Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Am I afraid? Is anyone here saying they are afraid? It's disengenous to say that CNN showing pictures of guns, is in any way influencing people beyond the actual events of recent history. CNN, just like Fox, feed their viewers what they already want to hear. People see plenty of movies with far scarier guns than media shows.

Further more, what is it about guns that you think is scary?

Nothing, but there is a reason they show a gun with a fore grip, a scope, and a silencer instead of a wooden stocked semi auto rifle.

[Felya]

I could respect them saying "We know this ban isn't going to have a significant impact on violent crime, but we're proposing it because people are scared." That's a bullshit reason, but at least it's honest.

That doesn't make sense to any rational human being. The way they would have to do it:

'we are banning some items which are aimed at keeping public safe. Now, everyone who supports this, close your years and stop listening. Everyone ready? Alright, this ban does not actually help and is there to placate people who have their ears closed.'

They can't say it...

---------- Post added 2013-02-01 at 07:23 PM ----------

Nothing, but there is a reason they show a gun with a fore grip, a scope, and a silencer instead of a wooden stocked semi auto rifle.

Yep, and thinking it's done to brainwash people and not simply to get ratings, is where we disconnect. In fact, is it nothing scary, or are guns with fore grip, scope and silencer scary? Saying nothing and ending the way you did is incongruous.

[lockedout]

Yep, and thinking it's done to brainwash people and not simply to get ratings, is where we disconnect. In fact, is it nothing scary, or are guns with fore grip, scope and silencer scary? Saying nothing and ending the way you did is incongruous.

It makes the gun look more aggressive. It doesn't look like a hunting rifle anymore. People think it is a m16 fully automatic because they have never even handled a weapon in the first place.

[Bytch]

I never said that. You quoting me saying something I never did. He answered the actual solutions I was looking for, yours was reactionary. Do not ban x, is a reaction, not a solution.



See, the disconnect here is you saying CNN brainwashes people. The straw man I am using, is you being a conspiracy theorist, because you are blaming the media. I am saying that media does not have anything to do with it, espeacialy when you claim Fox News does the same for the other side. It's a moot, conspiracy theory driven argument that is nothing but a distraction. How about proving you are not a conspiracy theorist and actually stop blaming the media. I promise to not use the straw man where you are a media blaming conspiracy theorist, as soon as you stop blaming the media.

So, people have to prove they are going to go along with your rhetoric? Why cant we disagree with 'official" stories? Why cant you see the evidence and information in front of you/ Why do we get labeled for asking questions? Why must be go along with anything that has the makings of a false flag event or has been uncovered as to be false?

The Gulf of Tonkin incident...among COUNTLESS others.

[Tinykong]

I live in NJ >..>

You'll have to expand on that, I have no idea how living in NJ is different.

Nothing, but there is a reason they show a gun with a fore grip, a scope, and a silencer instead of a wooden stocked semi auto rifle.

People calling suppressors "silencers" shows the ignorance of most people about the technical terminology of firearms. I'm not calling you out specifically, but a lot of people think that a "silencer" works like it does in the movies, making super sonic ammunition make an undetectable popping/ticking sound.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

That doesn't make sense to any rational human being. The way they would have to do it:

'we are banning some items which are aimed at keeping public safe. Now, everyone who supports this, close your years and stop listening. Everyone ready? Alright, this ban does not actually help and is there to placate people who have their ears closed.'

They can't say it...

---------- Post added 2013-02-01 at 07:23 PM ----------



Yep, and thinking it's done to brainwash people and not simply to get ratings, is where we disconnect. In fact, is it nothing scary, or are guns with fore grip, scope and silencer scary? Saying nothing and ending the way you did is incongruous.

You don't think one makes a different emotional response than the other?

[mistuhbull]

What does that say about the logic behind this ban?

that it's roughly as logical as the cannabis prohibition and based on fearmongering and sensationalism?

[Felya]

It makes the gun look more aggressive. It doesn't look like a hunting rifle anymore. People think it is a m16 fully automatic because they have never even handled a weapon in the first place.

Not scary, but aggressive... Alright... So, you have a problem with a ban on additions to a gun, which public finds to look aggressive? Doesn't at least scope and silencer imply more aggression, regardless of what they look like?

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

You'll have to expand on that, I have no idea how living in NJ is different.





People calling suppressors "silencers" shows the ignorance of most people about the technical terminology of firearms. I'm not calling you out specifically, but a lot of people think that a "silencer" works like it does in the movies, making super sonic ammunition make an undetectable popping/ticking sound.

I do not think it makes a silent noise as in the movies. Its just quicker to type.

[Reeve]

So, people have to prove they are going to go along with your rhetoric? Why cant we disagree with 'official" stories? Why cant you see the evidence and information in front of you/ Why do we get labeled for asking questions? Why must be go along with anything that has the makings of a false flag event or has been uncovered as to be false?

The Gulf of Tonkin incident...among COUNTLESS others.

It's not that you can't question official stories. It's that if you make an extraordinary claim regarding that, you'd better be ready to present compelling evidence supporting your claim. Otherwise, you're simply making conspiracy theories.

[Felya]

So, people have to prove they are going to go along with your rhetoric? Why cant we disagree with 'official" stories? Why cant you see the evidence and information in front of you/ Why do we get labeled for asking questions? Why must be go along with anything that has the makings of a false flag event or has been uncovered as to be false?

The Gulf of Tonkin incident...among COUNTLESS others.

I don't know, ask mods why conspiracy theories are banned. My guess, they are way off topic.

[Bytch]

My Constitutional Right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The 2nd Amendment is what gives teeth and credibility to the rest of your Constitution. IE..The 1st Amendment. If it weren't for those of us with guns, you wouldnt be allowed to speak much less have a the freedom to say or discuss anything of importance. Any more restrictions, is just a bill/law that will be a ban in the future. Lets not make more laws. We have 20k+ gun laws. Which of those laws stops the gangs and cartels? OR which of those laws will put Eric Holder and all those involved with "Fast and Furious" in prison?

---------- Post added 2013-02-01 at 02:33 PM ----------

I don't know, ask mods why conspiracy theories are banned. My guess, they are way off topic.

Im not banned. Im still here. Maybe we get banned, because we not going along with the status quo?

[lockedout]

You'll have to expand on that, I have no idea how living in NJ is different.

Our gun laws are strict.

[Felya]

You don't think one makes a different emotional response than the other?

Do you think it has a greater response or lower response than the shooting we have had? The emotional response is due to the shootings we have ad. This debate is happening because of the shootings, not because of CNN showing a gun. Everything garners an emotional response, but it's not brainwashing.

[Reeve]

My Constitutional Right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The 2nd Amendment is what gives teeth and credibility to the rest of your Constitution. IE..The 1st Amendment. If it weren't for those of us with guns, you wouldnt be allowed to speak much less have a the freedom to say or discuss anything of importance.

Are you suggesting that all the democracies of the world that don't have the right to bear arms in their constitution don't have freedom of speech, religion, assembly, the press, etc.?

Last I checked, Great Britain still had all those freedoms.

[lockedout]

Are you suggesting that all the democracies of the world that don't have the right to bear arms in their constitution don't have freedom of speech, religion, assembly, the press, etc.?

Last I checked, Great Britain still had all those freedoms.

No, but he is saying that those things could happen here. No need to compare apples and oranges.

[Reeve]

No, but he is saying that those things could happen here. No need to compare apples and oranges.

It's not apples to oranges. He's saying that the 2nd Amendment is what allows the 1st Amendment to exist, but somehow in parts of the world that have no 2nd amendment equivalent, they retain a 1st amendment equivalent. It's showing how his argument doesn't pass the sniff test.

[Felya]

Im not banned. Im still here. Maybe we get banned, because we not going along with the status quo?

Well... Ahm... The TOS is there to establish a status quo... So, yes, going against the TOS is going against the status quo... Going against status quo is meaningless without reason. Reason being based on closing your mind to reality, so you can open your mind to imagination, isn't a valid reason.

[lockedout]

It's not apples to oranges. He's saying that the 2nd Amendment is what allows the 1st Amendment to exist, but somehow in parts of the world that have no 2nd amendment equivalent, they retain a 1st amendment equivalent. It's showing how his argument doesn't pass the sniff test.

Right but im saying other parts of the world aren't America. So apples and oranges.

[Reeve]

Right but im saying other parts of the world aren't America. So apples and oranges.

And what is it about the national character of the US that means that without civilian gun ownership the government would move to muzzle the people?