidentally i highly dislike this trend of religious fundamentalists trying to claim their religion is under attack every time something becomes more secular though |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
koopaNGC
|
  |
| Joined: 25 Apr 2010 |
| Total Posts: 23249 |
|
|
| 24 May 2016 12:16 AM |
Where'd you get the source, am I to presume this was either found on Wikipedia, or an organization with a pro-gun slant?
Obviously our founding fathers wanted us to use these rapid-fire machine-guns that they had back in the day as a way to make mass-shootings happen less likely. Nope, there's no way something as old as a 200+ year article is outdated in the slightest. Boy all my teachers give me A+'s whenever I site a source I found from 16th century sources, totally not out-dated at all yup, yup. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
koopaNGC
|
  |
| Joined: 25 Apr 2010 |
| Total Posts: 23249 |
|
|
| 24 May 2016 12:17 AM |
"anti-gun Clinton"
The Clinton's are so conservative it's one the greatest world wonders how they're able to fool so many Americans that they're liberal. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
marshsay
|
  |
| Joined: 21 Jul 2008 |
| Total Posts: 25199 |
|
|
| 24 May 2016 12:20 AM |
"The Clinton's are so conservative it's one the greatest world wonders how they're able to fool so many Americans that they're liberal."
this is pretty true, they're essentially centre-right other than social issues and gun rights, how much are they really to the left on? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
koopaNGC
|
  |
| Joined: 25 Apr 2010 |
| Total Posts: 23249 |
|
|
| 24 May 2016 12:23 AM |
"this is pretty true, they're essentially centre-right other than social issues and gun rights, how much are they really to the left on?"
They're practically copy-pasting everything Bernie Sanders has been saying, because his independent agenda almost blew their cover out of their differences in the democrat debates. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
S1xty
|
  |
| Joined: 25 Oct 2009 |
| Total Posts: 2712 |
|
|
| 24 May 2016 12:33 AM |
First of all Wikipedia is accurate -- I challenge you to attempt to change the page of a popular topic to be inaccurate for very long.
Second of all of course it was pro-gun, but you can find the sources yourself if you google them. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
koopaNGC
|
  |
| Joined: 25 Apr 2010 |
| Total Posts: 23249 |
|
|
| 24 May 2016 12:43 AM |
"First of all Wikipedia is accurate"
"popular topic to be inaccurate"
"of course it was pro-gun"
"find the sources yourself"
I'm sorry, I couldn't find a better remark that would out-do the fail you have set before me. It is beyond my ethical belief to humiliate anything that relies heavily on instinct over reason, because there's a term for that in society and that is animal cruelty. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
S1xty
|
  |
| Joined: 25 Oct 2009 |
| Total Posts: 2712 |
|
|
| 24 May 2016 12:46 PM |
| Typical liberal argument resorting to toddler like, Ad Hominem based attacks, that completely ignore the facts before them. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 24 May 2016 12:56 PM |
"And by the way if guns were illegal -- I could go buy military, automatic versions, of the weapons you so fear. Online. Anonymously."
OP confirmed not knowing anything about darknet markets. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
koopaNGC
|
  |
| Joined: 25 Apr 2010 |
| Total Posts: 23249 |
|
|
| 24 May 2016 04:48 PM |
"Typical liberal argument resorting to toddler like, Ad Hominem based attacks, that completely ignore the facts before them."
No seriously, expressing Wikipedia being academically correct and following up with a slew of incompetent babble that indicates a strong bias without any indication between reality and fiction has made me question if you really have any kind of credibility on this subject and whether if its really worth my time to correct the mistakes you have made that should appear clear as day to anyone who would give the slightest side glance at your reasoning.
Furthermore your assumption that I'm a "liberal" for merely taking a stance against you and your selective choosing of trying to find only information that supports your claims with blatant disregard for all other evidence that contradicts your beliefs has made me believe you fall into that special camp of people who detract themselves from reality only believing what they want to hear and dismissing all else is a level of close-mindedness that I really feel only further appalled by. As consequence that was originally why I took a stance against you in the first place. Not by being some "liberalist viewpoint" but I'm what you call your average run-of-the-mill forumer who despises close-minded people. I tried doing you a favor by subjecting you to the foreign idea of a different way of thinking and further illuminating your grasp on reality, but as I now see before me someone who has fallen so far down the rabbit hole that there would be really no way, use, or effort to remove you from this domain you now call "home."
At this point all I can merely suggest to you is that you drop your strong held beliefs on this forum section, not for the sake of anyone's but your own, because this place exists with fiends who only desire to tear a part those with strong held opinions for the sake of their personal amusement and that you are only creating an ever larger danger for yourself here. That is why I felt it necessary to stop, because any further interjection would have blurred the differences between that of someone such as myself who holds strong ethics on not taking advantage of those who can't defend themselves and of those of lesser civility who would take joys in the process of animal cruelty online. Again you are only further damaging yourself by exposing your power level on this thread for everyone to see and that is why I feel the briefest feeling of concern for your sake, but whether someone of your low standards would ever listen to someone of my caliber is something I have the greatest feeling of doubt for. Do take comfort in the fact that I have given you this notice, because I dislike the idea that not everyone is a complete loss cause such as yourself, but it won't surprise me if you'd rather jump on the band wagon that further tests my faith in humanity.
I, with some level of respect, wish a reasonably well day to you and hope that at some point in your lifetime that you will see the error of your ways and rid yourself of them, but until then; have a blissfully ignorant day. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
S1xty
|
  |
| Joined: 25 Oct 2009 |
| Total Posts: 2712 |
|
|
| 24 May 2016 06:24 PM |
tl;dr
Wikipedia is accurate -- even my AP teachers have admitted that the only reason they don't let you use Wikipedia is because the information is too dense and easy to use.
I know from experience that they change false edits almost instantly. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
S1xty
|
  |
| Joined: 25 Oct 2009 |
| Total Posts: 2712 |
|
|
| 24 May 2016 06:43 PM |
Also on most subjects the pages are locked preventing you from editing them at all.
So there's that. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|