Won't anyone think of the poor, sensitive Lawful Gun Owner?

[Deranged Rhino]

1 hour ago, LA Grant said:

 

This thread is about gun laws. That might be clear from the title which includes both "law" and "gun." You are providing a distraction tactic to avoid the stated topic. Separate issues, separate threads. But we can agree that you are deranged, rhino.

 

You've avoided the subject in all the other threads too. 

 

You dont care abour saving kids or figuring out what happened. If you did, you'd be focused on more than just one solution. 

 

The fact you aren't shows us where your priorities really are. 

[LA Grant]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

You've avoided the subject in all the other threads too. 

 

You dont care abour saving kids or figuring out what happened. If you did, you'd be focused on more than just one solution. 

 

The fact you aren't shows us where your priorities really are. 

 

This thread is about gun laws. That might be clear from the title which includes both "law" and "gun." You are providing a distraction tactic to avoid the stated topic. Separate issues, separate threads. But we can agree that you are deranged, rhino.

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, LA Grant said:

 

This thread is about gun laws. That might be clear from the title which includes both "law" and "gun." You are providing a distraction tactic to avoid the stated topic. Separate issues, separate threads. But we can agree that you are deranged, rhino.

 

It just helps to be honest when you go after someone for attacking Hogg. You are trying to claim the moral high ground but you can't. Because you've admitted you don't care about getting to the bottom of what happened and stopping more murders. You care only about guns. 

 

That's one reason of many why you are getting thoroughly trounced in these discussions. 

 

If you did care about getting reasonable gun laws passed you would be open to talking about all the contributing factors, especially the failures of policy that got us here. 

 

But you don't care about change. You just want to snipe at people from your moral high ground to make yourself feel better. That's sad, bro. 

[LA Grant]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

It just helps to be honest when you go after someone for attacking Hogg. You are trying to claim the moral high ground but you can't. Because you've admitted you don't care about getting to the bottom of what happened and stopping more murders. You care only about guns. 

 

That's one reason of many why you are getting thoroughly trounced in these discussions. 

 

If you did care about getting reasonable gun laws passed you would be open to talking about all the contributing factors, especially the failures of policy that got us here. 

 

But you don't care about change. You just want to snipe at people from your moral high ground to make yourself feel better. That's sad, bro. 

 

Sniping?! On... PPP?! Clutch your pearls. This is a forum that celebrates "sniping at retards from the balcony." Is it because I don't have a Muppet avatar? By the way. Why do conservatives who think they're funny always try to adopt cartoon characters? Muppets, Tweety Bird, Taz, any of the Looney Tunes, Betty Boop, lol seriously what is up with that. Grow up! 

 

Anyway. I think you're mistaking "trounced" with "outnumbered." There is no argument against the common sense gun restrictions that have been pitched for years, for decades. I will award your mental gymnastics a 6.5, though.

 

Make it about me as much as you want. Ignore the issue as long as you can. 

[Nanker]

 

 

[3rdnlng]

6 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Sniping?! On... PPP?! Clutch your pearls. This is a forum that celebrates "sniping at retards from the balcony." Is it because I don't have a Muppet avatar? By the way. Why do conservatives who think they're funny always try to adopt cartoon characters? Muppets, Tweety Bird, Taz, any of the Looney Tunes, Betty Boop, lol seriously what is up with that. Grow up! 

 

Anyway. I think you're mistaking "trounced" with "outnumbered." There is no argument against the common sense gun restrictions that have been pitched for years, for decades. I will award your mental gymnastics a 6.5, though.

 

Make it about me as much as you want. Ignore the issue as long as you can. 

See, your closed mind is your biggest problem with your posting here.

[Deranged Rhino]

54 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Sniping?! On... PPP?! Clutch your pearls. This is a forum that celebrates "sniping at retards from the balcony." Is it because I don't have a Muppet avatar? By the way. Why do conservatives who think they're funny always try to adopt cartoon characters? Muppets, Tweety Bird, Taz, any of the Looney Tunes, Betty Boop, lol seriously what is up with that. Grow up! 

 

Anyway. I think you're mistaking "trounced" with "outnumbered." There is no argument against the common sense gun restrictions that have been pitched for years, for decades. I will award your mental gymnastics a 6.5, though.

 

Make it about me as much as you want. Ignore the issue as long as you can. 

 

The only one ignoring the issue is you. I've proven more than willing to discuss all the elements that contributed to this tragedy. 

 

You, however, only wish to discuss a partisan talking point. 

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, LA Grant said:

 

This thread is about gun laws. That might be clear from the title which includes both "law" and "gun." You are providing a distraction tactic to avoid the stated topic. Separate issues, separate threads. But we can agree that you are deranged, rhino.

 

You really suck at English.

