So a parent can kill their 3 month old child, despite it being heavily dependent on the mother as it was as a fetus?

Well, no, because it's socially undesirable to simply allow mothers to murder 3 month old children. Not to mention, you'd probably want to look into a case like that anyway for mental illness. A 3 month old child's capacity to suffer is exponentially larger than that of a zygote.

If you're concerned about suffering, then you should scream bloody murder every time somebody kills a fly.

Quote from: Kinder on November 09, 2014, 01:01:05 PM

I'm 95% against the death penalty. I only support it in the most heinous crimes when it can be proven without unreasonable doubt the person is guilty

But yet it's still a form of murder. Heinous crimes or not you're still supporting the action of talking this persons life which is something they did to somebody else. It's funny that you say abortion is murder, but you're supporting the killing of someone.

Quote

Against gun control.

Why? What good comes out of criminals being able to walk into a gun shop and being able to get a gun? What harm is there in having better background checks to  help prevent another movie threat shooting? It's funny that you're against abortion, but yet when it comes to something to help prevent criminals or insane people from killing innocent people you're against it.

Quote

That's a Constitutional right.

Why should owning a gun be any different than a driver license? Should owning that be a right as well?

Quote

tempering with it will lead to bad things

How would something like making it illegal to sell guns at yard sales or better background checks lead to bad things? Wouldn't you say someone that orders hundreds of rounds online that isn't part of a gun range may lead to something bad?

mur·der
ˈmərdər/Submit
noun
1.
the unlawful[/u] premeditated killing of one human being by another.

Care to read the bold underlined word for me there chap? It says unlawful. There's a major difference between a fetus and a convicted mass killer: One is an innocent life. The death penalty is sure most way to ensure a person without unreasonable doubt of committing mass killing can't escape and continue (because it has happened before)

Huh, tell me where I said I'm against background checks? Hint: I didn't. I'm opposed of gun control, as in more. We currently have gun laws on the books so it's the presumption those are grandfathered in, while against the creation of new laws. Funny enough, the theater in Aurora was the ONLY theater that banned guns so it was the effect of gun control, through gun-free zones, that led to people dying. Same with Forth Hood, Sandy Hook, Columbine, VA Tech: All gun-free zones (yes, even military bases. Clinton signed a law making only MPs to have ammo with their duty weapons, no body else)

What part of Constitutional right did you miss? Gun ownership is a right; driving a car/having a driver's licenses isn't. But totally ignore that to buy a gun, you still have to fill out paperwork. All the 2A does if GUARANTEE a person can own a gun

When was the last time you heard of a person selling guns at a yard sale? 99% of the time, private transactions are done between family and close friends, people the seller feels comfortable with and knows who are not felons. How can a person be part of a gun range? People go to the woods and do some target practice there. A person buying 100+ rounds online is no indication of something bad, as people like to keep ammo around in case of an emergency. What's funny is that alcohol and tobacco kill more people annually yet nobody questions a person buying cases of wine online

I'm willing to bet they modernize/moderate themselves on social issues by 2016. We know Rand Paul will be running on that side and he's talking about how conservatives need to let go of gay marriage and pot.

I think they stand a chance to take it if they can keep the crazy out of the message, without causing a civil war with the social conservatives of the party. Moderate Repubs have won the last two primaries, so its possible. Dems are spinning their wheels atm, and Hilary is no Obama when it comes to speaking / hyping the base.

If Slash would have posted something from limbaugh then you'd discredit the fuck out of it

CONSERVATIVE OPPRESSION!

Quote from: Mad Max on November 09, 2014, 02:44:09 PM

Quote from: Kinder on November 09, 2014, 02:42:06 PM

If Slash would have posted something from limbaugh then you'd discredit the fuck out of it

CONSERVATIVE OPPRESSION!

Same with you also. You cry MUH BIAS yet defend people who post biased shit or do so yourself

Welcome to Being Human 101.

Quote from: Kinder on November 09, 2014, 01:40:15 PM

the unlawful[/u] premeditated killing of one human being by another.

So then if the death penalty isn't murder then neither is abortion since it's legal. Just like the death penalty abortion is also the legal killing of a human.

