• We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply

vote your conscience not your wallet

DeletedUser40495

Learn more about EJ Bradford Jr, and tell me you still think a well trained person couldn’t be harmed by concealed carry.
I think you misunderstood what I said. I said that if trained properly, the people practicing concealed carry would not harm anyone else accidentally in mass shooting situations.
 

Lannister the Rich

Well-Known Member
I think you misunderstood what I said. I said that if trained properly, the people practicing concealed carry would not harm anyone else accidentally in mass shooting situations.
Then ok, if that’s what you meant, but in what you were replying to Stephen said police won’t be able to tell the difference, which is true.
 

Lannister the Rich

Well-Known Member
Anyway, vote your conscience not your wallet? I agree with the others that in a lot of cases, this means the same thing. Also, the OP seems to imply that everyone’s conscience should be the same in matters regarding abortion.
would your conscience tell u to vote for someone who will save babies over someone who promises u free stuff
My conscience says that a woman’s right is greater than that of the parasite growing inside of her. We were all at one point scientific parasites (though, some never grew out of that phase). Don’t believe me? The CDC definition of a parasite: A parasite is an organism that lives on or in a host and gets its food from or at the expense of its host.

A woman has the right to deny that toll to her body, regardless if the organism is an innocent result of a tragedy or not.
 

DeletedUser40495

Then ok, if that’s what you meant, but in what you were replying to Stephen said police won’t be able to tell the difference, which is true.
I also said that if the concealed carriers were helping others escape and only defending themselves instead of chasing the shooter, the police would be able to tell the difference.
 

DeletedUser

I also said that if the concealed carriers were helping others escape and only defending themselves instead of chasing the shooter, the police would be able to tell the difference.
Pure speculation. If they have a gun they are putting themselves and others in more danger, not less.
 

Emberguard

Well-Known Member
My conscience says that a woman’s right is greater than that of the parasite growing inside of her. We were all at one point scientific parasites (though, some never grew out of that phase). Don’t believe me? The CDC definition of a parasite: A parasite is an organism that lives on or in a host and gets its food from or at the expense of its host.

A woman has the right to deny that toll to her body, regardless if the organism is an innocent result of a tragedy or not.
By that logic there is not a single person on this planet that could be legally murdered. We all rely on each other in some form. There is not a single person that is fully self sustaining through their own means
Only those close to the original shots will have any idea which person with a gun is the bad guy, and when the police show up they will also have no way of telling who is the shooter and who are the John Wayne wannabes
I agree that this is possible, but not with proper training for the people who are concealed carrying. If the people who have concealed weapons handle the situation correctly, it will not be any more chaotic than it already is. (ex. They help people evacuate instead of recklessly chasing the shooter) If the police show up, it shouldn’t be too difficult to tell who the shooter is. Even if they have to ask some eyewitnesses, it’s not a difficult situation to sort out.
https://hooversun.com/news/man-killed-by-hoover-police-officer-was-shot-3-times-from-be1203/

Learn more about EJ Bradford Jr, and tell me you still think a well trained person couldn’t be harmed by concealed carry.
He who lives by the sword dies by the sword

If someone wants to defend themselves with a weapon that's their choice, but it will always put themselves in harms way regardless of whether or not they could have gotten out alive without a weapon. There are circumstances where armed force is the only thing that'll free captives but most of the time you won't have time to react with a gun unless you can catch the shooter unaware because they'll not only be attacking first but chances are they're not going to hesitate

As to police asking who the shooter is.... when are they going to have the time to do that? After the conflict right? After will be too late if in the conflict they pulled the trigger because you were holding the gun and they mistook you for the killer
 

DeletedUser36572

Arguing with the obvious? How is saying that our government protects our freedom arguing with the obvious?


I wasn’t arguing this... I was arguing what you said about the government only existing to limit our freedom.

The obvious was the fact the government by nature limits freedom ... And you’re still trying to argue with that.

I am not saying that you may not feel some security in government or gain some benefit from limiting the freedoms of others.

I am saying that government is how you establish laws a policies that create barriers to freedom and create an unjust cooperative.

