Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

Ingot54

To Arm or to Disarm.

Recommended Posts

  smmatrix said:
THE REAL PROBLEM:

 

What can dumb a mind down to such an extent that the person no longer can see

real people any more and loses all touch with humanity and reality?

 

In a word ... fear.

 

Fear of "them"

Fear of the future

Fear of the delirious scenario

Fear of loss ... of the consequences of not being "prepared"

Fear of not being superior to any and all threats, perceived or real

Fear of being humbled

Fear of not winning

Fear of the "bad guy" laughing at us

 

Yes, Smmatrix, those who want to carry guns for ANY of those reasons, is already

dumbed down to the concept that a violent response will overcome a violent offense.

 

Now that is dumb.

 

You didn't ever get back to me with the answer to the question: "Have you ever tried

love?" ... except to take the cheap shot at me (paying attention) and thus appear to

have answered something ... (answered what? ... I do not know).

 

I think you are afraid of intimacy, and the guns provide you with a way to prevent those

closest to you from engaging you intimately. Your guns always empower you ... not your intellect.

 

If you had your guns taken from you, and had to stand up and justify your use of

violence to counter perceived violence ... you could not do it.

 

Your cellar is empty - devoid of intelligent and even emotional engagement at a level

that could take the very first, tiny step towards ridding society of the need to even

remember what a gun used to be.

 

In a world that I strive for, I want no one to carry a weapon, save for his brain and his

ears and occasionally his mouth, but certainly he will require his good heart.

 

Right now that world is only a concept, but I think it is a worthwhile goal.

 

And if there are enough Ingot54's out there, we can achieve it, though some Ingot54's

may pay a price for it.

 

I am willing to die for such a dream, my dream.

 

Just as you seem suicidally bent on dying for yours.

 

At the end of the day, one of us will achieve our dream.

 

You'd better hope it is me.

 

In the meantime, going back to the quote above ... don't talk to me of "humanity" - you

wouldn't have the first idea of the word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

compassion.png

 

If the lib-nuts really did care about love and compassion, they would speak up against the real atrocities going on with the children, rather than trying to take guns away from law abiding citizens.

 

 

compassion.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  smmatrix said:
compassion.png

 

If the lib-nuts really did care about love and compassion, they would speak up against the real atrocities going on with the children, rather than trying to take guns away from law abiding citizens.

 

 

compassion.jpg

Which one are you glorifying ... justifying ... asking us to choose?

 

Introducing a red herring (abortion) instead of staying with the topic is not a legitimate tool of debate - it wins debates ... yes, but the intent of the discussion is then lost - and the ego wins again.

 

How is bringing in the topic of abortion going to address the topic of putting assault weapons in the hands of school teachers ... effectively encouraging violence as a response to violence?

 

It does not address this issue, and cannot - the issue of death-by-abortion is an attempt to introduce a sub-topic and I cry foul!

 

Get back to the topic.

Edited by Ingot54

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Cory2679 said:
I don't appreciate .......
I don't appreciate wanton violence portrayed in Hollywood movies, X-box games and in the minds of many gun collectors. Bushmaster ad slogan "Consider your man card reissued" which they have now taken down off their site. Wonder why? :roll eyes:

 

If I had the final say, which obviously I don't nor anyone else in this fu@#ed up world, would ban MOST guns - not just assault, semi-assault, pseudo-assault guns.

 

No condescension just opinion, like everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Ingot54 said:

 

Introducing a red herring (abortion) instead of staying with the topic is not a legitimate tool of debate - it wins debates ... yes, but the intent of the discussion is then lost - and the ego wins again.

 

How is bringing in the topic of abortion going to address the topic of putting assault weapons in the hands of school teachers ... effectively encouraging violence as a response to violence?

 

Get back to the topic.

 

I responded to your repeated questions regarding love. I'm sorry if my answer doesn't appease you and now you're crying foul to get back on topic. I understand dead babies are not things the lib-nuts rather discuss in the same context as love.

 

We can get back on topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being outside the USA I sincerely hope you can come to some meaningful progress on restriction of access of firearms.

It is so sad to see a stream of massacres, from what I can see is unrestricted access to firearms, from your shores.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like there is alot of passion on this topic. Is there any data or studies or any fact linking a decrease in violence and or violence in schools with guns in conjunction with an increase in gun laws and and or gun restrictions? How do we know that an increase in gun laws will directly decrease gun violence? Do states that have stricter gun laws have proportionate to a lower gun violence rate? Are there any facts or just assumptions and opinions?

 

Seems like the thread slid into abortion, God, and gun control with 2 hands. Did the state that this latest tragedy happen have gun laws that allow you to walk into a gas station buy a pack of smokes and an AK? Was it a state that had similar laws to most of the states. Are the laws more restrictive then most states?

 

Is it possible that an increase in gun legislation has little or no effect on violence? DO other countries that have stricter gun laws have lower violence? Or do they just have lower gun violence?

 

Can some one link the studies to the facts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  smmatrix said:
Tams, you must not know your firearms. Those weapons in your image are fully automatic weapons and are NOT legal in the USA. And, yes, that junk food garbage should be illegal in the US because the sheeple will eat anything sold.

Wrong.

 

They are not legal for new purchases.

 

They are legal by those who had already owned them before legislation outlawed them and can actually still be sold to others if need is shown and proper licensing are obtained to effect ownership change.

 

Of course it is probably a snowball's chance in he!! someone would acknowledge owning such weapons and also that they would like the government's blessing to sell them to someone else.

 

George Carlin - said something like "ban toys guns but allow the real ones. Insane".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Colonel B said:
Seems like there is alot of passion on this topic. Is there any data or studies or any fact .......
Gun nuts like to point out high gun murder rates in cities like Chicago and Washington, DC with tough guns laws.

 

In isolation it is hard to point to studies and say a ha. See it works. Oh no it doesn't.

 

Guns don't stop at city and state borders because of a law on the books.

 

If anything they move into areas that are restricted same as the bootleggers during prohibition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  smmatrix said:
I responded to your repeated questions regarding love. I'm sorry if my answer doesn't appease you and now you're crying foul to get back on topic. I understand dead babies are not things the lib-nuts rather discuss in the same context as love.

 

We can get back on topic.

 

Gun control is not a conservative/liberal issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  SunTrader said:
Gun nuts like to point out high gun murder rates in cities like Chicago and Washington, DC with tough guns laws.

 

In isolation it is hard to point to studies and say a ha. See it works. Oh no it doesn't.

 

Guns don't stop at city and state borders because of a law on the books.

 

If anything they move into areas that are restricted same as the bootleggers during prohibition.

 

Right, Gun Nuts. We don't want to hear from them. We (or at least I do) want creditable sources that have at least attempted to discover the facts pertaining to the topics.

 

So if its like bootleggers during prohibition then we all know how that ended. It ended with an amendment to the constitution I believe.

 

It seems that a consequences at this point is more guns on the street. I would be willing to bet that an unintended consequence of this whole situation is more people carrying guns and more opportunity for folks that shouldn't have access to them. I have seen a bunch of stories about the increase of gun sales and magazine sales from many different news sources. They all point to the fear that Obama will crack down hard on gun control. So it appears at least at this point that a crack down is at least at this point having the opposite intended effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  smmatrix said:
compassion.png

 

If the lib-nuts really did care about love and compassion, they would speak up against the real atrocities going on with the children, rather than trying to take guns away from law abiding citizens.

 

 

compassion.jpg

 

LOL... then why do you need to arm to the teeth to protect yourself from a 280lb intruder in the middle of the night? That ain't going to happen to you. There is no chance in hell that is going to happen to you... your "fear" is unfounded, according to your stats. You are more likely to have died before you were born !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Colonel B said:
Seems like there is alot of passion on this topic. Is there any data or studies or any fact linking a decrease in violence and or violence in schools with guns in conjunction with an increase in gun laws and and or gun restrictions? How do we know that an increase in gun laws will directly decrease gun violence? Do states that have stricter gun laws have proportionate to a lower gun violence rate? Are there any facts or just assumptions and opinions?

 

Seems like the thread slid into abortion, God, and gun control with 2 hands. Did the state that this latest tragedy happen have gun laws that allow you to walk into a gas station buy a pack of smokes and an AK? Was it a state that had similar laws to most of the states. Are the laws more restrictive then most states?

 

Is it possible that an increase in gun legislation has little or no effect on violence? DO other countries that have stricter gun laws have lower violence? Or do they just have lower gun violence?

 

Can some one link the studies to the facts?

 

we are one confused bunch of cookies

Edited by Tams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I can see how my questions can seem confusing. It is kind of funny asking for facts from irrational people who seem bent on pushing opinions as facts.

 

Also kind of an oxymoron to ask anyone on TL to produce facts to back up opinions. But hey I thought it was worth a try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Colonel B said:
Yes I can see how my questions can seem confusing. It is kind of funny asking for facts from irrational people who seem bent on pushing opinions as facts.

 

Also kind of an oxymoron to ask anyone on TL to produce facts to back up opinions. But hey I thought it was worth a try.

 

You want facts. Lead by example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Colonel B said:
Right, Gun Nuts. We don't want to hear from them. We (or at least I do) want creditable sources that have at least attempted to discover the facts pertaining to the topics.

 

So if its like bootleggers during prohibition then we all know how that ended. It ended with an amendment to the constitution I believe.

 

It seems that a consequences at this point is more guns on the street. I would be willing to bet that an unintended consequence of this whole situation is more people carrying guns and more opportunity for folks that shouldn't have access to them. I have seen a bunch of stories about the increase of gun sales and magazine sales from many different news sources. They all point to the fear that Obama will crack down hard on gun control. So it appears at least at this point that a crack down is at least at this point having the opposite intended effect.

 

Hate to quote myself but apparently I have to lead by example....... again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Colonel B said:
LOL funny how when you ask a few questions people get offended. LOL I did post some already. Why don't you go and read the ones I posted. Or not and continue to be ignorant.
I suppose crackhead Charlie Sheen thinks a Bloomberg news article passing for facts these days too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  SunTrader said:
I suppose crackhead Charlie Sheen thinks a Bloomberg news article passing for facts these days too.

 

LOL... TL ppl made millions on Bloomberg news. We have been missing the boat. :doh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Thx for reminding us... I don't bang that drum often enough anymore Another part for consideration is who that money initially went to...
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • How long does it take to receive HFM's withdrawal via Skrill? less than 24H?
    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.