Gun Control

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Throatpunch, Jul 25, 2016.

  1. SilverStarApple/Epsilon7

    SilverStarApple/Epsilon7 Still Mildly Glowing

    Oct 27, 2017
    "Handwaving away" what? Get your head checked, you're the leftist here. You're the one trying to ruin a world your ideology can only harm in you pursuit of power. Get your eyes checked and get your head checked.

    I made arguments you couldn't handle, and you ignored them. Don't try to revise the past, anyone worth a damn will look back a few pages to verify your claims and see how false they are. You ran away from reality, projected your flaws onto me, and focused on things you thought you could attack me over. Tell me, why should I waste any more time on you when you lack the mental competence necessary to tell when you're wrong? Mother of god, are you just going to keep lying and lying and lying until your incivility and anti-civilization beliefs get the thread locked for a bit?

    Isn't it funny how you're going to attack me for being a Libertarian when you lack the balls to stand up for your leftist liedeology, its beliefs, its goals, its preachers, or its followers? You are fighting for a cancerous anti-humanist ideology that doesn't even know what truth is. You are fighting for an anti-humanist power-grubbing group of marxists that want to send humanity back to the dark ages. You can't justify that, so you try to waste my time by attacking me. You want me to spend less time pointing out holes in your logic, and more time defending myself from what you accuse me of. If you hate the principles America was founded on so much, why don't you just fuck off to a country like North Korea or Venezuela, where your policies have already ruined things and your corrupt politicians are already in charge? Why must parasites like you live to try and force the disasters you cause onto others?

    You support gun bans and want to force gun bans onto everyone else. You can't justify why you want to do evil things like that, but you want to do it anyway. You're a violent coward constantly pushing for a civil war because you are against the principles and virtues America was founded upon. If you died from a heart attack tomorrow, the world would be a better place for everyone who wants to live in peace. Humanity's fundamental human rights would be a little safer, because the world would contain one less insane irrational ideologue trying to destroy what he can't appreciate or understand. Don't you ever feel bad about being someone the world would be better off without? It's the truth, but it's still a little fucked up. Isn't it fucked up that you want to take humanity's human rights away? Isn't it fucked up that the founding fathers of America would have hated you? The constitution was written up to determine which rights and "privileges" should be protected at all costs and defended with force if necessary. They wrote that constitution to determine which fundamental human rights should be above debate and out of the poisonous reach of you and those like you. Patriots humor you and your corrupt criminal party and the obvious lies it tells and forgives you for the crimes it commits. And it gains nothing in return. No compromise between the truth and your lies will ever please you. You will never stop aiding and abetting terrorists, rapists, muggers, and mass shooters. You and your politicians and your party will never stop trying to profit from the mass shootings you enable. You've watched enough far-left trending-tab lefty talk shows to become permanently brainwashed. You aren't a human, you're just an NPC. An enemy NPC.

    You want to make the world a worse place for everyone, because you want to make the world a worse place for those who don't agree with you. And you don't care who gets hurt along the way. You want me dead more than you want to live. You want me to starve more than you want to eat. You might not be able to form a coherent argument against the idea of universal human rights, but you are the ultimate argument against that idea.

    The human right to free speech has already been eroded and chipped away into a mockery of its former self. Some things are just illegal to say. Some political positions are just illegal. Leftists are to blame for that. But watch this, everyone. I'll make this shapeshifting rodent in front of me temporarily turn into a supporter of free speech. This amazing transformation will not last forever, he will forget this when he's done trying to protect HIS rights and freedoms, and he will eventually resume attacking and eroding the rights and freedoms of others once he's able to think his rights/freedoms are secure again.

    Tell me, lefty. If your evil tribe wants it to be illegal for anyone to say "It's wrong for male athletes to compete in women's sports" or "If you try to take our guns we will fight back and it will be Civil War 2 Electric Boogaloo", why shouldn't right-wingers make it illegal for you to say anything leftist like "Ban guns, ban speech that offends me, go and harass and attack Trump supporters, fuck white people, all whites are inherently racist, fuck white culture, kill all men, kill the rich but not the ones funding us, fuck CEOs but not the CEOs of megacorps that agree with us, white people can't cook, America was never great"? You're the violent and impressionable ones, and you're the ones who can't be trusted with the right to say violent or offensive things. Why should you get the right to call for our deaths, if you don't want anyone else be allowed to call you wrong? Maxine Walters didn't get shot for openly and publically calling for violence against conservatives, Steve Scalise got shot because of people like Maxine Walters. James Hodgkinson was a Liberal like you, he was in many anti-Trump facebook groups that regularly fantasize about Trump and republicans getting shot, and he's why people like you shouldn't be trusted with guns.
    Last edited: May 29, 2020

  2. Your head is so far up your ass everything smells like breakfast.
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 5
  3. SquidWard

    SquidWard Pirate and Bankrobber oTO Orderite

    Jun 1, 2018
    Uh, okay.

