Lookin4GoodArgs
Warning: Rule 3, Bad Faith Comment
You immediately jumped to accusing them of being conspiratorial without asking them to explain their reasoning.
Warning: Rule 3
Pre-emptively characterizing future responses as sexual harassment is textbook bad faith.
Also, you both should've stopped a long time ago. Or, if you insisted on continuing, should've clarified the terms of discussion, which clearly revolved around what "meltdown" meant.
Is all gun control a violation of your 2nd amendment rights?
It's extremely biased, but not garbage. I say this as someone that has watched and read right wing news for years. Heritage Foundation is garbage. Cato is ideologically consistent and actually has good arguments. AEI is also good for extremely biased arguments.
Okay, sure. I'll concede the point. They're cities run by Democrats. So what? You're concerned about these high murder rates? How? What concerns you about them?
Actually it was quite necessary, my point was proved.
What made a bunch of different comments necessary to prove your point? Why couldn't it have been proven in one?
On topic quotes from someone conservatives claim to love is fine.
Six different comments is just unnecessary. If someone wants to respond to a particular quote, they can...quote it.
Next time, just use one comment.
You should support your claim, but I'll entertain to you:
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/murder-map-deadliest-u-s-cities/53/
| City | Murder Rate per 100,000 Residents |
|---|---|
| St. Louis, Missouri | 64.54 |
| Baltimore, Maryland | 58.27 |
| Birmingham, Alabama | 50.62 |
| Detroit, Michigan | 41.45 |
| Dayton, Ohio | 34.18 |
| Baton Rouge, Louisiana | 31.72 |
| New Orleans, Louisiana | 30.67 |
| Kansas City, Missouri | 29.88 |
| Memphis, Tennessee | 29.21 |
| Cleveland, Ohio | 24.09 |
Dayton, OH is definitely Republican. Hella glad I moved away from that place. Otherwise, I have no idea. Being in the heart of Tennessee, Memphis is probably Republican?
In any case, most of those cities are in Republican states.
Official Warning: Rule 1
Keep it argumentative, not abusive.
The point of reducing gun availability isn't to reduce instances of violence, it's to reduce the carnage after it. The force multiplying effect of a knife is significantly less than most guns.
If we assume people are violent and dangerous, then we should limit the damage they can do.
Except both removed posts did break rule 2. Neither NYT.com nor CNN.com represent the American right wing.
It's super easy: just go to any one of these sites that have a right wing bias, find the same story from a right wing perspective, post it here, then post your comments in the comment section. You will have thus followed rule 2 and said what you had to say. Yeah, you'll have to skim the article to see that it says what you want it to say, but that's the whole point of the community: exposing leftists to things they wouldn't otherwise be exposed to and giving them the chance to argue with people who agree with that content.
As a mod, I'm not asking you to do anything I wouldn't do. In fact, most of my posts come from The Federalist. And then, when you read my comments, you'll see that I generally do not agree with anything the publication has to say.