Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Nadev]

Simple. Republican's don't want spend the money yet accept millions in donations from NRA. They even have a score card on their website and give donations as long as congress keep's heat off them. Republican's don't want to spend a dime for proper mental health and income equality but they want to protect kids by placing armed guards in school as against actual mental health treatment.

It's disgusting.

That's absolutely fucking quadruple chocolate cake-rich coming from you. Project more.

[Tinykong]

Gigantic snip.

I think I've read the last of this nonsense I'm willing to read.

[FusedMass]

I think I've read the last of this nonsense I'm willing to read.

That's good, when you thought you were bashing me with data, mocking me. Insulting me numerous, numerous pages ago. You had fun and kept doing it. How odd you're wrong and now you have nothing to say. I at least admit when I made a mistake. You have not proved anything, and you're over abusing the word nonsense and ignorant

They lost almost all meaning.

[Grizzly Willy]

That's good, when you thought you were bashing me with data, mocking me. Insulting me numerous, numerous pages ago. You had fun and kept doing it. How odd you're wrong and now you have nothing to say. I at least admit when I made a mistake. You have not proved anything, and you're over abusing the word nonsense and ignorant

They lost almost all meaning.

It's not bashing you with data. It's pointing out where you have been wrong over and over and over. And you rarely do admit to mistakes, nor have you proved anything. Your reliance on logical fallacies has left your ability to defend your stance untenable, and honestly I wonder how anybody could continue ignoring hard data.

And no, this isn't my opinion. This is what you have demonstrated. I know how much you love arguments from popularity, and I bet you that the majority of posters in this thread who have read your arguments would agree that you have yet to prove your case.

[FusedMass]

It's not bashing you with data. It's pointing out where you have been wrong over and over and over. And you rarely do admit to mistakes, nor have you proved anything. Your reliance on logical fallacies has left your ability to defend your stance untenable, and honestly I wonder how anybody could continue ignoring hard data.

And no, this isn't my opinion. This is what you have demonstrated. I know how much you love arguments from popularity, and I bet you that the majority of posters in this thread who have read your arguments would agree that you have yet to prove your case.

This is why to certain posters, I do not afford luxury of being extra polite. It's not that I can't be mean but when I do its very direct and harsh.

"Wrong over and Over"

BS

Hard data based on a gun ban that didn't actually ban guns it was supposed to. Do you not understand the article I posted in detail that people could obtain the same weapon slightly different modified. That's not a ban.

So yes I don't take one report as absolute with a ton of holes in it. It's interesting that you do.

No you're wrong, again this is you're absolute nature taking over. You are not all knowing and powerful, you cannot solely decided based on what you think and make it magically reality to fact. if you want to believe you can. Then I support it. But do not extend that into reality.

Now we can please get someone to bring some value to the thread or unless you want act superior and petty back and forth some more.

[Grizzly Willy]

Address your logical fallacies first and I'll reconsider.

[Zoranon]

What I meant and intended to say was this: Simply speaking, conservatism tends to work to preserve a particular status quo by denying certain liberties. Conversely, liberalism tends to work to change the status quo by establishing certain liberties.

A traditionally liberal outlook would favor preserving gun rights while a traditionally conservative outlook would favor removing those rights. This is not the case, and it's honestly surprising, because I'm generally of a liberally oriented mindset, and I support gun rights completely, even the private ownership of 'military quality' arms. I'm also against the NRA and the manner/degree by which they campaign against gun legislation.

Their spokespeople have been such outlandish characters such as Charlton Heston and Ted Nugent, neither of which have much of a realistic outlook on the aspect of responsible ownership, and who are frankly, two people I would not feel comfortable being around, knowing they are armed.

The problem is that your definition is, no offence rather biased. Both sides of the spectrum seek to deny certain liberties, be it divorces and abortions for conservatives, or guns and free speech for liberals. The reason for these attempted denials is rooted in history and may actually differ in each country.

I do not deny that NRA is represented by some rather wierd people, but as for their degree of resistance to gun regulation, well the explanation is simple. In the past pro-gun people attempted to compromise with the anti-gun crowd, however the only result of this were more attempts at regulation. The pro-gun people can gain absolutely nothing by compromising, since there are too many in the pro-regulation group that will be satisfied by nothing short of total gun ban. Also during the time the current proposals are being delayed, no further regulation can be made. So this is yet another argument for unyielding opposition to any gun regulation.

[FusedMass]

Address your logical fallacies first and I'll reconsider.

As soon as you address your facts and opinions. What makes them separate and not absolute.

[Grizzly Willy]

As soon as you address your facts and opinions. What makes them separate and not absolute.

I asked first. :P
Also, you need to tell me where I'm stating my opinions as fact. If it's just because you disagree, well, your opinion isn't absolute.

[PhaelixWW]

"Wrong over and Over"

BS

Hard data based on a gun ban that didn't actually ban guns it was supposed to. Do you not understand the article I posted in detail that people could obtain the same weapon slightly different modified. That's not a ban.

Sorry, that's implying that the only thing we've pointed out you being wrong about is the interpretation of the NIJ study. Which is not really even just the tip of the iceberg, it's more like the snowflake sitting on top of the tip of the iceberg.