Example: Origin of Debt
If we are free and really have liberties ... How exactly does a rich person owe a poor person free stuff? What is the origin of that debt? How does that protect your freedoms?
 

DeletedUser36572

By that logic there is not a single person on this planet that could be legally murdered. ...

To the contrary ... Any death as the result of unnatural causes is classified as a homicide ... And there is accidental or justified homicide which are both legal in a sense there is no penalty.

He who lives by the sword dies by the sword

And those without swords really have nothing but opinion to offer to the conversation. They cannot defend whatever they believe from whomever has a sword.
 

Lannister the Rich

Well-Known Member
By that logic there is not a single person on this planet that could be legally murdered. We all rely on each other in some form. There is not a single person that is fully self sustaining through their own means
Do you mean illegally murdered?

I would also argue that there are plenty of people in the world that are self-sustaining.

As to police asking who the shooter is.... when are they going to have the time to do that?
I’m 100% in agreement with that. The answer would be never. Mistakes are definitely going to be made.
 

Emberguard

Well-Known Member
Do you mean illegally murdered?

I would also argue that there are plenty of people in the world that are self-sustaining.
Yes

If those you think are self sustaining have guns where did they acquire them? If they have machines of any kind who made them? Their clothes, the most basic instruments they have where did they get them? If they get a wound who treats it? What about the need for company? When a drought comes do they turn to anyone? Do they spend money? Because if they use money (as money) they are not self sustaining due to the nature and use of money

The closest I have seen to self sustaining still rely on a community. So the individual is still not self sustaining
 

Lannister the Rich

Well-Known Member
If those you think are self sustaining have guns where did they acquire them? If they have machines of any kind who made them? Their clothes, the most basic instruments they have where did they get them? If they get a wound who treats it? What about the need for company? When a drought comes do they turn to anyone? Do they spend money? Because if they use money (as money) they are not self sustaining due to the nature and use of money

The closest I have seen to self sustaining still rely on a community. So the individual is still not self sustaining
Your point is made, but it is moot. My argument was that we need to take care of the folks who are ex-utero first before we even start talking about in-utero.
 

Emberguard

Well-Known Member
Your point is made, but it is moot. My argument was that we need to take care of the folks who are ex-utero first before we even start talking about in-utero.
Without the in-utero the ex-utero will either cease to exist altogether (rip humans as a species) or have insufficient care when they get old

Schools love to educate people about the aging workforce and how society has a imbalance between old age pensioners against the younger generation. We're told the reason is from living longer lives and that the burden on the younger generation is now too great to support pensioners - but what they don't do is factor in the amount of abortions! Look at how many abortions there are! Think about it. For every one life lost in a unnecessary fashion that's a load that every survivor has to then add to their own burden of living when that individual is not there to fill the gaps.

You want to take care of the ex-utero? That starts with the in-utero
 

DeletedUser36572

Pure speculation. If they have a gun they are putting themselves and others in more danger, not less.

Correct ... The armed CAC holder is putting themselves and the armed perpetrator in greater danger being armed ... That’s the point nit-wit ... :)

Unless the armed perpetrator runs out of bullets or shoots themself, someone with a firearm is going to be the person who puts an end to it.

If you would like to suggest you are in less danger being unarmed against an armed perpetrator ... Well, being unarmed is not your greatest shortcoming.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Lannister the Rich

Well-Known Member
And who says we can only do one at a time?
Without the in-utero the ex-utero will either cease to exist altogether (rip humans as a species) or have insufficient care when they get old

Schools love to educate people about the aging workforce and how society has a imbalance between old age pensioners against the younger generation. We're told the reason is from living longer lives and that the burden on the younger generation is now too great to support pensioners - but what they don't do is factor in the amount of abortions! Look at how many abortions there are! Think about it. For every one life lost in a unnecessary fashion that's a load that every survivor has to then add to their own burden of living when that individual is not there to fill the gaps.

You want to take care of the ex-utero? That starts with the in-utero

I would say the millions of people suffering in the US and the rest of the world from a lack of welfare, healthcare, education, etc. the list goes on. It’s possible, but the more things the government tries to do, it seems the less it accomplishes.

