5 people have been injured after gun enthusiasts accidentially shot themselves, their business partners, and bystanders at Ohio, N.C., and Indiana gun shows on "gun appreciation day". Brilliant.
Interesting that no one was killed..... compare to this....
Every day in America, another 27 people die as a result of drunk driving crashes. (Statistics from MADD)
So now should we take away cars or alcohol? Aftert all, that is one more that Newtown.
EDIT: Sorry here is the full stats and attributed to NHTSA not MADD:
"Every day in America, another 27 people die as a result of drunk driving crashes."
(National Highway Traffic Safety Administration FARS data, 2012.)
That would only be a fair comparison if those 27 were killed at organized events of drunk drivers who were celebrating "drunk driving appreciation day".
Nobody is advocating taking away all guns in this country (as you imply), just regulating the kinds of guns that should be avaliable to the general population. I can hardly wait until these bills are passed, and the nutters in the NRA take them to the Supreme Court, where they will loose their argument once and for all because the Constitution talks about a "well regulated malitia", and the current CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court Justices have left the door wide open to such regulation.
$20 says you've never fired a rifle in your life, couldn't even tell me the legal length of a rifle without googling it, have no idea what an assault rifle is vs an assault weapon, and have no idea how many gun laws are already on the books.
Here, I'll make it simple for you:
1) You haven't and you're talking out of ignorance 2) 16 inches 3) There's no such thing as an assault weapon, but this is an assault rifle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle 4) Over 20,000
I guess you owe me $20.00. I was raised around guns and hunting, was taught at an early age to handle firearms safely and with respect. I've killed game (from phesant & quail to deer, mule deer and elk) in Texas, Colorado, Washington St., and Alaska. I currently own 1 deer rifle (a Winchester leaver action 30 - 30 that I used to kill my first deer), 2 shotguns ( a Browning Citori 12 ga. over & under and an 18" Remington 20 ga. pump), and a Ruger GP 100. I have no need or desire to own a weapon used by the military. As for all that other stuff, well, you're just plain wrong. Just because I don't see the world the way you do does not make me ignorant.
5 people have been injured after gun enthusiasts accidentially shot themselves, their business partners, and bystanders at Ohio, N.C., and Indiana gun shows on "gun appreciation day". Brilliant.
Interesting that no one was killed..... compare to this....
Every day in America, another 27 people die as a result of drunk driving crashes. (Statistics from MADD)
So now should we take away cars or alcohol? Aftert all, that is one more that Newtown.
EDIT: Sorry here is the full stats and attributed to NHTSA not MADD:
"Every day in America, another 27 people die as a result of drunk driving crashes."
(National Highway Traffic Safety Administration FARS data, 2012.)
That would only be a fair comparison if those 27 were killed at organized events of drunk drivers who were celebrating "drunk driving appreciation day".
Nobody is advocating taking away all guns in this country (as you imply), just regulating the kinds of guns that should be avaliable to the general population. I can hardly wait until these bills are passed, and the nutters in the NRA take them to the Supreme Court, where they will loose their argument once and for all because the Constitution talks about a "well regulated malitia", and the current CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court Justices have left the door wide open to such regulation.
$20 says you've never fired a rifle in your life, couldn't even tell me the legal length of a rifle without googling it, have no idea what an assault rifle is vs an assault weapon, and have no idea how many gun laws are already on the books.
Here, I'll make it simple for you:
1) You haven't and you're talking out of ignorance 2) 16 inches 3) There's no such thing as an assault weapon, but this is an assault rifle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle 4) Over 20,000
I guess you owe me $20.00. I was raised around guns and hunting, was taught at an early age to handle firearms safely and with respect. I've killed game (from phesant & quail to deer, mule deer and elk) in Texas, Colorado, Washington St., and Alaska. I currently own 1 deer rifle (a Winchester leaver action 30 - 30 that I used to kill my first deer), 2 shotguns ( a Browning Citori 12 ga. over & under and an 18" Remington 20 ga. pump), and a Ruger GP 100. I have no need or desire to own a weapon used by the military. As for all that other stuff, well, you're just plain wrong. Just because I don't see the world the way you do does not make me ignorant.
So because you don't like it, no one else should fire it?
Those shotguns and hunting rifles you own can put a bigger hole in someone than an AR15, and that shotgun can put the biggest hole in another human than any of them. The only difference is the AR15 or AK look scary and they come with black furniture on them, and you don't want to own it.
There are environmentalists who think we should ban cars, starting with ferrari's (no one needs that much horsepower) - your thinking on this matter is no different from a typical moonbat, "If I don't have a use for it, then nobody should need or want to own it"
I think you've categorized JDH far too narrowly, and I doubt he was unaware of what you're speaking of, and I have no doubt that he's fired many weapons. The guy's from Texas! He lives in The South. C'mon.
That said, I have to disagree with JDH myself in one area. I believe that there are quite a few powerful people and organizations that exactly DO want to take all guns away from everyone who isn't a cop or other government agent. Incrementalism is in fact the name of the game.
Look at this New York nonsense, "7 round magazines". How'd we end up with 10 in the first place? Limitations to "prevent future tragedies" were put in place back in the gangster era. Both of my .22's have 10 round capacities. An old Marlin rifle, and my .22 S&W target pistol, which I paid extra and waited 8 months to receive for the "bull" barrel, specifically so that I could put a couple hundred rounds, 10 at a time, without distortion. Under the NY madness, in a few months, the police could break my door down and arrest me for "assault" weapons.
Scare tactics. I think we can do better than that.
