Drones Tanks, we have no chance.... What liberals say.

[_krose]

since you couldn't even name a single current "fascist" country that was previously an open democracy.

Again, that's a straw-man question. Historical Democracy's have been brief, only modern ones have lasted for a bit, but several are showing many signs of becoming fascist.

No, it goes to the gun-nut assumption that an open, democratic country will easily slip into totalitarianism without lots of guns spread around. If that's the case, there should be current examples. These "signs of becoming fascist" you see all around you are most likely in your own mind.

You don't think banning guns is a sign of fascism?

No, and nobody here is even trying to do that. Is banning nerve gas a sign of fascism? Is banning animal sacrifice a sign of fascism?

You don't think banning Big Gulps is a sign of fascism?

No, and nobody did that. Is banning marijuana a sign of fascism?

You don't think banning Ice Cream cones in one town in California is Fascism?

What are you even talking about? Carmel back in 1986, when the town didn't give an ice cream stand a permit for a short time? Or something else.

Billions? Let's see how you add those up. Specifics please.

As to the "Billion" number well..... Why don't you read history when it concerns "weapons control" for yourself? I would say it's in the billions all totaled for the different types of weapons "controls" through history.

Let's see. The specific claim was that "guns and weapons bans have caused billions in genocides through history."

I realize numbers are, like, hard and stuff, so you might not know that just one billion includes one thousand millions. So to get billions (plural), of course that means at least two thousand millions killed in acts of genocide (defined as an attempt to destroy a specific ethnic group).

So not only must you show that (1) these "billions" were murdered as an act of genocide, but that (2) they were all barred from gun ownership. Also, you must show that (3) they would all have opted to own guns given the option, and that (4) they would have been willing and able to successfully defend themselves if only their had the legal right. This is a pretty tall order.

First off, R. J. Rummel at the University of Hawaii has done some excellent work on this subject. He estimates that there have been around 170 million people killed by governments (not necessarily their own), which includes indiscriminate bombing in wartime, such as in Hiroshima and Dresden. The numbers for actual genocide are much lower than that.

Even in places where gun ownership is protected by law, most people do not choose to own guns. Even here, only about 34% of American households contain at least one gun, and we have to assume that most of those are not well suited for military conflict.

As to whether Jews in Germany, for example, would have been successful in an attempt to resist the German military and secret police, that seems very doubtful. A lot of them would have died in the attempt rather than in the camps, so I guess that's something. But it no doubt would have been a futile attempt by badly outnumbered, outgunned and out-skilled soldiers.

[_ldsfaqs]

I'm still waiting for your crystal ball that PROVES that Americans will NEVER need their guns from either domestic or external fascism? And don't think that just because it's external that guns aren't necessary that government can provide them. You have no clue of the economic and legistics to first have gun manufacturer's producing guns to fill the demand and delivering them in time to make any difference whatsoever. Now, if you were stockpiling guns and ammo for every American in such an event, that would be an argument for at least external threat, but you're not, and you won't.

Further, wheres the "magic" that protects the individual from violent assault and death?
I'm still waiting why they/we don't have the human right to self defense, when there are VAST more lives saved/protected because of guns than those who die by them.

How is it that around a 100,000+ (some say 2Million) person's protected isn't of MORE WORTH than the 11,000 who die let alone are wounded by criminal gun usage.

Yes, they are trying to ban guns. It's the END RESULT in every case it's done country or city.
First they ban certain types, then they ban more types, then guns period in toto.
Liberals ultimately want gun's banned, they've almost all said it even at various points, when claiming they aren't. Don't blame me for your ignorance and sheeple.

Yes, Bloomberg in New York is trying to ban Big Gulps. Where have you been?

Yes, something else. Cones were sometimes dropped, and so one California place banned them.

All I have time for, I just keep proving you wrong, and you ignore the facts.

[_krose]

Man, it truly is pathetic how you continue to repeat completely false numbers and lies that you seem to believe are facts. Here is one of the silliest:

Yes, Bloomberg in New York is trying to ban Big Gulps. Where have you been?

Paying attention to facts, unlike you. The truth is that convenience stores (such as 7-Eleven, who sells the trademarked Big Gulp) were never covered by the New York statute limiting drinks to 16 ounces. Of course, that doesn't stop nonsense statements like the one above. And that's typical of your lists of "facts."

I don't have a clue where you might have come up with the nonsense about fascist ice cream cone bans. You don't appear to know yourself.

[_krose]

Please forgive me, Mr. faq. As I have given this subject more prayerful thought, I now realize that I have been so wrong. I am sorry for ever daring to criticize your outstanding knowledge of... well, everything. I must repent and be more like you and Jesus.

Of course you are right, as are your impeccable sources. At least a millionty-gazillion-billion lives have been saved by people flashing guns at bad guys. Of course. The proof of that is all the millions of people who are now dead because they don't carry guns. Since only a tiny percentage of Americans carry them around, and they are still able to save all those multitudes of lives with them, it stands to reason that the hundreds of millions of us walking around without that special protection must be getting gunned down like in a Bronson flick. Oh, the carnage.

Why are we so stupid? Why do we just go about our business as if our lives are not constantly in jeopardy? How do we dare take our families downtown to dinner and a show, without our precious guns in our pockets, ready to shoot down the marauding hordes lying in wait to murder us all? Why?

And why are we so blind that we do not see the fascists hiding around every corner and under every bed, just waiting for us to put down our guns for a moment, so they can pounce on us and take over our country?

I am so ashamed.

[_ldsfaqs]

Man, it truly is pathetic how you continue to repeat completely false numbers and lies that you seem to believe are facts. Here is one of the silliest:

Yes, Bloomberg in New York is trying to ban Big Gulps. Where have you been?

Paying attention to facts, unlike you. The truth is that convenience stores (such as 7-Eleven, who sells the trademarked Big Gulp) were never covered by the New York statute limiting drinks to 16 ounces. Of course, that doesn't stop nonsense statements like the one above. And that's typical of your lists of "facts."

I don't have a clue where you might have come up with the nonsense about fascist ice cream cone bans. You don't appear to know yourself.

Your journey to the Dark Side is complete Lord Krose.....

A standard Big Gulp is "32" Ounces!!!

When you can outright lie and so easily not believing EASY FACTS like the size of a Big Gulp, there is no hope for you in good or truth. You had better repent like you mockingly pretended to do above. God knows the corruption in your heart and mind, even if you don't.

[_krose]

... convenience stores (such as 7-Eleven, who sells the trademarked Big Gulp) were never covered by the New York statute...

A standard Big Gulp is "32" Ounces!!!

Oh dear, how embarrassing for me. Here I was under the silly impression that because the store that sells the Big Gulp was not covered by the law, they could sell any size drink they want.

The Bloomberg statute specifically covered restaurants, theaters, and street carts, not stores. But in my terrible ignorance, I apparently missed the awesome intimidation power of modern American "fascism." It appears to be so great that even those who don't have to limit their drink sizes will do so anyway... out of fear or something.

Those people I saw coming out of that NYC 7-Eleven store holding Big Gulps must have gotten them on the black market or something.

[_beastie]

Oh dear, how embarrassing for me. Here I was under the silly impression that because the store that sells the Big Gulp was not covered by the law, they could sell any size drink they want.

The Bloomberg statute specifically covered restaurants, theaters, and street carts, not stores. But in my terrible ignorance, I apparently missed the awesome intimidation power of modern American "fascism." It appears to be so great that even those who don't have to limit their drink sizes will do so anyway... out of fear or something.

Those people I saw coming out of that NYC 7-Eleven store holding Big Gulps must have gotten them on the black market or something.

I'm going to save ldsfaq the hour or so it would take him to figure out and type a reply and channel him. I'll even provide two alternatives.

A. I was talking about Big Gulp in the way to mean just a big drink, hence, you LIE.

B. If you weren't such an evil, lying, devil-worshipping liberal, you would know better than to trust your stupid sources. When will you stop LYING?

[Guest]

Oh dear, how embarrassing for me. Here I was under the silly impression that because the store that sells the Big Gulp was not covered by the law, they could sell any size drink they want.

The Bloomberg statute specifically covered restaurants, theaters, and street carts, not stores. But in my terrible ignorance, I apparently missed the awesome intimidation power of modern American "fascism." It appears to be so great that even those who don't have to limit their drink sizes will do so anyway... out of fear or something.

Those people I saw coming out of that NYC 7-Eleven store holding Big Gulps must have gotten them on the black market or something.

I'm going to save ldsfaq the hour or so it would take him to figure out and type a reply and channel him. I'll even provide two alternatives.

A. I was talking about Big Gulp in the way to mean just a big drink, hence, you LIE.

B. If you weren't such an evil, lying, devil-worshipping liberal, you would know better than to trust your stupid sources. When will you stop LYING?

Nice half truth attempt, but not quite..... See below. Liberals don't think as in depth or accurately as conservatives with facts truth and logic.

[_ldsfaqs]

Oh dear, how embarrassing for me. Here I was under the silly impression that because the store that sells the Big Gulp was not covered by the law, they could sell any size drink they want.

The Bloomberg statute specifically covered restaurants, theaters, and street carts, not stores. But in my terrible ignorance, I apparently missed the awesome intimidation power of modern American "fascism." It appears to be so great that even those who don't have to limit their drink sizes will do so anyway... out of fear or something.

Those people I saw coming out of that NYC 7-Eleven store holding Big Gulps must have gotten them on the black market or something.

1. The ban DID originally include all drinks over 16 ounces including Big Gulps. But they encountered several problems.

A. Convience Stores could not be classified/regulated under their Government health authority.
B. The word got out, and so like liberals do they just ban what they can get away with.
C. 7-Eleven was planning a large store expansion, and so they lobbied to make them exempt.

2. It is CALLED the "Big Gulp Ban".... Even the court when blocking the ban called it that, since that's what everyone calls it.

3. "Big Gulp" is normative society nomenclature when referring to many "large" soda drinks, even when they are not actually "the" Big Gulp. My point was valid, period.

4. WHAT THE FLIP DOES IT MATTER??? It's entirely a FASCIST law, and not only that it's completely ARBITRARY. If you read several of the articles on it, it showed all the holes and lack of any sort of reasoning or common sense if the ban was to ban "large sugar drinks". I mean, how many "Resturants" sell large drinks? Almost none! How many hotdog venders? Almost none. The only thing they got was Theatres. But worse, they ignored so many other things that have FAR MORE sugar, including JUICE DRINKS!!! I also don't know about you, but in the theatre the size of the drinks are just right if you're getting a medium/small popcorn, maybe nachoes etc. Why do we have to miss some movie just to get more drink?

The bottom line point wasn't the "Big Gulp" itself, is WAS THE BAN.....!!!!
That's what I was talking about.
So, please tell us how this ban is not Fascist, which is the POINT???
Don't be the predictable liberal changing the point and creating a straw-man to then attack being an Offender for a Word.

Tell us also how Bloomberg banning "salt" also in certain amounts isn't fascist?
Tell us also how him banning guns isn't fascist, but it's okay for him to walk around with armed body guards?

And another thing..... The COURT blocked the ban, that's why you are seeing people with large drinks still, not simply big gulps.

[_Analytics]

Just to be sure I understand the point, ldsfaqs wants to be well armed so that he can literally go to war against US government officials and the people who support them because the government is being fascist by taking away his Big Gulps.

At the risk of putting myself in the crosshairs of the people who want to kill fascists, I'll state that this thread proves some people really shouldn't have guns.