The debate on gun control is over

Tsing Tao

Tsing Tao

Well, I'm sure liberals will try for it again once they run out of lower hanging fruit, but its going to be real difficult to tell Americans they don't need AR15s and other firearms when all conservatives will have to do is bring up these riots and how the police were unable or unwilling to protect them.

Protesters in DC are now going home to home. See how this man and his gun pointed at protesters makes them change their mind.

Gun control arguments made invalid by experience. I love it.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1267674327593279488

Some folks are saying the protestors weren't rioters and they were trying to go into someone's home to escape the gassing. I don't care what they were going in for. All I can tell you is how they are going out.
 
There is a difference between looters/rioters and protesters.

The people marching in the streets with signs and chants this past week.... the people surrounding a state capitol with AR-15 chanting about their rights...those are protesters.

People looting and vandalizing are just criminals and we should not confuse the two.

CNN is showing all the protesters and FOX News is showing all the looters and rioters. I went back and forth between the two and noticed the stark difference in coverage and its message. Both treat this as though the other group does not exist.


That picture is pretty funny, I would not have mind seeing one of those home invaders take one in the face.
 
El OchoCinco said:
There is a difference between looters/rioters and protesters.

The people marching in the streets with signs and chants this past week.... the people surrounding a state capitol with AR-15 chanting about their rights...those are protesters.

People looting and vandalizing are just criminals and we should not confuse the two.

CNN is showing all the protesters and FOX News is showing all the looters and rioters. I went back and forth between the two and noticed the stark difference in coverage and its message. Both treat this as though the other group does not exist.


That picture is pretty funny, I would not have mind seeing one of those home invaders take one in the face.
More...

Completely agree. I'm not concerned about the protesters. They should be out there and as long as no laws are broken I support their right to protest - even if I do not agree with whatever protest they are for at the moment. But the rioters and anarchists need removal from the planet.
 
Tsing Tao said:
... But the rioters and anarchists need removal from the planet.
More...

Do you always believe this? Or does it depend on the issue?

How do you feel about The Boston Tea Party incident? Should the settlers not have protested, rioted, destroyed products? Break the law?

Should they have simply just obeyed the laws, just as you say now?
 
Last edited:
userque said:
Do you always believe this? Or does it depend on the issue?

How do you feel about The Boston Tea Party incident? Should the settlers not have protested, rioted, destroyed products? Break the law?

Should they have simply just obeyed that laws, just as you say now?
More...

Total False Equivalence. And not your first time with this particular false equivalence, either (you've tried it in previous posts).

The Sons of Liberty attacked three ships to protest the Tea Act signing in 1773, and these three ships were owned by Tory sympathizers (Americans, but the SoL saw no difference from them and the British).

The Sons of Liberty did not, to my knowledge, proceed to return to Boston to burn the city to the ground, attack colonists in the street who were trying to defend their businesses, and loot and steal merchandise for the sake of looting and stealing and causing chaos. They were not anarchists. They had had enough of taxation without representation.

You're comparing this to animals in the street who are beating shop owners with 2X4s, braining people with rocks, burning the property of the homeless, smashing and looting merchandise to carry away TVs, shoes ("I got me some shiiiitt!" a woman is heard squealing in delight as she runs off with shoe boxes), burning historical churches, smashing people's cars on the freeway (people who just happen to be on the freeway going somewhere), and all the other acts of complete and total anarchy I've posted in this very thread.

So yes, I really believe what I said.
 
Tsing Tao said:
Completely agree. I'm not concerned about the protesters. They should be out there and as long as no laws are broken I support their right to protest - even if I do not agree with whatever protest they are for at the moment. But the rioters and anarchists need removal from the planet.
More...

The Constitution guarantees the right of "peaceful assembly"... for any and all issues... including protests. Rioting and looting are CRIMINAL ACTS and should be dealt with harshly, not tolerated/endured nor justified!
 
Tsing Tao said:
Total False Equivalence. And not your first time with this particular false equivalence, either (you've tried it in previous posts).

The Sons of Liberty attacked three ships to protest the Tea Act signing in 1773, and these three ships were owned by Tory sympathizers (Americans, but the SoL saw no difference from them and the British).

The Sons of Liberty did not, to my knowledge, proceed to return to Boston to burn the city to the ground, attack colonists in the street who were trying to defend their businesses, and loot and steal merchandise for the sake of looting and stealing and causing chaos. They were not anarchists. They had had enough of taxation without representation.

You're comparing this to animals in the street who are beating shop owners with 2X4s, braining people with rocks, burning the property of the homeless, smashing and looting merchandise to carry away TVs, shoes ("I got me some shiiiitt!" a woman is heard squealing in delight as she runs off with shoe boxes), burning historical churches, smashing people's cars on the freeway (people who just happen to be on the freeway going somewhere), and all the other acts of complete and total anarchy I've posted in this very thread.

