The Partisan Divide on Issues

[Classic-Xer]

(12-21-2019, 05:35 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(12-21-2019, 04:41 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-21-2019, 02:09 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(12-21-2019, 01:51 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(12-20-2019, 06:51 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: It's nice to reach a consensus on something.

Don't worry, I have gone through that trauma before several times and it hasn't changed my mind. On this issue, I only move on the margins. I am sure that there are too many people with too easy access to military/semi-automatic weapons. There is no such thing as a good guy with an AR-15. (S)he (usually he) can go bad at any time. Nor can an AR-15 or any semi-automatic be used to defend anything. That would just mean that innocent bystanders get killed too by all the shooting. You guys want teachers to be armed, but teachers can go crazy too. We need to take away these guns from everyone as best we can under the law. Confiscation may not be possible, but bans on sales and bans on certain people owning them can be done.

Again, if you want your gun in order to participate in a rebellion against the Left, then that may be another matter. But you won't win your civil war in my opinion unless you organize into an alternate state. Then you will form an army where these weapons belong anyway, just like the Confederates did. Aimless random violence by disaffected "Americans" will not work for you; you won't be able to stop a Left government that way. If you just want to have a semi-automatic to shoot a government official you think is unfair to you, you will be killed yourself for your trouble. If you think semi-automatic weapons are able to stop a criminal in a rural area, well a shotgun does just as well, or better yet, other methods work better, and with less danger that your semi might be stolen or used by a disturbed relative or even yourself to kill themselves or others. You don't live in a rural area though, so that argument does not apply to you. The police forces in this country agree that there should be fewer guns out there; they are outgunned by criminals if they have easy access to AR-15s and such.

It would be ironic if your side wages a civil war in order to protect your right to own weapons whose only viable use is to wage a civil war.

Yes, it's nice to know that we can reach a consensus on at least one thing. It's to bad that the one thing is commonly viewed by most as a good thing. I often wondered why liberals were so excited and seemed to be licking their chops about the idea of economic collapses, economic depressions, getting rid of Christians, getting rid of Republicans and the Republican voters and the US Constitution and the 2nd Amendment and religious rights/religious freedoms of others and so forth.

Oh, it's also nice to know that we (the Americans of the right) are/ will be better prepared to deal with whatever it is that happens then. You have been very consistent about what your crystal ball tells you as far as that goes. So, I see know no reason for me to dispute it or view it as unbelievable or untrue at this point. Also, as I have mentioned, it matches what I've been feeling is coming all a long. Hint, my long time feelings are very accurate. So, it's just a matter of time now.

Hint...What would be so ironic if what you said about us and our relationship with a particular weapon/fireman and a particular class of weapons/firearms that scare you and the liberals so much turns out to be that way? Now, if you had payed attention like you probably should with me, you would have learned that principled people like myself require proof/ justification before those weapons are used for civil war and I've even informed of the boundary's you should never consider crossing or you fucked up and didn't respect or viewed as not being applicable to you or the liberals for some stupid reason.

*paid
*boundaries

I know this will get backlash. Just know I am just simply helping you out. No harm intended.

Would you be kind enough to fly over here and  write for me when I feel like posting? I know that writing for me would help me way more than just doing this  to help me out.  No worries. No harm taken.

No need if you remember how to spell. Easy enough. Kids learn, I am sure adults can too. As for flying, I will be flying but thankfully not to USA. I am flying next month to Slovakia to actually teach English to those who want to learn how to properly speak and spell English.

Nope. You'll be flying off to live in a small and relatively newly established country that speaks a different language located in Eastern Europe that we (the good old USA) basically freed from the Soviet Union. I wish you good luck and hope as goes well for you.

I actually do know how to spell paid and payed and even boundary. Boundary's was okay with spell check. So, I stuck with it. It was a long time ago but I vaguely remember being taught that boundaries and boundary's are both acceptable spellings (one's proper and the other is common but both are viewed as acceptable in today's English language). Payed passed too. I assume the same rule applies. Thirty six years is a long time, ain't that fairly close to your age young lady? Any how, no harm inflicted on my end.

My issue is just not writing a lot or having to write a lot frequently. You don't really need do them much or really need to pay much attention to writing skills when you speak more often than than you write and you are really good at speaking with people directly and carrying/conducting yourself in person and maintaining a certain level of composer/confidence in a real life discussion or dispute. So, how good are you at doing that?