Personally, I think the world is already overpopulated, and we’re already headed into a downward spiral of our own destruction. However, If no one ever aborted a single baby, we would quickly run out of food, water, and shelter. Climate would substantially increase from the increased sewage and animal manure to make up for this population, and depression would be more rampant than it is now. Millions more kids would go into foster care than already are. Speculation, though, maybe I’d be wrong, and I’d hope to be wrong.

I’m not saying abortion is the answer to solving our problems as a society, but we have too many as it is and adding more people to the mix will complicate it. Folks love arguing for the sake of the unborn child while it’s in the womb, not paying attention to what the environment would be like for that child, and when it’s born, they leave the mother alone. Alone, to raise the child. Many kids are born without fathers. Many are born due to rape. It’s tragic that a woman or young girl who is unprepared to raise a child must be shamed into doing it. That’s what I mean about taking care of ex-utero first. And that doesn’t start with in-utero.

The folks that argue not to raise taxes are usually the same ones against abortion. But like it or not, welfare is a necessary part of raising a child for many people and that comes from taxes. Honestly, I wish I could be pro-life. But I can’t because of everything I just mentioned. Ex-utero hearts need to be changed. We, as a society, need to be less selfish.
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser

Folks love arguing for the sake of the unborn child while it’s in the womb, not paying attention to what the environment would be like for that child, and when it’s born, they leave the mother alone.
Then your argument might hold water against them, but I am not one of them. I am opposed to abortion but in favor of social programs to improve the environment and welfare (meaning well-being, not the government program) of that child (and its family) once it's born.
If you would like to suggest you are in less danger being unarmed against an armed perpetrator ... Well, being unarmed is not your greatest shortcoming.
What I am "suggesting" is that I am in far more danger in the current environment of concealed/open carry than I was before it became common. Against an armed perpetrator you are not any safer when carrying a weapon, as evidenced by the multiple examples of on-duty police officers who have been ambushed over the last several years. Unless you're foolish enough to think an armed perpetrator is going to telegraph his/her intentions beforehand.
Correct ... The armed CAC holder is putting themselves and the armed perpetrator in greater danger being armed ... That’s the point nit-wit
Again, unless the perpetrator telegraphs their intentions, having a weapon provides no degree of increased safety.
 

DeletedUser40473

Anyway, vote your conscience not your wallet? I agree with the others that in a lot of cases, this means the same thing. Also, the OP seems to imply that everyone’s conscience should be the same in matters regarding abortion.

My conscience says that a woman’s right is greater than that of the parasite growing inside of her. We were all at one point scientific parasites (though, some never grew out of that phase). Don’t believe me? The CDC definition of a parasite: A parasite is an organism that lives on or in a host and gets its food from or at the expense of its host.

A woman has the right to deny that toll to her body, regardless if the organism is an innocent result of a tragedy or not.
what if u where aborted? what if you never got the chance to live? 57 million babies have been aborted since 1973 yet in all us wars since 1775 only 1.1 million people where killed
 

Lannister the Rich

Well-Known Member
Stephen Longshanks said:
I am opposed to abortion but in favor of social programs to improve the environment and welfare (meaning well-being, not the government program) of that child (and its family) once it's born.
Thats very good of you. Unfortunately, often times welfare meaning well-being and the government program are one in the same. It takes money to raise a child, and many folks grow up in poverty.

The government program of welfare would not be as necessary if they did more to limit companies from taking advantage of that market, which Republicans tend to not want to do.

Ultimately, I think the two party system is a failure. At this point, most everything has become bi-partisan in the eyes of the government. When one takes one side, the other takes the other.
 

Lannister the Rich

Well-Known Member
what if u where aborted? what if you never got the chance to live? 57 million babies have been aborted since 1973 yet in all us wars since 1775 only 1.1 million people where killed
Then, I wouldn’t be here to argue against another moot point. Life goes on. There’s over 8 billion people in the world. Are you saying we allow abortion then we abort all babies always? Cause that’s not what I’m arguing...
 
Top