B-Man Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 Of course I'm pointing fingers. That was the point of my reply. As for blocking scientific research - that's another red herring. What is research going to show, that people who are dead set on committing violent acts are going to obtain a weapon of their choice, whether legally or not? As you've seen linked in this thread, obtaining a gun legally already is a very cumbersome process, and perversely it creates a very lucrative black market. The left remains tone deaf to the fact that Paris killers had no problems accessing military grade weaponry, even though NOBODY in Europe owns a gun. It's too convenient to ignore the modifications that Farook & Mrs did to their guns to improve their killing capability. The reality that gun control advocates ignore is the 300 million existing guns in the country, and the near impossibility to collect them. If rounding up and deporting 11 million Mexicans is rightly seen as a logistical nightmare, compound that disaster by a factor of 30 and guess how that program would work out. There's no shortage of left wing outrage about our country's "lax" gun laws, yet they don't care to admit that no laws would have prevented this particular couple from their rampage. So yeah, I'm pointing fingers for sensationalizing a tragedy to further an agenda - like the OP has and then run away hiding when every point has been refuted. This. Big time. There seems to be a delusion that somehow the argument against gun control "won" in this thread simply because I am massively outnumbered. I want to do a quick recap and make it clear for those with trouble reading that is not the case. I mopped the floor with half this board with one hand tied behind my back. Frankly, you're only lucky there wasn't an objective scorekeeper because it wasn't close. What I say is not unique. I'm representing a very widely held belief in a board where there is no representation for said belief. The NRA is a harmful influence; stronger gun control is overdue and necessary. If you think there isn't a huge amount of support for that sentiment, you're once again deluding yourself. Like I said before, you don't have a monopoly on outrage over the San Bernadino killings. Get the hell over yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maury Ballstein Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 There seems to be a delusion that somehow the argument against gun control "won" in this thread simply because I am massively outnumbered. I want to do a quick recap and make it clear for those with trouble reading that is not the case. I mopped the floor with half this board with one hand tied behind my back. Frankly, you're only lucky there wasn't an objective scorekeeper because it wasn't close. What I say is not unique. I'm representing a very widely held belief in a board where there is no representation for said belief. The NRA is a harmful influence; stronger gun control is overdue and necessary. If you think there isn't a huge amount of support for that sentiment, you're once again deluding yourself. Quick question — have conservatives ever been right about ANYTHING? I'm serious. Where are the conservative victories that should give you ANY kind of validity to ANYTHING you say? Economics? No. Foreign policy? No. Social issues? Obviously not. So, why exactly should anything a conservative says ever be taken seriously in any way?? Conservatives have been proven wrong historically about every position they've EVER taken. "History has a definite liberal bias" indeed. Being a conservative is like being the Washington Generals of policy. It's an embarrassing thing to be, so I don't mind shaming your stupidity. Name ONE victory for the conservative ideology! The history of this country is the struggle of slowly dragging whiny conservatives on a leash toward basic, sensible progress. Yet you continue to reproduce in large ugly numbers, fighting just as hard to lead us into the world of Idiocracy. There is no valid argument in favor of the NRA. There is no valid argument against stronger gun control. Despite my thread title, only FireChan offered any sort of defense for the NRA and it wasn't much of a defense, he mostly admitted they are highly suspicious but didn't want to do anything about it. No coherent counter-argument against my claim was articulated even though I directly challenged for it. Unfortunately for the blood sport of debate, no Bill Buckley's emerged among you, not even a Bill O'Reilly. Here are the counter-arguments you guys collectively came up with that I didn't address head-on in my first post: —You're an idiot —There actually isn't a gun problem —How would we do it? —It sounds like a hassle! —We're not admitting guns are a problem but if they were what would we do?? —Why don't you have all the answers? —You're an idiot —I heard a story about home invasion —It was in the Second Amendment and they're smarter than me —Citizens need protection against the government, specifically with automatic weapons —Nobody in Paris owns a gun but if they all had guns they wouldn't have had terrorism maybe! —Gun deaths are higher in states with less stringent gun laws oops wait no focus on the senator's quote —You're an idiot and you're not "that" good at sarcasm —Guns aren't the problem, it's Muslims —Idiot You have collectively hung yourself with 14+ pages of rope, only further proving: There is no valid argument against stronger gun control. There is no valid argument in favor of the NRA's agenda. The only arguments against gun control / in favor of guns, despite your consistent attempts to label liberals as emotional, are ironically all based purely on emotion: —Delusional fantasies of being a cowboy hero —Irrational fear of the other, aka, thinly veiled racism —Tradition Gun owners don't like to admit that owning a gun is all about feeling safe when it's in your hands and feeling powerful when you're shooting it. You are factually neither safer nor more powerful with the gun. There is nothing to suggest guns are a positive influence. It's all bluster. When you do nothing for gun control, you end up with absurd solutions like these. This is the world you have created through ignorance, indifference, and inaction. I honestly think the only thing that might shake