    Anyway, holy fuck do you assume a lot about anyone that disagrees with you. Just stop dude. Like I said before even those who would side with you on gun control are probably not in favor of how you approach this. Alpha said you didn't make arguments and that you might have a problem with reading comprehension and this is what you respond with?
    Get a grip.
    I'm almost certain that the thread got split because of your posts. But sure, blame the "lefties."
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  4. SilverStarApple/Epsilon7

    SilverStarApple/Epsilon7 Still Mildly Glowing

    Oct 27, 2017
  5. You are other end of toilet. You eat shit and barf it in endless cycle. Alpha-twat gave you chance to be nice but you addicted to turkey baster in your butthole filling you with shit.

    Repeal the NFA.
  6. SquidWard

    SquidWard Pirate and Bankrobber oTO Orderite

    Jun 1, 2018
    Yes, in many ways. I agree with you on a mostly basic level about guns. Otherwise, you jump to extremes when it's not even remotely necessary.
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 3
  7. SilverStarApple/Epsilon7

    SilverStarApple/Epsilon7 Still Mildly Glowing

    Oct 27, 2017
  8. SilverStarApple/Epsilon7

    SilverStarApple/Epsilon7 Still Mildly Glowing

    Oct 27, 2017
    Why would you ever think reforming how law-abiding citizens see guns will reduce how often criminals use guns in crime?

    I believe that reforming how we see weapons, as a culture, and convincing everyone to carry a gun even if nobody expects to need them will reduce how often a criminal will view a place full of people as an easy target.
  9. What the fuck is going on? Do all of you fuckers turn on at the same time when ted turner takes a shit?
  10. SquidWard

    SquidWard Pirate and Bankrobber oTO Orderite

    Jun 1, 2018
    Keep telling yourself that. Repeat it. Over and over until you can't hear anyone else's viewpoint.
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 2
  11. Hassknecht

    Hassknecht For hate's sake. Staff Member Admin Orderite Board Cop oTO

    Aug 16, 2010
    It's kinda tough to argue against arguments based on morality.
    "Restricting gun ownership is immoral".
    Well, I guess that's it then.
  12. MutantScalper

    MutantScalper Dogmeat

    Nov 22, 2009

    The number that's maybe the most upsetting in that list is "(422 (wounded) from gunfire)" of the Las Vegas shooting. 422 people were shot but didn't die. That's a lot of gun shot wounds from just one shooting.

    Meaning that whoever wants to take the no. 1 spot on that list has to top that firepower. Unpleasant thought.

    But yea, I'm sure "the laws on the books" will stop it. Yea, right. :roll:

    Stop humping that car Toront.
    Last edited: May 31, 2020
  13. TorontoReign

    TorontoReign ⛧卐⛧ [REDACTED]

    Apr 1, 2005
    Gee you got me there Scalper.
  14. SilverStarApple/Epsilon7

    SilverStarApple/Epsilon7 Still Mildly Glowing

    Oct 27, 2017
    You lot say shit like this, when we see through your faulty arguments and you run out of personal attacks to throw around.

    You insist that we're the problem, not you. Because you know you're the problem, not us.

    Maybe you should try harder to write better arguments for what you're trying to do? Or maybe you should look closer at what you're trying to do, so you can understand why people wouldn't want it and why it's wrong for you to try and force it on them anyway?

    Seriously, someone, keep a running tally of everything I've been called since I started posting in this thread. And a running tally of every debunked leftist argument. And a running tally of every argument I made that went overlooked by cowardly, spiteful leftists who know they can't argue against the points I brought up.
  15. SquidWard

    SquidWard Pirate and Bankrobber oTO Orderite

    Jun 1, 2018
    Seriously? You lot? You want people to read your shit but you can't bother to even know who you're talking to? I agree that gun control is net bad. As in the cons outweigh the pros. At least in America. It's a complicated issue but it's also a freedom I think we should keep. But no, since I can't stand the way you blabber on about anyone who seemingly opposes you on any level I must be in the same lot that thinks gun control is a net good thing. As in the pros outweigh the cons.