Anyone else ever read Abby Hoffman's "Steal this Book"? Lot's of info in there about bomb making. You can get all the stuff at Lowe's, or Walmart. Shall we shut down those enterprises for aiding and abetting terrorist activity? Makes as much sense as the new round of lunacy coming out of New York.
Huh, didn't know he was from Texas; probably the first anti-gun person from Texas I've ever met. Weird; it's kinda like Uncle Ruckus on Boondocks.
But you hit the nail on the head with this one - it's all about incrementalism. First restrict the magazines, then start instituting registration and eliminate the possibility of private sales without the gov't knowing. After they know where all the guns are and who has them, they can start implementing and, more importantly, enforcing fees - an annual registration fee, a fee for mandatory insurance, an ownership fee, a fee on ammo - start small and slowly tack on the fees until it's financially prohibitive to own or shoot a firearm. Didn't pay your tithe this year to big brother? You lose your guns and are banned from buying ammo. Of course little Johnny Break-and-Enter down the street stole his gun, so he won't be paying anything.
The anti-gun types know it's gonna be a 100-yr game, and if they move slowly enough and close the "loopholes" and find out who has the guns, they can start taxing everything to death, like boiling a frog. Do it slowly enough and the frog will never know; institute the registration and fees slowly enough and people will think "it's always been this way" and will accept it. Eventually no one will own a gun except the very rich, but by that time, ammunition will be so expensive (or just extinct) that there'll be nothing to shoot and the gun will be a display piece.
And that's the thing - culture isn't something people are born with, it's something that needs to be passed down from one generation to the next. If the gun grabbers can snuff one this generations guns, or get people to think those black, scary military-child-seeking-heat-seeking assault kill rifles aren't something anyone should own, then the next generation will grow up believing the same thing, and the gun will go to ground. Then they can start on handguns and stigmatize them, and so on
5 people have been injured after gun enthusiasts accidentially shot themselves, their business partners, and bystanders at Ohio, N.C., and Indiana gun shows on "gun appreciation day". Brilliant.
Interesting that no one was killed..... compare to this....
Every day in America, another 27 people die as a result of drunk driving crashes. (Statistics from MADD)
So now should we take away cars or alcohol? Aftert all, that is one more that Newtown.
EDIT: Sorry here is the full stats and attributed to NHTSA not MADD:
"Every day in America, another 27 people die as a result of drunk driving crashes."
(National Highway Traffic Safety Administration FARS data, 2012.)
That would only be a fair comparison if those 27 were killed at organized events of drunk drivers who were celebrating "drunk driving appreciation day".
Nobody is advocating taking away all guns in this country (as you imply), just regulating the kinds of guns that should be avaliable to the general population. I can hardly wait until these bills are passed, and the nutters in the NRA take them to the Supreme Court, where they will loose their argument once and for all because the Constitution talks about a "well regulated malitia", and the current CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court Justices have left the door wide open to such regulation.
$20 says you've never fired a rifle in your life, couldn't even tell me the legal length of a rifle without googling it, have no idea what an assault rifle is vs an assault weapon, and have no idea how many gun laws are already on the books.
Here, I'll make it simple for you:
1) You haven't and you're talking out of ignorance 2) 16 inches 3) There's no such thing as an assault weapon, but this is an assault rifle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle 4) Over 20,000
I guess you owe me $20.00. I was raised around guns and hunting, was taught at an early age to handle firearms safely and with respect. I've killed game (from phesant & quail to deer, mule deer and elk) in Texas, Colorado, Washington St., and Alaska. I currently own 1 deer rifle (a Winchester leaver action 30 - 30 that I used to kill my first deer), 2 shotguns ( a Browning Citori 12 ga. over & under and an 18" Remington 20 ga. pump), and a Ruger GP 100. I have no need or desire to own a weapon used by the military. As for all that other stuff, well, you're just plain wrong. Just because I don't see the world the way you do does not make me ignorant.
Well said and I dont know if your right or wrong, but his trying to pigeonhole you and insult your intellience or experience with anything (considering he does not know you) seemed very much out of line.
5 people have been injured after gun enthusiasts accidentially shot themselves, their business partners, and bystanders at Ohio, N.C., and Indiana gun shows on "gun appreciation day". Brilliant.
Interesting that no one was killed..... compare to this....
Every day in America, another 27 people die as a result of drunk driving crashes. (Statistics from MADD)
So now should we take away cars or alcohol? Aftert all, that is one more that Newtown.
EDIT: Sorry here is the full stats and attributed to NHTSA not MADD:
"Every day in America, another 27 people die as a result of drunk driving crashes."
(National Highway Traffic Safety Administration FARS data, 2012.)
That would only be a fair comparison if those 27 were killed at organized events of drunk drivers who were celebrating "drunk driving appreciation day".
Nobody is advocating taking away all guns in this country (as you imply), just regulating the kinds of guns that should be avaliable to the general population. I can hardly wait until these bills are passed, and the nutters in the NRA take them to the Supreme Court, where they will loose their argument once and for all because the Constitution talks about a "well regulated malitia", and the current CONSERVATIVE Supreme Court Justices have left the door wide open to such regulation.
$20 says you've never fired a rifle in your life, couldn't even tell me the legal length of a rifle without googling it, have no idea what an assault rifle is vs an assault weapon, and have no idea how many gun laws are already on the books.
