An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man is a subject !!

Hard to say. Perhaps one would have used his car as a weapon? Perhaps a baseball bat? Maybe a knife? A crowbar? A block of cement? It might be time to start blaming the behavior instead of the choice of weapon, don't you think?

 

I would prefer there be no wars but I understand if we have to kill to protect the country. I hope no one tries to hurt my wife or kids but I'll use a gun if I have to. I would prefer there be no crime but if the courts want to execute a serial killer or child molester I won't lose sleep over it.
So, yeah, I'm much more concerned with innocent life...add to that the life of babies who can't protect themselves from monsters like you.

 

Nope. I'm against the death penalty, too.

 

During a driving incident? My guess is no.

 

He wouldn't use a car during a driving incident?

 

A few pounds of pressure on a trigger has the potential to kill from a greater distance than any other hand-held weapon. It's so easy to do. All it takes is the will to put in the split second of effort, and the willingness to ignore the likely outcome (great injury or death).

Other weapons generally require close proximity to the target, and much more time to inflict an equal amount of damage. That provides much more time for someone to contemplate the consequences of what they are doing to a person.

The example given, the road-rage incident, is a very good example of that. Typically, when no guns are involved, the two would have survived the confrontation.

It really is a good example of the "2nd Amendment Solution" argument Joe rails against.

 

View attachment 619

 

Perhaps to you but thanks Coin. My point was that person is still a citizen first then a subject or whatever name someone wants to label that person.

As you well know (as do the others here) I am not anti-gun.
You had a situation where you needed one and good for you I say.

I had a situation that convinced me I should get one. Good for me.

Now for everyone here. If a guy that owns a gun is a citizen while a guy that doesn't is a subject wouldn't it be logical that all men own a gun (or choose to) to be considered a citizen?

The point here is that, yes, one should have the right to own guns but for many not owning one has it's merits as well.
Doesn't matter what those reasons are they are still Citizens first.

There are a lot of people that own guns and respect what a gun can do. There are others that understand this and use them in the wrong way.
There are others that understand the concept and have no training.

I could go on but the real gist is there are points on whatever side of the fence one chooses to be on.

It's an issue in this country that will never be solved.

 

So it seems that you accept that the state puts murderers, terrorists, child molesters or whatever to death because in your determination they are not innocent. If we also declare war and go overseas to some country and kill soldier and citizen alike, you determine that that is also acceptable killing. And if someone tries to hurt your family, you determine that it is just fine to kill them.

Now you make all these determinations of what is acceptable killing and what isn't but then in the same breath do not allow women, who have far more invested in their decision than you'll ever have making the same life and death decisions about some criminal or foreign combatant, to make the same determination that you feel free to make. So your killing is based on your determination of the innocence or guilt of the person you are condemning or speaking for but yet you don't want to give women the same determination that you give yourself. And you sit there and call me a monster. Who made you God!

 

So you lump babies into the same category as child molesters & terrorists? No wonder you & your ilk value abortion.

Nice try.

 

I didn't figure you could see your own hypocrisy and I was right. Thank you God!

 

...and obviously, when the tables are turned, you are unable to answer a simple question.

 

Hardly! You claim zygotes are life and should be preserved at all costs yet you decide that other life is not worth preserving. Why do you get to make the choice and deny women the same privilege? Why do you get to speak FOR them? They don't try and tell you that you don't have the choice to kill the guy that killed your family. Why do you feel you have the right to speak for others? Who died and left you king? Give people the choice your yourself take. You'll never get it I'm sure.

 

Do you think zygotes are "life"?

 

Soooooo....back to my original statement.....you & your ilk advocate the killing of as many babies as possible yet will defend a child molester or terrorist to your dying breath? Doesn't that seem a little wrong?

You ask who made me king? Last I checked I didn't make the decisions on going to war or sentencing someone to the death penalty so that claim of yours rings a bit hollow...good try to re-direct though.

 

I have never advocated anything of the kind. You are just trying to re-direct.

The point you keep ignoring is that you make choices about who can live or die under certain circumstances but refuse give women the same choice. If I had my way, nobody would ever have an abortion or die from lethal injection or be killed by U.S. soldiers. I however recognize that I don't get to make that decision for everyone else you seem to think you can pick and choose while refusing others the same choice.

Why should any woman anywhere care what you think about whether they have an abortion or not much less let you make their decision for them? Who the hell are you? You're just some old white guy that will never have to face the prospect of having an abortion but still believe that your opinion matters for some reason. It doesn't.

You could commit a crime or go to war or commit an act of terror and have a stake in the laws that determine the punishment for those acts but you'll NEVER need an abortion. It's pretty easy to sit in judgment of those people whose shoes you'll never be in. That's what makes you such a damn pathetic hypocrite.

 

This isn't necessary in a civilized discussion. If you want to counter the opinion I expressed, do so intelligently and without resorting to such idiocy.

 

He seems to prefer pictures. They don't involve having to actually think.

 

View attachment 622

 

Exactly. Why do you think I'm posting them for him?