conservatives from their beliefs are more extreme tragedies; it's going to be more innocent kids in schools getting shot. Sandy Hook wasn't enough because conservatives are slow processors, it takes repeated shaking for them to get moving. Again, this is why conservatives are useless. You take forever to reach conclusions normal people reached years ago. The reality is there is a growing sentiment that old conservative white men who support the NRA are one of the most dangerous extremist groups in the country. You are quite literally what is wrong with the world. Azalin said: "You can't stop gun violence by advocating a cultural change which relies on willing and knowing curtailment of Constitutional freedoms, the precedent of which would have implications regarding all guarantees enumerated in the Bill of Rights." Not with that attitude you can't If I'm just an idiot, how we did we get to 14 pages? It's because I struck a nerve and you know there is plenty of truth to what I'm saying, you just don't like hearing it. On the other hand, this board doesn't mind all kinds of horrible racist and misogynistic posts from many of the very same posters who participated in this thread, yelling voraciously to shout me down. Tell you what, if I'm so wrong and you're so right, try what I did here. Go to a leftist forum and say your version of the truth, as baldly as I stated mine. Can you even articulate your beliefs? "Mass shootings are part of life in America. The NRA supports the 2nd Amendment which is infallible. Supporting the NRA is my civic duty." If that's your belief, man up and test 'em. It's easy to stay in your cozy echo chamber — I could've stayed in mine — it takes balls to deal with angry dissent head-on. If nothing else, you should question all of your beliefs and test them rather than just accepting things because "that's the way things are." Conservatives never do this, because questioning leads to curiosity leads to learning... those things tend to lead away from conservatism. Thanks to the moderators for allowing me to say my piece here. Why Mass Shootings Don't Convince Gun Owners To Support Gun Control — http://www.vox.com/2015/12/4/9845146/mass-shootings-gun-control Islamic Extremists Explain How Easy It Is To Buy a Gun in the U.S. — http://www.thetrace.org/2015/11/islamic-extremists-gun-sale-loopholes/ End the Gun Epidemic in America by the NY Times Editorial Board — http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/05/opinion/end-the-gun-epidemic-in-america.html?referer Ahallu Akbar. I blame the nra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 If you only make left-handed guns, only 15% of the population would be able to commit crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozymandius Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 I'm quite certain ISIS is hoping for a Trump presidency. You have a very low, racist opinion of Muslims. If Bernie Sanders became president, would you predict a bunch of white people became terrorists in response? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 You have a very low, racist opinion of Muslims. If Bernie Sanders became president, would you predict a bunch of white people became terrorists in response? I have a very low opinion of you, not Muslims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 (edited) Obama, the chief gun control advocate doesn't clearly say what he wants to change. He bitches and moans whenever there is a "crisis". He's the friggin President of the United States. He could stand in front of the camera and present very clearly what changes he wants to make to gun laws and why. He could then go to the House and Senate and ask to be heard and get something started. He's not interested in solving the problem because it's to his party's advantage to keep the issue on the burner. That or he is the worst manager and leader of all time. So for LA Grant, who's dogging you? Posters here or those who hold elected positions and are in a position to get something done? Given your passion for the subject and the amount of time you have spent reading and posting here, wouldn't that time and energy be better directed to those elected folks that you support and who also represent you? Edited December 5, 2015 by keepthefaith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 I'm quite certain ISIS is hoping for a Trump presidency. Not if Hillary promises to carry forth Barry's Sally Fields Foreign Policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 Not if Hillary promises to carry forth Barry's Sally Fields Foreign Policy. As much as I dislike Obama, if Trump wins, Armageddon will commence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 (edited) It's funny isn't it (sad really), that gun lovers contort earnest attempts to save lives with responsible gun control, as being "political". So they can deflect to the weak minded that its a " liberal agenda to take away your rights." Case in point from the Fred flintsone of a governor of New Jersey: Chris Christie: New York Times gun control op-ed "liberal claptrap" http://www.cbsnews.com/news/election-2016-chris-christie-new-york-times-gun-control-op-ed-liberal-claptrap/ As demonstrated in that same article, they put forth their "mental health" "solution". Not only is that an extremely liberal position requiring a massive investment, expansion of bureaucracy , and de facto giving the government wide lattitude over who can be armed to teeth and who can't, its highly impractical with no reason to believe it would be effective. Let's go thru the unfortunate list of recent mass shootings; would they have been able to preclude the following from owning guns due to mental illness as "evidenced" by: - being Muslim? - a white man with traffic violations who doesn't like Obama? - a 20-something kid who's having trouble finding a girlfriend? - an ex-employee? The only acceptable implementation of casting the net that wide given the costly nature (not to mention arbitrary and discriminatory) would mean simply reverting to restricting gun ownership across the board. Exactly what the gun control advocates are saying. Edited December 5, 2015 by JTSP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aristocrat Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 So overall gun violence has gone