The correlation between guns and mass murders

He bailed out every blue state politician who shut down their local economies for Covid. For example here in Illinois the incumbent governor Pritzker ran ads bragging how he balance the Illinois budget. Nothing could be further from the truth! Joe Biden shipped boxcars of federal cash to Illinois which is a blue state in order to balance the budget the year of a gubernatorial election. Biden paid Pritzker to shut down the state of Illinois and he did. That is totalitarian, the people who were prevented from going to their jobs and earning a paycheck were prevented by force. That is totalitarian by definition.
I see no links to support any of that.
 
So what kind of things "pop up" on your internet feed? You know how those algorithms work, right? You read a conservative article, and the algorithm sends you more similar stuff, creating an echo chamber. It's literally how the social media algorithms work (same with articles with a liberal slant).

So what sources, exactly, tend to pop up? And if you don't actually know what they are, why do you trust them? What have they done to actually EARN your trust, other than present information to you consistent with your own worldview?
I gave you another example. In the case of the Colorado shooter, once it was discovered he was an alphabet person, the MSM drooped the story like a hot potato. That is the pattern of the MSM, Would you believe them.
 
I gave you another example. In the case of the Colorado shooter, once it was discovered he was an alphabet person, the MSM drooped the story like a hot potato. That is the pattern of the MSM, Would you believe them.

No, you didn't give me any example of what source(s) you actually use or what source(s) "pop up" on your newsfeed that you trust. Not one. Not a single one. You just said that the mainstream media dropped the story. You said nothing of what source(s) you actually use.
 
No, you didn't give me any example of what source(s) you actually use or what source(s) "pop up" on your newsfeed that you trust. Not one. Not a single one. You just said that the mainstream media dropped the story. You said nothing of what source(s) you actually use.
I really do not keep track. Sue me.
 
No, you didn't give me any example of what source(s) you actually use or what source(s) "pop up" on your newsfeed that you trust. Not one. Not a single one. You just said that the mainstream media dropped the story. You said nothing of what source(s) you actually use.
you have to know what their bias is. Objectivity is a general myth.
 
Where did I "blow off" cross examination? Let's review. In response to appeal to the wisdom of the founding fathers, I made the point that the founding fathers also codified slavery in the constitution.
What part are you addressing as it relates to slavery in the Constitution? What part of the constitution codifies slavery? Your quote was below and you used slavery as an analogy to gun rights.
The founding fathers also thought codifying slavering into the constitution was a good idea at the time. That idea became outdated and was changed with amendments. There is no reason to believe it can't happen to the outdated idea of absolute gun rights.



You then said: "Like the Old Testament? What about the New where Jesus uses slaves as examples?" In an effort to figure out how this is any kind of response to me,
You brought up the subject of slavery in the first place in the constitution. Jesus also uses slaves as examples in the New where some get a few whips and others get many whips without judgment of right and wrong. It could be argued slavery is codified in the Old Testament. Regulated for the benefit of slaves
I asked "You are not seriously supporting institutional slavery, condoned by the US government, are you?"
That was the whole trigger. Is Jesus supporting slavery? How bout whipping slaves? Any questioning brings about the veiled accusation of supporting slavery. It is a schoolboy cheap shot. You did it again and even emboldened it. Ignored the previous answer. You brought up slavery. Was Jesus condoning slavery and whipping of slaves? Does the constitution use whippings as punishment for slaves?
That is not "blowing off" your remark. It is asking for clarification on what you intended to prove by that remark.
For one the analogy of slaves and gun rights is weak. It ignores guns were used to free slaves in the south in the civil war. They had gun rights, including free blacks who were former slaves. They remained free and did not forfeit their gun rights after it was over. They held on to their guns for protection against white mobs. Under your gun-grab model, blacks would not have been able to defend themselves against angry racist mobs.
Was it to show that the founding fathers had wisdom in codifying slavery?
It was an issue for them that had to be addressed
Or was there some other point. Was it that Jesus was just as bad in his support of slavery.
If we follow your logic then i don't see how you can assume otherwise. You seem to imply some sort of moral lapse on the founding fathers for codifying slavery and use that as an analogy to ban guns.
If you insist I will address that directly. Jesus mentioned slavery because it was a fact of life at that time.
And slavery was not a fact of life at the time of the Constitution?
He in no way supported it or urged his followers to codify it into law.
They already had law. Roman law allowed slavery as did Hebrew law. So?
So, no. Jesus was not as bad as that.
You mean not as bad as the founding fathers? You come across as two-faced on that one.
Even the Old Testament is focused most of all on leading the chosen peopled out of slavery. Nowhere in the Old or the New Testament is slavery every extolled as a good thing.
Where is slavery extolled as a good thing in the constitution?
It is more often described as an evil,
Where? Mistreatment is in Job.
But that is quite a bit off topic,
You are the one who brought it up.
We have come to realize that slavery is bad. And we will also come to realize that have a saturation level of guns is also bad.
How so? What is saturation level and who are you to say how many guns a citizen may legally own? Owning a gun is not analogous to owning a slave or many slaves. Anyways i have had enough of this for now.
 
