Gun ownership poll

[G1911]

Originally Posted by AustinMike

I had intended to make my last post the last one I made on abortion in this thread. However, I realized something about you and I decided to make one more last post to point that out.

You repeatedly railed about me and others not agreeing to the Merriam Webster definition of “pro-life.” Yet, there are countless examples of you not applying “common sense, context or the dictionary” to the meaning of words.

(A) You displayed your lack of understanding regarding the definitions of “choice,” “law,” and “right.” You seem to apply your own definitions.

(1) For example, you think that if a “law” is passed, it automatically removes a person’s right to a “choice.” That is absurd. For example, there are speed limits set by law. Let’s say the speed limit on the road I’m driving on is 60 mph. Do you really think that takes away my choice of going 75? No, it doesn’t. I also think it is humorous that you think I could tell the officer giving me a ticket, “But officer. I had no choice. A law was passed regarding the speed limit and that took away my choice. The fact that I was going 75 isn’t because that was my choice, because I had no choice. It was probably an act of nature or divine intervention, but it wasn’t my choice. So, since it wasn’t my choice, I don’t think I should get a ticket.”



(2) You conflate “choice” with “right.” Look up the definitions and you’ll see you’re not using the words properly.

If there is no correlation between law and choice and rights, then law serves no purpose at all. If law is not intended and created to restrict choice by punishing those who do that which the law criminalizes, it has no purpose. The state does not have complete physical control of every humans every action. One can choose to break a law, but that is why we have laws. Laws restrict choice by punishing those who violate it, to make most people conform and to lock up, kill, shame, or harm those who make the choice not allowed by the state.

A right is something specifically protected by the law.

A person who supports a right to choose something is against criminalizing one of the two choices. Pro-choice abortion activists do not think that choice is protected regardless of the law; they are pro-choice because they want that choice to be allowed without getting a murder charge. We all know this. Pro-choice people are not pro-choice because they think the law does not matter and they may make a choice to violate the law and take the punishment. Supporting choice means that one does not support criminalizing one of the sides. You know this, this is extremely disingenuous. You surely possess an ounce of common sense and can apply context. You cannot possibly be this dumb and be a functioning adult.

Originally Posted by AustinMike

(B) You change the definition of “and” to “or.” Here’s a little logic for you. If you say “A” and “B”, that is only true if “A” if true plus it is only true if “B” is true. If you say “A” or “B”, then that is true if either “A” is true or “B” is true or “A” and “B” are true. You claimed you only posted after I and BobC posted. I pointed out that wasn’t true because I didn’t post until after you did. You said that since you posted after BobC posted, that makes it true. Hence, you want to redefine “and” to be “or.”

Yes. Good job, you finally made a correct point. It's utterly irrelevant, but you are correct.

We can do this forever in perpetuity. You just said "You repeatedly railed about me and others not agreeing to the Merriam Webster definition of “pro-life.”" In actuality, only you and Bob C pretended to be too stupid to know what they mean. That means it should be "you repeatedly railed about me and one other..." instead of "others". Ha! I got you! I win now! See how silly this is? You probably don't.

Originally Posted by AustinMike

(C) You ironically want to change the definition of abortion. Look up the definition of abortion and tell us all how you can have an abortion after birth.

You appear to be referring to 'post birth abortion'. Post birth abortion, or after-birth abortion, is not my term whatsoever. I did not make this up, popularize it, write a single one of the many news articles about it, or author any of the passed or pending legislation related to it. I am not selecting the terms used by political factions in American culture. For the thousandth time, you already know this.

Originally Posted by AustinMike

So, I have choices. I can decide that you’re a hypocrite. I can decide that you’re a “performance artist.” Or, I can decide that you’re not nearly as smart as you think you are. I lawfully have those choices because it’s my right. Can you guess which one I'm going to choose?

