Reply With Quote
To save lives?
and
maybe you don't have to take rights away - maybe start hearings to improve the laws - ban assault weapons, make owning a gun a lot more difficult?
Or I could ask you -
why do you want children to continue getting slaughtered?
Random.Guy relies heavily on hyperbole to make an attempt at a point. He cannot talk plain speak, he has to spin everything.
To save lives?
and
maybe you don't have to take rights away - maybe start hearings to improve the laws - ban assault weapons, make owning a gun a lot more difficult?
Or I could ask you -
why do you want children to continue getting slaughtered?
There's nothing in the testimony that proves that check was for what Cohen suggested it was for. If the do entation was proof then Cohen's testimony was redundant. All you would need would be the do entation, testimony would not be required.
So the problem here is that there's some circular reasoning going on. Also the proof that was asserted to have existed was considered proof before anyone ever saw it and in reality it's just a check that could be for anything. It's quite likely it is for exactly what he said but there's no evidence of that other than his testimony.
Maybe before you start talking about guns and assault weapons and things you should understand the technicalities of what you're talkin about. A lot of times when liberal people start trying to infer new gun laws they don't know what is already on the books. Educate yourself a bit, then come back with some relevant terms and understanding of existing gun laws.
If you do that and you still have the exact same opinion about what needs to happen I'm sure you will have an audience.
Will banning assault weapons or making gun ownership more difficult ENSURE that no children are killed in an act of violence or negligence? How many children were killed in mass shootings in 2019? How many were killed in abuse?
If you can show that anything you suggested would significantly reduce the likelihood of children dying I think more people would support it.
Again. You are not exactly accurate.
You spew arrogance and insults constantly - and if you were accurate - then maybe it would come off as just an impatient curmudgeon.
The fact that you are so inaccurate -- well -that speaks for itself.
Nothing in the check proves...?
Let's just take that part -
Wrong. Cohen's sworn testimony adds to the fact that there are checks and how the crime occurred. Weisselberg's testimony (either in the future - or in the past with the SDNY) adds to the fact - or perjures weisselberg - if he lies -
The tape recording where Trump is discussing the porn star pymts and trump offers CASH - add to the evidence.
Any other evidence the SDNY is in possession of adds to that evidence until you put it all together to convict someone - WHICH THEY ALREADY DID. COHEN has been convicted of this and a judge had to approve the charge and the evidence.
So
Cohen's testimony was absolutely tons more than just hearsay.
I own my home and I live in Austin. How's that diabetes treatment going for you? Is that why you torque off all the time?
So now future events are proving things. I'm not sure exactly how that works but I'm sure you going to drop some string theory on me.
Your capacity for critical thinking is one of the lowest on the Forum. I don't expect you to latch onto this wisdom I'm trying to impart to you however it's a good thing you never have sat on the bench other than that one outside of the McDonald's where that ing plastic clowns sits.
Ok thanks - oh great master of wisdom!
Racism tends to imply race.
Are you saying one of the requirements for being "conservative" is race?
Consider that pro bono
(shrugs)
Not really. We all make judgments about truth, and future events.
Whether or not you would admit to it, you have an estimation as to how likely it is that the Trump children will be called in front of House subcommittees.
Well you already said earlier that the majority of white supremacist supremacists are conservative and part of the Trump group.
This is why I suggested hearings/talks.
There is a good probability that gun deaths and massacres/school shootings would decrease.
Before seats belts were mandated - people railed against it and cursed and bandied theories about dem communists -
after -
auto deaths decreased significantly and cars became safer.
In Japan - they regulate gun ownership severely - they don't BAN them - just make it really hard to own one and only people who really really care about owning a gun do - and they follow the rules and look up their gun deaths.
Great - more insults.
Why are you so unhappy and constantly attack those who have different opinions than yours?
I don't feel the need to speculate on the odds of some random prediction you've made. It will unfold before our eyes and we will see what happens and we can talk about it after the fact. Wishcasting isn't my thing unless it's James Harden and I can pretty much tell you for a fact he's going to fold in the playoffs.
Well I think you're between a rock and a hard place right now and you're trying to paint yourself as a victim. It comes with the territory get used to it. You should know this already I don't know how many times you've registered new accounts here.
Well in Japan the hand can be used like a knife but with a tomato that won't work.
Great - more inaccuracy.
So it's pretty clear that you're only concerned with solving GUN related child deaths...and not child deaths in general. If that is the only thing you want to fix, then yes, banning guns is the only way to accomplish it.
In the last twenty years (since Columbine in 1999) - there have been 85 children killed in a school shooting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School...#United_States). That is 0.00003% of the US population. You're really going out on a major crusade to fix an epidemic of massive proportions.
In 2016 alone there were 1,750 child deaths related to abuse in the US. Extrapolated over twenty years that is 35,000 innocent children that died. (https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/fatality.pdf)
Why are you setting your sights so low?
Exactly.
These things aren't complicated despite the desperate flagellation of gun nuts to obfuscate reality.
Randomguy makes random predictions.Whether or not you would admit to it, you have an estimation as to how likely it is that the Trump children will be called in front of House subcommittees.
I wasn't asking you to speculate, merely clarify your thinking. You have declined, and my point still stands.
Admit it or not, you have your own estimation, conscious or otherwise as to the likelihood of Trumps children being called into House hearings, as well as the likelihood of them pleading the 5th amendment.
You keep your counsel, that is your prerogative.
No one is saying we can't do both.
This isn't an either/or kind of thing.
Lastly, your math is off. Re-read your link:
Just since Sandy Hook the figure is MUCH higher.As of October 2018, the ten deadliest school shootings in the United States since the 1999 Columbine High School massacre in Colorado
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...-parkland.html
When a gunman killed 20 first graders and six adults with an assault rifle at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, it rattled Newtown, Conn., and reverberated across the world. Since then, there have been at least 239 school shootings nationwide. In those episodes, 438 people were shot, 138 of whom were killed.
I took out the university shootings. Spurs Homer was specifically concerned with children dying.
Which rights that are specifically laid out in the Cons ution would you propose taking away from US citizens to keep children from dying at the hands of abusers?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions