Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
And after each time there is a gun violence incident, the gun grabbing feinsteins and schumers are there with new bills to outlaw guns. They won't stop till Americans are disarmed like the French and other Europeans are. Not a good idea since Obama will do whatever it takes to increase the number of muslim refugees into the USA.
Wow, the lunatic fringe sure do like their guns.
Yes, you loonies love your power. Must piss you off that the common man can tell you to fuck off huh... I've watched petty tyrants like you in operation, you're like Cartman but without a bit of humor.
Wow, a string of personal attacks. Do you think this is an example for all members to follow? Or do you believe you are exceptional and rules don't apply to you?
You get what you give pal. Calling us loonies and then you whine when we throw it back in your face? What the hell are you? Twelve?
The Lunatic Fringe is a well heeled political science term, like the Right or the Left or the Fringe. It is a particular form of fringe, as TR once noted:
"Lunatic fringe is a term used to characterize members of a political or social movement as extremists with eccentric or fanatical views. The term was popularized by Theodore Roosevelt, who wrote in 1913 that, "Every reform movement has a lunatic fringe"."
Of course the NRA and its fanatic followers are anything but reformers.
Wow, the lunatic fringe sure do like their guns.
Yes, you loonies love your power. Must piss you off that the common man can tell you to fuck off huh... I've watched petty tyrants like you in operation, you're like Cartman but without a bit of humor.
Wow, a string of personal attacks. Do you think this is an example for all members to follow? Or do you believe you are exceptional and rules don't apply to you?
You get what you give pal. Calling us loonies and then you whine when we throw it back in your face? What the hell are you? Twelve?
The Lunatic Fringe is a well heeled political science term, like the Right or the Left or the Fringe. It is a particular form of fringe, as TR once noted:
"Lunatic fringe is a term used to characterize members of a political or social movement as extremists with eccentric or fanatical views. The term was popularized by Theodore Roosevelt, who wrote in 1913 that, "Every reform movement has a lunatic fringe"."
Of course the NRA and its fanatic followers are anything but reformers.
Like I said, if you resort to insults then you shouldn't be surprised when you are the target of them as well. To believe you are exempt from that simple rule of human behavior shows me yet again that you feel you are somehow elite, more privileged than the poor working class stiffs that you no doubt used to abuse. Well, guess what. You're not special.
That's not what the history books say. Even those written by your precious progressives acknowledge that guns played a role in the revolution.
And yet all we need to do to change our government is to vote. So our greatest fear should not be the fear of black helicopters, but of our vote being suppressed.
Care to bet how quick the voting system would be corrupted if the common man didn't have guns to defend the process? Throughout history countries have been controlled by men with guns. Countries where the people had no right to defend themselves from those guys with guns. Care to bet how long it would have taken to get industrial reforms enacted in a country where the people had the ability to defend themselves from the strike breakers?
Or how long do you think the conflict diamonds would still be for sale if the workers were able to arm themselves? Hmm?
Face it dude. The only reason why this country got to where it is, as fast as it did is because the wealthy were afraid that if they overstepped themselves they would get their asses handed to them. Now, lo and behold it is the super wealthy who are pushing for gun control with the eventual goal of disarming the public. Care to bet how long the people will survive as free people when that happens?
The one percenters are out to control the whole world and they have to disarm the people first. And you support them... Why?
What evidence do you have to prove your theory that the 1% want to banish guns from the common people? Even if Gates and the Kochs, et al wanted to confiscate all the guns in America, that task would be impossible.
Gun control in my vision is to take reasonable efforts to prevent what has become a daily occurrence in our country, and a rare one in other western democracies,
Your side sees any effort to do so as an effort to take away your gun(s) and those of us who support efforts to curtail the violence / murders as your enemy.
You sides obsession with guns is beyond my understanding and in my opinion borders on a fetish.
Your side sees your right to own a gun a greater right than a child in school, a teen at a movie theater or an adult at Christmas Party Right to live and their loved one's happiness.
By the way, I never take my gun to vote, do you?
BTW2, maybe those who are denied their right to vote because their polling place has been moved three bus transfers away, and it's only open for a few hours really will need a gun, or the gay people denied a marriage license to convince a fat bigoted thrice divorced clerk? What do you think about those situations?
