View Poll Results: Do you Support Assault Weapons Ban?

Voters
4695. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    2,830 60.28%
  • No

    1,865 39.72%
  1. #41181
    Legendary! TZucchini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Wish it was Canada
    Posts
    6,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Tinykong View Post
    Back peddle, away!
    I guess this is an admission that you've now gone back, realized it was blatant sarcasm, and have run out of productive things to say.

    Good.

    No, their laws are not preventing criminals from accessing illegal firearms.
    You have no idea whether or not that's true. The 70% number tells us nothing.

    There could have been 10 firearm crimes, and 7 of them came from the United States. Meanwhile, in a country of millions, you'd say "Well, 70% of those guns were trafficked...therefore their laws are not working.

    What a ridiculous statement. Again. What's their firearm homicide rate? Firearm suicide rate?

    Keep on back peddling, you might just convince yourself:
    Guess you missed my previous explanation as well:

    Yes, I've spoken to reducing ownership. And to clarify, while additional restrictions and regulations might reduce the ownership rate, it would only do so by disenfranchising individuals that shouldn't (imo) have access to firearms to begin with. That would be the only ownership decrease that I'd actively seek.
    Eat yo vegetables

  2. #41182
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    I guess this is an admission that you've now gone back, realized it was blatant sarcasm, and have run out of productive things to say.
    No, it wasn't. It was you, using your opinion, to create a "sarcastic" example of someone making a ludicrous claim.

    Let's sum this up:

    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    I guess flat out saying you don't care about ownership rates isn't good enough to prove it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tinykong View Post
    No, because it's contrary to the position you've been building for over two years.
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    Then provide a quote directly from me that supports your assumption. It shouldn't be difficult.
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    An increase in negligent and accidental discharges is also a bad thing, and yet another reason why we should reduce and restrict ownership, imo.
    Thanks for playing PRE-911!
    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    I am ACTUALLY ASKING for them to ban me and relieve me from the misery of this thread.

  3. #41183
    Legendary! TZucchini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Wish it was Canada
    Posts
    6,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Tinykong View Post
    He's been vocal about reducing ownership for years.
    I've been vocal about reducing irresponsible ownership. There's no sense in reducing ownership for the sake of reducing ownership. And even though I just said that, you still won't believe me. /shrug
    Eat yo vegetables

  4. #41184
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    I've been vocal about reducing irresponsible ownership. There's no sense in reducing ownership for the sake of reducing ownership. And even though I just said that, you still won't believe me. /shrug
    Holy fucking goal post movement.

    I wish I could dub Rush Limbaugh stuttering and chortling here as you wiggle and deflect your way out of having to admit you are wrong.
    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    I am ACTUALLY ASKING for them to ban me and relieve me from the misery of this thread.

  5. #41185
    Legendary! TZucchini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Wish it was Canada
    Posts
    6,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Tinykong View Post
    Holy fucking goal post movement.

    I wish I could dub Rush Limbaugh stuttering and chortling here as you wiggle and deflect your way out of having to admit you are wrong.
    Goal post movement? "Negligent and accidental discharges" are examples of irresponsible ownership. That's the type of ownership I want to reduce. It's right there in the entire quote.
    Eat yo vegetables

  6. #41186
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    Goal post movement? "Negligent and accidental discharges" are examples of irresponsible ownership. That's the type of ownership I want to reduce. It's right there in the entire quote.
    Did you read?

    You said, in clear and unambiguous language, that negligent and accidental discharge was yet another reason why we should reduce and restrict ownership.

    That clearly implies there are more reasons. This "irresponsible" ownership is the goal post movement you're currently gyrating through because you got caught lying.
    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    I am ACTUALLY ASKING for them to ban me and relieve me from the misery of this thread.

  7. #41187
    Legendary! TZucchini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Wish it was Canada
    Posts
    6,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Tinykong View Post
    You said, in clear and unambiguous language, that negligent and accidental discharge was yet another reason why we should reduce and restrict ownership.

    That clearly implies there are more reasons.
    Well yes, there are more reasons. There's several other examples of irresponsible ownership. Those are all reasons. They're all a type of ownership that I'd like to eliminate.

    But restricting access for the sake of restricting access is idiotic, and I do not support it.
    Eat yo vegetables

  8. #41188
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    Well yes, there are more reasons. There's several other examples of irresponsible ownership. Those are all reasons. They're all a type of ownership that I'd like to eliminate.

    But restricting access for the sake of restricting access is idiotic, and I do not support it.
    Who said anything about restricting just for the hell of it? More goal post moving.

    You have been vocal about repealing the second and reducing ownership, for various reasons, and have provided the studies you believe support that position. I would say that it's almost unbelievable that someone would claim that they never said something...but, then again, we've got people on these forums who delete their posts and claim they never posted them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    I am ACTUALLY ASKING for them to ban me and relieve me from the misery of this thread.

  9. #41189
    Legendary! TZucchini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Wish it was Canada
    Posts
    6,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Tinykong View Post
    Who said anything about restricting just for the hell of it? More goal post moving.
    Are you fucking kidding me? I stated that reduction in ownership is not my endgame. You replied with "The internet isn't big enough to contain the number of eye rolls needed here."

    So you do think that reduction in ownership is my endgame? That would be reduction for the sake of reduction. It would mean that all I care about is reduction in ownership. Even though I was quite clear that that's not my endgame.

    Oh, and TwoNine said it was about restricting just for the hell of it. So yeah. No goal post moves. Just false fallacy claims from Tiny.

    Quote Originally Posted by TwoNineMarine View Post
    The fact that people refuse to admit that that is the endgame for a lot of folks is just sad.
    Eat yo vegetables

  10. #41190
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    Are you fucking kidding me? I stated that reduction in ownership is not my endgame. You replied with "The internet isn't big enough to contain the number of eye rolls needed here."
    What a failure of a dodge. Now we're going to get into some pedantic argument about what you mean by "endgame." You're fucking exhausting.

    You want to reduce ownership by repealing the second and enacting regulations and restrictions. You've been building that position for years as evidenced by your posts from 2013. You're now flailing around trying to move the goal posts so you can avoid admitting you were either wrong, or misspoke.

    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    So you do think that reduction in ownership is my endgame? That would be reduction for the sake of reduction. It would mean that all I care about is reduction in ownership. Even though I was quite clear that that's not my endgame.

    Oh, and TwoNine said it was about restricting just for the hell of it. So yeah. No goal post moves. Just false fallacy claims from Tiny.
    Yes, reducing the number of people who own firearms is your endgame. You've made that very clear, up until today's flailing. I don't care what other posters have said, your posts are the ones I am responding to and quoting. Stop deflecting.
    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    I am ACTUALLY ASKING for them to ban me and relieve me from the misery of this thread.

  11. #41191
    Legendary! TZucchini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Wish it was Canada
    Posts
    6,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Tinykong View Post
    You're fucking exhausting.
    I realize that constantly being on the ropes is exhausting. If you were right from time to time, you wouldn't need to be.

    Yes, reducing the number of people who own firearms is your endgame.
    No. Reducing the number of people who own firearms would possibly be a result of my endgame (that endgame being comprehensive laws that promote responsibility).

    But it's by no means my endgame.
    Eat yo vegetables

  12. #41192
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    I realize that constantly being on the ropes is exhausting. If you were right from time to time, you wouldn't need to be.
    Cool story, bro.



    Real compelling stuff here. You're slowly turning into Rukentuts, snipping posts and posting one liner jabs. At least you're still quoting partial posts.

    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    No. Reducing the number of people who own firearms would possibly be a result of my endgame (that endgame being comprehensive laws that promote responsibility).

    But it's by no means my endgame.
    Welcome to "Whose Post Is it Anyway" the show where we flip flop positions and our post history doesn't matter.