[thebug]

7 hours ago, row_33 said:

Canada is not remotely bbq territory 

This is how I know you are not Canadian. 

7 hours ago, 3rdnlng said:

Hmmmm. What begins with "Q"?

You check all the boxes eh! D-bag, racist, homophobic. Nice! 

[B-Man]

3 hours ago, LA Grant said:

 

Yeah, dude! Get that kid! Get 'im! 

 

LA:

Let’s have a calm rational conversation about gun control, and if you oppose what I post. you are a murderer who bathes in the blood of schoolkids.

 

[row_33]

Bug, there is basically no bbq at all in Canada compared to its influence in the US South.

 

are you arguing today is Tuesday if someone said it’s Sunday?

 

 

[Bob in Mich]

3 minutes ago, thebug said:

This is how I know you are not Canadian. 

 

I know, right?  You would think that now that his cover is blown, he would retire 33 and start another identity. 

 

I bet the Russian government withholds pay or bonus money if its trolls screw up.  He is stubbornly refusing to admit that we are all on to him.  Rubles matter.

[thebug]

5 minutes ago, row_33 said:

Bug, there is basically no bbq at all in Canada compared to its influence in the US South.

 

are you arguing today is Tuesday if someone said it’s Sunday?

 

 

Lame. You have never had mine! 

Edited February 26, 2018 by thebug

[3rdnlng]

53 minutes ago, thebug said:

This is how I know you are not Canadian. 

You check all the boxes eh! D-bag, racist, homophobic. Nice! 

I could be all of those things and more but I'm not Canadian, so I'll always be your daddy and you will be my sock puppet.

Edited February 26, 2018 by 3rdnlng

[B-Man]

6 Reasons Your Right-Wing Friend Isn’t Coming To Your Side On Gun Control

by Meredith Dake-O'Conner

 

There are several reasons Second Amendment advocates aren’t running to your side of the argument, and it might not be the ones you think.

 

I’ve seen my friends and colleagues on the Left side of the gun control debate dumbfounded at why Second Amendment advocates don’t seem to budge on their views after mass shootings. So I thought I would try my hand at explaining this phenomenon in the hopes that maybe more will be inclined to have a better conversation about guns and the Second Amendment in America. There are several reasons 2A advocates aren’t running to your side of the argument, and it might not be the ones you think.

1. We Rarely Get to Come to the Conversation in Good Faith

The most destructive, divisive response when dealing with Second Amendment advocates is the notion that we aren’t on your side of the issue because we “don’t care” about the tragedy and loss of life. Two years ago at Christmas I had a family member, exasperated that I wasn’t agreeing about gun control, snarl, “It appears that if your [step] daughter was killed because of gun violence you wouldn’t even care!”

 

I’ve seen journalists, politicians, and friends in recent days say something to the effect of “If children dying (in Newtown) won’t change their minds, nothing will!” The obvious implication is that we are unmoved by the loss of life. (More at link)

 

2. The ‘Blood on Their Hands’ Attacks Are Offensive

The constant screaming about the National Rifle Association’s influence means nothing to many of today’s gun owners, but the “blood on their hands” attacks do. The NRA certainly has policy sway on Capitol Hill, but to the average gun owner it’s seen as the first line of defense, not a holy church with Wayne LaPierre as the pope.

 

Unfortunately, celebrities and loud voices in the media appear to use NRA and “gun owners” interchangeably. The average gun owner sees a tweet, Facebook post, or editorial cartoon depicting the NRA as blood-soaked and they believe it’s really talking about gun owners. Same with Jimmy Kimmel in his late-night monologue, or when CBS’s Scott Pelley mused if the assassination attempt on congressional Republicans was “to some degree, [a] self-inflicted” event.

 

3. The Loudest Voices Are Often the Most Ignorant

Whether it is an explosive news story or a late-night show host, journalists and celebrities are pretty ignorant about guns. I can see why the Left constantly feels right-wingers are deflecting the gun debate because we get pedantic at details, constantly correcting things like the inappropriate labeling of “assault rifles.” While this is an extremely emotional issue after a tragedy, it’s also a policy debate.

Good policies should be extraordinarily specific, explicit, and, you know, accurate in describing what it’s actually legislating. It’s hard for Second Amendment advocates to believe that the loudest voices are approaching this policy issue with seriousness when they constantly get even the most basic details wrong. I don’t want legislation that’s been emotionally manipulated into existence, I want legislation that is shown to actually do what it is intended to do.