Here, I'll make it simple for you:
1) You haven't and you're talking out of ignorance 2) 16 inches 3) There's no such thing as an assault weapon, but this is an assault rifle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle 4) Over 20,000
I guess you owe me $20.00. I was raised around guns and hunting, was taught at an early age to handle firearms safely and with respect. I've killed game (from phesant & quail to deer, mule deer and elk) in Texas, Colorado, Washington St., and Alaska. I currently own 1 deer rifle (a Winchester leaver action 30 - 30 that I used to kill my first deer), 2 shotguns ( a Browning Citori 12 ga. over & under and an 18" Remington 20 ga. pump), and a Ruger GP 100. I have no need or desire to own a weapon used by the military. As for all that other stuff, well, you're just plain wrong. Just because I don't see the world the way you do does not make me ignorant.
So because you don't like it, no one else should fire it?
Those shotguns and hunting rifles you own can put a bigger hole in someone than an AR15, and that shotgun can put the biggest hole in another human than any of them. The only difference is the AR15 or AK look scary and they come with black furniture on them, and you don't want to own it.
There are environmentalists who think we should ban cars, starting with ferrari's (no one needs that much horsepower) - your thinking on this matter is no different from a typical moonbat, "If I don't have a use for it, then nobody should need or want to own it"
I think that if you want access to military weapons, then join the military, especially now that we have a permanent, standing military that has replaced the citizen militia that used to be our Armed Forces. (For those of you who are real big on the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, you should easily recognize how much many of the founders, especially G Washington feared and opposed a standing professional army. That's why they favored a civilian militia for the defense of the country. If the people didn't want to go to war, then they wouldn't. A civilian militia was another check on the power of the the Congress and the Commander in Chief to make War.) If the NRA really wants a citizen militia to defend the country, they should be challenging the constitutionality of a standing, professional military. According to the constitution, that's the only rationale for the right to bear arms, (" A well regulated militia being necessary...") and I believe the current conservative Supreme Court Justices who have affirmed the right to bearms as an individual right will concur when it comes to the governments obligation to regulate those arms. All you have to do is read their opinions on their recent 2nd Amendment ruling to see what I'm talking about.
Again, I believe you are just wrong. That doesn't make you a bad person, just one with wrong headed ideas about guns, in my opinion. Newtown has changed the conversation, just as much as 9/11 changed the conversation, and I am convinced that your argument is on the wrong side of history, because an overwhelming majority of Americans, and of NRA members too, have decided that enough is enough and something else has to be done. I'm not going to insult you or demean you for your right to have an opinion, but I'd say that you do owe me $20.00.
Well said and I dont know if your right or wrong, but his trying to pigeonhole you and insult your intellience or experience with anything (considering he does not know you) seemed very much out of line.
Coming from someone who likes to paint themselves as a perpetual victim, I guess this kind of response is to be expected. I was wondering how long it'd take you to come out with something like this; guess I shouldn't be surprised
Poor Vulchor, I'll give a slow fap, er . . . clap, for you
I think that if you want access to military weapons, then join the military, especially now that we have a permanent, standing military that has replaced the citizen militia that used to be our Armed Forces.
By the same token, you could say that if you want access to a car with over 100 hp, that you should join NASCAR. Simply saying "I don't think ppl should have this" isn't an argument, it's an opinion
JDH:
(For those of you who are real big on the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, you should easily recognize how much many of the founders, especially G Washington feared and opposed a standing professional army.
That's only half the story; the reason a standing army was feared was because it might take over the country. Our military has a long tradition of bowing to civilian rule, so Washington's fears about a standing army were unwarranted. Also unmentioned was that it was Thomas Jefferson, IIRC, who ordered a Navy be constructed and began the process of creating an army.
JDH:
That's why they favored a civilian militia for the defense of the country. If the people didn't want to go to war, then they wouldn't. A civilian militia was another check on the power of the the Congress and the Commander in Chief to make War.)
Incorrect and historically inaccurate. The civilian militia idea failed spectacularly in the decades since the founding, first with the British taking Americans prisoner to serve in HMRN, and then with the Barbary pirates. A standing army is a necessity for any country; those that depend on civilian militias and eschew a formal army are either crushed or colonized with little to no trouble. If you want more proof, just look to China - it was everyone's b*tch for the past couple hundred years, from the US to the Japanese and Koreans, everyone enjoyed a ride until they got a gov't and instituted a standing army
JDH:
If the NRA really wants a citizen militia to defend the country, they should be challenging the constitutionality of a standing, professional military. According to the constitution, that's the only rationale for the right to bear arms, (" A well regulated militia being necessary...") and I believe the current conservative Supreme Court Justices who have affirmed the right to bearms as an individual right will concur when it comes to the governments obligation to regulate those arms. All you have to do is read their opinions on their recent 2nd Amendment ruling to see what I'm talking about.
Also incorrect and inaccurate. The NRA doesn't want a citizen militia; you're putting words in their mouths. They want the Right of the people to bear arms to not be infringed. You're being highly selective with the 2ndA, and as the US Supreme Court ruled, the bit about the militia is a preamble to the clause, not the actual clause itself, whereas the bit about "Shall not be infringed" is part of the actual clause.
I'd suggest re-reading the opinion, assuming you already have. The Justices found the right to bear arms to be an individual right, meaning it's possessed by the individual, and gov't has little control over it. A corollary would be the 1st A - you can say what you want, but with a few restrictions; likewise with the 2ndA, you can own the guns you want, with a few restrictions.
JDH:
Again, I believe you are just wrong. That doesn't make you a bad person, just one with wrong headed ideas about guns, in my opinion. Newtown has changed the conversation, just as much as 9/11 changed the conversation, and I am convinced that your argument is on the wrong side of history, because an overwhelming majority of Americans, and of NRA members too, have decided that enough is enough and something else has to be done. I'm not going to insult you or demean you for your right to have an opinion, but I'd say that you do owe me $20.00.
