Victim disarmament zones

[r00t]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[JayN]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

here is a pic of root and his frightened daughter who he beats and rapes daily.

[Thulack]

Originally Posted by Vaildez [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yeah cause that shit never happens right? I don't own a gun or plan to but it always cracks me up when you Liberals live in a fantasy world where nothing bad ever happens. Have you ever been in a bad neighborhood in your life? Have you even been within a few blocks of a shooting?

Yes and Yes and my job has me carrying bags of money around shady places and i have been robbed at gunpoint and i still don't own a gun. Know why? Cause no matter where that gun is when someone has a gun cocked and pointed at the back of your head your not making a move.

[r00t]

its not your money so no wonder you dont give a fuck

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by aowen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No, it's not. It's misappropriating and completely misunderstanding my argument. Cutting all of welfare which is what some people were supporting, even though they werent sure what all programs are under the umbrella of welfare or which parts of it they would probably actually support cutting, but that amounts to 1 trillion dollars, is not working with the system. Either way, old stuff that doesn't need to be rehashed

You seem to be constantly conflating terms, which leads me to believe you have very sloppy mental processes. Doing away with the system is the not the same thing as doing away with certain government programs. The system of government we have is not dependent at all upon things like welfare, farm subsidies, banking regulations, or any other individual programs. If you get rid of farm subsidies, we'll still choose our representatives and there will still be 3 branches of government. With that said, the idea of a social contract is no more relevant when discussing a 20% reduction in a program than when discussing a 100% reduction. If one works within the system to get rid of most forms of welfare, does that suddenly break your "social contract" while an 80% reduction does not? You don't get to decide some arbitrary tipping point where the debate is suddenly invalid due to some artificial social contract you created. About the only legitimate argument about a "social contract" would come into play when people are discussing revolution or overthrow of the current system.

[aowen]

Originally Posted by Rhuma7 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Guns dont kill people, people kill people.

How many fucking times have you heard this and you're still all yapping away with this bullshit anti-gun rhetoric like you have a say in what our mother fucking constitution says.

'Murica!

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Orruar]

Originally Posted by aowen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No, it's not. It's misappropriating and completely misunderstanding my argument. Cutting all of welfare which is what some people were supporting, even though they werent sure what all programs are under the umbrella of welfare or which parts of it they would probably actually support cutting, but that amounts to 1 trillion dollars, is not working with the system. Either way, old stuff that doesn't need to be rehashed

Also, in what way is attempting to get the government to end certain programs "not working with the system." Unless you consider welfare to be some critical part of our system of government, which would show just how narrow and limited your understanding of government really is.

[aowen]

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You seem to be constantly conflating terms, which leads me to believe you have very sloppy mental processes. Doing away with the system is the not the same thing as doing away with certain government programs. The system of government we have is not dependent at all upon things like welfare, farm subsidies, banking regulations, or any other individual programs. If you get rid of farm subsidies, we'll still choose our representatives and there will still be 3 branches of government. With that said, the idea of a social contract is no more relevant when discussing a 20% reduction in a program than when discussing a 100% reduction. If one works within the system to get rid of most forms of welfare, does that suddenly break your "social contract" while an 80% reduction does not? You don't get to decide some arbitrary tipping point where the debate is suddenly invalid due to some artificial social contract you created. About the only legitimate argument about a "social contract" would come into play when people are discussing revolution or overthrow of the current system.

What terms have I conflated?

A social contract is an idea that goes way back, and is perhaps made most famous by Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes said that in order for people to organize and come together, they had to enter into a tacit agreement in which they would all sacrifice some of their rights in exchange for enhanced security and a list of other provisions. Now, what these provisions include is the source of contention. Social democracies have now become the norm for developed countries. Part of social democracies is that within their social contract, there is a provision for social safety nets and welfare, therefore cutting that provision out would be to break contract. Now, if the majority of people within one of these social democracies, such as the US, decided that the contract no longer included welfare, thereby removing a provision, it would be far more severe and different than changing welfare itself.

Now you might say similar about taking guns away, but that's only if you believe that owning a gun is part of running a well regulated militia. However, that is because you seem to have little idea as to the context of the 2nd amendment, and why it was drafted at the time.

[r00t]

supreme court ruled 2nd amendment gives me personal right to own beautiful steel

[aowen]

Originally Posted by r00t [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

supreme court ruled 2nd amendment gives me personal right to own beautiful steel

Indeed