Moi
Active Member
Never thought I'd say this, Bully, but...
WAY TO GO!!!!!!
WAY TO GO!!!!!!
Q
Quad
Guest
- Thread starter
- #42
Geez, I can't believe I claimed that guns kill people without people using them!
I don't think anybody understood what my points were so I'm going to just claim you people are idiots and stop posting here.
I don't think anybody understood what my points were so I'm going to just claim you people are idiots and stop posting here.
Gop guy
Member
LOL! DAMN!
Moi
Active Member
I think it's generally well known that if you can't use logic in debate you resort to name calling. So, guess you have no points to make. Sorry you are so eager to give up.
Your points were irrelevant and unconvincing. Don't blame the audience for not being swayed. Blame yourself for lack of conviction and relevance.
:cof:
Q
Quad
Guest
- Thread starter
- #47
I was too busy explaining to the only person who bothered to attempt to argue my original post how he misunderstood what I was saying - which he clearly did.
Keep your anecdotal definition of logic to yourself.
I responded to the original post of the thread. I was called a communist for no reason, subsequent posts have failed to address anything I've said and reading your responses it is very clear that nobody really payed attention to begin with. So, until you people give me something to argue I'm going to have trouble fighting you.
If you want to talk about name calling read the thread from the beggining.
You people have sat here spewing your NRA banter and personal responsibility arguments that have nothing to do with what I said. I think you people come here to take your frustrations out on "liberals" and have your "beliefs" reaffirmed. If you want me to respond to your lame little arguments I will but don't pretend for a second that you've mounted a counter to my posts or even a real response.
Keep your anecdotal definition of logic to yourself.
I responded to the original post of the thread. I was called a communist for no reason, subsequent posts have failed to address anything I've said and reading your responses it is very clear that nobody really payed attention to begin with. So, until you people give me something to argue I'm going to have trouble fighting you.
If you want to talk about name calling read the thread from the beggining.
You people have sat here spewing your NRA banter and personal responsibility arguments that have nothing to do with what I said. I think you people come here to take your frustrations out on "liberals" and have your "beliefs" reaffirmed. If you want me to respond to your lame little arguments I will but don't pretend for a second that you've mounted a counter to my posts or even a real response.
Q
Quad
Guest
- Thread starter
- #49
I see a bunch of people who've jumped into the middle of an argument where my opponent was clearly misunderstanding posts, blatently insulting me, and making baseless assumptions about my position and who have taken his side - exactly why again?
Q
Quad
Guest
- Thread starter
- #51
I *really* wasn't the person who steered the argument into this stupid right/left NRA vs Ted Kennedy pointless gun control debate, I responded to the original post and over the last few pages you people have managed to convince yourself god knows what about what I've said.
If you want to talk about signs of failure in debate misdirecting the topic is one of the most blatant.
If you want to talk about signs of failure in debate misdirecting the topic is one of the most blatant.
Good to go. But, we are not preventing the proliferation of illegal firearms. We are not stopping drugs, gangs, or other crime either.
Nooooooo......... Real gun control is the ability to hold a clear sight picture as you squeeeeeze the trigger. As to targeting the arms manufacturers, lets target Detroit as well. Cars kill more people than guns in this country. Cars with gangbangers in them kill a lot as well.
The rest of your post is reasoned and well thought out. But, just like using binary logic to prove that two plus two is five, you are wrong.
Other nations do a better job of gun control because they penalize the law abiding citizens. These nations also limit the absolute number of weapons that may be manufactured. There is a serious black market for firearms in Europe and Asia. Hence the "only criminals............"
Until such time as we are each fully accountable for our own actions and:
There is absolutly no possiblitly that our government will become something we must remove and:
Violent criminals are located, and dealt with and:
Everyone understands that my family and property are mine (masculine emphasis added) to defend to the death.
Maybe.... Just Maybe I will willingly surrendur my right to bear arms.
Q
Quad
Guest
- Thread starter
- #53
you said Our constitution gives us the right to all carry guns. Period. It's a good thing. We should all carry them. We would have a virtually crime free society.
you said Secondly, social factors should in no way excuse violent crimes. Perps should be blown away.
Blown away by who? And who defines what a violent crime is? Who defines what a proper response is? Do you expect that people who violate others will accept their fate and the consequence of their action when their opponent pulls a gun? Do you think it's safe to give people freedom to end the life of another when our criminal justice system has yet to achieve reasonable equity in distribution of punishment? Shooting someone who pulls a gun on you is a lot different from "blowing perps away who commit violent crimes." I consider being hit in a bar after saying "fuck you" to somebody a violent crime. I value my freedom of speech and don't believe anybody has a right to physically violate me based on anything I say - do I have the right to blow somebody away who hits me? And what if they have a gun? There are very real reasons why we have a code of law based on western ideals of autonomy, human rights, and objectivity - what you say seems like anarchy. What you mean might just be the typical NRA-type argument about having the ability to shoot back - but I can only respond to what you type.
Never debated the constitution infact I defended it to the guy who lived in England.
you said Secondly, social factors should in no way excuse violent crimes. Perps should be blown away.
Blown away by who? And who defines what a violent crime is? Who defines what a proper response is? Do you expect that people who violate others will accept their fate and the consequence of their action when their opponent pulls a gun? Do you think it's safe to give people freedom to end the life of another when our criminal justice system has yet to achieve reasonable equity in distribution of punishment? Shooting someone who pulls a gun on you is a lot different from "blowing perps away who commit violent crimes." I consider being hit in a bar after saying "fuck you" to somebody a violent crime. I value my freedom of speech and don't believe anybody has a right to physically violate me based on anything I say - do I have the right to blow somebody away who hits me? And what if they have a gun? There are very real reasons why we have a code of law based on western ideals of autonomy, human rights, and objectivity - what you say seems like anarchy. What you mean might just be the typical NRA-type argument about having the ability to shoot back - but I can only respond to what you type.
Never debated the constitution infact I defended it to the guy who lived in England.
Q
Quad
Guest
- Thread starter
- #54
you said Good to go. But, we are not preventing the proliferation of illegal firearms. We are not stopping drugs, gangs, or other crime either.
No, and in every single one of those issues we've tried both "liberal" and "conservative" approaches neither of which are met with great success. In regards to economic crimes and social crimes there needs to be a combination of "liberal" focus on the things that allow for conditions of crime and "conservative" focus on creating accountability.
you said Nooooooo......... Real gun control is the ability to hold a clear sight picture as you squeeeeeze the trigger. As to targeting the arms manufacturers, lets target Detroit as well. Cars kill more people than guns in this country. Cars with gangbangers in them kill a lot as well.
Consumer advocacy groups and politicians both conservative and liberal have targeted auto manufacturers. Active market regulation is one of the reasons why automobiles are safer - democracy is a system of self governance that allows for regulation of social institutions where people feel regulation is needed. How do you regulate an arms manufacturer? Well - keep clear track of how many guns are manufactured and where they are sold, keep track of where they are sold beyond that, and so on. Require rigorous registration and documentation of all firearms. If a person only plans to use their firearm lawfully no amount of documentation should be a problem. Identify firearms by the signature they leave on bullets and create a national database to help fight crime and hold people accountable for inappropriate use. Initiate stricter penalties for undocumented weapons and penalize dealers and manufacturers for inappropriate use of buyers to give them an incentive to regulate themselves. Encouraging self regulation by arms manufacturers through law/penalty cuts enforcement costs and lowers taxes. Knowledge is power in fighting crime. Not every gun control position is saying "take the guns away from the responsible users!!"
you said Other nations do a better job of gun control because they penalize the law abiding citizens. These nations also limit the absolute number of weapons that may be manufactured. There is a serious black market for firearms in Europe and Asia. Hence the "only criminals............"
By definition people who are being penalized for gun violations are not law abiding. Guns do not have the same cultural significance in other countries that they do here - your argument is based on the american point of view that gun regulation is a bad thing - people in countries where people aren't killed by guns would have a different set of values, just pointing that out. I haven't made a value judgement and I would defend the importance we place on the gun in our culture. And yes, other countries limit the amount of weapons that can be manufactured and a lot of people in those other countries would say that's a good thing. The existance of a black market is just supply vs demand. Because guns are only obtained illegally there is a 100% ratio of criminal gun owners to legal ones in other countries - so arguments about more gun crime in other western countries should be re-thought. Violent crime and murder rates are much lower in countries where firearm proliferation is regulated. Death by gunshot is nearly non-existant in other western countries. Firearms are illegal in other countries because the reality of guns laws like ours is that they result in more violent crime - we need to work on preserving our right to bare arms and minimizing violent crime. If european and asian countries have less crime and less crime is desirable there is probably some lessons we could learn from them, even if we just focus on societal norms and attitudes and not policy.
you said Until such time as we are each fully accountable for our own actions and:
There is absolutly no possiblitly that our government will become something we must remove and:
Violent criminals are located, and dealt with and:
Everyone understands that my family and property are mine (masculine emphasis added) to defend to the death.
I wasn't talking about violent crime and I pointed that out a couple times in subsequent posts.
Mr. Quad,
Consumer advocacy groups and politicians both conservative and liberal have targeted auto manufacturers. Active market regulation is one of the reasons why automobiles are safer - democracy is a system of self governance that allows for regulation of social institutions where people feel regulation is needed. How do you regulate an arms manufacturer? Well - keep clear track of how many guns are manufactured and where they are sold, keep track of where they are sold beyond that, and so on. Require rigorous registration and documentation of all firearms. If a person only plans to use their firearm lawfully no amount of documentation should be a problem. Identify firearms by the signature they leave on bullets and create a national database to help fight crime and hold people accountable for inappropriate use. Initiate stricter penalties for undocumented weapons and penalize dealers and manufacturers for inappropriate use of buyers to give them an incentive to regulate themselves. Encouraging self regulation by arms manufacturers through law/penalty cuts enforcement costs and lowers taxes. Knowledge is power in fighting crime. Not every gun control position is saying "take the guns away from the responsible users!!"
I agree with almost each point in an individual, intellectual way.
You will note that autos are regulated, but crimes committed with autos, or negligence with autos are not attributed to the manufacturer. The only point that I have issue with is the "If a person only plans to use their firearm lawfully no amount of documentation should be a problem" comment. As a law abiding citizen, I feel that I am already regulated half to death. And, nowadayz anyone can get almost any info about anyone from the 'net. I can stretch that to believe a hacker slash home breaker locating information about which registered weapons I have. I believe that adding a mandatory 20 years to any crime committed with any weapon will help more than "no amount of documentation". I believe that any death occuring from the use of a weapon in a crime should beget a death penalty as well.
Because I refuse to fight a flame war, please note the shift in focus from firearms to weapons. The second amendment allows me to keep and bear arms. Meaning that I currently interpret that to mean that in my house I have a multitude of edged weapons and bludgeons. Truthfully, if you break in my house, you risk a crossbow bolt followed up by a katana assault. I'm glad you are not advocating my turning in of my weapons. BTW, the FBI forensics lab has stated that definitive signatures on every weapon won't work. Simply changing the type of bullet (say from ball to hollowpoint) alters the signature. Cut the barrell, alter the signature. Change the powder charge or chamber pressure and you will ...........
By definition people who are being penalized for gun violations are not law abiding.
True, but the overwhelming majority of "gun control" advocates intend to remove "all guns" from society. You are the victim of a stereotype that has a basis in fact, sorry.
Guns do not have the same cultural significance in other countries that they do here - your argument is based on the american point of view that gun regulation is a bad thing
True, I am an American posting to an American message board about a tenet of the American constitution. That doesn't mean we can't learn from other countries. But I am not apologizing for having an American POV any more than I can apologize for being white or male.
we need to work on preserving our right to bare arms and minimizing violent crime. If european and asian countries have less crime and less crime is desirable there is probably some lessons we could learn from them, even if we just focus on societal norms and attitudes and not policy.
Think I just concurred up there. But I still believe that fundamental focus on punishing those who misuse a weapon will solve more issues than removeing or regulating weapons to death.
Consumer advocacy groups and politicians both conservative and liberal have targeted auto manufacturers. Active market regulation is one of the reasons why automobiles are safer - democracy is a system of self governance that allows for regulation of social institutions where people feel regulation is needed. How do you regulate an arms manufacturer? Well - keep clear track of how many guns are manufactured and where they are sold, keep track of where they are sold beyond that, and so on. Require rigorous registration and documentation of all firearms. If a person only plans to use their firearm lawfully no amount of documentation should be a problem. Identify firearms by the signature they leave on bullets and create a national database to help fight crime and hold people accountable for inappropriate use. Initiate stricter penalties for undocumented weapons and penalize dealers and manufacturers for inappropriate use of buyers to give them an incentive to regulate themselves. Encouraging self regulation by arms manufacturers through law/penalty cuts enforcement costs and lowers taxes. Knowledge is power in fighting crime. Not every gun control position is saying "take the guns away from the responsible users!!"
I agree with almost each point in an individual, intellectual way.
You will note that autos are regulated, but crimes committed with autos, or negligence with autos are not attributed to the manufacturer. The only point that I have issue with is the "If a person only plans to use their firearm lawfully no amount of documentation should be a problem" comment. As a law abiding citizen, I feel that I am already regulated half to death. And, nowadayz anyone can get almost any info about anyone from the 'net. I can stretch that to believe a hacker slash home breaker locating information about which registered weapons I have. I believe that adding a mandatory 20 years to any crime committed with any weapon will help more than "no amount of documentation". I believe that any death occuring from the use of a weapon in a crime should beget a death penalty as well.
Because I refuse to fight a flame war, please note the shift in focus from firearms to weapons. The second amendment allows me to keep and bear arms. Meaning that I currently interpret that to mean that in my house I have a multitude of edged weapons and bludgeons. Truthfully, if you break in my house, you risk a crossbow bolt followed up by a katana assault. I'm glad you are not advocating my turning in of my weapons. BTW, the FBI forensics lab has stated that definitive signatures on every weapon won't work. Simply changing the type of bullet (say from ball to hollowpoint) alters the signature. Cut the barrell, alter the signature. Change the powder charge or chamber pressure and you will ...........
By definition people who are being penalized for gun violations are not law abiding.
True, but the overwhelming majority of "gun control" advocates intend to remove "all guns" from society. You are the victim of a stereotype that has a basis in fact, sorry.
Guns do not have the same cultural significance in other countries that they do here - your argument is based on the american point of view that gun regulation is a bad thing
True, I am an American posting to an American message board about a tenet of the American constitution. That doesn't mean we can't learn from other countries. But I am not apologizing for having an American POV any more than I can apologize for being white or male.
we need to work on preserving our right to bare arms and minimizing violent crime. If european and asian countries have less crime and less crime is desirable there is probably some lessons we could learn from them, even if we just focus on societal norms and attitudes and not policy.
Think I just concurred up there. But I still believe that fundamental focus on punishing those who misuse a weapon will solve more issues than removeing or regulating weapons to death.
rtwngAvngr
Senior Member
- Jan 5, 2004
- 15,755
- 515
- 48
- Banned
- #56
As if calling something an american point of view is a rebuttal of some kind. 
Leave our country, quad the communist.
Leave our country, quad the communist.
Wow we got some long winded folks on this one.
My two cents:
It's been said a few time before, but GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. When all the guns are gone criminals will find something else to kill with. Then you'll have to regulate that until you're to the point where you're taking people's paper clips away.
Bully had a few good points earlier (I too have seen some sort of conversion in the last few weeks in his attitudes, or maybe we just have more common ground than I thought), Yes gun are dangerous if not handled responsibly, but so are scissors(see pt above). Taking them from law abiding citizens will not reduce the number of crimnals that have guns because most of those aren't acquired legally in the first place.
And finally to Bully's most importatnt point. What about us hunters. No seems to ever think of them in this debate. This group of people probably makes up the most reponsible owners of guns in the whole lot. If we want to go out and legally hunt, last time I checked we had the right to do that. (Though hunting probably wouldn't be far behind after the gun ban).
I am sure I have some misconception of the way the rest of the country views guns. I understand why. All they know about guns is what they hear about them on the 5 o' clock news. They forget that there is a large segement of people out there who own guns that have no intent on killing a person, self defense or otherwise. I intend to kill and eat animals with mine. And for some people their only intent is just to pracice marksmanship. They have no intent to kill anything at all.
My two cents:
It's been said a few time before, but GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE. When all the guns are gone criminals will find something else to kill with. Then you'll have to regulate that until you're to the point where you're taking people's paper clips away.
Bully had a few good points earlier (I too have seen some sort of conversion in the last few weeks in his attitudes, or maybe we just have more common ground than I thought), Yes gun are dangerous if not handled responsibly, but so are scissors(see pt above). Taking them from law abiding citizens will not reduce the number of crimnals that have guns because most of those aren't acquired legally in the first place.
And finally to Bully's most importatnt point. What about us hunters. No seems to ever think of them in this debate. This group of people probably makes up the most reponsible owners of guns in the whole lot. If we want to go out and legally hunt, last time I checked we had the right to do that. (Though hunting probably wouldn't be far behind after the gun ban).
I am sure I have some misconception of the way the rest of the country views guns. I understand why. All they know about guns is what they hear about them on the 5 o' clock news. They forget that there is a large segement of people out there who own guns that have no intent on killing a person, self defense or otherwise. I intend to kill and eat animals with mine. And for some people their only intent is just to pracice marksmanship. They have no intent to kill anything at all.
Q
Quad
Guest
- Thread starter
- #58
It wasn't a rebuttal. Her pointing out the practices of other countries insinuated a negative value judgement. It insinuated that it is "bad" to limit manufacturing and proliferation of firearms. I was pointing out that a judgement of "bad" is american. Of course you didn't understand what I meant because you're only looking to project your bullshit onto me, you stupid fuck.
Q
Quad
Guest
- Thread starter
- #59
Why don't you leave my country, oh ye who cannot grasp the guiding principals of a democracy. People like you with your inability to grasp civic duty and even the simplest of ethical concepts are what is dragging the country down by the minute. You and your ignorant succeptability to categorizations and emotional arguments.
You're just a tool to those who know how to wield classifications like liberal and conservative.
You're just a tool to those who know how to wield classifications like liberal and conservative.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
Stephen Miller chastises press on Abrego Garcia coverage: 'Shill for this MS-13 terrorist'- Started by Cellblock2429
- Replies: 29
-
-
People are wearing crosses, and the lefties at the New York Times are freaked out and confused about it- Started by marvin martian
- Replies: 24
