Comments by "CynicalBroadcast" (@CynicalBastard) on "Amber Guygers' Castle Doctrine Defense is Unadulterated Bullshit" video.

  1. Hindsight is only 20/20 if it isn't a big fat Mexican tailing a black kid home.
    10
  2. Those who protect themselves are those who are in fear. There is no weaseling out of this plain and simple dichotomy. You don't protect yourself from what you aren't afraid of.
    1
  3. Have you? are you aware of how reality, and ideas, and words, work? Protection = fear of damage or injury.
    1
  4. Some people aren't afraid. There's the answer to your diatribe.
    1
  5. Fear is an emotional/hypothalamic response. Threat recognition and response calibration are logical considerations related to existential continuity. There IS a difference See? You are shook. What difference? Where? I see none. You just confirmed what I already said. Danger, the fear of threat, the threat of damage - either monetary, property, or physical to your person - is the driving force of your 'right-to-ought' arguments, but yet, there is no influx here upon your rights- you just think there is, because you're obsessed with the federal concept of government. The antifederalists warned about this rising tide. It's easy to see. Consolidate, the CEOs should rightly say, if only, if only they could get everyone to settle on an agreement- they ponder. Alright Mr. Or Mrs. Invincible. You have fun Have fun being corralled and trammeled in like cattle in your CEO-made mindfuck land.
    1
  6. I have no belief in "rights", or in anything else It's doubtful many people would agree with this response, for themselves, in their heart of hearts. I recognize will, the intelligence to shape it, and the skill to focus it So basic shit. Got it. The left has that too. Will, that is; and the...well...maybe they could be lacking a certain intelligence, but so does the right-wing, so, I'll say, it's more like an intelligibility that can be shaped...and skill? well, you can have focus, as much as it may wax or wane, but this theory of yours isn't "skill-based", is it? Where is the skill involved? "Rights" are for those who need the help of others to enforce the abstract decrees of paper documents: deeds, wills, contracts, etc Yeah, and most people rely on them, because they aren't coordinated enough to do otherwise, that's why a constitution was drawn up- because it was the only sensible thing [seemingly] to do. I seek no "rights", only the knowledge and means to perpetuate my genotype Yeah, you and everyone else.
    1
  7. Yeah, totally good move for criminal elements, cochise. Haven't worked in law enforcement before, have ya?
    1
  8. Are you implying that criminals would not cross state lines with a firearm no matter what the law says? No. I'm implying that there is a reason why states do not want illegally sold guns crossing from state to state. You pleb. What difference does it make if I have worked in law-enforcement? All the difference. You don't know what law enforcement goes thru with criminal elements and having guns smuggled across state-lines, which end up killing civilians and themselves. Frankly, a police officer would want to limit the capacity for something like that.
    1
  9. It only affects law abiding citizens So? more guns that move across the border, even if "legally owned", because criminal elements own "legally owned" guns. Duh. Criminals can use a gun to commit crime in any state. Restricting movement of guns shouldn't restrict gun crime, because guns should be available in every state Yes, work backwards from the logic that police use to ultimately protect themselves -- because all that matters is the 'right to ought'. But alas, there is probably rationale for why the laws work as they do now. No state should be able to restrict gun ownership, because of the 2nd amendment. That's the point That's a fairly discarded "point". Plenty of contradictions in the constitution, itself, & when regarding law- look at the 14th and the 1st? no conflict? nah. Right? No private sector conflict of interest? Well, but of course, there is. Also, states rights would predominate in cross-border jurisdiction. You are thinking of some magical fairy-tale land where the US isn't actually composed of separate states [with individual states rights] and where America is just a giant confederation. Criminals break the law to get their guns. Law abiding citizens should be able to have their own guns Yeah, and they are. You have to make an argument...not just utter platitudes. The 2nd amendment makes this a non-controversy There already is no controversy, save the shit you "conservatives" are making up [you're really federalists]. Anything who pushes for gun control is going against the Constitution, the majority of the American Public, and common sense No one is doing that, ultimately. Not at least on the right-wing. The right-wing in America wants to further bolster their gun rights, but don't see a way to legitimately set that precedence.
    1
  10. You're making a shit argument for infringing on my Constitutional right to keep and bear Arms uninfringed No, I'm not. but the fact that you think I am shows how egregious your thinking is. The fact that you call it "your right" also speaks multitudes [it's everyone's right to also do with their borders what they will]. Do tell, what a criminal is doing (that they will do regardless, hence CRIMINAL) has to do with law abiding citizens? I don't know, since I'm not making excuses for either of them.
    1