Double_R

That's not what I said. I was calling out the fact that Trump has some tendencies that happen to align in parts with existing DC politicians.

Every left wing politician is well aware of how Fox News is objectively a propaganda outlet, yet you don't hear this kind of language coming from any of them. That's the difference between a fascist vs someone who's not.

Sure I do. I'm constantly bombarded by clips of left-tribers saying person A, B, and C should be censored by state power because of "disinformation" this or absurd claim of "incitement" that.

Trump calls them what they are without calling for the violation of the 1st amendment.

Hold on... here's a damned good whataboutism: sanctuary cities.

If nobody is Above the law, certainly nobody is Below the law, either. It follows, then, that Sanctuary Cities are a blaring paradox to that statement.

If those children were burned alive than it isn't Whitcomb's fault most likely 

That's what makes it even more heart breaking they turned against their own people and decided to work for the government.

I should look up some actual investigations and show you them because I guarantee you don't agree with every thing the FBI does, especially after Snowden exposed so much about what government organizations do.

The FBI is not a person, it's an idea. A concept we brought into reality only on paper

So are Nazis 

So basically the organization can keep doing evil things and instead of holding the beast accountable, individual cogs in the wheel piss ons, get the blame.

That list can apply in parts to a lot of politicians in DC.

Some of the dictators Biden has cozied up to defies explanation.

The "free press" censors the POTUS, circulates unfounded conspiracy theories, and is entirely biased towards the interests of super-corporate government intersection, so they're actually a propaganda machine for a fascist parasite living in our supposedly free republics = enemy of the people, not "free press" UNCHECK

If only he had there would be no impeachments, no investigations, and no DOJ violation of the 1st amendment through social media puppeting. UNCHECK

Nothing more facist than that I guess? Oh wait there is, actually implementing fascist policies like using the apparatus of the state to destroy all hint of credible dissent.

I thought no one was above the law? UNCHECK

Haven't seen that.

I remember when Mussolini famously said "I want you to peacefully and patriotically protest the fact that Greece isn't asking to join our empire." You got nothing. UNCHECK

Examples include... the brexit movement of the UK. Yep that wretched dictator Nigel Farage... oh wait... it was a democratic uprising unless you're denying referendums are accurate.

Fascists rig elections, they don't complain about elections being rigged and demand security and auditability. UNCHECK

Equalizer... As in everybody gets to be just as dangerous, which will make everyone safer.

Seeing as how most criminals are youngales who can easily defeat everyone not in that demographic in physical combat, why not make people harder to victimize?

But the charges against Trump are weak, at best, and will be proven frivolous in the days to come.

That's why would-be dictators like Trump should be opposed. He exploited the cracks in our system and will probably get away with it, leaving the door open for someone smarter, like DiSantis, to smash the system altogether.

You are the victim of propaganda. Whatever Trump's failings and mistakes the only reason you think that is because of a concerted campaign to destroy him due to the threat he posed to the dominant corruption of the system.

Gun advocates don't "pretend" that the gun does not factor into the equation; gun advocates acknowledge that a person's decision GROSSLY SUPERSEDES ANY FACTORS WHICH DON'T MATTER UNLESS THE PERSON'S INVOLVED. 

if it were legal for me to own a nuclear weapon and I purchased one, then used it to destroy my entire city, would you argue that the millions of deaths which resulted were merely "a person killing people" or would you recognize that the presence of a nuclear weapon was the problem?

Did the bomb arm itself? Did it detonate on its own? 

Yes, that's why we require people to get drivers licenses before they can legally drive

And how many accidents involve LICENSED drivers?

This is really simple; in this scenario a child is dead whereas without a gun in the picture today child would be alive.

Because, once again, you created a scenario where the child dies as a result of being shot. If the scenario consisted of that child dying as a result of being stabbed, or choked, then we'd acknowledge the knife use and the use of one's hands as painfully obvious.

If yes, can you please explain how the prevalence of a dangerous product makes society safer?

It's an equalizer between extremely weak people and strong people. It is also a bit of an equalizer from future Nazi like governments. It is also an equalizer in dangerous Alaskan territory and other areas against bears and elk who can defeat humans in fair fights.

Many women would disagree that only an armed man is a threat to their life.

You mean a government that follows the rule of law?

Do you think the government was right to enforce laws allowing slavery?

Except that small Chinese plastic toys don't also save lives. You left that out. Common sense here.

How would that stop you from using logic?

Ban guns and then what? Women jogging just have to accept being raped because they don't have a gun as an equalizer?

It won't work in making society safer overall.

I'd prefer an autocrat over a totalitarian government we are heading towards

Comments?

You have refused to actually state how many accidental gun deaths occur a year compared to the 70k lives saved

Obviously the child who was shot to death was killed by the child.

But does this mean the child is responsible for that action. 

Banning guns doesnt actually help with anything.

How about change your society

Just think about which strategy you would adopt if that is your goal and guns aren't available.

Obviously you need a gun to do that, but it isn't the root cause of why the violence was initiated to start with.

Because I am objectively correct that gun bans won't work

No one is claiming the gun should be held accountable.

Aren't you?

The idea being pushed by this talking point is that the presence of guns is irrelevant, if someone ends up dead only the people involved should be factored into the equation.

Yes, that's what's called accountability. Because the use of firearms in a violent altercation DOES NOT HAPPEN without the people involved. Once again, guns are inanimate objects. 

Case in point: if by some chance I were involved in a car accident that resulted in the death of another, do you factor my car into the equation?

This is pure sophistry. You purposefully created a hypothetical where a child dies as a result of being shot.

People have historically demonstrated that knives, bombs, cars and poisons can kill plenty of people even if you somehow succeed in removing all the illegal guns.

The goal of a mass shooter is to kill as many people as humanly possible. If you remove guns, are knifes more effective at that or is discreet poisonings across the country more effective at not only doing so but decreasing the chances of getting caught so you can get a higher kill count? 

There are countries with more or similar guns per Capita and it doesn't happen. Switzerland has very high gun ownership and it doesn't happen, so does Yemen.

If you hate American citizens and want them to die than there are better ways to do that than by lying and claiming gun ownership is the root cause of these shootings.

They are moving from gun to poison. Did you know that most convenience stores have coffee canisters which are easily accessible. You can take a road trip and hit 100 convenience stores and poison those canisters within a 5 or 6 hour window killing a thousand people instead of maximum of like what 20 in a shooting. 

However this problem does affect actual Americans, so most of us would prefer that people actually work towards actual solutions

It doesn't. Every gun death has a human element to it.

That is a good argument in favor of requiring those courses. I will be on board with this if the process is quick enough for someone who urgently needs a gun.

Not very high up, but that is irrelevant. Surely you could save some lives by passing lighter control, no? 

Alternatively, we could have entire campaigns telling parents to keep their kids away from lighters, and kids to stay away from lighters. Couple that with improvements in child safety mechanisms, and we could have a decrease in the rate of those types of incidents.

The FBI works for the interests of government which works for large corporations, not Americans. They aren't citizens, they are occupiers.

Not the negotiators . They did fine. They didn't light children on fire. It was people like Christopher Whitcomb who were part of the sniper team who coincidentally was also at Ruby Ridge.

Not citizens. FBI.

After they burned children alive in Waco and remember this was a year later so the same people, I would say they had it coming. 

However, your argument doesn't showcase the importance of gun regulation, it showcases the importance of gun education.

But none of these are things we can regulate. We can't control how people store their guns on their property, and we can't stop parents from failing to parent properly.

Many house fires have been started by children playing with lighters. Do we need to ban lighters, or require some kind of special permit for lighters?

In the event that the five year-old, who found the stashed gun, shot the other child, then of course, the child who was shot to death was killed by the other child using/playing with the gun. Is that really debatable? We can perhaps dispute who's to be held accountable, which isn't typically attributed to inanimate objects.

