zapatos

When? Can you provide a citation? Credit Suisse seems to still be fighting charges related to money laundering as of last year.

Perhaps you can set an example for us and quit pointing your fingers at the few nations you are singling out. The irony here is killing me.

Well, I'm glad I didn't then. But thanks for the heads up.

You asked if reason worked. It's kind of hard to prove it does if I cannot use examples.

deleted Yes, it works all the time. That's is how we got Infrastructure passed and how we've gotten this far with Build Back Better. Admittedly it works less well with gun laws as so many are on the extreme right, but it is how you get the people in the middle to move one direction or the other.

And others do. But two people telling each other about their opposing opinions doesn't accomplish much. If you want to convince people to change the status quo you need a reasoned argument, not personal belief. If I tell you that some guy I know sees a reason for a non-military person owning a semi-automatic weapon, I'm pretty sure you'll not change your position on personal ownership of semi- or automatic weapons.

Yes, you stood up and did the right thing. Fifty years after you stole money from Jews. And only after being sued. Talk about being hypocritical.

So because we discriminated against blacks, we should have stood silent as Jews were murdered? Give me a break.

Well, the part of your position that I responded to was when you said "I see absolutely no reason for any non military personel to own any semi or automatic weapon." I most certainly did not say that "reasonable, sensible gun laws may have prevented this" was irrelevant.

No, my analogy was perfect as both opinions were the same thing; irrelevant. Because it is off-topic in this thread.

My comparison was that you had an opinion and I had an opinion, neither of which are germane to the Rittenhouse trial or the laws that decided the case. Thanks for the clarification as that is not what you said when I posted my comment. You said "A God fearing nation... deserve what they get." Perhaps you can understand why I misunderstood you.

As I said conservatives generally control the legislatures, so that is not going to happen any time soon. Of course it is. And to millions of others, on both sides of the debate. And I see no reason for anyone to ever need to eat Vegemite again. I'm afraid neither one of our opinions is going to do much to change things. Well, that's a bit harsh. I certainly don't think I deserve to be shot while in school or a movie theater, and neither do the people who voted in the conservatives. I also think people who do illegal drugs don't "deserve" to overdose, and women who gravitate toward 'bad boys' don't "deserve" to get abused on occasion. And certainly Australia, who abused their indigenous peoples, don't deserve a deadly response from said peoples.

Yep. Exactly.

Then you should have said that, instead of saying your "not understanding" had to do with "the debate about the legalities and letter of the law". As far as why carrying guns at any demonstration is not in violation of any law, it is because the Second Amendment is a right within our constitution, and as such it trumps laws that would infringe on that right. Unless the Supreme Court changes their mind on that issue or the constitution changes, that is the way it is here. As far as why "any country can not see the crazy results in your constitution, that allows ownership of any semi or automatic weapon period, and the general laxity in your laws with any Tom Dick or Harry, being able to own a firearm for some fabricated reason involving 'self defence".", it is because just like you did here, people tend to argue that point with emotion rather than reason. And finally, as to why "in the US with so many mass killings/massacres, that your democratic party, and non redneck Republicans, cannot stand up to your NRA and tell them its time for reasonable gun laws.", it is because conservatives generally control the legislatures and the courts.

I think it was the correct judgement, and feel that it is more important to show integrity within our legal system than to slap the living shit out of some pissant who so desperately needs it. I'm also confident that we will take no action to create a more sensible and safe environment due to the slavish worship of the Second Amendment. Yes, that is why I said "being "wrong" has no criminal consequences."

It is because in the US, as well as your country and probably others, being "wrong" has no criminal consequences. You must violate the legalities and letter of the law to be held accountable.

It doesn't. Please leave now so that we don't accidentally corrupt you.

Give me a break. Citation please.

It's your post man.You said it. I quoted it. You quoted it yourself. I think this thread has run its course for me.

You are either moving the goalposts or are unaware of what you originally said.

This part. Right here. Please provide this evidence you mention. Why did your dog attack your neighbor if not for the fact they were ignorant of who the person in the parka was?

Which is because they are understand them. It's two sides of the same coin, and you are saying your side is valid and my side is not. That's what I keep saying; it is not scary if they understand, it is scary if they don't. I can't understand why you keep telling me my side of the coin is wrong, followed by why your side of the same coin is the correct.

No, but you did suggest there was evidence, which is what I took exception to, which you have not provided, nor have you retracted the statement.

Simply put, because you have no choice. If you are afraid, you are afraid. I can't say "I'm about to be eaten by a wolf but why worry about it because that is the way things are?" Fine. It's what is lurking in the dark. Either way they are afraid. Fine. It's possibly a home invader or escaped convict. Either way they are afraid. Because they understand distant sirens and airplanes. It is the things they don't understand (like what is hiding in the dark, or if the sound is really a home invader or escaped convict) that cause the fear. Was that a constraint we were following? Either way it is fear of things not understood. Citation? My dog is afraid of thunder, my cat is afraid of the things that I'm unable to sense, my chickens are afraid of geese flying overhead, and just today I scared the hell out of one of my alpacas when I wore a bright red jacket for the first time.

Cool! Can you list that evidence here for me? Of course lack of evidence for a deity is not the same thing as evidence for no deity. A minor point but one I find many with the title we shall not call you fall into. 😀 I've never much cared for this argument. It sound too similar to the theist who says "since you can't know for certain that no god exists, why not believe in him just to be safe?" Neither the scientist nor the theist makes a good case (or any case for that matter) for why you should accept their side. In neither case is it reasonable to expect that someone can change what they believe in simply as a matter of convenience. Beliefs don't change like that. I don't know why they wouldn't have been. Certainly people today are afraid of the unexplained cause of natural phenomena. Kids are afraid of the dark. Adults are afraid of the unexplained sounds of a house settling. Many are afraid of the hereafter. Early men would have many more unexplained natural phenomenon than we do.