Clay Jones for January 19, 2011

  1. Cat7
    rockngolfer  almost 13 years ago

    We should have guns to protect our homes.

    Our taxes should pay for protection in our daily travels.

    Law abiding citizens should have guns to protect in extraordinary circumstances, like in parks where wildlife can kill.

     •  Reply
  2. Bari sax
    edrush  almost 13 years ago


     •  Reply
  3. Me 3 23 2020
    ChukLitl Premium Member almost 13 years ago


     •  Reply
  4. Missing large
    WestTex13  almost 13 years ago

    The only purpose of providing citizens with guns and not restricting the conditions of that right is to provide them a method to defend the country, themselves and their rights when unusual and dangerous circumstances present themselves.

    We won’t even try to get into intent of the 2nd amendment under the criteria in the federalist and anti-federalist papers.

     •  Reply
  5. Missing large
    Magnaut  almost 13 years ago

    unfortunately true…..with more guns the ‘shooter’ would have been shot on the spot.

     •  Reply
  6. Missing large
    curiosity1  almost 13 years ago

    @Magnaut - perhaps. And how many bystanders as well?

     •  Reply
  7. Birthcontrol
    Dtroutma  almost 13 years ago
    How many ARMED police officers are shot every year in America? A bystander at the Tucson shooting WAS carrying. He realized he COULD have shot a guy with a gun- the guy who’d just taken it away from the REAL shooter! HE also realized that if he DID draw his gun, OTHERS might see him, be armed, MISTAKE him for “the bad guy” and shoot HIM! He used intelligence and assessment and did NOT pull his weapon out!!

    He did the right thing– how many would have the presence of mind to NOT get themselves shot?

     •  Reply
  8. Warcriminal
    WarBush  almost 13 years ago

    Hey! I made the toon! I love Glocks!

    But I didn’t read Mein Kampf Clay! What are you implying?

     •  Reply
  9. Jollyroger
    pirate227  almost 13 years ago

    I plan to read “Mein Kampf” to gain a better understanding of neocons.

     •  Reply
  10. Missing large
    WestTex13  almost 13 years ago

    Well actually Pirate if you wanted to understand Neocons then you would need to read 10 Things You Can’t Say In America by Larry Elder. The author of Mein Kampf was a part of the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei and that would be a left wing socialist group.


     •  Reply
  11. Jollyroger
    pirate227  almost 13 years ago


    “From the outset, the DAP was opposed to non-nationalist political movements, especially on the left, including the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD) and the newly formed Communist Party of Germany (KPD).”

     •  Reply
  12. Missing large
    WestTex13  almost 13 years ago

    As a professor once said, “When you have to quote wikipedia, then you have already lost the arguement.” When you are composing a list of leftist movements that may oppose one another, merely assuming that because some are more centrist than others that they are of the opposition party or conservative does little to change the fact of where their baseline principles lay. When your options are National Socialist, Socialist Democratic and Communist then you are merely dealing of different factions within the same political philosophical slant. Its like saying a child molester is different than someone who sleeps with a 14 year old girl. The difference is merely semantics without a solid ground of differentiation. Look up Hitlers philosophy and distribution ideations within a centralized government and you will realize that it is a far stretch from the right. We can debate this all night long but if you want to utilize wikipedia as you political resource then you are merely wasting both of our time.

     •  Reply
  13. Jollyroger
    pirate227  almost 13 years ago

    ^ So, a reference to facts means you’ve already lost?

    At least I provided a reference, where are yours?

    Am I supposed to take your word for it? LOL!

    No, need to answer any of those questions, I agree this is a waste of time.


     •  Reply
  14. Missing large
    WestTex13  almost 13 years ago

    The point I was making was apparently something that slid right over your narrow point of view is simply that you can give anyone 5 minutes and Wikipedia can say Hitler wore pink bunny splits and snorted cocaine with Madonna. It never has been and never will be accepted as a legitimate source of debate in any academic setting or even common sense though apparently neight apply to dealing with your logic. When the opponent views socialism as the right instead of the left which Hitler proclaimed himself as a socialist then you have a skewed way of thinking..

    But if you want some sources then: Davidson, Gienapp, Heyrman, Lytle, and Stoff

    Alan Bullock, Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, paperback, p. 41

    ibid., p. 80

    Thomas Sowell, The Economics and Politics of Race, p. 83

    ibid., p. 85

    David Welch, The Third Reich: Politics and Propaganda, p. 103 7C.C. Aronsfeld, The Text of the Holocaust, p. 23

    Take your mindless rhetoric elsewhere because when your opponent has actually bothered to read the topics which you espouse false knowledge of then they can only conclude that you are an misinformed idiot who is running their mouth when they should be using their mind. Google and wikipedia are hardly solid sources of knowledge but hey someone printed it online so it has to be correct, is that the logic?

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment

More From Clay Jones