The fact that they have done that throughout history. Two thousand years of written history is pretty compelling. Every billionaire (except for maybe Trump, but I don't believe a word he says to be honest) has declared a need for gun control. No gun control has ever been shown to stop crime, but the refrain is always "it's a good, or essential FIRST STEP". Well guess what, intelligent people understand where the following steps lead to.
We aren't dumb, unlike you who think you can propagandize your way through life. We read our history, we understand how the rich think, they don't like the peons to be armed because it interferes with their control.
Maybe billionaires are smart and pragmatic; not as you say conspiring to grab you gun?
I have not called you dumb, 2aguy is dumb.
But you're both obsessed and have closed minds to any effort to prevent, or at least try to prevent, mass murders which are way to common here than anywhere else in the world.
Points to consider:
- I have never argued for a complete ban or the confiscation of guns;
- I have made the point several times that prohibition does not work;
- I have pointed out the cost in money of gun play to local agencies (1st respondents, EMT transport, ER treatments (or corner autopsies), investigator's time - both police/sheriff and prosecutor's office. The cost to detain the shooter, probation and bail reports, preliminary hearings, trials, etc. etc. and in the case of murder and a conviction decades of appeals;
- I have never argued that gun control is a panacea.
Yes, you loonies love your power. Must piss you off that the common man can tell you to fuck off huh... I've watched petty tyrants like you in operation, you're like Cartman but without a bit of humor.
Wow, a string of personal attacks. Do you think this is an example for all members to follow? Or do you believe you are exceptional and rules don't apply to you?
You get what you give pal. Calling us loonies and then you whine when we throw it back in your face? What the hell are you? Twelve?
The Lunatic Fringe is a well heeled political science term, like the Right or the Left or the Fringe. It is a particular form of fringe, as TR once noted:
"Lunatic fringe is a term used to characterize members of a political or social movement as extremists with eccentric or fanatical views. The term was popularized by Theodore Roosevelt, who wrote in 1913 that, "Every reform movement has a lunatic fringe"."
Of course the NRA and its fanatic followers are anything but reformers.
Like I said, if you resort to insults then you shouldn't be surprised when you are the target of them as well. To believe you are exempt from that simple rule of human behavior shows me yet again that you feel you are somehow elite, more privileged than the poor working class stiffs that you no doubt used to abuse. Well, guess what. You're not special.
Fair enough, I'll call you names and you are free to call me names. Isn't that a productive and substantive use of our time?
BTW,I didn't call you dumb, I did call 2aguy dumb but be honest, that's self evident.
It's a labyrinth. As is always the case with these silly threads, it becomes a worthless quagmire of denialist obfuscation. What does Ceausescu have to do with America's gun violence rates? Anything to avoid the real problem. People either care about gun violence rates or they do not.That's what infuriates me, the waste of time and energy. We should be concerned about real problems instead of imagined threats.Peacefully, except for Romania. The specifics are irrelevant. The Soviet empire collapsed. This was in no way due to the possession of guns by the people of Romania. As far as Romania's response to this death blow it had received, Ceausescu tried to do a Black Knight impersonation. It's only a flesh wound. Given his eventual fate, I would imagine he got exactly what he'd feared he'd get. I in no way want to diminish the sacrifice of those who died to take him down, but to suggest that he was the robust ruler of a powerful military is inaccurate.How about you tell us how each one of the satellites went "boom".
I repeat the point which started this discussion. The little popguns we spend so much time and energy on are trivial. The subject of how we can defend ourselves against tyranny is a worthwhile one, but it doesn't involve the issue of gun control or gun rights.
That's not what the history books say. Even those written by your precious progressives acknowledge that guns played a role in the revolution.
And yet all we need to do to change our government is to vote. So our greatest fear should not be the fear of black helicopters, but of our vote being suppressed.
It's an impossible wall to break through, I'm afraid. You cannot fight against a disinclination to find common ground.
You can try, remember Al Michael and the Miracle on Ice?
