- Banned
- #1,161
I don't have Twitter.
And I see he got the obligatory Marxist "senseless gun violence" remark in. Good for him.
Kimmel Needs to Go
- Thread starter Leo123
- Start date
And I see he got the obligatory Marxist "senseless gun violence" remark in. Good for him.
Political-Junkie
Active Member
- Apr 28, 2026
- 222
- 87
- 43
Still gracious. Are you for or against senseless gun violence?I don't have Twitter.
And I see he got the obligatory Marxist "senseless gun violence" remark in. Good for him.
It's the comments on the 15th that got him in hot water.
You forgot to mention that.
- Banned
- #1,164
I'm totally opposed to senseless gun control laws.
Political-Junkie
Active Member
- Apr 28, 2026
- 222
- 87
- 43
How did I forget to mention that when I mentioned it in post #'s 1146, 1154 & 1157?
Political-Junkie
Active Member
- Apr 28, 2026
- 222
- 87
- 43
Why no answer to my question? I asked if you're for or against senseless gun violence, not senseless gun laws.
- Banned
- #1,167
Obviously, who would be in FAVOR of senseless gun violence?
That's a stupid gotcha attempt. You failed.
Gun control is stupid. It doesn't work and it allows governments to totally control their people.
Ain't gonna happen here, pal.
Political-Junkie
Active Member
- Apr 28, 2026
- 222
- 87
- 43
Great, so you're in agreement with Jimmy Kimmel.
Concerned American
Diamond Member
It is clear you don't understand the difference between frustrated TALK and pulling the trigger. Typical democrat.
- Banned
- #1,170
No. Jimmy Kimmel wants guns banned.
I don't.
But nice try.
Nobody is in favor of senseless gun violence ... other than many, many Democrats.
1160 bit you in the ass.
/-----/ I asked Gemini.
1. Tactical Description: The "False Dilemma"
The core of this question is an attempt to separate intent from policy. By isolating "senseless gun violence," the speaker is trying to establish a baseline of moral agreement that makes any subsequent disagreement on "gun laws" look like a defense of violence.- The Goal: To force the opponent to agree to a "truism" (that violence is bad). Once they agree, the speaker will likely argue that their preferred laws are the only logical way to stop that violence.
- The Logical Pivot: If the opponent refuses to answer, they look like they are dodging a simple moral question. If they answer "against," they risk being guided into a "then why don't you support X law?" trap.
Rawley
Diamond Member
- Sep 8, 2014
- 54,342
- 40,198
- 3,645
Shareholders have to start asking questions as to why management keeps this loser on.
/-----/ That’s a loaded question. Nobody is 'for' senseless violence. The actual debate isn't about our shared dislike of violence; it’s about whether your proposed laws actually stop it or simply infringe on rights without results.
Political-Junkie
Active Member
- Apr 28, 2026
- 222
- 87
- 43
What he said was, "On behalf of my family, we send love to the Kirks and to all the children, parents and innocents who fall victim to senseless gun violence."
But underneath your criticisms of him saying that, you agreed with it.
Did you get that out of the dems operation manual?
Political-Junkie
Active Member
- Apr 28, 2026
- 222
- 87
- 43
How so?
Political-Junkie
Active Member
- Apr 28, 2026
- 222
- 87
- 43
There was no discussion on senseless gun laws.
/----/ It went right over your head. the speaker is trying to establish a baseline of moral agreement that makes any subsequent disagreement on "gun laws" look like a defense of violence.
Political-Junkie
Active Member
- Apr 28, 2026
- 222
- 87
- 43
That poster attacked Kimmel for speaking out against senseless gun violence. That begs the question then if he is for or against it. If he's against it, why attack Kimmel for speaking out against it as well?
Similar threads