So yes, I really believe what I said.
More...

Just to be clear. I did not compare them to animals. I'm not comparing them to any other incident. I asked you about your "obey the law" directive. That question has nothing to do with what's happening now, or any other riots.

Since what they did was breaking the law (Boston Tea Party), and your requirement was that protesters obey the law; was it OK, in your opinion, that they broke the law during the Tea Party?
 
userque said:
Just to be clear. I did not compare them to animals. I'm not comparing them to any other incident. I asked you about your "obey the law" directive. That question has nothing to do with what's happening now, or any other riots.

Since what they did was breaking the law (Boston Tea Party), and your requirement was that protesters obey the law; was it OK, in your opinion, that they broke the law during the Tea Party?
More...

You say you didn't compare "them to animals". I don't know whether this means you believe the current rioters and thugs beating people in the streets as animals or whether they are not, or you're saying you didn't compare the Boston Tea Party (Sons of Liberty) to the current protesters.

You are in fact trying to compare the Tea Party actions to those of today's rioters by asking this over and over. But I don't mind your line of questioning, because my values don't change depending on who asks them or current events. I am steadfast in my principles.

So. Was it OK, in my opinion, that the Tea Party broke the law and stormed American owned ships to protest the signing of the bill? I am not sure. I am an ardent supporter in using violence ONLY as a means to protect my family and what is mine. War should be the answer once all other alternatives are exhausted. I cannot say, having not lived in that time and only having the knowledge that historians have bestowed upon me, whether all other options were exhausted or not.

Not sure if you ever saw the movie The Patriot. But there is an interesting similarity here when Benjamin Martin (played by Mel Gibson) is speaking in Charleston at the gathering of whether Virginia will "vote the levy" and cast its intent to secede with other states. He is concerned about his family and what war will do to the innocent (having been through it already in the French and Indian war a few decades earlier) and he says "I will not fight. And because I will not fight I will not cast a vote that will send others to fight in my stead." He clearly is for what the vote supports, but believes at the time that violence is not the solution. When asked about his principles, he says "I am a parent, sir. I haven't the luxury of principles."

Later in the movie, of course, when presented with no alternative, he eventually gets into the fight when his son is murdered. I like to believe my philosophy is similar. But it is hard for me to make the call as to whether the decisions by the Sons of Liberty were indeed correct from the perspective of my armchair and computer 250 years later.

To be clear, however, the current riots and thuggery let loose on the country right now is nothing like the Tea Party and the Sons of Liberty. The only similarity is that violence was used. That isn't nearly enough to bring equivalency.
 
Tsing Tao said:
You say you didn't compare "them to animals". I don't know whether this means you believe the current rioters and thugs beating people in the streets as animals or whether they are not, or you're saying you didn't compare the Boston Tea Party (Sons of Liberty) to the current protesters.

You are in fact trying to compare the Tea Party actions to those of today's rioters by asking this over and over. But I don't mind your line of questioning, because my values don't change depending on who asks them or current events. I am steadfast in my principles.

So. Was it OK, in my opinion, that the Tea Party broke the law and stormed American owned ships to protest the signing of the bill? I am not sure. I am an ardent supporter in using violence ONLY as a means to protect my family and what is mine. War should be the answer once all other alternatives are exhausted. I cannot say, having not lived in that time and only having the knowledge that historians have bestowed upon me, whether all other options were exhausted or not.

Not sure if you ever saw the movie The Patriot. But there is an interesting similarity here when Benjamin Martin (played by Mel Gibson) is speaking in Charleston at the gathering of whether Virginia will "vote the levy" and cast its intent to secede with other states. He is concerned about his family and what war will do to the innocent (having been through it already in the French and Indian war a few decades earlier) and he says "I will not fight. And because I will not fight I will not cast a vote that will send others to fight in my stead." He clearly is for what the vote supports, but believes at the time that violence is not the solution. When asked about his principles, he says "I am a parent, sir. I haven't the luxury of principles."

Later in the movie, of course, when presented with no alternative, he eventually gets into the fight when his son is murdered. I like to believe my philosophy is similar. But it is hard for me to make the call as to whether the decisions by the Sons of Liberty were indeed correct from the perspective of my armchair and computer 250 years later.

To be clear, however, the current riots and thuggery let loose on the country right now is nothing like the Tea Party and the Sons of Liberty. The only similarity is that violence was used. That isn't nearly enough to bring equivalency.
More...

No one died during the Boston Tea Party. There was no violence and no confrontation between the Patriots, the Tories and the British soldiers garrisoned in Boston. No members of the crews of the Beaver, Dartmouth, or Eleanor were harmed.
https://www.bostonteapartyship.com/boston-tea-party-faq
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top