4. The Most Prominent Policy Ideas Have Nothing to Do With the Tragedy

There’s an excellent column by Leah Libresco in the Washington Post explaining how certain policy initiatives haven’t actually been shown to prevent mass shootings. It’s a great primer on the nitty gritty data that Second Amendment advocates see supporting their side of the argument. I understand it can be frustrating that 2A advocates don’t seem to want to “do something” after a tragedy. But when we go down the laundry list of policy proposals after a tragedy it’s hard to consider them effective at preventing another tragedy when they wouldn’t have prevented the one that inspired them.

5. We Seriously Don’t Care About Gun Laws in Other Countries

We really, really don’t. That, of course, is because of the Second Amendment. The countries often brought up in the gun control debate not only have less than conclusive results (see the above link) but they don’t recognize personal possession of a firearm as a constitutional right. That is the bottom line. While their gun confiscation laws and the outcomes might be interesting, they are not applicable here.

6. We Really Do Consider Owning Firearms a Right

I view the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence as declaring the intrinsic and inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And I believe the framers knew that liberty is only achieved when the citizenry is known to keep tyrannical government, and those who would do me harm, at bay. My favorite explainer on citizens and their relation with tyrannical government is James Otis’ “Rights of the British Colonies” essay, but many like to use Hamilton’s Federalist Paper No. 29.

 

Beyond that, part of having liberty is personal safety from harm. Outside of the grace of God, I am the one primarily responsible for my safety, because I am able to be responsible for my safety. While I view the government’s primary responsibility the safety of its citizens, I am first responsible for my safety. Further, because I am able to be responsible for my safety, I have a duty as a good citizen to be prepared to protect others who cannot protect themselves. This is part of liberty. And the primary way I can ensure my liberty is by owning a firearm (and voting for those in favor of limited government—but that’s another debate).

 

More at the link:

[row_33]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

6 Reasons Your Right-Wing Friend Isn’t Coming To Your Side On Gun Control

by Meredith Dake-O'Conner

 

There are several reasons Second Amendment advocates aren’t running to your side of the argument, and it might not be the ones you think.

 

I’ve seen my friends and colleagues on the Left side of the gun control debate dumbfounded at why Second Amendment advocates don’t seem to budge on their views after mass shootings. So I thought I would try my hand at explaining this phenomenon in the hopes that maybe more will be inclined to have a better conversation about guns and the Second Amendment in America. There are several reasons 2A advocates aren’t running to your side of the argument, and it might not be the ones you think.

1. We Rarely Get to Come to the Conversation in Good Faith

The most destructive, divisive response when dealing with Second Amendment advocates is the notion that we aren’t on your side of the issue because we “don’t care” about the tragedy and loss of life. Two years ago at Christmas I had a family member, exasperated that I wasn’t agreeing about gun control, snarl, “It appears that if your [step] daughter was killed because of gun violence you wouldn’t even care!”

 

I’ve seen journalists, politicians, and friends in recent days say something to the effect of “If children dying (in Newtown) won’t change their minds, nothing will!” The obvious implication is that we are unmoved by the loss of life. (More at link)

 

2. The ‘Blood on Their Hands’ Attacks Are Offensive

The constant screaming about the National Rifle Association’s influence means nothing to many of today’s gun owners, but the “blood on their hands” attacks do. The NRA certainly has policy sway on Capitol Hill, but to the average gun owner it’s seen as the first line of defense, not a holy church with Wayne LaPierre as the pope.

 

Unfortunately, celebrities and loud voices in the media appear to use NRA and “gun owners” interchangeably. The average gun owner sees a tweet, Facebook post, or editorial cartoon depicting the NRA as blood-soaked and they believe it’s really talking about gun owners. Same with Jimmy Kimmel in his late-night monologue, or when CBS’s Scott Pelley mused if the assassination attempt on congressional Republicans was “to some degree, [a] self-inflicted” event.

 

3. The Loudest Voices Are Often the Most Ignorant

Whether it is an explosive news story or a late-night show host, journalists and celebrities are pretty ignorant about guns. I can see why the Left constantly feels right-wingers are deflecting the gun debate because we get pedantic at details, constantly correcting things like the inappropriate labeling of “assault rifles.” While this is an extremely emotional issue after a tragedy, it’s also a policy debate.

Good policies should be extraordinarily specific, explicit, and, you know, accurate in describing what it’s actually legislating. It’s hard for Second Amendment advocates to believe that the loudest voices are approaching this policy issue with seriousness when they constantly get even the most basic details wrong. I don’t want legislation that’s been emotionally manipulated into existence, I want legislation that is shown to actually do what it is intended to do.

4. The Most Prominent Policy Ideas Have Nothing to Do With the Tragedy

There’s an excellent column by Leah Libresco in the Washington Post explaining how certain policy initiatives haven’t actually been shown to prevent mass shootings. It’s a great primer on the nitty gritty data that Second Amendment advocates see supporting their side of the argument. I understand it can be frustrating that 2A advocates don’t seem to want to “do something” after a tragedy. But when we go down the laundry list of policy proposals after a tragedy it’s hard to consider them effective at preventing another tragedy when they wouldn’t have prevented the one that inspired them.