Last edited:
I really do not keep track. Sue me.

It’s not an issue of “sue me”. It’s an issue that you’re trusting in sources that you don’t even know what they are or where they get their information from. We know from your own testimony and from knowing how social media algorithms work that you are being fed a constant stream of likely super conservative stuff. I don’t mind that but you aren’t showing the slightest bit of interest in knowing who these sources are or doing any real fact checking of them. You like them because, apparently, they agree with your political bias, not because you have any other reason to trust them.

For me, I use conservative sources like TownHall (for commentary) and Drudge and Fox News. But I also read CNN, USNews and World Report, and a variety of other things. I know where their biases are and I play them off one another to make my own judgments.

You appear to simply read what “pops up” on your feed, which is almost certainly nothing but right wing stuff from “sources” you can’t even name. Doesn’t that, if you really think about it, come off as just a little problematic to you?
 
It’s not an issue of “sue me”. It’s an issue that you’re trusting in sources that you don’t even know what they are or where they get their information from. We know from your own testimony and from knowing how social media algorithms work that you are being fed a constant stream of likely super conservative stuff. I don’t mind that but you aren’t showing the slightest bit of interest in knowing who these sources are or doing any real fact checking of them. You like them because, apparently, they agree with your political bias, not because you have any other reason to trust them.

For me, I use conservative sources like TownHall (for commentary) and Drudge and Fox News. But I also read CNN, USNews and World Report, and a variety of other things. I know where their biases are and I play them off one another to make my own judgments.

You appear to simply read what “pops up” on your feed, which is almost certainly nothing but right wing stuff from “sources” you can’t even name. Doesn’t that, if you really think about it, come off as just a little problematic to you?
I use some local commentators that you probably do not know. Plus beyond the initial reporting i pay scant attention to any analysis or commentary.
 
It’s not an issue of “sue me”. It’s an issue that you’re trusting in sources that you don’t even know what they are or where they get their information from. We know from your own testimony and from knowing how social media algorithms work that you are being fed a constant stream of likely super conservative stuff. I don’t mind that but you aren’t showing the slightest bit of interest in knowing who these sources are or doing any real fact checking of them. You like them because, apparently, they agree with your political bias, not because you have any other reason to trust them.

For me, I use conservative sources like TownHall (for commentary) and Drudge and Fox News. But I also read CNN, USNews and World Report, and a variety of other things. I know where their biases are and I play them off one another to make my own judgments.

You appear to simply read what “pops up” on your feed, which is almost certainly nothing but right wing stuff from “sources” you can’t even name. Doesn’t that, if you really think about it, come off as just a little problematic to you?
If I know what bias they have, why does it matter if I know the name?
 
I agree with that.
Then you're an idiot.

Idiots think stuff like objectivity, trustworthiness, bias and credibility are binary. ie. you've either got it, or you don't.

The reality is that all four things lie on a sliding scale. A person can be somewhat trustworthy or somewhat biased (for example).
 
I see no links to support any of that.
Do you seriously expect to find an article from the Amazon Post corresponding to the summon substance of my comment? If you were so unaware of the world around you that you don't know the political ads that Pritzker ran or don't know that Illinois has more debt than it can ever pay in 1 trillion years then you were quite uninformed about the world around you.
 
You know what would have "benefitted the slaves" even more?
In the ancient world most slaves were captured on the battlefield, and the alternative was "take no prisoners." So compared to the alternative, slavery was a marked improvement. And if you don't know why they weren't just released in mass you might take a look at that Kirk Douglas movie, Spartacus again.

 
If only there were an all-powerful god that could have enabled a third way...
Ah, well.
Like one that will demand recompense for the guilty and mercy and grace for the redeemed? We have that! Stay tuned for the final chapter.
.See above.
If memory serves, they don't depict the part where the Romans put all the slaves to death. You were just supposed to remember that part.
 
Like one that will demand recompense for the guilty and mercy and grace for the redeemed?
No; one that doesn't involve the deity commanding his followers to conquer nations that don't kowtow to him.
If memory serves, they don't depict the part where the Romans put all the slaves to death.
Maybe the Romans could have refrained from conquering everything they set eyes on... if only there were a god to tell them not to.
 
Back
Top