Will Congress act now?

Will the Congress enact more gun control?

  • Oh, yea, absolutely!

    Votes: 2 5.4%
  • Never fucking happen

    Votes: 35 94.6%

  • Total voters
    37

Chezus

Well-Known Member
Opioid prescription drug deaths dwarf shooting deaths, yet there’s no call to ban Big Pharma

Americans continue to mourn the dozens of people who were killed and hundreds wounded by a crazed lunatic in Las Vegas on Sunday,and as is usually the case when guns are involved in a mass ...

https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-10-09-opioid-prescription-drug-deaths-dwarf-shooting-deaths-yet-theres-no-call-to-ban-big-pharma.html
Adams' love for woo isn't restricted to medicine. Cold fusion and so-called free energy ideas and devices like the Energy Catalyzer are presented on his website with the same enthusiasm as the latest alternative medicine fad.[68][69] He collects news about chemtrails.[70] He is a 9/11 truther,[71] Birther,[72] and pretty much everything else-er. Also a Sandy Hook denialist.[73] He considers Alex Jones, Jeff Rense, and David Icke to be "REAL heroes",[74] and Icke[75] and whale.to[76] to be reliable sources. Curiously, he supports Ron Paul, who is a real medical doctor and not a practitioner of woo (in the field of medicine). This could be because Paul supports "health freedom,"[77] despite Adams simultaneously supporting health care reform and Cuba's health care system.[78]

NaturalNews advances a hard green position, even though the site also promotes global warming denialism.[79] To top it off, Adams promotes conspiracy theories about gun control.[80]

He thinks Scientology (of which he is an ex-member)[8] is treated unfairly.[81][82] According to Adams, this is due to attempts by anti-religious bigots and (you guessed it) Big Pharma to oppress their belief system in order to protect their profits.

As well as Sandy Hook, Adams has also issued his informed opinion of the 2012 Aurora, Colorado shootings, declaring that they were "obviously" staged, or perhaps that the killer, James Holmes, was involved in "experimental" neuroscience that got out of hand.[83] Furthermore, he says the 2013 attacks on the Boston Marathon were a false flag operation by "private military contractors."[84]

In 2014 Adams wrote several articles where he tried to prove that the Malaysian airplane disaster in March 2014 was a government cover-up, and that the plane was secretly made into a "stealth weapon", possibly carrying nuclear weapons. He also stated that he believed that the people behind the cover-up could go as far as "secretly sink some aircraft debris in the Indian Ocean so they can "find it"." Even though he believes the passengers might have survived he states that "world governments are rolling out their 'official' stories, there is no question in my mind that they will do anything to support those official stories, even if it means discarding the lives of all the passengers."[85]

The site also tends to predict that any sizable storm heralds the collapse of the economy and the end of civilization.[86][87]

Also, "conventional physics" is a conspiracy of the same sort as conventional medicine.[88
 

Heil Tweetler

Well-Known Member
Opioid prescription drug deaths dwarf shooting deaths, yet there’s no call to ban Big Pharma

Americans continue to mourn the dozens of people who were killed and hundreds wounded by a crazed lunatic in Las Vegas on Sunday,and as is usually the case when guns are involved in a mass ...

https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-10-09-opioid-prescription-drug-deaths-dwarf-shooting-deaths-yet-theres-no-call-to-ban-big-pharma.html
You fucking half wit. An asshole can grab all the bullets he ever dreamed of because of the stupidity of shit brains like you.
 

PCXV

Well-Known Member
So what do you do when the "protector" of society, a coercion based central authority government is also the biggest violator of other persons rights ?
Why would the people (the government in a democracy) infringe on their own rights? If the people don't like the law, the people have the power to change it. If they really don't like it, they can leave. If they can convince enough people to follow to overthrow a truly tyrannical government, that power is self-evident.

It isn't based on coercion, it is based on voluntarism. It isn't a central authority government, it is a republic.
 

PCXV

Well-Known Member
arguably a bolt action rifle off the 2nd floor would have done way more damage.

then what, bolt ban?
That doesn't seem true. Let's give you a bolt action rifle that holds under 6 bullets and send you into a gun fight against a guy with bump-stock rifles and extended magazines. Fair?
 

PCXV

Well-Known Member
Opioid prescription drug deaths dwarf shooting deaths, yet there’s no call to ban Big Pharma

Americans continue to mourn the dozens of people who were killed and hundreds wounded by a crazed lunatic in Las Vegas on Sunday,and as is usually the case when guns are involved in a mass ...

https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-10-09-opioid-prescription-drug-deaths-dwarf-shooting-deaths-yet-theres-no-call-to-ban-big-pharma.html
There is no movement against opioid addiction? Get real. There are multiple lawsuits and it is the biggest concern for many state and local elected officials. Unfortunately, Republicans are fighting tooth and nail to not fund the efforts to fight that epidemic.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Why would the people (the government in a democracy) infringe on their own rights? If the people don't like the law, the people have the power to change it. If they really don't like it, they can leave. If they can convince enough people to follow to overthrow a truly tyrannical government, that power is self-evident.

It isn't based on coercion, it is based on voluntarism. It isn't a central authority government, it is a republic.

http://voluntaryist.com/


Not the greatest constructed website, but a good deal of insightful information. If you do bother to check it out, you might go to the section on fundamentals to gain some idea of where I'm coming from. Peace.
 

SunnyJim

Well-Known Member
You may have missed my point. When I initially mentioned my assumption that he was against slavery, I was referring to the kind that most people accept, not the kind that I often refer to. I was making a comparison between the kind of slavery most people recognize and more subtle kinds that often go unrecognized, but that I recognize.

It looks as though your assumption seems based on a failed understanding of my initial assumption.
This is the worst kind of style. Basic fake news.

No one but you assumed anything. You made all the assumptions, attributed those assumptions to others (without having any quotes to support them), and concluded that those assumptions were conflicting and that they somehow evidenced someone else's muddled thinking.

Evidently, all you do is guesswork, and then you have the temerity to assign the results of your guesswork to someone else as evidence of them drawing contradicting conclusions.

Very poor form indeed.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
This is the worst kind of style. Basic fake news.

No one but you assumed anything. You made all the assumptions, attributed those assumptions to others (without having any quotes to support them), and concluded that those assumptions were conflicting and that they somehow evidenced someone else's muddled thinking.

Evidently, all you do is guesswork, and then you have the temerity to assign the results of your guesswork to someone else as evidence of them drawing contradicting conclusions.

Very poor form indeed.
Nice use of temerity. You got me pegged.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
No conflict, just dismay at your reluctance to admit to your straw men. It's no way to form a coherent argument.

I can quote them again for you if you like.

I see your point. I have no affirmation that Sneeky Ninja is against slavery. I did draw what I think is a reasonable conclusion that he was. I'll send him a really good x-mas present to make up for it.

Coherent argument ? Sure that'd be great, what do you think of the math example I used to prove my point regarding the illegitimacy of an involuntary government ? Would you like to make an argument against it or do you still need to stroke your "prove Rob Roy wrong boner" a little while longer?
 

SunnyJim

Well-Known Member
I see your point. I have no affirmation that Sneeky Ninja is against slavery. I did draw what I think is a reasonable conclusion that he was. I'll send him a really good x-mas present to make up for it.

Coherent argument ? Sure that'd be great, what do you think of the math example I used to prove my point regarding the illegitimacy of an involuntary government ? Would you like to make an argument against it or do you still need to stroke your "prove Rob Roy wrong boner" a little while longer?
The philosophical debate surrounding the 'illegitimacy of an involuntary government' cannot be reduced to a '0 + 0 = 0' equation. If you want the discussion to progress, you have to employ specific language. Ambiguity muddies the waters.

First, define the parameters. What is an involuntary government, and by whom and on what grounds can it ever be legitimized?

There you go with the boner chat again. I do not consent to showing you my penis, just so we're clear.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
The philosophical debate surrounding the 'illegitimacy of an involuntary government' cannot be reduced to a '0 + 0 = 0' equation. If you want the discussion to progress, you have to employ specific language. Ambiguity muddies the waters.

First, define the parameters. What is an involuntary government, and by whom and on what grounds can it ever be legitimized?

There you go with the boner chat again. I do not consent to showing you my penis, just so we're clear.

*which grounds


Okay specifically then, can a person delegate a right he or she does not possess ?
 

SunnyJim

Well-Known Member
*which grounds


Okay specifically then, can a person delegate a right he or she does not possess ?
*what grounds - 'what' being defined as an open set where the possibilities have not been defined, as opposed to 'which' being defined as a confined set of possibilities where all are mentioned. Try harder.

I don't understand why you're asking another question without being able to define the parameters of your previous one.

What is an involuntary government, and by whom and on what grounds can it ever be legitimized?
 
Top