• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Guns versus social media hypocrisy by republicans

APU_Fusion said:
The sheer hypocrisy is astounding

Senator Graham states social media companies have blood on their hands. I am sure he has the same rage for the gun manufacturers right? Right? What is the difference?
Click to expand...
I think republicans have been very clear that making an instrument whose sole purpose is to kill things is fine. The main culprit if someone uses that instrument is, well, literally anything else.

An-y-thing else.
 
So it's blatantly obvious that the Republicans simply don't care that they're hypocrites. They won't let that feature of their character interfere with their pursuit of giving Trump every nefarious downright diabolical chance at seizing the White House and then erecting an impenetrable wall around it to keep him from being booted out again.

They have their corporate owned stooges in place at the SCOTUS ready legislate their conservative corporate authored agendas into law and kill anything that smacks of "the progressives wanting to replace conservative traditional values with their ungodly anti-Christian liberal agendas."

All I'm waiting on now is to see what other devious anti-democratic ploys the Republicans are going to come up with to corrupt the process of free and fair elections into wins on their side of the aisle.

How ironic it is that in their efforts to cheat their way into victories at the ballot box, they legislate their suppressive disenfranchising "voter rights acts" into law that they claim will strengthen the security of the vote by.....allowing them to cheat even worse than before.
 
Biden should campaign on removing the legal protections for gun manufacturers. Link it to the social media companies.
 
soulcougher73 said:
Hyporcracy is all conservatives middle names. Never met one yet who wasn't.
Click to expand...


They have to be that way because in order to defend Trump, they have to deny the undeniable, believe the unbelievable, escape the inescapable, dispute the indisputable, excuse the inexcusable and refute the irrefutable.

IOW, sucks to be a Trump suck ass and try to look clever about it.
 
fskimospy said:
I think republicans have been very clear that making an instrument whose sole purpose is to kill things is fine. The main culprit if someone uses that instrument is, well, literally anything else.

An-y-thing else.
Click to expand...
This is like saying that the sole purpose of antibiotics is to kill germs so antibiotics must therefore be bad. The state executes people using equipment whose purpose is to kill them. The army uses guns to defend the nation. People use guns to feed themselves or to defend themselves against more physically dangerous predators, animal and human. Culpability, then, is not with guns but with the intention to which some people put them. The law must direct the illegal use of firearms in ways that do not infringe on the right of self defense. When no other option exists it is just to kill in self defense and people who do not wish themselves to avail themselves of that option should not decide that issue for those who do.

Authoritarianism exists on the left.
 
Lmao.
Moonbeam said:
This is like saying that the sole purpose of antibiotics is to kill germs so antibiotics must therefore be bad. The state executes people using equipment whose purpose is to kill them. The army uses guns to defend the nation. People use guns to feed themselves or to defend themselves against more physically dangerous predators, animal and human. Culpability, then, is not with guns but with the intention to which some people put them. The law must direct the illegal use of firearms in ways that do not infringe on the right of self defense. When no other option exists it is just to kill in self defense and people who do not wish themselves to avail themselves of that option should not decide that issue for those who do.

Authoritarianism exists on the left.
Click to expand...
lolz. There is that MAGAT peeking through the pseudo-intellectual nonsense. The first amendment protected social media companies can give back to you the same exact statements you just gave. Culpability is not with the social media companies but the people that use them. So, Social Media ceo’s have blood on their hands but gun manufacture CEO’s don’t? lolololol. That is dumbest statement I ever read. Even with guns being legal they have blood on their hands.

i also find it laughable that you state extremism on the “left” when the “left“ is not calling for the banning of firearms but a ”well regulated” firearm. You righties also skip that part of the 2nd amendment for some reason. very few on the “left” are calling for gun ban and removing 2nd amendment but you righties go turtles all the way down to that immediately. Keep clutching your guns.

drugs are not the responsibility of drug manufactures but the people that use them also. Leave the innocent drug manufacturers alone.

tell Me Moonbeam, how do you sleep at night with those mass school shootings? I bet quite well. Do you look at gun violence in Japan and Europe ever and wonder maybe this country has issues with gun violence that stems from easy access along with a culture that reveres violence? Nah.
 
Last edited:
APU_Fusion said:
Lmao.

lolz. There is that MAGAT peeking through the pseudo-intellectual nonsense. The first amendment protected social media companies can give back to you the same exact statements you just gave. Culpability is not with the social media companies but the people that use them. So, Social Media ceo’s have blood on their hands but gun manufacture CEO’s don’t? lolololol. That is dumbest statement I ever read. Even with guns being legal they have blood on their hands.

i also find it laughable that you state extremism on the “left” when the “left“ is not calling for the banning of firearms but a ”well regulated” firearm. You righties also skip that part of the 2nd amendment for some reason. very few on the “left” are calling for gun ban and removing 2nd amendment but you righties go turtles all the way down to that immediately. Keep clutching your guns.

drugs are not the responsibility of drug manufactures but the people that use them also. Leave the innocent drug manufacturers alone.

tell Me Moonbeam, how do you sleep at night with those mass school shootings? I bet quite well. Do you look at gun violence in Japan and Europe ever and wonder maybe this country has issues with gun violence that stems from easy access along with a culture that reveres violence? Nah.
Click to expand...

He doesn't view other people as actual people. Then Moonbeam makes sense. Well, by make sense, I mean you can then understand why he spends so much time making strawman arguments to proselytize his sermons against.
 
APU_Fusion said:
Lmao.

lolz. There is that MAGAT peeking through the pseudo-intellectual nonsense. The first amendment protected social media companies can give back to you the same exact statements you just gave. Culpability is not with the social media companies but the people that use them. So, Social Media ceo’s have blood on their hands but gun manufacture CEO’s don’t? lolololol. That is dumbest statement I ever read. Even with guns being legal they have blood on their hands.

i also find it laughable that you state extremism on the “left” when the “left“ is not calling for the banning of firearms but a ”well regulated” firearm. You righties also skip that part of the 2nd amendment for some reason. very few on the “left” are calling for gun ban and removing 2nd amendment but you righties go turtles all the way down to that immediately. Keep clutching your guns.

drugs are not the responsibility of drug manufactures but the people that use them also. Leave the innocent drug manufacturers alone.

tell Me Moonbeam, how do you sleep at night with those mass school shootings? I bet quite well. Do you look at gun violence in Japan and Europe ever and wonder maybe this country has issues with gun violence that stems from easy access along with a culture that reveres violence? Nah.
Click to expand...
You are attacking me for positions I do not hold the gun issue brings out the irrational in you. I suppose people who make drugs for the purposes of executing people have blood on their hands too or those who make ant poison. How about the people who make guns for the army and civilians too. What about barbed wire used by Texans to drown people crossing the Rio Grand.

I am also in favor of gun regulation and the person to whom I addressed my post is also in favor of a gun ban.

Drug companies certainly should be regulated as well as the sale of drugs that can be dangerously abused.

We don't live in a country that does not have gun issues. In many countries guns are not easily available. They do not have our constitutional rights which may become more widely appreciated if Trump wins and tries to become king which he will.
 
darkswordsman17 said:
He doesn't view other people as actual people. Then Moonbeam makes sense. Well, by make sense, I mean you can then understand why he spends so much time making strawman arguments to proselytize his sermons against.
Click to expand...
I suppose you intended to say something but I don't know what.
 
Moonbeam said:
We don't live in a country that does not have gun issues. In many countries guns are not easily available. They do not have our constitutional rights which may become more widely appreciated if Trump wins and tries to become king which he will.
Click to expand...
But wouldn’t you want to live in a mostly gun free utopia country?
 
Moonbeam said:
This is like saying that the sole purpose of antibiotics is to kill germs so antibiotics must therefore be bad. The state executes people using equipment whose purpose is to kill them. The army uses guns to defend the nation. People use guns to feed themselves or to defend themselves against more physically dangerous predators, animal and human. Culpability, then, is not with guns but with the intention to which some people put them. The law must direct the illegal use of firearms in ways that do not infringe on the right of self defense. When no other option exists it is just to kill in self defense and people who do not wish themselves to avail themselves of that option should not decide that issue for those who do.

Authoritarianism exists on the left.
Click to expand...
lol no.

How many times do I need to teach you that owning a gun makes you less safe?
 
fskimospy said:
lol no.

How many times do I need to teach you that owning a gun makes you less safe?
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with validating the notion that the only purpose of guns is to kill? I am not personally concerned with the additional risk. I am extremely careful on the occasions, quite rare, that I want to handle them and I haven’t loaded one in decades.

I would bet I have exposed myself to far greater risk as I have been behind the wheel for hundreds of thousands of miles.
 
Moonbeam said:
What does that have to do with validating the notion that the only purpose of guns is to kill? I am not personally concerned with the additional risk. I am extremely careful on the occasions, quite rare, that I want to handle them and I haven’t loaded one in decades.

I would bet I have exposed myself to far greater risk as I have been behind the wheel for hundreds of thousands of miles.
Click to expand...
There are lots of things you can do that are riskier than owning a firearm. It’s just darkly amusing that people buy guns for the purpose of personal safety when in fact they make you less safe.

Regardless, the reason guns exist is to kill things. That is their purpose.
 
The OP is right about the hypocrisy but the response from Republicans will be 2A is Constitutionally guaranteed.

Then again A14S3 says you can't hold office if previously taking an oath to the Constitution and then aiding or abetting in an insurrection.

I guess they get to have it both ways?
 
HomerJS said:
The OP is right about the hypocrisy but the response from Republicans will be 2A is Constitutionally guaranteed.

Then again A14S3 says you can't hold office if previously taking an oath to the Constitution and then aiding or abetting in an insurrection.

I guess they get to have it both ways?
Click to expand...
You’re going to be so mad when you realize they don’t give a shit about the constitution. Just look at Texas right now.
 
HomerJS said:
The OP is right about the hypocrisy but the response from Republicans will be 2A is Constitutionally guaranteed.

Then again A14S3 says you can't hold office if previously taking an oath to the Constitution and then aiding or abetting in an insurrection.

I guess they get to have it both ways?
Click to expand...
The social media companies would argue the first amendment guarantees their rights too exist I would think. Corporations are people after all 🤔🤷‍♂️
 
APU_Fusion said:
The social media companies would argue the first amendment guarantees their rights too exist I would think. Corporations are people after all 🤔🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
Prostitution isn't allowed everywhere. Don't they get 1A protection?

I would think age restrictions do not violate their 1A.
 
fskimospy said:
There are lots of things you can do that are riskier than owning a firearm. It’s just darkly amusing that people buy guns for the purpose of personal safety when in fact they make you less safe.

Regardless, the reason guns exist is to kill things. That is their purpose.
Click to expand...
Which, again, means absolutely nothing. Millions of things died to make a loaf of bread. It isn’t darkly amusing that someone drives a car rather than walk. And it would be morally absurd not to use a gun in a situation where the alternatives are that an innocent or a person bent on murder gets shot.

You are relying on the negative associations that naturally arise when using the word killing to make an emotional rather than rational appeal. It does nothing against a billion year built in reflex for self preservation. You would use any means at hand to save yourself or any other innocent person from an attempt to take a life. Some people are prepared for that possibility. You want to take that away and all you offer for support is an emotional appeal that flies in the face of instinct.

It is too bad you can’t get past your emotions and see that the real problem is mental illness caused by growing up in a psychotically structured system where natural human empathy for others is antithetical to the substituted sick aims of the ego desires that replace them.
 
Moonbeam said:
Which, again, means absolutely nothing. Millions of things died to make a loaf of bread. It isn’t darkly amusing that someone drives a car rather than walk. And it would be morally absurd not to use a gun in a situation where the alternatives are that an innocent or a person bent on murder gets shot.
Click to expand...

Of course - but the reality of it is that owning a gun makes exactly those types of situations MORE likely and not less. It's morally absurd to attempt to prevent something by taking actions that make it more likely.

It's not just morally absurd, it's abject stupidity.
Moonbeam said:
You are relying on the negative associations that naturally arise when using the word killing to make an emotional rather than rational appeal. It does nothing against a billion year built in reflex for self preservation. You would use any means at hand to save yourself or any other innocent person from an attempt to take a life. Some people are prepared for that possibility. You want to take that away and all you offer for support is an emotional appeal that flies in the face of instinct.

It is too bad you can’t get past your emotions and see that the real problem is mental illness caused by growing up in a psychotically structured system where natural human empathy for others is antithetical to the substituted sick aims of the ego desires that replace them.
Click to expand...
I offer a factual appeal - you are the one reacting emotionally.

This is a very simple idea. If you would like to not die then if your choice is 1) own a gun or 2) do not own a gun the facts are clear. Do not own a gun. You don't need to get upset about the fact that this is true, because reality doesn't care if you get upset or not. It doesn't even need to relate to human empathy. I am offering you and all gun owners an argument centered strictly around your own self interest in living. I do accept though that for some people (like you, apparently) feeling emotionally validated by gun ownership could be more valuable than survival so maybe in those cases feeling happy with your delusions of safety is something you prefer to actually being safe. I think that's dumb, but it's your business. Just try not to get anyone else hurt or killed for the sake of your fantasies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top