5. We Seriously Don’t Care About Gun Laws in Other Countries

We really, really don’t. That, of course, is because of the Second Amendment. The countries often brought up in the gun control debate not only have less than conclusive results (see the above link) but they don’t recognize personal possession of a firearm as a constitutional right. That is the bottom line. While their gun confiscation laws and the outcomes might be interesting, they are not applicable here.

6. We Really Do Consider Owning Firearms a Right

I view the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence as declaring the intrinsic and inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And I believe the framers knew that liberty is only achieved when the citizenry is known to keep tyrannical government, and those who would do me harm, at bay. My favorite explainer on citizens and their relation with tyrannical government is James Otis’ “Rights of the British Colonies” essay, but many like to use Hamilton’s Federalist Paper No. 29.

 

Beyond that, part of having liberty is personal safety from harm. Outside of the grace of God, I am the one primarily responsible for my safety, because I am able to be responsible for my safety. While I view the government’s primary responsibility the safety of its citizens, I am first responsible for my safety. Further, because I am able to be responsible for my safety, I have a duty as a good citizen to be prepared to protect others who cannot protect themselves. This is part of liberty. And the primary way I can ensure my liberty is by owning a firearm (and voting for those in favor of limited government—but that’s another debate).

 

More at the link:

 

I accept this but still think it’s crazy....

 

 

[/dev/null]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

6 Reasons Your Right-Wing Friend Isn’t Coming To Your Side On Gun Control

 

 

Reason #7 and this debate predates America and even the gun itself

 

The rights of the Individual vs the power of a Central Authority (Government, King, Church, etc).  Does the power of the Central Authority flow from the consent of the Governed or are the rights of the citizenry granted from the benevolence of the Central Authority?

 

Those among us who favor the individual over a Central Authority tend to side in favor of the Second Amendment.  Those who would surrender individual rights in favor of the "Greater Good" should enjoy the moral high ground because the day may come when they regret their magnanimity.

[Paulus]

I thought it was decided years ago that the best way to stop mass shootings was to take guns away from liberals. 

 

I mean, after each liberal mass shooting we get to hear from the same liberals, who bullied these guys into killing people, about how gun rights are bad. Seriously, this crap has gone far beyond good and asinine. 

Edited February 26, 2018 by Paulus

[LA Grant]

3 hours ago, B-Man said:

6 Reasons Your Right-Wing Friend Isn’t Coming To Your Side On Gun Control

 

 

Nice to see the weak arguments previously dismantled on earlier pages in a Buzzfeed format but nonetheless, it's still not an argument, it's a list of excuses.  6 Excuses to Avoid. "We're treated bad. You're not nice enough. I don't like your tone." Grow up. The right is so endlessly contradictory. Trump wins on bullying but as soon as they take just a hint of their own medicine, it's always this kind of crybaby crap. Can't wait for the NYT piece on how actually mass shootings are good for factory workers so think of them.

On and on and on with the BS.

"Poor, sensitive Lawful Gun Owners. Why won't anyone consider what they want after a tragedy? After all, they're still alive — in a way, aren't Lawful Gun Owners the real victims here? We must appease these snowflakes at all costs, their ears are vewwy vewwy delicate." I think the only kind of gun control the gun-wing of the right will support is if we also go through the list of every NRA member who hasn't murdered anyone and pat them on the head and give 'em a treat.

 

1 hour ago, Paulus said:

I thought it was decided years ago that the best way to stop mass shootings was to take guns away from liberals. 

 

I mean, after each liberal mass shooting we get to hear from the same liberals, who bullied these guys into killing people, try and take away gun rights. Seriously, this crap has gone far beyond good and asinine. 

 

That might work except it's almost always a right-wing nutjob. Usually some loner obsessed with guns.  

[row_33]

15 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Nice to see the weak arguments previously dismantled on earlier pages in a Buzzfeed format but nonetheless, it's still not an argument, it's a list of excuses.  6 Excuses to Avoid. "We're treated bad. You're not nice enough. I don't like your tone." Grow up. The right is so endlessly contradictory. Trump wins on bullying but as soon as they take just a hint of their own medicine, it's always this kind of crybaby crap. Can't wait for the NYT piece on how actually mass shootings are good for factory workers so think of them.

On and on and on with the BS.

".

 

 

That might work except it's almost always a right-wing nutjob. Usually some loner obsessed with guns.  

 

Half the shooters recently were first or second generation immigrants, always male, most always in a gun-restricted locale.

 

 

Edited February 26, 2018 by row_33