    I'm thoroughly satisfied that we've shown you are lying or possibly just so woefully confused and steeped in confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance that you don't even remember what you've said up until this point.
    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    I am ACTUALLY ASKING for them to ban me and relieve me from the misery of this thread.

  13. #41193
    Legendary! TZucchini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Wish it was Canada
    Posts
    6,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Tinykong View Post
    I'm thoroughly satisfied that we've shown you are lying or possibly just so woefully confused and steeped in confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance that you don't even remember what you've said up until this point.
    Well, I'm happy that you've finally convinced yourself that I hold a position which I specifically stated I do not hold.
    Eat yo vegetables

  14. #41194
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    Well, I'm happy that you've finally convinced yourself that I hold a position which I specifically stated I do not hold.
    Your posting history says otherwise. Keep on lying, seems to be a central tenet of the anti-gun crowd.
    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    I am ACTUALLY ASKING for them to ban me and relieve me from the misery of this thread.

  15. #41195
    Legendary! TZucchini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Wish it was Canada
    Posts
    6,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Tinykong View Post
    Your posting history says otherwise. Keep on lying, seems to be a central tenet of the anti-gun crowd.
    What possible motivation could I have to lie about a position I hold on an anonymous forum? Take the tin-foil hat off for a minute Tiny, and try to think logically.
    Eat yo vegetables

  16. #41196
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    What possible motivation could I have to lie about a position I hold on an anonymous forum? Take the tin-foil hat off for a minute Tiny, and try to think logically.
    Because you are literally incapable of admitting you are wrong, especially when it comes to exchanges with people you disagree with.

    You probably figured you could lie about it and no one would either be able to find the posts or care enough to. You got caught this time, champ.
    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    I am ACTUALLY ASKING for them to ban me and relieve me from the misery of this thread.

  17. #41197
    Legendary! TZucchini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Wish it was Canada
    Posts
    6,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Tinykong View Post
    Because you are literally incapable of admitting you are wrong
    So no evidence for a motivation to lie. Just more tin-foil hat conspiracies about my anonymous online personality being incapable of admitting fault. Even though I've done so several times in this thread. How many times have you?
    Eat yo vegetables

  18. #41198
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    So no evidence for a motivation to lie. Just more tin-foil hat conspiracies about my anonymous online personality being incapable of admitting fault. Even though I've done so several times in this thread. How many times have you?
    It's not a tinfoil conspiracy; it's demonstrable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    I am ACTUALLY ASKING for them to ban me and relieve me from the misery of this thread.

  19. #41199
    Legendary! TZucchini's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Wish it was Canada
    Posts
    6,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Tinykong View Post
    It's not a tinfoil conspiracy; it's demonstrable.
    Demonstrable? Really? Here's a discussion with Eroginous:

    Quote Originally Posted by Eroginous View Post
    Of course not. You quite clearly said 'firearms make ALL crimes much easier to commit.'
    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    You're right. I did say "all crimes." And as a blanket statement, it's likely false.
    Welp. There I am. Admitting I'm wrong, and that he's right.

    Or how about this reply to Phaelix:

    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    Yeah I'm wrong here. You're right.
    Oh jeez. You did say demonstrable, correct?

    Oh look. Here I am again admitting I'm wrong, and that I made an error:

    Quote Originally Posted by PRE 9-11 View Post
    You're right. I'm not sure why I included the 'firearm crime' imbalance, as I've already stated outright that certain studies show the imbalance being the other way around (2.5 million).

    So yeah. It's a tinfoil conspiracy, because demonstrably, I've had no problem admitting I was wrong, when I was wrong.
    Eat yo vegetables

  20. #41200
    I was referring to today's current lie being demonstrable. The motivation is irrelevant; the lie occurred.

    Not to mention most of the times you say you're wrong is actually just a snide way of ending an argument, not an actual admission.
    Quote Originally Posted by Djalil View Post
    I am ACTUALLY ASKING for them to ban me and relieve me from the misery of this thread.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •