SkyDekker

As much as a problem with a definition that changes about every 10 seconds or so.

No It can have a big impact on the end results Guns however, do not multiply the problem If you define the problem as the large number of people dead, then I disagree with you. That is a result Not the problem So when a hurricane hits we shouldn't deal with all the destruction, since that is the result and not the problem?

No... but neither does a human. So would you say there are no human rights, only protections? In the US we have both You need both. For a right to mean anything, it needs to be protected.

If you want to use that comment to help yourself feel better, have at it

No It can have a big impact on the end results Guns however, do not multiply the problem If you define the problem as the large number of people dead, then I disagree with you.

Why? You will just change the content until it agrees with you. I am not changing anything Now, care to rebut any of the content? Should be very easy seeing how you think the science is settled. Right? Everybody here knows that you get yourself all twisted around and start scarmbling in no time flat. You have done it in pretty much every discussion you have had on here. There is absolutely no point in having a discussion about anything with you.

Like posts about all liberal teachers based on the action of one?

Yet, you don't even believe that yourself. Unless of course you feel illigal immigrants have the exact same rights as Americans. What about tourists? What about enemy combatants? They all have the same rights? I mean they are applied equally across all boundaries right? We were speaking of Federal rights. Or do you move the content as much as you claim Rushmc to do? I know you were, so answer the question for federal rights. Do you think all those groups have the same federal rights, across all boundaries?

I get that....but refusing to define the problem because you are afraid of what the proposed solution might be doesn't help either. Quite frankly, and I have said this many ties before, I do'nt think there really is a solution that provides any significant benefit within decades if not generations. That doesn't take away that the easy availability of guns is a significant multiplier of the problem.

That situation would have been so much better if everybody had guns and started shooting.

Why? You will just change the content until it agrees with you.

They are indeed all a problem and every other 1st world country has those same problems. However, those problems in the US are bigger than in those other 1st world countries. They are bigger, because it is so easy to get your hands on guns in the US.

Yet, you don't even believe that yourself. Unless of course you feel illigal immigrants have the exact same rights as Americans. What about tourists? What about enemy combatants? They all have the same rights? I mean they are applied equally across all boundaries right?

I know this may come us a complete shocker, but there are more options than either for or against.

Interesting, not really any of those.

And more bullshit. It is nice to deal with somebody who isn't prone to extreme exageration though....

I don't think he's trolling. I think believes that animals should have no legal protections, and people should be legally allowed to do anything they want to them. I suspect he'll never come out and say that because he realizes how bad it sounds. I also suspect he's worried about the slippery slope, where if he admits that kitten torture should be illegal, Obama's going to make everyone be vegans. Let me put it this way It already IS a slippery slope That said No, I do not think sick people who would torture a kitten should be charged I know that is not where we are today We have created laws because most people shudder at the thought of doing anything like this and we have to do something (we think) But I also think society will take care of this if known That said I do not think they should be allowed to own, have or be near any animals either I also think what they do should be done to them (but I know this is not possible) This all said does not mean that animals have rights If they did, we could not euthanize them now could we because they would have a right to life. Correct? Holy fuck, logic is not a strong point.....

Typical. I'm not asking if you want to torture kittens or fight dogs. I'm asking if you think it should be legal. It is a simple yes or no question. He is just trolling, he won't answer a direct question.

Bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit. Well, you are already suggesting that cops shouldn't have to obey the law. That when they get it wrong, they should get a pass. What if the stop wasn't lawful? What if the subject isn't a criminal? Always surprised to see that those staunch, Merica Freedom people advocate blind obedience to a police officer. (Unless of course it is about stupid gun laws, than the local cops are moronic and nobody should have to adhere to them)

Editted video without context was good enough for the Speaker to have to step down....

+1

Without a weapon present in that scenario, the parameters haven't been met and deadly force shouldn't have been used. Again, if you cannot except those parameters, then you shouldn't become a cop. There has to be an actual threat, not a perceived threat. He reached for a gun, when I saw the gun he shot him is fine with me. He reached for something and I thought it could be a gun, so I shot him. Not so fine.

And you aren't supposed to use deadly force until certain parameters are met. If you cannot deal with those parameters, you shouldn't be a cop.

Another troll post.

Just trying to have a bigger picture discussion. What was I thinking.