Ok. Let's pretend for a second that gender is a social construct, and the LGBTQ+ communitys deffinitons of words are the right ones.

If this were to be the case then the LGBTQ+ community would have to deny all of current biological aspects of sex.

You tell me that in order to argue against this topic I must subject myself to your definition of words and not mine

A part of me wants to support mcVeigh because he targeted the FBI but there was a daycare in the building and he bombed it while the daycare was in operation. 

The definition of a woman has been agreed on for all of human history up until now. The only time it has changed is when the definition of a woman offended some members of the LGBTQIA community.

But when you're perception of reality does not line up with facts, and logic, in any way shape or form, then that perception of reality is nothing more than a belief driven by faith. 

Gay marriage has no benefit for society or for the gay couple. Marriages (believe it or not) has contracts and money involved. That means that money is being spent on a couple who don't have the capacity to have kids, and if they were to raise said kids, this would not be good, because the best way to raise a child and set them up for success, is with a mother and a father. 

Enlighten me - why must that something be biology?

Gender has always been based in biology. We have the male sex, and the female sex. Humans (whether you like it or not) have created gender (the human construct) based off of the two sex's. That is why it must be based in biology, because that is why it was originally humanly constructed.

This is an extremely idiotic question I must add. This is like asking "Why must money (the human construct) be only based in the fairness, and trade of society?" Because humans that existed before us created that human construct. 

You get upset at me, when you claim that I am setting up the argument against the LGBT movement with my own perception of reality, and not accounting for theirs.

So when you claim trans people believe a man can turn into a woman you are talking about biology.

No, I am talking about gender. You assumed that I was talking about biology. 

I am not saying that trans-people believe that a male can become a female.

I am saying that trans-people believe that a man can become a woman.

Ok dude. I have seen you, countless times state that men shouldn't be involved in this issue, because it isn't their problem.

..............what other people besides women have uteruses?

See guys, this is a prime example of delusion. 

So, if a belief is not based in facts, science or biology, then what is it based in? 

What the community believes is that we should base political decisions and everyday decisions on feelings and not facts. 

Yes, gender is a human construct, that is based in biology. You can't have a construct, unless it is based in something.

The LGBTQIA community is not claiming a man can be a woman

Brother.................

Transgender literally means a man transitioning into a woman, or vice versa. 

So, you guys say that you can't have an opinion on abortion if you don't have a uterus, right?

But then you guys also say that you don't need a uterus to be a woman, right?

For the LGBTQIA+ movement, they have faith in the idea that a man can be a woman, and vice versa. They also have faith that it is ok for a man to be intimate with a man and a woman with a woman. They worship the trans-ideology, and the ideology itself is their God.

It is a belief in something that is not supported by science or biology. 

You could also argue that the LGBTQ+ movement is a religious movement. 

And most leftists put that at the forefront of our politics as well. 

The difference is that you can't have a functioning society without the idea of a God. 

God is what keeps everything in line, so theoretically even if God didn't exist, the mere idea of him would help society amazingly.

Then where did the idea of God come from in the first place?

eventually those two brain cells will come to the inevitable conclusion that drug-addled, zero expertise, non-Ukrainian Hunter was collecting a money on behalf of his father. After you know that, the simplest explanation is quite clear.

Oh my god so what? Ex-Mayor Lightfoot got elected by building a campaign around peace and safety for Chicago. It means zero.

Fake News, Trump denied paying off Daniels, and still denies it. He now knows about the payment because Cohen told him about it after the fact.

Looks like IwantRooskie is crying about his time as a child.  This tells me the problem was not the church, but rather the parents.  

You loose every part of bodily autonomy if you have no life therefore your life should take priority over another human's bodily autonomy. 

Hypothetical. If in a conjoined twin scenario where A survive but B will die if sepererated, how does bodily autonomy factor in?

What do you mean by necessary result, why is that in italics?

Should we base law on what is subjective or objective, and why?

I said both are human and therefore should maintain the same rights based on being human.

What is the ability to make decisions, what does that look like? 

Ability to retain memories, how does dimentia play in that?