Well, I'm glad you don't see me as a bad person for simply disagreeing with you, which is more than I can say of most progressives these days.
Newtown changed nothing; despite the leftist media's constant waving of bloody shirts and teddy bears and cries for gun control, nothing has actually changed. The majority of Congress, both Dems and Repubs, have an A-rating from the NRA; there's around 10 Dems from Red States that have already come out against gun control (hell, even Harry Reid won't touch it, only going so far as to say he'd only consider legislation that could pass the House). The polls you're thinking of (ie - 72% of NRA members support gun registration) are being manipulated; the 72% refers to the background checks from FFL dealers, not private sales. As for the national polls you're referring to, those are all over the place depending on the sampling; 90% support gun control, 90% oppose gun control, etc - if you look at the more reliable ones, you'd see that little has changed; the spike in support for gun control is receding back to its historical levels
Oh, and I asked 4 questions, you answered 1 and ignored the ones that were inconvenient to answer, so no $20 for you. You also still haven't answered why an AR15 should be banned when 1) shotguns put a bigger hole in someone, and 2) handguns are used in many more crimes than rifles. Lest you forget, the Virginia Tech massacre killed more people than Newtown, yet the killer only used handguns
But at any rate it seems we'll never agree, so history will be the ultimate judge. Considering there's about 300-350 million guns in this country of 315 million people, I wouldn't bet on gun control working
If we want to get technical, you gave him the 4 answers you wanted to hear. He just corrected you on the one that you were incorrect and rude about (if he has ever fired a weapon). So he did really answer them by using your own answers provided. Welching on a bet is a no-no in most circles, lol.
I think that if you want access to military weapons, then join the military, especially now that we have a permanent, standing military that has replaced the citizen militia that used to be our Armed Forces.
By the same token, you could say that if you want access to a car with over 100 hp, that you should join NASCAR. Simply saying "I don't think ppl should have this" isn't an argument, it's an opinion
JDH:
(For those of you who are real big on the Constitution and the Founding Fathers, you should easily recognize how much many of the founders, especially G Washington feared and opposed a standing professional army.
That's only half the story; the reason a standing army was feared was because it might take over the country. Our military has a long tradition of bowing to civilian rule, so Washington's fears about a standing army were unwarranted. Also unmentioned was that it was Thomas Jefferson, IIRC, who ordered a Navy be constructed and began the process of creating an army.
JDH:
That's why they favored a civilian militia for the defense of the country. If the people didn't want to go to war, then they wouldn't. A civilian militia was another check on the power of the the Congress and the Commander in Chief to make War.)
Incorrect and historically inaccurate.
JDH:
If the NRA really wants a citizen militia to defend the country, they should be challenging the constitutionality of a standing, professional military. According to the constitution, that's the only rationale for the right to bear arms, (" A well regulated militia being necessary...") and I believe the current conservative Supreme Court Justices who have affirmed the right to bearms as an individual right will concur when it comes to the governments obligation to regulate those arms. All you have to do is read their opinions on their recent 2nd Amendment ruling to see what I'm talking about.
Also incorrect and inaccurate. The NRA doesn't want a citizen militia; you're putting words in their mouths. They want the Right of the people to bear arms to not be infringed. You're being highly selective with the 2ndA, and as the US Supreme Court ruled, the bit about the militia is a preamble to the clause, not the actual clause itself, whereas the bit about "Shall not be infringed" is part of the actual clause.
I'd suggest re-reading the opinion, assuming you already have. The Justices found the right to bear arms to be an individual right, meaning it's possessed by the individual, and gov't has little control over it. A corollary would be the 1st A - you can say what you want, but with a few restrictions; likewise with the 2ndA, you can own the guns you want, with a few restrictions.
JDH:
Again, I believe you are just wrong. That doesn't make you a bad person, just one with wrong headed ideas about guns, in my opinion. Newtown has changed the conversation, just as much as 9/11 changed the conversation, and I am convinced that your argument is on the wrong side of history, because an overwhelming majority of Americans, and of NRA members too, have decided that enough is enough and something else has to be done. I'm not going to insult you or demean you for your right to have an opinion, but I'd say that you do owe me $20.00.
Well, I'm glad you don't see me as a bad person for simply disagreeing with you, which is more than I can say of most progressives these days.
Newtown changed nothing; despite the leftist media's constant waving of bloody shirts and teddy bears and cries for gun control, nothing has actually changed. The majority of Congress, both Dems and Repubs, have an A-rating from the NRA; there's around 10 Dems from Red States that have already come out against gun control (hell, even Harry Reid won't touch it, only going so far as to say he'd only consider legislation that could pass the House). The polls you're thinking of (ie - 72% of NRA members support gun registration) are being manipulated; the 72% refers to the background checks from FFL dealers, not private sales. As for the national polls you're referring to, those are all over the place depending on the sampling; 90% support gun control, 90% oppose gun control, etc - if you look at the more reliable ones, you'd see that little has changed; the spike in support for gun control is receding back to its historical levels
Oh, and I asked 4 questions, you answered 1 and ignored the ones that were inconvenient to answer. No $20 for you.
Those are your opinions, and you're entitled to them. I do not share them, nor do I accept the historical accuracy lf your statements. Therefore, since you aren't interested in discussing anything, only in hurling insults and platitudes while telling the world what you believe is the absolute truth, we will just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.
I did not expect you to pay, mainly because I think you were just shooting your mouth off when you made the bet. However, the more disagreeable you are, and the more you sling provocative and inflamatory language around, the more you damage your own reputation, not mine.
I did not expect you to pay, mainly because I think you were just shooting your mouth off when you made the bet. However, the more disagreeable you are, and the more you sling provocative and inflamatory language around, the more you damage your own reputation, not mine.
Instead of issuing pithy platitudes and appeals to the morality/emotion, why not answer my questions or refute my arguments. I guess it's asking too much to answer the simple question of why Newtown should mean a ban on an AR15 when the V-Tech shooter used handguns to kill about 50% more people than Newtown, or why a shotgun is ok but an AR15 isn't.
But hey, keep playing to the crowd, Vulchor seems content to play cheerleader without actually putting forth an argument and it seems you keep playing to his replies
I did not expect you to pay, mainly because I think you were just shooting your mouth off when you made the bet. However, the more disagreeable you are, and the more you sling provocative and inflamatory language around, the more you damage your own reputation, not mine.
Instead of issuing pithy platitudes and appeals to the morality/emotion, why not answer my questions or refute my arguments. I guess it's asking too much to answer the simple question of why Newtown should mean a ban on an AR15 when the V-Tech shooter used handguns to kill about 50% more people than Newtown, or why a shotgun is ok but an AR15 isn't.
But hey, keep playing to the crowd, Vulchor seems content to play cheerleader without actually putting forth an argument and it seems you keep playing to his replies
I am not interested in discussing anything with you, because it's like talking to an angry 17 year old boy who thinks he's in control of everyone around him. You don't control me, and I won't play your little game.
I did not expect you to pay, mainly because I think you were just shooting your mouth off when you made the bet. However, the more disagreeable you are, and the more you sling provocative and inflamatory language around, the more you damage your own reputation, not mine.
Instead of issuing pithy platitudes and appeals to the morality/emotion, why not answer my questions or refute my arguments. I guess it's asking too much to answer the simple question of why Newtown should mean a ban on an AR15 when the V-Tech shooter used handguns to kill about 50% more people than Newtown, or why a shotgun is ok but an AR15 isn't.
But hey, keep playing to the crowd, Vulchor seems content to play cheerleader without actually putting forth an argument and it seems you keep playing to his replies
Ay Ay Ay....I gave my opinion on the first page of this thread. I believe the role of guns were considered to be to protect us from out govt. I do not believe we have the power to do this due to our military might. As to if this means we shoudl allow any guns, all guns, ban guns, I do not know. Its a money issue and one I will allow others to fight over as I dont ever see ALL being allowed or ALL being banned. Hence, compromise would be nice...but unlikely
And as far as being a cheerleader, I merely said the questions you asked him (or bet him should I say) were all answered by yourself and then corrected by him. Cant change the rules and add new questions later. No one seriously thought this was a bet, but changing the rules once the game starts is poor form.
Just to add to the original topic about NY. I don't feel that the rest of the states will have laws as strict as NY nor do i feel anyone will take guns away. Everyone will be allowed to keep their assault rifles but have to register them just like most states make you do with a handgun. May cut back on high cap mags only things is in NY you can only load 7 rounds in a 10 round mag. This is a law only for law abiding citizens to follow as I don't bleieve anybody who is going to commit a felony would worry about it. Now that gun laws are in the books we need to start enforcing them. Why can a football player shoot himself at a bar in NYC and only get 2 years. If an average joe got causght just in NYC its a madatory 4 years. That before taking it to a bar and discharging it. Now lets try and work on the problem in our society that is causing these issues. Blaming the gun and not the idiviual is a start. Bullying is another one that I think needs a closer look. Some parents encourage it kinda sick huh.
I did not expect you to pay, mainly because I think you were just shooting your mouth off when you made the bet. However, the more disagreeable you are, and the more you sling provocative and inflamatory language around, the more you damage your own reputation, not mine.
Instead of issuing pithy platitudes and appeals to the morality/emotion, why not answer my questions or refute my arguments. I guess it's asking too much to answer the simple question of why Newtown should mean a ban on an AR15 when the V-Tech shooter used handguns to kill about 50% more people than Newtown, or why a shotgun is ok but an AR15 isn't.
But hey, keep playing to the crowd, Vulchor seems content to play cheerleader without actually putting forth an argument and it seems you keep playing to his replies
I am not interested in discussing anything with you, because it's like talking to an angry 17 year old boy who thinks he's in control of everyone around him. You don't control me, and I won't play your little game.
But you do owe me $20.
This is almost comical; asking for a refutation or an argument instead of opinion and being met with the reply, "You don't control me"
I did not expect you to pay, mainly because I think you were just shooting your mouth off when you made the bet. However, the more disagreeable you are, and the more you sling provocative and inflamatory language around, the more you damage your own reputation, not mine.
Instead of issuing pithy platitudes and appeals to the morality/emotion, why not answer my questions or refute my arguments. I guess it's asking too much to answer the simple question of why Newtown should mean a ban on an AR15 when the V-Tech shooter used handguns to kill about 50% more people than Newtown, or why a shotgun is ok but an AR15 isn't.
But hey, keep playing to the crowd, Vulchor seems content to play cheerleader without actually putting forth an argument and it seems you keep playing to his replies
I am not interested in discussing anything with you, because it's like talking to an angry 17 year old boy who thinks he's in control of everyone around him. You don't control me, and I won't play your little game.
But you do owe me $20.
This is almost comical; asking for a refutation or an argument instead of opinion and being met with the reply, "You don't control me"
I guess this is as far as you go
When you are discussing things with people face to face, do you often talk to them this way?
I did not expect you to pay, mainly because I think you were just shooting your mouth off when you made the bet. However, the more disagreeable you are, and the more you sling provocative and inflamatory language around, the more you damage your own reputation, not mine.
Instead of issuing pithy platitudes and appeals to the morality/emotion, why not answer my questions or refute my arguments. I guess it's asking too much to answer the simple question of why Newtown should mean a ban on an AR15 when the V-Tech shooter used handguns to kill about 50% more people than Newtown, or why a shotgun is ok but an AR15 isn't.
But hey, keep playing to the crowd, Vulchor seems content to play cheerleader without actually putting forth an argument and it seems you keep playing to his replies
I am not interested in discussing anything with you, because it's like talking to an angry 17 year old boy who thinks he's in control of everyone around him. You don't control me, and I won't play your little game.
But you do owe me $20.
This is almost comical; asking for a refutation or an argument instead of opinion and being met with the reply, "You don't control me"
I guess this is as far as you go
When you are discussing things with people face to face, do you often talk to them this way?
I did not expect you to pay, mainly because I think you were just shooting your mouth off when you made the bet. However, the more disagreeable you are, and the more you sling provocative and inflamatory language around, the more you damage your own reputation, not mine.
Instead of issuing pithy platitudes and appeals to the morality/emotion, why not answer my questions or refute my arguments. I guess it's asking too much to answer the simple question of why Newtown should mean a ban on an AR15 when the V-Tech shooter used handguns to kill about 50% more people than Newtown, or why a shotgun is ok but an AR15 isn't.
But hey, keep playing to the crowd, Vulchor seems content to play cheerleader without actually putting forth an argument and it seems you keep playing to his replies
I am not interested in discussing anything with you, because it's like talking to an angry 17 year old boy who thinks he's in control of everyone around him. You don't control me, and I won't play your little game.
But you do owe me $20.
This is almost comical; asking for a refutation or an argument instead of opinion and being met with the reply, "You don't control me"
I guess this is as far as you go
When you are discussing things with people face to face, do you often talk to them this way?
Yes. Feel better now?
If that's true, it would probably be a good idea for you to avoid contact with the public. Most people would not appreciate the tone of your comments, or the beligerence of your attitude, and I'm sure there would be a lot of complaints.
This has been so much fun to read and I managed to stay out of it entirely. I do love the way they play an argument and then hide as the insulted victim
This has been so much fun to read and I managed to stay out of it entirely. I do love the way they play an argument and then hide as the insulted victim
I did not expect you to pay, mainly because I think you were just shooting your mouth off when you made the bet. However, the more disagreeable you are, and the more you sling provocative and inflamatory language around, the more you damage your own reputation, not mine.
Instead of issuing pithy platitudes and appeals to the morality/emotion, why not answer my questions or refute my arguments. I guess it's asking too much to answer the simple question of why Newtown should mean a ban on an AR15 when the V-Tech shooter used handguns to kill about 50% more people than Newtown, or why a shotgun is ok but an AR15 isn't.
But hey, keep playing to the crowd, Vulchor seems content to play cheerleader without actually putting forth an argument and it seems you keep playing to his replies
I am not interested in discussing anything with you, because it's like talking to an angry 17 year old boy who thinks he's in control of everyone around him. You don't control me, and I won't play your little game.
But you do owe me $20.
This is almost comical; asking for a refutation or an argument instead of opinion and being met with the reply, "You don't control me"
I guess this is as far as you go
When you are discussing things with people face to face, do you often talk to them this way?
Yes. Feel better now?
If that's true, it would probably be a good idea for you to avoid contact with the public. Most people would not appreciate the tone of your comments, or the beligerence of your attitude, and I'm sure there would be a lot of complaints.
Better to be hated for who you are than loved for being what you are not. I don't play to political correctness or what people want to hear; as Popeye was wont to say, "I yam what I yam"
This has been so much fun to read and I managed to stay out of it entirely. I do love the way they play an argument and then hide as the insulted victim
Grow up fella. You didnt stay out of it...you obviously couldnt, it ate at you not to have your voice out there---- opinion or not. I did give my opinion and didnt hide as any victim. Common decency was not something Macro gave JDH or myself and I am not insulted at all, saddened is more like it. As for your need to be heard or applauded for "staying out of it" until this this point at least, cheers to you.v
I did not expect you to pay, mainly because I think you were just shooting your mouth off when you made the bet. However, the more disagreeable you are, and the more you sling provocative and inflamatory language around, the more you damage your own reputation, not mine.
Instead of issuing pithy platitudes and appeals to the morality/emotion, why not answer my questions or refute my arguments. I guess it's asking too much to answer the simple question of why Newtown should mean a ban on an AR15 when the V-Tech shooter used handguns to kill about 50% more people than Newtown, or why a shotgun is ok but an AR15 isn't.
But hey, keep playing to the crowd, Vulchor seems content to play cheerleader without actually putting forth an argument and it seems you keep playing to his replies
I am not interested in discussing anything with you, because it's like talking to an angry 17 year old boy who thinks he's in control of everyone around him. You don't control me, and I won't play your little game.
But you do owe me $20.
This is almost comical; asking for a refutation or an argument instead of opinion and being met with the reply, "You don't control me"
I guess this is as far as you go
When you are discussing things with people face to face, do you often talk to them this way?
Yes. Feel better now?
If that's true, it would probably be a good idea for you to avoid contact with the public. Most people would not appreciate the tone of your comments, or the beligerence of your attitude, and I'm sure there would be a lot of complaints.
Better to be hated for who you are than loved for being what you are not. I don't play to political correctness or what people want to hear; as Popeye was wont to say, "I yam what I yam"
I certainly don't hate you, but if this is who you are, then there's no reason for me to discuss anything with you.
This has been so much fun to read and I managed to stay out of it entirely. I do love the way they play an argument and then hide as the insulted victim
I don't think this is what happened at all. I think that what happened is what happens so often. For some reason, conservatives, and especially neo-conservatives tend to think that everyone is cut from a whole cloth, like they themselves are. For most of us this isn't so. This thread is an example. I agree almost wholly with Xmacro, which doesn't happen often. (I only disagree with him when he's wrong;)).
For some reason, many on the far right seem to think that if someone expresses an opinion that fits on one side of the left/right dichotomy, then that person automatically must believe everything that the left, or right, issues as their stock beliefs. Reality doesn't work this way.
2 examples. (theoretical, but read our threads for the last few years)
I love Glenfiddich scotch. Now, if one of our Rightward slanted BOTL finds that Barbara Boxer likes Glenfiddich, then suddenly I'm responsible for all of her (insane) political views when we discuss those, and that's what gets argued against, because it is extrapolated that if we both like Glenfiddich, then all our other opinions must be the same.
Here's a better one. I think that some kind of national health care plan is a good idea. This was especially so during the Clinton administration, when we could have afforded it. I said so, many times, during the Clinton administration. My conservative friends responded with; "I can't believe you think that health care is a fundamental right, like Hillary!" Absolutely NOT!!
There's a huge difference between thinking that a national health care program is a good idea, if we can afford it, and believing that such a thing is a "Fundamental Right". You have a fundamental right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Pursuit, meaning you can work for it. If we, as a nation, have managed ourselves well, we should be able to collectively pay for things like highways, schools, healthcare, etc. If we've pissed our fortune away by overseas adventurism, or allowing Corporate robber barons to abscond with what we ALL worked for, there is no "Right" to healthcare.
Thus, when Xmacro applied a certain far left caricturization to JDH, which doesn't fit the man at all, he started something ugly. My opinion, which doesn't matter much, is that he should apologize for having crossed that line, and pay up on the bet he made while crossing it. In fact, better than $20, send the man a good cigar! GOF sounds appropriate.
Now, let's send that to Congress, and they'll have Xmacro send Everyone a GOF!
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
This article pretty much explains my frustration with the obsession some people have with firearms, and who are opposing any rational regulation of them in our society. Personally, I believe that the US is a centrist nation, and that the overwhelming majority of Americans are either right of center moderates or left of center moderates. It would be a wonderful thing if a centrist-moderate party could be formed, because I believe it would dominate nearly all legislation, occasionally forming coalitions, sometimes with righties and sometimes lefties, but nearly always coming down squarely in the center of the argument.
This little exchange I've had with xmacro demonstrates pretty clearly why it's nearly impossible to even have a conversation with the idiologically driven, and that's why Congress is broken with approval ratings below 20%.
Comments
Those shotguns and hunting rifles you own can put a bigger hole in someone than an AR15, and that shotgun can put the biggest hole in another human than any of them. The only difference is the AR15 or AK look scary and they come with black furniture on them, and you don't want to own it.
There are environmentalists who think we should ban cars, starting with ferrari's (no one needs that much horsepower) - your thinking on this matter is no different from a typical moonbat, "If I don't have a use for it, then nobody should need or want to own it"
But you hit the nail on the head with this one - it's all about incrementalism. First restrict the magazines, then start instituting registration and eliminate the possibility of private sales without the gov't knowing. After they know where all the guns are and who has them, they can start implementing and, more importantly, enforcing fees - an annual registration fee, a fee for mandatory insurance, an ownership fee, a fee on ammo - start small and slowly tack on the fees until it's financially prohibitive to own or shoot a firearm. Didn't pay your tithe this year to big brother? You lose your guns and are banned from buying ammo. Of course little Johnny Break-and-Enter down the street stole his gun, so he won't be paying anything.
The anti-gun types know it's gonna be a 100-yr game, and if they move slowly enough and close the "loopholes" and find out who has the guns, they can start taxing everything to death, like boiling a frog. Do it slowly enough and the frog will never know; institute the registration and fees slowly enough and people will think "it's always been this way" and will accept it. Eventually no one will own a gun except the very rich, but by that time, ammunition will be so expensive (or just extinct) that there'll be nothing to shoot and the gun will be a display piece.
And that's the thing - culture isn't something people are born with, it's something that needs to be passed down from one generation to the next. If the gun grabbers can snuff one this generations guns, or get people to think those black, scary military-child-seeking-heat-seeking assault kill rifles aren't something anyone should own, then the next generation will grow up believing the same thing, and the gun will go to ground. Then they can start on handguns and stigmatize them, and so on
Again, I believe you are just wrong. That doesn't make you a bad person, just one with wrong headed ideas about guns, in my opinion. Newtown has changed the conversation, just as much as 9/11 changed the conversation, and I am convinced that your argument is on the wrong side of history, because an overwhelming majority of Americans, and of NRA members too, have decided that enough is enough and something else has to be done. I'm not going to insult you or demean you for your right to have an opinion, but I'd say that you do owe me $20.00.
Poor Vulchor, I'll give a slow fap, er . . . clap, for you
That's only half the story; the reason a standing army was feared was because it might take over the country. Our military has a long tradition of bowing to civilian rule, so Washington's fears about a standing army were unwarranted. Also unmentioned was that it was Thomas Jefferson, IIRC, who ordered a Navy be constructed and began the process of creating an army. Incorrect and historically inaccurate. The civilian militia idea failed spectacularly in the decades since the founding, first with the British taking Americans prisoner to serve in HMRN, and then with the Barbary pirates. A standing army is a necessity for any country; those that depend on civilian militias and eschew a formal army are either crushed or colonized with little to no trouble. If you want more proof, just look to China - it was everyone's b*tch for the past couple hundred years, from the US to the Japanese and Koreans, everyone enjoyed a ride until they got a gov't and instituted a standing army
Also incorrect and inaccurate. The NRA doesn't want a citizen militia; you're putting words in their mouths. They want the Right of the people to bear arms to not be infringed. You're being highly selective with the 2ndA, and as the US Supreme Court ruled, the bit about the militia is a preamble to the clause, not the actual clause itself, whereas the bit about "Shall not be infringed" is part of the actual clause.
I'd suggest re-reading the opinion, assuming you already have. The Justices found the right to bear arms to be an individual right, meaning it's possessed by the individual, and gov't has little control over it. A corollary would be the 1st A - you can say what you want, but with a few restrictions; likewise with the 2ndA, you can own the guns you want, with a few restrictions.
Well, I'm glad you don't see me as a bad person for simply disagreeing with you, which is more than I can say of most progressives these days.
Newtown changed nothing; despite the leftist media's constant waving of bloody shirts and teddy bears and cries for gun control, nothing has actually changed. The majority of Congress, both Dems and Repubs, have an A-rating from the NRA; there's around 10 Dems from Red States that have already come out against gun control (hell, even Harry Reid won't touch it, only going so far as to say he'd only consider legislation that could pass the House). The polls you're thinking of (ie - 72% of NRA members support gun registration) are being manipulated; the 72% refers to the background checks from FFL dealers, not private sales. As for the national polls you're referring to, those are all over the place depending on the sampling; 90% support gun control, 90% oppose gun control, etc - if you look at the more reliable ones, you'd see that little has changed; the spike in support for gun control is receding back to its historical levels
Oh, and I asked 4 questions, you answered 1 and ignored the ones that were inconvenient to answer, so no $20 for you. You also still haven't answered why an AR15 should be banned when 1) shotguns put a bigger hole in someone, and 2) handguns are used in many more crimes than rifles. Lest you forget, the Virginia Tech massacre killed more people than Newtown, yet the killer only used handguns
But at any rate it seems we'll never agree, so history will be the ultimate judge. Considering there's about 300-350 million guns in this country of 315 million people, I wouldn't bet on gun control working
I did not expect you to pay, mainly because I think you were just shooting your mouth off when you made the bet. However, the more disagreeable you are, and the more you sling provocative and inflamatory language around, the more you damage your own reputation, not mine.
But hey, keep playing to the crowd, Vulchor seems content to play cheerleader without actually putting forth an argument and it seems you keep playing to his replies
But you do owe me $20.
And as far as being a cheerleader, I merely said the questions you asked him (or bet him should I say) were all answered by yourself and then corrected by him. Cant change the rules and add new questions later. No one seriously thought this was a bet, but changing the rules once the game starts is poor form.
I guess this is as far as you go
For some reason, many on the far right seem to think that if someone expresses an opinion that fits on one side of the left/right dichotomy, then that person automatically must believe everything that the left, or right, issues as their stock beliefs. Reality doesn't work this way.
2 examples. (theoretical, but read our threads for the last few years)
I love Glenfiddich scotch. Now, if one of our Rightward slanted BOTL finds that Barbara Boxer likes Glenfiddich, then suddenly I'm responsible for all of her (insane) political views when we discuss those, and that's what gets argued against, because it is extrapolated that if we both like Glenfiddich, then all our other opinions must be the same.
Here's a better one. I think that some kind of national health care plan is a good idea. This was especially so during the Clinton administration, when we could have afforded it. I said so, many times, during the Clinton administration. My conservative friends responded with; "I can't believe you think that health care is a fundamental right, like Hillary!"
Absolutely NOT!!
There's a huge difference between thinking that a national health care program is a good idea, if we can afford it, and believing that such a thing is a "Fundamental Right". You have a fundamental right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Pursuit, meaning you can work for it. If we, as a nation, have managed ourselves well, we should be able to collectively pay for things like highways, schools, healthcare, etc. If we've pissed our fortune away by overseas adventurism, or allowing Corporate robber barons to abscond with what we ALL worked for, there is no "Right" to healthcare.
Thus, when Xmacro applied a certain far left caricturization to JDH, which doesn't fit the man at all, he started something ugly. My opinion, which doesn't matter much, is that he should apologize for having crossed that line, and pay up on the bet he made while crossing it.
In fact, better than $20, send the man a good cigar! GOF sounds appropriate.
Now, let's send that to Congress, and they'll have Xmacro send Everyone a GOF!
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/22/opinion/kozachik-gun-buyback/index.html?iid=article_sidebar
This article pretty much explains my frustration with the obsession some people have with firearms, and who are opposing any rational regulation of them in our society. Personally, I believe that the US is a centrist nation, and that the overwhelming majority of Americans are either right of center moderates or left of center moderates. It would be a wonderful thing if a centrist-moderate party could be formed, because I believe it would dominate nearly all legislation, occasionally forming coalitions, sometimes with righties and sometimes lefties, but nearly always coming down squarely in the center of the argument.
This little exchange I've had with xmacro demonstrates pretty clearly why it's nearly impossible to even have a conversation with the idiologically driven, and that's why Congress is broken with approval ratings below 20%.