We agree I am not smart, I don't know much. I am simply aware of what some common terms mean as is everyone here except for you and BobC. You can choose to believe whatever you want about anything, nobody has said you cannot think whatever you think. If you want to pretend pro-life is a hardline absolutist universal philosophy but pro-choice is not held to the same rule, you may. It's absurd and stupid, and some will tell you that, but people believe many absurd things.

No matter how stupid I am, a point which I will happily concede, and how satisfied you are with your virtue signaling redefinition, everyone here still knows exactly what pro-life and pro-choice actually mean.

[clydepepper]

A Little Stonehenge Humor:

Daylight Savings at Stonehenge.jpg244469314_10208758796485072_9121062018896317629_n.jpg

[steve B]

Originally Posted by clydepepper

A Little Stonehenge Humor:

Attachment 519554Attachment 519555

It must be Chiffon!

[jingram058]

Originally Posted by steve B

It must be Chiffon!

If you think it's butter, but it's not... it's Chiffon

[KMayUSA6060]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-injured.html

This just a few days after a 30+ person massacre at a church in Nigeria(?) and a firebombing at a pro-life facility in NY. Violence isn't gun-related. Violence is people-related. It's also not restricted by country, so let's quit pretending like the rest of the world has it right. Not saying we're perfect as a country, but America's positive qualities attract caravans of immigrants for a reason. Quit blaming inanimate objects and focus on how we can improve the people that control the objects.

[cannonballsun]

I own no guns.
Statistically, you or a member of your family is more likely to be killed or injured by a gun if you own one than if you don't own one.
That's enough for me.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by cannonballsun

I own no guns.
Statistically, you or a member of your family is more likely to be killed or injured by a gun if you own one than if you don't own one.
That's enough for me.

Statistically, should the need arise, you are virtually defenseless.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

If there is no correlation between law and choice and rights, then law serves no purpose at all. If law is not intended and created to restrict choice by punishing those who do that which the law criminalizes, it has no purpose. The state does not have complete physical control of every humans every action. One can choose to break a law, but that is why we have laws. Laws restrict choice by punishing those who violate it, to make most people conform and to lock up, kill, shame, or harm those who make the choice not allowed by the state.

A right is something specifically protected by the law.

A person who supports a right to choose something is against criminalizing one of the two choices. Pro-choice abortion activists do not think that choice is protected regardless of the law; they are pro-choice because they want that choice to be allowed without getting a murder charge. We all know this. Pro-choice people are not pro-choice because they think the law does not matter and they may make a choice to violate the law and take the punishment. Supporting choice means that one does not support criminalizing one of the sides. You know this, this is extremely disingenuous. You surely possess an ounce of common sense and can apply context. You cannot possibly be this dumb and be a functioning adult.





Yes. Good job, you finally made a correct point. It's utterly irrelevant, but you are correct.

We can do this forever in perpetuity. You just said "You repeatedly railed about me and others not agreeing to the Merriam Webster definition of “pro-life.”" In actuality, only you and Bob C pretended to be too stupid to know what they mean. That means it should be "you repeatedly railed about me and one other..." instead of "others". Ha! I got you! I win now! See how silly this is? You probably don't.





You appear to be referring to 'post birth abortion'. Post birth abortion, or after-birth abortion, is not my term whatsoever. I did not make this up, popularize it, write a single one of the many news articles about it, or author any of the passed or pending legislation related to it. I am not selecting the terms used by political factions in American culture. For the thousandth time, you already know this.





We agree I am not smart, I don't know much. I am simply aware of what some common terms mean as is everyone here except for you and BobC. You can choose to believe whatever you want about anything, nobody has said you cannot think whatever you think. If you want to pretend pro-life is a hardline absolutist universal philosophy but pro-choice is not held to the same rule, you may. It's absurd and stupid, and some will tell you that, but people believe many absurd things.

No matter how stupid I am, a point which I will happily concede, and how satisfied you are with your virtue signaling redefinition, everyone here still knows exactly what pro-life and pro-choice actually mean.

Glad the point was conceded.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Glad the point was conceded.

Your personal obsession is weird.