    Like Hass said, it's impossible to argue against a morality appeal. You claim gun control is immoral, how do you prove that? You can't.

    I'm not even arguing against your idea that gun control shouldn't happen. I'm just saying the way you go about shit is not a good one. You write up paragraphs, as in multiple paragraphs, against a single comment that says very little to do with what you're writing. You behave as if Democrats/Liberals/Whatever you want to call "you lot" have kicked in your door in the middle of the night and taken everything from you like some sort of secret police.
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 4
  16. SilverStarApple/Epsilon7

    SilverStarApple/Epsilon7 Still Mildly Glowing

    Oct 27, 2017
    I explained why forcing Leftist "Gun Control" laws onto people is morally wrong. If they don't have good arguments for why they think that's a good thing to do... Shouldn't that wake them up and tell them something?

    Gun control objectively does not work and can not be proven to work. Gun control is morally wrong and there is no valid arguments for why an authoritarian government SHOULD be able to restrict the rights of the populace under the guise of fighting crime. The Patriot Act wasn't about patriotism. Gun Control isn't about stopping gun crime. Get a grip and stop ignoring the arguments I make that don't involve morality.

    Stop ignoring the arguments I made that involved practicality. America can't keep meth out of the country, out of the black market, or off the streets. Would adding more to their plate by adding guns to their list of banned items help them try to fight illegal meth and gun sales? Of course it fucking wouldn't.

    They do want that, you delusional child. They don't even try to hide it. They brag about wanting it. They're buddy-buddy with people who brag about wanting that. They support politicians who brag about wanting that. That's their end goal. Do you think people like A-Hole Cortez were voted in by people who are willing to talk things out with you?

    Remember Eric Swalwell, and the time he threatened to nuke Americans who want to keep their second amendment rights? Liberals vote for people like that because they want you and me dead. They're egotistical enough to think they could create a perfect utopia for everyone, if it wasn't for free-thinking "doubters" like me. Do you honestly think mindlessly bashing me with these worthless tone-arguments is going to make them like you? Congrats, the Liberals that called me a school shooter aren't calling you a school shooter, because you're playing for their team. Does that make you feel accepted? Does that make you feel cool? If you want to keep your human rights, they hate you. Get a grip and grow a pair. Liberals should thank us for being willing to have a "Should we have human rights" discussion with them, and they should respect it when our answer is "No, you shouldn't get to erode our rights". Liberals can't win this argument, so they keep pulling this dishonest shit.

    I don't understand why fake conservatives think Liberals can be reasoned with after all we've seen from them. They can't be reasoned with or compromised with. They can only be told to fuck off. But they'll come back tomorrow saying the same shit, because they exist to argue in bad faith.

    Now, do yourself a favour. Go back a few pages, to where I brought up the Venezuela argument. And read it. Then do me a favour and quote it for me, so people on this page of the thread can see it. It's been a while since I destroyed their faith in leftist solutions to problems made worse by leftists. Quote my argument again, so when they finish crying in their safe spaces and come back for round two, they'll see this and hurt their brains thinking again.[/QUOTE]
  17. Atomic Postman

    Atomic Postman Vault Archives Overseer

    Mar 16, 2013
    You've still not responded to my argument btw.
  18. SquidWard

    SquidWard Pirate and Bankrobber oTO Orderite

    Jun 1, 2018
    I'd take a sane, rational speaking person willing to listen to others' viewpoints who disagrees with me over a rabid, irrational person who agrees with me. @TheOtherManInTheRoom and I disagree on many things and we get along just fine. I don't believe he "wants me dead." And I don't want that for him either.

    Funny how him and I can agree on some things, disagree on others, know when the point isn't going to be something we agree on and when to stop discussing it at length. We're civil the entire time. And in the end, we're still friends. But yes, people like that are the delusional children.

    Also, I'm not a fake conservative. I'm just not a conservative. Not really a liberal either but I do lean that way moreso. I just believe in personal freedoms mostly. Autonomy is important to me. Whether that's firepower, fences, or your own body.
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 4
  19. SilverStarApple/Epsilon7

    SilverStarApple/Epsilon7 Still Mildly Glowing

    Oct 27, 2017
    Stop projecting your personal failings onto me. You failed to respond to my arguments first. Do you think I'm going to waste time with your gotcha-questions when you refuse to answer my gotcha-questions? Honestly, your parents failed when they raised you.

    And now... One more time!

    Advocates of gun control laws often point to countries where gun control laws seem to be working, and argue that those same laws would be just as effective in the U.S.

    But upon further inspection, you find that these policies aren't very effective in the countries being used as example. Or at the very least, that there's no proof they are.

    The big three? Australia, The UK, and Japan.

    In Australia, gun crime was already plummeting at an identical rate before the gun buyback.

    In the UK, gun crime got worse after the ban and isn't currently declining any faster than the USA's. It's also full of Knife Crime, even though they're trying to ban cutlery and sharp knives over there. Campers are getting fined, sometimes even arrested, for having knives in their backpacks with the rest of the necessary camping gear. The jackboot-licking cronies are repeating "Nobody needs a knife" now, because they've already banned guns and that didn't stop gun crime. Or truck of peace attacks. Or bombings or rapes. It just made the country less safe.

    Japan is a small and mostly racially and culturally homogenous society with low crime rates. It also said no to rapefugees, so you'll rarely if ever see any Truck Of Peace attacks there.

    If the countries Gun Control Advocates tend to use as examples to promote Gun Control tend to reveal that Gun Control isn't all that effective, what can we learn from the example Gun Control Advocates don't use?

    Even if Australia, the UK, and Japan were good examples (Which they're not), why would that be the end of the story?

    Why shouldn't we weigh these examples against National-Socialist Germany, Communist Russia, or Maoist Communist China?

    The government banning guns before becoming tyrannical is pretty relevant when you remember that the Constitution was written to guarantee the rights of its citizens, and the second amendment was intented to give people the right to own guns they would need to defend themselves and stop tyrants.

    Who would look at history and think their government would do a better job of protecting them if they became MORE weak and helpless? Not someone who should be allowed to make decisions that affect me. If you want to give up your guns, do so. Get a tattoo, try a fad diet, I don't give a shit what you do to yourself. If you want to take my guns, try it yourself and see how well that works out for you, instead of trying to get jackboots to do your oppression for you. The debate over gun laws would be a better and more constructive place without religious nuts whose understanding of the topic begins and ends at "all guns bad. gun bans good. only gun nuts disagree. beep boop calling me a NPC is racist".

    Remember, it's not as if there's just a couple of bad governments here and there with strict gun control laws. Literally all of the most horrific and tyrannical governments that have ever existed have had strict gun control laws. Hell, tyrannical governments that existed before guns were invented did the same shit by banning proper weapons! Remember when they had to use nunchuks and other farming tools as weapons in China? You know, because their real weapons had been confiscated by an authoritarian government?

    There's a reason why tyrants love ruling over a helpless disarmed populace that can't fight back. You can basically do whatever you want to an unarmed populace.

    Venezuela. The country that proved Liberal "utopian" promises only lead to dystopian nightmares. Are you sick of hearing that name yet? It's the country that transformed me from Liberal to Libertarian. Hearing what went on in that country, hearing about the rapefugees in Europe, and the "What emails? I don't know how email servers work! That information doesn't exist and only fucking racists know about it!" Liberal response to Hillary Clinton's illegal private email server, those were what convinced me to leave the left. Now I'm a Libertarian. Free Dread Pirate Roberts!

    In 2012, two years before their humanitarian crisis, they banned private gun ownership. As you can probably guess, they didn't get this law passed by saying "We want to make it easier for us to oppress our people". No, they brought out the usual "Muh safety" lie, a lie The BBC helped sell. "We have to improve security!", after all.

    Yeah, they improved security. For the politicians! The rich fatcats who eat well while their people starve. They get away with it because they have armed guards and the commoners don't.

    The murder rate in Venezuela rose after the gun ban. And because the police are the only ones in Venezuela allowed to own guns, criminals started to target and kill cops to take their guns.

    And if it wasn't clear enough that Venezuela's gun control is being weaponized against political opponents of their marxist regime, in April of 2017, Maduro gave 400,000 guns back to private citizens...

    But only the ones who pledged their loyalty to him and his commie regime. The ones who "counter-protest" at peaceful protests by throwing rocks and guns at peaceful protestors. The ones who get to ride around with cops and get taken to protests. The ones who get away with shooting at peaceful protestors, while the cops get involved and start breaking limbs if good people fight back and the commies start getting their asses kicked again.

    When the Venezuelan Government banned guns, was it because they were secretly planning on oppressing their people?

    Honestly? It doesn't matter.

    Because it still allowed them to do it.

    And that's not just a stain on the credibility of "Gun Control". It's a stain on the credibility of everyone who wants to force it onto others.
  20. Atomic Postman

    Atomic Postman Vault Archives Overseer

    Mar 16, 2013
    Since we're repeating ourselves, I'll repost my argument which was explicitly me responding to your rambling nonsense section by section, to which you then ran away from scared and never made a counter-argument.

    "It's a logical thing to say gunphobia like yours is a mental illness, and not a valid political position."

    Now, I don't want you to get offended, or butthurt. You've thrown out some weak insults so far, so I hope you can handle a few stronger ones in return. I don't want to hurt your fragile leftist narcissistic ego. I don't want you to shatter like glass and cry foul and beg for me to be banned, as lefties tend to do when confronted with facts. So please, watch some nice little cartoons that will help you understand more about the real world." -
    quotes from yourself.

    Your point, so far, could be summarized as "Concessions to the 2nd Amendment are a violation of my constitutional rights and representative of greater authoritarian bends" and yet it has taken you 3 or so posts of incoherent typing to explain that. You've not offered any evidence, statistics, any suggestions of real policy to amend the USA's gun violence issue other than firearm regulation. I don't even agree with the Democrats on their version of gun regulation, but that doesn't matter because talking to you is akin to interacting with an MMO NPC. You just spout pre-prepared lines, insults and assumptions because I am "Hostile" designation.

    Your post is full of rambling shit, again, so let's just cut to the meat.

    Full disclaimer: I am not an advocate of gun abolition nor do I support policies such as buybacks or broad, misaligned "Assault Weapon Bans", for a variety of reasosn but competence as policies is basically the top. I have no inherent ideological opposition to guns and when I return to Florida next year (was meant to be this year) I intend on buying some. I do tend to sit with the evidence, however.

    Australia is a complicated case in that violence and suicides in general were on a decline. Academic studies have been conducted since, however, and come to interesting conclusions. Firstly, the correlation and assumptions regarding firearms deaths and the post-1979 decline are pretty fishy. Most when arguing this point cite 1979 as the beginning date, when 1979 was in fact compartively anomalously high in gun deaths compared to the years prior to and after it. When compared to a much more fair and long-term analysis, going back to earlier years, the NFA ban can be seen to still significantly mark a sharp decline in gun violence compared to projections of what it would have continued as.

    Similarly, these studies also projected that if Australian gun violence had continued along the projection wagered by some, there still would have been 16 mass shootings between 1996 and February of 2018, when in reality with the NFA Ban, there were 0 mass shootings. The conclusion of the major studies seems to be that because of Australia's violent crime and suicides declining in general you cannot hard-lock the decline in death as the sole responsibility of the legislation, however there is strong evidence to suggest that it was extremely important anyway. Namely that the decline rate of firearm homicides and suicides at the least doubled after the institution of the NFA. The largest drops in firearm deaths were amongst the weapon types that were regulated in the ban.

    Finally, it was also concluded that it is patently incorrect to attribute the absence of mass shootings to the relative decline prior to 1996.


    I'm currently living in the UK, and have been for a few years now. I am also a semi-regular clay-pigeon shotgun shooter here. As someone else in the thread said, this portrayal simply isn't at all true to the lived experience of majority people in the UK and the image of this country as painted by American conservatives is a completely absurd fantasy. However, that being said, I will provide you with some hard evidence. So firstly, let's deal with the statistical tidbit you posited about post-ban death rates. This is a popularly cited argument, from a study commissioned from the assuredly unbiased Countryside Alliance's Campaign for Shooting. Much like the Australian example, this is a nuanced situation that is deliberately confused and conflated by people for the sake of their arguments.

    Firstly, violent crime in the UK had (has) been on a slow and statistically consistent uptick for decades prior to any gun regulation although we did have a sharp decline for a decade between 2006-2016. However, this comes with many asteriks, particularly with relevance to your argument. Firstly, I would argue that there is no causation in this instance between the Firearms Ban and the original commissioned study was a case of bad data. This is supported by a study contemporary to the time (King's College London's Centre for Defence Studies, July 2001 which concluded there was no such causation) but I would posit the following in support as well if that's not enough. The first is that the same kind of spike and decline is experienced throughout this stretch of British history with no relevant markers, the homicide rates for 1990-2000 look about the same as that to 1970-1980, in particular 1977-1979 shows a sharper rise than 1998-2000 and yet there is no gun legislation at that time, suggesting along with the aforementioned study rejecting causation that the spikes in homicide within England are related to other issues. Namely economic or policing.I'd urge you to look into the numerous debates and scandalous issues regarding austerity, cuts to police funding and ability and how they have directly affected the country, but that's not relevant to this argument.

    Similarly, outside of England and Wales, within Scotland gun homicides dropped 80% following the ban. We can piece this together with the Australian example to get a bit of a better picture about the impact of the policies, no?

    Secondly, since you seem to want to compare the United States and the United Kingdom. Let's do that.

    According to the UNODC from both Homicides and Homicides by Firearms:

    • You are 5x more likely to be victim of a homicide in the United States than the UK, a rate of about 5 per 100,000 vs 1 per 100,000
    • In the list of all countries ranked from most homicidal to least, the United States ranks 94 whilst the United Kingdom ranks 175, making the US one of the most homicidal countries in the western "First World"
    • 73% of all homicides in the United States of America are committed by firearms, whereas this is only 3% in England and Wales

    Now, it goes without saying that the amount of deaths in the past decade resulting from massacres of some kind (Including terrorism like the Manchester Bombing or the London Bridge knife attack) are absolutely dwarfed by the amount of massacre-related deaths in the United States. Even the Las Vegas 2017 mass shooting by Stephen Paddock alone killed more people than have died in Britain from massacres over the period of a decade. This is less relevant than the above statistics due to these stats not being relative to the size of the country, but the point still stands.

    UNODC Homicide Statistics
    UNODC Homicide by Firearm Statistics
    "Homicide in England and Wales" by the Office of National Statistics

    This is entirely irrelevant to the argument we're having, but also you are literally proving yourself wrong by citing Japan. Japan has incredibly low rates of crime, and also extremely stringent gun regulation. Congratulations.

    Because comparing the failed policies and mass-deaths of totalitarian regimes or failed states to a contemporary first world liberal democracy like the United States is completely absurd and makes the US seem pathetic if you really feel the need to compare them, but I'm betting you're going to do that anyway.

    I agree and I think it is a strong guiding principle, however the US Constitution was not intended as a holy static document, it was intended to be developed and amended. Unlike with principles such as speech, the context surrounding firearms has changed so unimaginably both in technology, comparison to the armaments of the government and culturally/socially that the legislation itself has become outdated when taken literally or stringently. In the same way that the Tenth Amendment is a complete and utter far cry from the literal interpretaiton, but across the aisle amongst both Republicans and Democrats nobody is troubled by the US not being a total confederation of bickering states anymore.

    The Tenth Amendment still reinforces the principles of federalism and state individuality but the literal interpretation has been instead replaced by more pragmatic contemporary legislation/approaches. I would urge the same for the 2nd Amendment. It doesn't need repeal and the principle is good, but it arguably requires legislative treatment to allow it to function successfully and without active detriment to the people of the USA. The 1st Amendment has proven exclusively beneficial and its counterparts around the rest of the western world show the same. The same cannot be said of the 10th or the 2nd Amendment, for example.

    The main difference is that the former has been adapted. Firearm regulation and the 2nd Amendment are far from the only cause of gun violence, and the larger systemic socio-economic issues creating poverty and lack of mental health support are also weeds that must be whacked, but being a Republican you don't actually give a shit about that part.

    If there were an amendment about the government not being able to impede the ownership and travel of citizens via horse, carriage or ship to prevent the gov. cutting off travel or isolating the populace, I'd still be very much for driving licenses and driving tests in the modern day.

    Literally inventing strawmen to attack.

    Well not only are you literally doing what I thought you would, i.e comparing a failed third world state to the US for the sake of argument, but you're also showing your ignorance. Venezuela is not a liberal state. You do not know what liberal means, at all. Venezuela is a failing, socialist state. A state that was not well run to begin with, and its incompetence only accelerated by socialist policies. On that, we won't disagree. I'm a liberal, not a fucking socialist.

    Comparing the situation in a failing socialist state to the United States and the policy arguments on-going, policy arguments which have already been settled in other, less homicidal first world countries. Come on now.

    BTW you still haven't actually made a counter-argument to anything here.
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2020
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 5