Mass shooting at El Paso Walmart/and also Dayton OH

[ExiledInIllinois]

1 minute ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

So fine, let them push.  Push back.

It's a fallacy.   If the majority of people in the country don't want to ban guns, but do want gun regulation, it doesn't matter if extremists push, it won't happen.  But for people who use and respect guns to not even consider and discuss what kind of regulations might work in our country because "Oh Noes!   Sky might fall if we do!"

 

Irrational in my opinion.

 

Instead what happens is we get laws drafted by people who maybe have never used a gun, certainly never used a gun as a tool, with silly definitions of "assault weapon" or restrictions on the number of bullets in a clip that accomplish nothing.

 

 

It's because the have a right to not be infringed on.  Even the 1st doesn't grant that.

What the hell were the Founders thinking.  They were technologically immature.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

It may be a reality.  So what?  So nothing can be done...because you're frightened of hypothetical extremists?  Cowboy up!

 

This is how progressivism works.

 

As I'm against progressivism (it's a disease), yeah. I don't feel the need to accomodate their desires in the least.

 

It's not that nothing can be done, in my eyes. It's that nothing SHOULD be done.

 

There's a difference.

 

 

[ExiledInIllinois]

Just now, Joe in Winslow said:

We most certainly are not.

 

 

Okay... At least we are record stating this.

 

Then when is a public nuisance?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

5 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

OK, let's do it this way:

 

Since we're all in the mood for regulating things, how about we regulate leftist speech? No more rallies, no more left-leaning papers. Sounds good?

 

 

This seems to me like classic "Whataboutism".  Why not discuss and resolve one issue on its merits, and not try to conflate several issues and act like it's not possible to address one issue unless we address every other issue someone chooses to throw into the pot?

[Gugny]

12 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

Exactly. There is no appeasement of the anti-gunners. They want it all, and if you grant them a fraction of it, it won't stop them. Better to not tolerate any regulation.

 

 

To Gary's (more important) point ... this extremism goes both ways.

[Beast]

50 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

LoL... 

 

I support the 2nd.  Just make infringable (is that a word?) like the 1st can be infringed on.

 

Guns are a public nuisance.  There is no doubt about that.

 

We can get creative with taking some firearms away and not take them ALL away. We do with the 1st amendment.

 

I like that “We” term around a lot.

 

I bet you’ll be volunteering to go take those “firearms” away from people, huh?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

This seems to me like classic "Whataboutism".  Why not discuss and resolve one issue on its merits, and not try to conflate several issues and act like it's not possible to address one issue unless we address every other issue someone chooses to throw into the pot?

 

This is most CERTAINLY a relevant thought, Hap. The second amendment enshrines an inalienable right, much the same way the first does. If one of the inalienable rights is suddenly not inalienable, then why not the rest?

 

[ExiledInIllinois]

Just now, Binghamton Beast said:

 

I like that “We” term around a lot.

 

I bet you’ll be volunteering to go take those “firearms” away from people, huh?

Sure. But, I won't go in without training and backup.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

To Gary's (more important) point ... this extremism goes both ways.

Since when is it an extremist position to not want to surrender my rights to anyone else?

 

 

6 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

Okay... At least we are record stating this.

 

Then when is a public nuisance?

 

People who are of the opinion that gun control is an answer to any problem.

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

From a guy who's smarter than just about anyone in this thread.

 

 

[Gugny]

Just now, Joe in Winslow said:

Since when is it an extremist position to not want to surrender my rights to anyone else?

 

 

 

It's extreme to think that nothing should be done about the gun violence problem in the United States.

 

It's extreme to think that there is ANY practical need for a semi-automatic weapon in the civilian world.

 

It's extreme to believe that most rational people are actually asking others to "surrender their rights."

 

It's extreme to think we need militias to prepare to fight against our own government.

 

It's extreme to think that it's practical to remove all guns from civilians.

 

There has been one President of the United States, ever, to say anything about taking people's guns.  The same one who expressed sorrow for the people of Toledo, OH, yesterday.

 

It's pure, unwarranted paranoia to believe that's the end goal, here, by ANYONE thinking about this rationally.  That is extreme.

[RaoulDuke79]

12 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

Okay... At least we are record stating this.

 

Then when is a public nuisance?

The public is a public nuisance. Not the guns. Put 10,000 guns in the middle of the street and nothing will happen. Put 10,000 people in any place and your probably going to get a few #######s. Put 10,000 guns and 10,000 #######s in a place then there is a real issue. 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

4 minutes ago, Gugny said:

It's pure, unwarranted paranoia to believe that's the end goal, here, by ANYONE thinking about this rationally.  That is extreme.

 

And that's the problem. No one's thinking about this rationally, nor do they ever after something like this happens. If we were thinking rationally, we'd be thinking like NDgT did in his tweet above. THAT is the rational response.

 

Your definition of extreme and mine are radically different.

 

Your odds of dying at the hands of a drunk driver are FAR greater than from a mass shooting. Should we restrict alcohol to law-abiding citizens to stop DUI?

 

How'd THAT work the last time it was tried?
 

 

Edited August 6, 2019 by Joe in Winslow

[RaoulDuke79]

3 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

From a guy who's smarter than just about anyone in this thread.

 

 

He was derided and labeled callous for that tweet as well.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, RaoulDuke79 said:

He was derided and labeled callous for that tweet as well.

 

Yes by the hyper-emotional leftists of the twitterverse.

 

Hard to take any of those people seriously. That being said, he wasn't wrong in the least.

 

 

Edited August 6, 2019 by Joe in Winslow

[Gugny]

2 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

And that's the problem. No one's thinking about this rationally, nor do they ever after something like this happens. If we were thinking rationally, we'd be thinking like NDgT did in his tweet above. THAT is the rational response.

 

Your definition of extreme and mine are radically different.

 

Your odds of dying at the hands of a drunk driver are FAR greater than from a mass shooting. Should we restrict alcohol to law-abiding citizens to stop DUI?

 

How'd THAT work the last time it was tried?
 

 

 

That tweet could have been written by an adolescent, because only an adolescent would make the comparisons he made.

 

It's like the old, "Uh, hut, someone ran over a bunch a people with a truck .. we should probably ban trucks, I reckon!" argument. 

 

It's weak, irrelevant, simple and shallow.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, Gugny said:

 

That tweet could have been written by an adolescent, because only an adolescent would make the comparisons he made.

 

It's like the old, "Uh, hut, someone ran over a bunch a people with a truck .. we should probably ban trucks, I reckon!" argument. 

 

It's weak, irrelevant, simple and shallow.

 

No, it's not. It's statistically and logically correct.

 

Rational thought isn't driving this debate. Emotion (inflamed by a sensationalist media) is.

 

[Gugny]

Just now, Joe in Winslow said:

 

No, it's not. It's statistically and logically correct.

 

Rational thought isn't driving this debate. Emotion (inflamed by a sensationalist media) is.

 

 

Please stop blaming the media.  That, too, is weak.  Very trumpish.  You're better than that (and him).

 

There is no practical need for military-style and/or semi-automatic weapons.  Zilch.  Zero.  No one is using single-shot firearms to carry out terrorist attacks.  It's ridiculous that these things are sold in stores to the public.

 

For what???

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

 

1 minute ago, Gugny said:

 

Please stop blaming the media.  That, too, is weak.  Very trumpish.  You're better than that (and him).

 

There is no practical need for military-style and/or semi-automatic weapons.  Zilch.  Zero.  No one is using single-shot firearms to carry out terrorist attacks.  It's ridiculous that these things are sold in stores to the public.

 

For what???

 

If it bleeds, it leads baby. Let's get every reporter out there to investigate this guy's family, tell his life story. Whatever were his motivations? Right, not a problem

 

If we were smart about these things, those shooters would die in anonymity. But we're not. I digress.

 

So, you're against semi-automatic weapons, huh? How about something like this:

 

There's no practical use for that kind of firearm in your mind? No reason a homeowner should want something like that? How's the police response time in Glens Falls these days? Probably better than in North Argyle.

 

[Beast]

34 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

Sure. But, I won't go in without training and backup.

 

You have fun with that.

 

Edited August 6, 2019 by Binghamton Beast