Search results

If this is true it's because the NRA doesn't have enough political power. So which one are you saying. Epic fail, or not?

In America we're more familiar with Democrats and Republicans. Those are the two most popular slants. In Europe they're generally more "left" than in America, which means here, I'm stipulating, more government services (free). They are also more utilitarian when it comes to public morality...

If I can't use 'zealot' and 'absolutist' when describing myself, then I have to find brand new words that mean the same thing, and why should I have to do that when there are already words that mean the same thing? I'm a religious zealot and I'm an ideological absolutist. And, I'm not a rights...

I don't care that it's art, I care that the model is using poor trigger discipline. This is the type of gun safety violation that results in negligent discharges. The NRA exists to extinguish this kind of dangerous behavior with guns. Keep your finger off the trigger and entirely outside the...

I'm not. Those words aren't bad words, is all.

Purex my ideology is absolutist. It's, in a nutshell, "Originalism".

In hardest to defend rights when there's a Super-Duper Tragedy. America is in ideological combat right now. Which side will win the independents? And create a legislative supermajority, that can then do some of the revolutionary and innovative things that Americans are capable of doing when...

This may appear to be an evasive answer, but I'd say basically yes, so long as you can convince a jury. There's certainly no right of parental immunity or anything like that.

@PureX do you have a hand? And whether you say yes or no, are you telling me that somehow, because man is fallible, that you have to discount the truth of your answer? Just because you're fallible? Purex I agree 100% we are fallible, there's only ever been One perfect Son of Man (cf. the book...

And this is where "Originalists" and utilitarian legal positivists differ starkly. If it works, or even just if it might work, then the latter (utilitarians) will consider it, while the former automatically, preemptively rules out all immoral choices like torture and other forms of cruel and...

I'm talking about an immoral but likely effective policy, where whenever there are Kamikaze mass murders (like the OP), the mass murderer's family is subsequently punished. Innocent people (just like the mass murderer's victims) would be put in jeopardy with this policy, but it might be just...

A brutal way to handle this, but it would get results. These mass murderers are scum of the Earth. But it might deter them if our policy is to brutally punish their surviving family. It would work, but it would be immoral and evil. Sound familiar?

Skeeter "might would be able to" apply logic quite well, if only he had learned his trivium. Pity that. Waste.

Your defense to my accusation that you're cherrypicking, is that I'm the one who's cherrypicking, because I am not cherrypicking? What a mess!

I haven't read this yet.

Thanks for admitting to the cherrypicking.

Yes, but your figure is wrong for the US, latest data I've seen has it at 120 civilian owned guns in America per 100 Americans. 120 per 100, or 1.2 per capita civilian owned guns in America. Next closest is like 0.50 guns per capita, maybe, and that's Yemen. This is just all from memory...

Or openly. In fact I'd prefer openly, and not like, there's one guy in the whole mall with a rifle, but that there are like one in every ten guys with a rifle, something like how many people where masks now, that's how many openly carried rifles I want to see.

Trace the mass murderer's moves in reverse, backward in time after the fact, try to find the point at which our government could have intervened. Obviously such analysis suggests background checks, which this particular mass murderer underwent and passed. So when background checks are...