Quote

Funny enough, the theater in Aurora was the ONLY theater that banned guns so it was the effect of gun control, through gun-free zones, that led to people dying.

Do you really think if somebody had a gun they would have stopped the guy from killing? You're in a dark crowed movie theater with people all around you. Do you really think you can safely get a clean shot on this guy with people panicking all around you?

Quote

Sandy Hook

Quote

What part of Constitutional right did you miss?

Which was writing back in the 1700's. Times change my freind and so does the tech with it. Back then guns were far different than what they are today. If you want to have a shooting like that school or movie theater you will need more than one gun.   

Quote

Gun ownership is a right; driving a car/having a driver's licenses isn't.

Like I said how isn't it any different though besides guns being listed in the constitution? With your drivers license if you do something you can loose the privilege of having it. If you have a condition that prevents you from getting one. That is also the same with a gun. If you have a certain charge you loose the "right" to own and buy one. The same goes for your condition as well. So how is gun ownership not the same when it's setup the same as your drivers license? They are both privileges.

Quote

But totally ignore that to buy a gun, you still have to fill out paperwork. All the 2A does if GUARANTEE a person can own a gun

It could still be done better. Every year you should be required to do a free background check to make sure you're still sane enough to own one,

Quote

When was the last time you heard of a person selling guns at a yard sale?

The town near me has local yard sales days. There's a house that sells guns. It may not be common, but it still happens.

Quote

A person buying 100+ rounds online is no indication of something bad, as people like to keep ammo around in case of an emergency.

True buying that much ammo online doesn't mean you have the intent to, but it still doesn't change there isn't somebody that does. For myself I feel that the amount of ammo you are ale to buy online should be regulated. If you want to go over the amount then you have to go to a place that sells it. You do some type of background check and if you pass then you are able to buy to your hearts content. If the store doesn't have the amount you need then it orders it online for you which ships to your house. If you can't make it to the store then you call them up to make the order.

Quote

What's funny is that alcohol and tobacco kill more people annually yet nobody questions a person buying cases of wine online.

Except that case of wine isn't made for killing things.

Depends on what state you live in and the laws regulating the trimesters

Well let's see, the fact all other theaters allowed weapons deterred the dude from targeting those theaters out of fear and possibility a movie goer would be armed. Notice how these killers don't shoot up gun shows: Because people are armed there.

The 1A 4A was written back in the 1700s also and there were no computers, emails, cell phones, phones, etc. Does that mean they don't follow under those rights? Interestingly, guns back then were not so different. There existed was a gun that was the predecessor to the gatling gun, along with a rifle that held 21 rounds that many founding fathers and Americans owned at the time

lolno. A drivers license is a privilege. Gun ownership is a right. Of course you will loose gun ownership if you break certain laws, but the fact gun ownership is explicitly defined in the Constitution means regulating that is no different than regulating speech or regulating who can vote or what counts as probable cause

It's done perfectly. You fill out a form, it goes to the state police, and they run a check. If anything comes up then it's a no go. It's simple, easy, and doesn't require a doctorate to do. One of the very few things the government knows how to efficiently do something. Think that over for a second, what's stopping California from making a person not "sane" to have something minor as ADD or a one-time incident of minor depression? Establish a regulation like that and ignorant states will basically ban gun ownership because of stringent definitions and regulations, much like the idiotic AWB

And when was the last time a person bought a gun from them and committed a crime?

This spark of irrational and unfounded fear is the VERY reason the NSA and government spying programs still exist and passed in the first place. Might as well just force everybody into bouncy rooms with padded clothing because regulating ammunition only stops the good people from buying. Criminals don't care about laws if you have not noticed. All these regulations accomplish is the effect of a matrix that gives the impression everything is better when reality is that it isn't

Except wine kills more people annually. If you're going to suggest annual checks for gun purchases, then establish checks for people who buy alcohol. On top of that, drunk drivers kill people also; the purpose of alcohol IS to distort a person's perception. Why do you think people buy it?

I'd like to see the younger generation of republicans take the spotlight. All we see are crotchety old religious dudes that never had an interest in science and see Congress as a paycheck and status. Not that there aren't plenty of democrats that are the same, but the dems have the social media game on lock.