down steadily in the past 20 years. The majority of gun violence comes from the ongoing drug war. If we change the way that war is going you could cut the gun deaths at least in half. You'd cut down on the police needing military equipment and cut the prison population down by a ton etc. I'm sure the libs will say....you're changing the convo! It's time we look at things a different way than trying to just ban guns. They've tried banning assault rifles and it didn't work and gun deaths have actually gone down since they were allowed again. Banning guns is not going to stop violence. Look at england, no guns but man now they are resorting to banning knives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 As much as I dislike Obama, if Trump wins, Armageddon will commence. In no small part because, if Trump wins, Armageddon starts to look like an appealing alternative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted December 5, 2015 Share Posted December 5, 2015 (edited) It's funny isn't it (sad really), that gun lovers contort earnest attempts to save lives with responsible gun control, as being "political". So they can deflect to the weak minded that its a " liberal agenda to take away your rights." Case in point from the Fred flintsone of a governor of New Jersey: Chris Christie: New York Times gun control op-ed "liberal claptrap" http://www.cbsnews.com/news/election-2016-chris-christie-new-york-times-gun-control-op-ed-liberal-claptrap/ You may need to find a better example. The problem is, Chris Christie is HIGHLY unpopular with 2A advocates for his past support of the New Jersey Assault Weapons Ban. The guy is just pandering to 2A voters, big time, and they know it. Its a big part of the reason he can't and won't break out of the low single digits nationally. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/10/chris-christie-s-faking-it-on-gun-rights.html Edited December 5, 2015 by Brandon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 It's funny isn't it (sad really), that gun lovers contort earnest attempts to save lives with responsible gun control, as being "political". So they can deflect to the weak minded that its a " liberal agenda to take away your rights." Case in point from the Fred flintsone of a governor of New Jersey: Chris Christie: New York Times gun control op-ed "liberal claptrap" http://www.cbsnews.com/news/election-2016-chris-christie-new-york-times-gun-control-op-ed-liberal-claptrap/ As demonstrated in that same article, they put forth their "mental health" "solution". Not only is that an extremely liberal position requiring a massive investment, expansion of bureaucracy , and de facto giving the government wide lattitude over who can be armed to teeth and who can't, its highly impractical with no reason to believe it would be effective. Let's go thru the unfortunate list of recent mass shootings; would they have been able to preclude the following from owning guns due to mental illness as "evidenced" by: - being Muslim? - a white man with traffic violations who doesn't like Obama? - a 20-something kid who's having trouble finding a girlfriend? - an ex-employee? The only acceptable implementation of casting the net that wide given the costly nature (not to mention arbitrary and discriminatory) would mean simply reverting to restricting gun ownership across the board. Exactly what the gun control advocates are saying. What are these "common sense" measures you think will be effective? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 What are these "common sense" measures you think will be effective? Whatever they are, if you disagree with them, you are an idiot and you lack common sense. I hate that stupid phrase and it amazes me that they think it helps them. Sure, it may sound good when they're preaching to the choir, but for the people they're trying to convince, its pretty damn arrogant and condescending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 Whatever they are, if you disagree with them, you are an idiot and you lack common sense. I hate that stupid phrase and it amazes me that they think it helps them. Sure, it may sound good when they're preaching to the choir, but for the people they're trying to convince, its pretty damn arrogant and condescending. Common sense isn't. If it were, I wouldn't have a job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 Common sense isn't. If it were, I wouldn't have a job. You are still in Defense Contracting, right! Don't get me started right now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 (edited) What are these "common sense" measures you think will be effective?Joe Sandusky favors a gun ban. The only way to enforce it is to start off with an edict criminalizing everyone in the country. Those relinquishing their arms semi-absolving themselves (semi-because they admitted to ownership, and you can never be sure, so they go on a watch list), and then for the army to go door to door, doing searches, as a follow-up. Those still holding arms, obviously criminals. The ramifications of this are staggering. Edited December 6, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 In no small part because, if Trump wins, Armageddon starts to look like an appealing alternative. I am glad to see you guys are finally having a lick of sense... Now please convert LA... Pretty please! He really has a lot of redeeming qualities. Joe Sandusky favors a gun ban. The only way to enforce it is to start off with an edict criminalizing everyone in the country. Those relinquishing their arms semi-absolving themselves (semi-because they admitted to ownership, and you can never be sure, so they go on a watch list), and then for the army to go door to door, doing searches, as a follow-up. Those still holding arms, obviously criminals. The ramifications of this are staggering. Nah... Drones and infrared or whatever... The pinkos will sniff out the guns! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 6, 2015 Share Posted December 6, 2015 I am glad to see you guys are finally having a lick of sense... Now please convert LA... Pretty please! He really has a lot of redeeming qualities. Nah... Drones and infrared or whatever... The pinkos will sniff out the guns! Ariel gun sniffing tech? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts