n8nrgmi

you say registration would be unconstitutional, but when the country was formed, almost all the states had registration, along with a bunch of other gun control laws:

i go with the way the constitution was originally intended. that's why it's constitutional to support gun control, including registration, and why it's not likely the second amendment even protects a personal right to a gun. if it did, there would be evidence that that's what they thought. in fact you can squint really hard, and not see any evidence of the sort. half of the population was excempt from the militia, so it's not like the question wasnt there. but even if everyone was in the militia, there would have been talk of people's right to a gun outside of militia contexts.

here is some information on how to provide affordable universal healthcare 

pot can cause mental illness. not to mention lung and other problems. that is a problem in itself, but also for the welfare rolls. i realize people are resonsible for themselves and welfare doesn't have to cater to them, but if we have drugs outlawed for a reason otherwise, it's important to note that pot too has its own problems. 

also it looks like in your debate with dust, that you are trying to argue why assault rifles are uniquely effective as a means of defense, but not uniquely effective as an offensive gun. you're trying to have your cake and eat it too so to find reasons to keep them, and not ban them. but the thing is, you are right that an assault rifle can improve your odds of self defense. the thing is, the reason it makes it better at shooting many people in defense is the same reason it's more effective to shoot more people to murder them too. but as dust was arguing, the examples where an assault rifle were necessary for defense are not really out there, but the examples where they are used for group murder are out there. hence, that's why it makes sense to single out assault rifles and not all semi automatics. 

you're the one assuming shooters are educated and rational, because you think they wouldn't choose automatic because it's less effective. in reality, i'm have no doubt that they would jump on the chance to take an automatic to a shooting, even if it's just for the psychology of it and because they aren't educated or rational. but there are too many obstacles in the way in the way to make it their go to. a bump stock makes it easy, and i have no doubt if there were bump stocks everywhere and people actually considered them, they would use those in mass shootings if it's right before them. so, bump stocks are too easy, but rigging it up in some other way is too sophisticated for most people. plus they probably dont consider that too much either, because if they did, you know they would more often. the point, is we want obstacles in the way to prevent people from using them, at the very least in situations like the vegas shooter. 

do you think machine guns should be legal based on the logic that it 'infringes' on people's guns, and that machine guns are less effective anyway so what's the point of banning them? why or why not?

it doesn't matter if he used it or not. my argument is that if he did, it'd be more lethal in a packed crowd like that. if we have bump stocks everywhere people will be more likely to use them or use automatic in general, when they shouldn't. most people won't bother to rig up an assault rifle to make it automatic. the point, is that if you put obstacles in people's way, it will on average limit some people. same with gun control in general. 

an automatic gun in a crowd like the las vegas shooting is almost certainly more deadly. the spray and pray thing might be true that automatic isn't always more effective, but often it is. 

if we limit people from having bump stocks, it's logical less people would do it. mass shooters aren't that sophisticated... if you gave them a bump stock, they would use it. they aren't choosing semi autos because they are more efficient. 

we can also cultivate insect farms and sea weed farms for essentially limitless supplies of essential nutrients. 

why do you think mass shooters dont turn their guns into automatics, or use bump stocks?

don't you think many of them would use one if you offered them one before the attack?

so you think if there were millions of bump stocks in circulation that mass shooters wouldn't be more likely to use one? 

so what is your theory as to why the earth is getting hotter?

every theory other than man made is quickly debunked. such as i saw a study that said only a third of our recentwarming is from sun cycles. 

the pro gun arguments in this thread are painfully stupid. what's said is this is ignorance that can't be cured, cause the same old arguments keep getting repeated even after correction. 

do you see a lot of criminals with machine guns? cause i sure don't 

the world isn't magically split between criminals and everyone else. if you tell bob not to have a gun, there's a good chance he won't get one. then, when he goes off on his wife, he's less likely to kill her. 

it's fun to watch dust lay the smack down

mopac's ultimate realist stuff is illogical. i'm guessing even theists here recognize that. obviously the atheists do. are there any theists here who thinks his reasoning makes sense?

so you post a link that doesn't prove anything? can you state simply how it's untrue that there was a mass shooting almost every year before the ban but almost never after?  you are just ignoring it. it's a fact. 

conservatives just ignore that australia mass shootings vanished. they had almost one per year before their ban, and it's been around twenty three years and i think they may have had one within the last year or two, so it took over twenty years for another one. you can see all kinds of rationalizing but again, conservatives just choose to stick their head in the sand and ignore this.

i think the main point you're making is that correlation doesn't prove causation. but it does strongly point to it. and the correlation is in my favor, not yours.

and what if you take all the gun stats in the weebly link? taken together, they show that having guns around causes murder when it wouldn't otherwise occur. you'd have to stick your head in the sand to think otherwise. 

the last link you post makes the argument that gun control works, so me thinks you didn't read it very well. and that more guns in an area equals more murder. 

i notice that you cite john lott's crime website. this guy has a poor reputation, and it debunked by the overwhelming number of other studies in the second link in the opening post. it's not just one stat v another, it's a bunch v a handful. police shootings, police shooting people, women's death, homicides, suicides, mass shootings etc etc all increase when there are more guns around. 

i would challenge you to find scientific evidence beyond lott, and the two or three other 'studies' that always get pushed around but that are easily debunked. if your science is so true, it should be easy for you to do, but ive been studying this issue for years, and the science just isnt out there to say guns aren't a problem in the country and such. 

*an overview of some issues of gun control science and policy

states with stricter gun control have fewer mass shootings

an overview of some issues of gun control and policy

here is the study

i notice all you've established is that abuse could be possible, but no one has still shown any examples, which would be possible if they occurred. 

do you agree the government should have a food stamp system? do you think the government should not allow companies to pump as much mercury which is a serious toxin into the streams? what agencies do you think should exist? do you like the existence of social security or medicare? or medicaid for the disabled? these are just examples. i know trump and many conservatives might not be against food stamps or social security, but if these are liberal or conservative issues, they are liberal. 

no one can be all or nothing with a party and still claim to think for themselves.

what are some things you guys agree with the democratic party? i reckon no one can be all or nothing with a political party, while still claiming to think for themselves. so im curious what some issues are that you agree with liberals about.

do you live off disability and have capital one in your wallet, or are those just jokes?

droughts in the third world would cause starvation

not everyone can afford to irrigate

they say that farmer would have to also deal with a lot more drought. that's bad for them, and bad for the food supply so it's bad for everyone else too. 

it's obvious if obama tried calling an emergency on a bunch of issues, those who support trump doing it, would be against obama and others. in other words, these people have no principles. 

ive known people who had beautiful christian faiths. then they become atheists and anti christian. i dont think it's fair to say they were never saved to begin with. they knew themselves to be saved at the time, and it looked to be true from the outside too. they were saved, then now they are not, is the most straightforward way of describing it using traditional christian terms. 

you are describing a truism. if you are saved and don't sin, you won't lose your salvation. but that's because you don't sin. and how are you making a meaningful distinction, by saying there's being saved and not sinning on one hand, and being saved and losing your salvation on the other? if you can be saved and then not saved, then once saved always saved is negated. either you are saved permanently or you are not according to the doctrine. the bible is clear, that people can be on the right path and then lose what they had. the most straigtforward way to read the bible passages is you can be saved, and then not saved, negating once saved always saved. 

"Dear friends, if we deliberately continue sinning after we have received knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice that will cover these sins."

once saved always saved is unbiblical

i'm not sure what exactly you're saying, but i take it as an acknowledgement that you dont have evidence of people abusing trangender bathroom rights to take advantage of women in their restrooms

you seem like someone that likes to parrot support for trump. how do you reconcile supporting trump's border wall emergency, and not letting democrats do their own emergencies on things like healthcare etc? 

do you have any evidence that men abuse the system? i read that there was a study that showed almost no one abused the system when transgender people use their choice. and, school systems who have considered the problem ive seen often come to the same conclusion. me thinks the problem is all in your head. 

let them use whatever they want. the only reason this is even a big issue is because of ratings and stirring the cultural pot. as long as transgenders have existed they have used their choice restroom, and only in recent years has it become a problem. just let things be. i'm actually conservative and view transgender as messed up, but i'm not going fake outrage like everyone else. besides, there's no good option here if you want to nit pick. would you want an original woman who looks like a man to use the same restroom as your daughter? 
if transgenders were molesting children, my stance would be different. but as it is, nothing bad has happened as far as i know. people are finding problems where there are none.

jesus compared salvation to seeds on the ground. some take root only to die later. that means you can lose your salvation. he preached if you do bad, bad things will happen to you. if anyone is against once saved always saved, it was jesus. and the only way to get to that idea is to rely on interpratations that might not even be true of the followers in the later letters of the bible. 

eighty eight percent of criminologists think the death penalty doesn't deter murder, and that getting rid of the penalty wouldn't change anything either. 

even if the government is more objective, the intent is still the same, revenge. 

the link you gave that says the death penalty deters people is just a bunch of numbers, and at least the conventional wisdom is that it does't deter crime. 

the death penalty isn't more cost effective as it costs millions in appeals to kill them. i might agree it could be cheaper in principle, but in effect it's not. 

do you think someone might actually be deterred by the death penalty but not life in prison or sixty years in jail?

the death penalty, in addition to essentially being about revenge, says that the murderer has no redeeming value, or at least not enough to say they are worth living. maybe serial killers have not enough redeeming value to keep them alive, but id say given most people have at least murderous impulses, that someone actually following through on it, doesn't make them have no redeeming value. 

also, i dont know your religious views, but jesus preached to turn the cheek. he also said the measure with which you use will be measured to you. so while a person could find other biblical ideas to say the pentalty can be just, that doesn't mean it has to be that way. even if turning a cheek is just a rule of thumb, the measure you use isn't much. i know i'm not a murderer, but i dont want to be killing people and using that standard against them, when death could also be my penalty for the things i do wrong. 

why is it revenge for vigilantes but not for a government body? 

why should the death penalty be favored over prison? 

do you honestly mostly advocate the death penalty to deter people, or for revenge?

even if the death penalty deterred people, so would a long time in prison. the only extra factor that would make the death penalty a higher priority is revenge. and, so, as i said, it all comes down to whether you support the concept of revenge. 

i'm asking those who support trump declaring a national emergency with the border wall. if you don't want democratic presidents doing it, how are you at all being principled? you can't be if you only support things you personally believe in.

i personally believe in the wall, but that doesn't mean the president has the authority to declare an emergency to do it, espeically given both parties have rejected the idea in congress, even when it was a republican controlled congress and government. 

prison time is about deterrence. if you also view it as revenge, that's on you. capital punishment effectively is about revenge, because deterrence it has long been shown doesn't happen. 

the bottom line is that you must view revenge favorably, while those against the death penalty do not. 

so you support an eye for an eye, and revenge? you also think the right way to say it's wrong to kill people is by killing people?

there's no evidence in the earliest church that the roman church cannot error on faith and morals. you have to go out hundreds of years after jesus to see anything hinting at it. 

Pope Gelasius I (492–496) stated: "The see of blessed Peter the Apostle has the right to unbind what has been bound by sentences of any pontiffs whatever, in that it has the right to judge the whole church. Neither is it lawful for anyone to judge its judgment, seeing that canons have willed that it might be appealed to from any part of the world, but that no one may be allowed to appeal from it.[71]

"If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII (1334)." Pope Adrian VI, 1523 (Quaestiones in IV Sent quoted in Viollet, Papal Infallibility and the Syllabus, 1908)

 
Pope Pius IX (1878) recognised the danger that a future pope would be a heretic and teach contrary to the Catholic Faith, and he instructed, do not follow him.

If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him. (Letter to Bishop Brizen)

Who originally came up with the idea of papal infallibility? It was the creation of Peter Olivi, a Franciscan who was more than once accused of heresy (an auspicious parent for the concept of infallibility, wouldn't you say?). His reason for attempting to limit papal power seems to have been to prevent future popes from rescinding a ruling favorable to Franciscans made by Pope Nicholas III (1277-1280). Nicholas was willing to go along with this idea, but later popes rejected it outright. For example, Pope John XXII (1316-1334) went so far as to call it "...a work of the devil...the Father of Lies." and in 1324 actually issued a papal bull condemning it as heresy.

augustine

"As if it might not have been said, and most justly said, to them: 'Well, let us suppose that those bishops who decided the case at Rome were not good judges; there still remained a plenary Council of the universal Church, in which these judges themselves might be put on their defense; so that, if they were convicted of mistake, their decisions might be reversed'."

Augustine had ample opportunity in his actions and vast literary works to express belief in the supreme jurisdiction of Rome. Of all the Fathers of the Church, Augustine wrote the most on church unity and authority. He wrote 75 chapters to the separated Donatists in "The Unity of the Church", using all sort of arguments to urge them to return to communion. Of the necessity of communion with Rome, or Rome as a centre of unity, or Rome's supreme authority, there is not one single word." (6) The silence is deafening.

The Anglo-Irish Catechism contained the following question:

(Q) Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible?
(A) This is a Protestant invention: it is no article of the Catholic faith.

Every little Catholic boy and girl learnt this by heart. The Pope is not infallible.

you're just preaching catholic teaching. you're not arguing that there's no contradiction here. the text is clear. history is clear. only the catholic church is trying to argue the blue sky is really green. 

also, on the point of the church's validity, there were ecumenical councils that didn't even have roman delegates, and the pope wasn't the head of the councils as catholics would have you believe. 

if you want to read a ton more on the weakness of the catholic faith from a historical perspective, i recommend this link...

you say feeneyism was never taught. just look at the text. they use clear language like "we define" and go on to use specific language condemning noncatholics to hell. then you have the fact that that's what catholic actually thought for the longest time, that noncatholics are condemned. 

on the catechism point. the things i'm mentioning, like those with original sin go to hell, was defined by councils. it's far fetched to think they knew they had to be specific and say things like "this is defined" or "this is infallible" etc. they taught it as dogma and expected it to be the teaching officially, at least that's the most straightforward way of looking at it.