But I would like to point out, since you brought it up, that the "same weapon[s] slightly different [sic] modified" you're talking about were merely complying with the law. If Feinstein's law were to pass and someone developed an AR-15 with a 10-round capacity fixed magazine, you'd probably say that it was cheating the system and an ineffective ban, even though the law specifically allows it.

[FusedMass]

I asked first. :P
Also, you need to tell me where I'm stating my opinions as fact. If it's just because you disagree, well, your opinion isn't absolute.

I never said it was.

Assuming much.

Again. I do not entertain posts that have no purpose expect a bitter grudge. Thank you for you're time and understanding.

If you have something worthwhile please do add it.

[Zoranon]

I never said it was.

Assuming much.

Again. I do not entertain posts that have no purpose expect a bitter grudge. Thank you for you're time and understanding.

If you have something worthwhile please do add it.

Fused, do you realise that people would react better to you if most of your posts weren't filled with propaganda, half-truths and the occasional blatant lie?

Food for thought.

[FusedMass]

Fused, do you realise that people would react better to you if most of your posts weren't filled with propaganda, half-truths and the occasional blatant lie?

Food for thought.

You talk to me after dealing with dozens of posters being polite almost to a bad extent. Then numerous of them responding in knee jerk hostile, insulting remarks for pages just to rant. I'm tired being extra sweet only to be insulted. I will only be polite to those who treat me in such a way.

I've been here since page 1. If you had an idea what personalitys, insults, comments and borderline hate speech. You'd understand and respect my postion. I'm not a punching bag to dish out.

I believe one poster said it best.

"Can't stand heat, stay out of the kitchen"

You are rude to me, I'll return that back to you. Want that to stop.

Stop being rude.

[Nadev]

You are rude to me, I'll return that back to you. Want that to stop.

Stop being rude.

No one is being rude here. People are calling out your bullshit and you respond with more nonsense (or emails/videos from lobby groups) and feign outrage.

People are throwing up studies and statistics left and right that torpedo your talking points and you come back with doublethink.

[Gemini Sunrise]

And if one can't take the abuse of some fringe number of posters, don't make a thread on a very controversial topic in the Gen OT.

Now that that's over with, I'd recommend you post more like Wells and Dareyon (sp?). While I don't agree with half their points, they don't use logical fallacies to support their arguments, and I respect them a hell of a lot more than the average user here.

[Zoranon]

You talk to me after dealing with dozens of posters being polite almost to a bad extent. Then numerous of them responding in knee jerk hostile, insulting remarks for pages just to rant. I'm tired being extra sweet only to be insulted. I will only be polite to those who treat me in such a way.

I've been here since page 1. If you had an idea what personalitys, insults, comments and borderline hate speech. You'd understand and respect my postion. I'm not a punching bag to dish out.

I believe one poster said it best.

"Can't stand heat, stay out of the kitchen"

You are rude to me, I'll return that back to you. Want that to stop.

Stop being rude.

Stop lying and posting propaganda and people (including me) shall be more polite to you, easy.

[Gemini Sunrise]

Stop lying and posting propaganda and people (including me) shall be more polite to you, easy.

This is pretty much what I want Fused.

While I might not AGREE with your opinion, I would respect it as yours.

[FusedMass]

Stop lying and posting propaganda and people (including me) shall be more polite to you, easy.

Stop lying about me lying and saying things that you cannot back up with a link. I believe what I do post. It's not Poltical talk. It's what I believe. Call it propangda all you want. I'm not going to bend for you're will. I'm not ignoring comments. I've detailed out why I believe the weapon ban, wasn't a ban with a full article.

A full article.

How about you go and read that. Perhaps you see it as me lying, when it's reality not true.

Case dismissed.

This is pretty much what I want Fused.

While I might not AGREE with your opinion, I would respect it as yours.

I've been polite to you.

Yesterday you posted something, I was tired that night and it was offense. That's why I turned a little irate. Though I'm calm now. I simply want the same respect you show others. If you post to me with a clean, nice comment. I will respond. We're entitled to points of view.

When you insult. As long as it's not against rules. I will jest back...in detail at you're expense. I'm not a door mat for people to stomp on and forced being nice. It's a choice. Some have taken for granted.

Easy enough.

[Svifnymr]

What in the hell do you know about me?

If you're allowed to semi flame in a sarcastic condensing way. Then I'll follow same approch assuming not against the rules. You haven't seen the side of me that's even remotely upset. Keep on with you're jokes. I promise you I could do better then that, however I'm fighting the urge because jokes is all you have.

If you do want me to start. I will.

Did you quote the wrong post of mine? Maybe you meant post #13306?

And I was giving you the benefit of the doubt in sentence structure, assuming there was a technological reason that your sentences aren't correct.

Either way, it's not a flame, you continue to make every discussion here personal by focusing on dictating who and how you will reply to. Your facts are not facts, they are in most cases lies, and in others just reposts of others biased opinions that you regard as facts.

[Deleted]

Man, why are citizens allowed to have assault rifles and not also rocket launchers, flame throwers, tanks, attack boats, etc etc, provided they have the cash for it ?! I mean if intruders come into my house I have the right to use my rocket launcher to defend myself.