It's a labyrinth. As is always the case with these silly threads, it becomes a worthless quagmire of denialist obfuscation. What does Ceausescu have to do with America's gun violence rates? Anything to avoid the real problem. People either care about gun violence rates or they do not.That's what infuriates me, the waste of time and energy. We should be concerned about real problems instead of imagined threats.Peacefully, except for Romania. The specifics are irrelevant. The Soviet empire collapsed. This was in no way due to the possession of guns by the people of Romania. As far as Romania's response to this death blow it had received, Ceausescu tried to do a Black Knight impersonation. It's only a flesh wound. Given his eventual fate, I would imagine he got exactly what he'd feared he'd get. I in no way want to diminish the sacrifice of those who died to take him down, but to suggest that he was the robust ruler of a powerful military is inaccurate.
I repeat the point which started this discussion. The little popguns we spend so much time and energy on are trivial. The subject of how we can defend ourselves against tyranny is a worthwhile one, but it doesn't involve the issue of gun control or gun rights.
That's not what the history books say. Even those written by your precious progressives acknowledge that guns played a role in the revolution.
And yet all we need to do to change our government is to vote. So our greatest fear should not be the fear of black helicopters, but of our vote being suppressed.
It's an impossible wall to break through, I'm afraid. You cannot fight against a disinclination to find common ground.
You can try, remember Al Michael and the Miracle on Ice?
You can't have a discussion with anyone who doesn't care. It becomes this absurd game of absolutist ping pong . You have to start the discussion at a rational place. "Boy, isn't gun violence awful? Sure is! But what can we do?" You can't start the discussion at "Them revenuers is comin fer my guns!".
No, that's not what I claimed at all. What I said is that little popguns will make no difference whatsoever to a government which is in control of a modern military.It's a labyrinth. As is always the case with these silly threads, it becomes a worthless quagmire of denialist obfuscation. What does Ceausescu have to do with America's gun violence rates? Anything to avoid the real problem. People either care about gun violence rates or they do not.That's what infuriates me, the waste of time and energy. We should be concerned about real problems instead of imagined threats.That's not what the history books say. Even those written by your precious progressives acknowledge that guns played a role in the revolution.
And yet all we need to do to change our government is to vote. So our greatest fear should not be the fear of black helicopters, but of our vote being suppressed.
It's an impossible wall to break through, I'm afraid. You cannot fight against a disinclination to find common ground.
You can try, remember Al Michael and the Miracle on Ice?
You can't have a discussion with anyone who doesn't care. It becomes this absurd game of absolutist ping pong . You have to start the discussion at a rational place. "Boy, isn't gun violence awful? Sure is! But what can we do?" You can't start the discussion at "Them revenuers is comin fer my guns!".
You claim that people have no ability to control a government bent on dictatorship. The Romanian experience shows the fallacy of that statement. THAT'S what it has to do with the argument.
Gun control is a libtardia wet dream. Never once has it served it's intended purpose of making people safe. And, the ONE FACT that none of the libtards will discuss rationally is this:
Why don't politicians give up their armed guards if guns are so dangerous?
Gun control is a libtardia wet dream. Never once has it served it's intended purpose of making people safe. And, the ONE FACT that none of the libtards will discuss rationally is this:
Why don't politicians give up their armed guards if guns are so dangerous?
Because pols are targets and homicidal maniacs can get guns easily.
No, that's not what I claimed at all. What I said is that little popguns will make no difference whatsoever to a government which is in control of a modern military.It's a labyrinth. As is always the case with these silly threads, it becomes a worthless quagmire of denialist obfuscation. What does Ceausescu have to do with America's gun violence rates? Anything to avoid the real problem. People either care about gun violence rates or they do not.That's what infuriates me, the waste of time and energy. We should be concerned about real problems instead of imagined threats.And yet all we need to do to change our government is to vote. So our greatest fear should not be the fear of black helicopters, but of our vote being suppressed.
It's an impossible wall to break through, I'm afraid. You cannot fight against a disinclination to find common ground.
You can try, remember Al Michael and the Miracle on Ice?
You can't have a discussion with anyone who doesn't care. It becomes this absurd game of absolutist ping pong . You have to start the discussion at a rational place. "Boy, isn't gun violence awful? Sure is! But what can we do?" You can't start the discussion at "Them revenuers is comin fer my guns!".
You claim that people have no ability to control a government bent on dictatorship. The Romanian experience shows the fallacy of that statement. THAT'S what it has to do with the argument.
Romania was not a country bent on dictatorship. Ceausescu was a dictator, and had been one for twenty years. His time was up. You want to paint him as a powerful man who was brought low by popguns. It's not true.
Who cares? It's an argument so far around the bend we can't see the original point any longer.
1- I would never claim that people have no ability to control a government bent on dictatorship.
2- I would never claim that people can control a government bent on dictatorship by having guns.
3- I do not accept the notion that this is in any way related to the question of gun violence.
4- I would never agree that Americans do not have a right to own guns.
5- I do not believe that a serious threat to gun rights has ever been mounted in the US.
6- I do not believe that reasonable gun regulations have ever been declared unconstitutional.
7- I do not believe that unreasonable gun restrictions have ever been found constitutional.
8- I do not believe that a serious threat to gun rights has ever been mounted in the US.
9- I believe this is a trumped up issue, created by the gun industry, via the NRA.
Say the CDC researches the link between guns and suicide. Say they come to the conclusion that the fact that there are so many guns in the country contributes to the gun suicide rate? Suppose they then recommend that efforts be made to reduce the number of guns in the country? How does this threaten your rights in any way?
Is that like the Jimi Hendrix Experience? Shows what to be absolutely false? You're welcome.No, that's not what I claimed at all. What I said is that little popguns will make no difference whatsoever to a government which is in control of a modern military.It's a labyrinth. As is always the case with these silly threads, it becomes a worthless quagmire of denialist obfuscation. What does Ceausescu have to do with America's gun violence rates? Anything to avoid the real problem. People either care about gun violence rates or they do not.That's what infuriates me, the waste of time and energy. We should be concerned about real problems instead of imagined threats.
It's an impossible wall to break through, I'm afraid. You cannot fight against a disinclination to find common ground.
You can try, remember Al Michael and the Miracle on Ice?
You can't have a discussion with anyone who doesn't care. It becomes this absurd game of absolutist ping pong . You have to start the discussion at a rational place. "Boy, isn't gun violence awful? Sure is! But what can we do?" You can't start the discussion at "Them revenuers is comin fer my guns!".
You claim that people have no ability to control a government bent on dictatorship. The Romanian experience shows the fallacy of that statement. THAT'S what it has to do with the argument.
Romania was not a country bent on dictatorship. Ceausescu was a dictator, and had been one for twenty years. His time was up. You want to paint him as a powerful man who was brought low by popguns. It's not true.
Who cares? It's an argument so far around the bend we can't see the original point any longer.
1- I would never claim that people have no ability to control a government bent on dictatorship.
2- I would never claim that people can control a government bent on dictatorship by having guns.
3- I do not accept the notion that this is in any way related to the question of gun violence.
4- I would never agree that Americans do not have a right to own guns.
5- I do not believe that a serious threat to gun rights has ever been mounted in the US.
6- I do not believe that reasonable gun regulations have ever been declared unconstitutional.
7- I do not believe that unreasonable gun restrictions have ever been found constitutional.
8- I do not believe that a serious threat to gun rights has ever been mounted in the US.
9- I believe this is a trumped up issue, created by the gun industry, via the NRA.
Say the CDC researches the link between guns and suicide. Say they come to the conclusion that the fact that there are so many guns in the country contributes to the gun suicide rate? Suppose they then recommend that efforts be made to reduce the number of guns in the country? How does this threaten your rights in any way?
And the Romanian experience shows that to be absolutely false. Thank you.
Gun control is a libtardia wet dream. Never once has it served it's intended purpose of making people safe. And, the ONE FACT that none of the libtards will discuss rationally is this:
Why don't politicians give up their armed guards if guns are so dangerous?
Because pols are targets and homicidal maniacs can get guns easily.
Gun control is a libtardia wet dream. Never once has it served it's intended purpose of making people safe. And, the ONE FACT that none of the libtards will discuss rationally is this:
Why don't politicians give up their armed guards if guns are so dangerous?
Because pols are targets and homicidal maniacs can get guns easily.
And law abiding hard working people are not? You delusional like ALL libtard collectives.
What in my arguments for rational gun control is incorrect or dishonest or made badly?
The arguments against me have been mostly emotional and disregard the history of gun controls which existed for most of our nation's history. The majority of posts by those opposed to all controls on guns are limited to personal attacks on my intelligence or character.
Thus I've decided the CZ may be the only place for an honest discussion on gun control.
I'm not the least bit intimidated by those obsessed with guns, who have no argument other than: The 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, their fear of tyrannical government and their (irrational?) fears of going out in public unarmed.
I've taken on the first wo with reasoned remarks which have never been proved wrong.
1. There are already laws against the civilian population owning or having in their possession weapons of war unrestricted by law and or regulated.
Thus the Second Amendment is NOT sacrosanct as so many believe.
2. Only an idiot believes the possession of arms readily affordable and available to the current civilian population are sufficient to repeal a military or para military force of our government.
We live in a time when the government is temporary, and the people (at least those allowed to vote) can choose the civilian population who govern us, and control our military and para military agencies.
[THE GREATER THREAT TO OURSELVES AND OUR FAMILIES IS WHEN THE VOTE IS SUPPRESSED BY OVERT OR COVERT MEANS - BETTER TO WORRY ABOUT THE IMPACT ON OUR LIBERTY BY THE REALITY OF CU & McCUTCHEON V. FEC AND THE CURRENT EFFORTS BY SOME STATES TO LIMIT THE RIGHT TO VOTE BASED ON THE CANARD OF VOTER FRAUD]
Further more gun control does not outlaws guns, it regulates them. Licensing, registration and restrictions on specific forms of arms are already on the books. And yet loopholes exists, obviously, given who have had guns in their possession legally, and the horrors that they have inflicted in Connecticut, Virginia, Texas, Colorado, etc. etc.
3. I support a licensed person who can pass a background check and thereafter remains legally able to be a responsible gun owner has the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun.
4. Responsible people understand that not everyone should own, possess or ever have a gun in their custody or control.
So, responsible people, any ideas?
What in my arguments for rational gun control is incorrect or dishonest or made badly?
The arguments against me have been mostly emotional and disregard the history of gun controls which existed for most of our nation's history. The majority of posts by those opposed to all controls on guns are limited to personal attacks on my intelligence or character.
Thus I've decided the CZ may be the only place for an honest discussion on gun control.
I'm not the least bit intimidated by those obsessed with guns, who have no argument other than: The 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct, their fear of tyrannical government and their (irrational?) fears of going out in public unarmed.
I've taken on the first wo with reasoned remarks which have never been proved wrong.
1. There are already laws against the civilian population owning or having in their possession weapons of war unrestricted by law and or regulated.
Thus the Second Amendment is NOT sacrosanct as so many believe.
2. Only an idiot believes the possession of arms readily affordable and available to the current civilian population are sufficient to repeal a military or para military force of our government.
We live in a time when the government is temporary, and the people (at least those allowed to vote) can choose the civilian population who govern us, and control our military and para military agencies.
[THE GREATER THREAT TO OURSELVES AND OUR FAMILIES IS WHEN THE VOTE IS SUPPRESSED BY OVERT OR COVERT MEANS - BETTER TO WORRY ABOUT THE IMPACT ON OUR LIBERTY BY THE REALITY OF CU & McCUTCHEON V. FEC AND THE CURRENT EFFORTS BY SOME STATES TO LIMIT THE RIGHT TO VOTE BASED ON THE CANARD OF VOTER FRAUD]
Further more gun control does not outlaws guns, it regulates them. Licensing, registration and restrictions on specific forms of arms are already on the books. And yet loopholes exists, obviously, given who have had guns in their possession legally, and the horrors that they have inflicted in Connecticut, Virginia, Texas, Colorado, etc. etc.
3. I support a licensed person who can pass a background check and thereafter remains legally able to be a responsible gun owner has the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun.
4. Responsible people understand that not everyone should own, possess or ever have a gun in their custody or control.
So, responsible people, any ideas?
