Types of Gun Grabbers (by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms):

[M14 Shooter]

The onus of proof is on Lott, not me.

i asked you to reasonably and objectively substantiate your expressed opinion of Lott.
Seems like we both know you cannot

Well, that's the thing.
From my perspective, I have - and you are simply refusing to accept it because you just really want to believe Lott.

You believe that the information you gave is from an objective and verifiable source?

 

[Ernie S.]

John R. Lott Jr is not what I would call an objective source, nor a trustworthy one.

Your soundly reasoned, objective rationale for this is....?

He's got a history of questionable scholarly work on guns and gun control, such as claiming to have done "surveys" that there are no record of actually being performed, and even going as far as creating a fictitious alter ego online to support his own work.

He's also got somewhat shady connections to the NRA and gun manufacturers.

My point is, a shady source relaying here say from a private conversation 20 years ago isn't exactly "proof" of Obama's attitudes on guns.

Yet you gun grabbers will quote Kellerman ad nauseum even though his bullshit studies have been debunked repeatedly, even by himself.

As far as credibility goes, I'm more apt to believe guno the bat shit boy than barack obama.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

It is a habit of mankind to entrust to careless hope what they long for, and to use sovereign reason to thrust aside what they do not desire

Thucydides

 

[theDoctorisIn]

John R. Lott Jr is not what I would call an objective source, nor a trustworthy one.

Your soundly reasoned, objective rationale for this is....?

He's got a history of questionable scholarly work on guns and gun control, such as claiming to have done "surveys" that there are no record of actually being performed, and even going as far as creating a fictitious alter ego online to support his own work.

He's also got somewhat shady connections to the NRA and gun manufacturers.

My point is, a shady source relaying here say from a private conversation 20 years ago isn't exactly "proof" of Obama's attitudes on guns.

Yet you gun grabbers will quote Kellerman ad nauseum even though his bullshit studies have been debunked repeatedly, even by himself.

As far as credibility goes, I'm more apt to believe guno the bat shit boy than barack obama.

I'm really curious, where do you get the idea that I'm a "gun grabber"?

I don't even know who Kellerman is, let alone have I quoted him.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The onus of proof is on Lott, not me.

i asked you to reasonably and objectively substantiate your expressed opinion of Lott.
Seems like we both know you cannot

Well, that's the thing.
From my perspective, I have - and you are simply refusing to accept it because you just really want to believe Lott.

You believe that the information you gave is from an objective and verifiable source?

There are quite literally thousands of sources for the information I gave, all of which are only a Google-click away.

 

[Ernie S.]

It is a habit of mankind to entrust to careless hope what they long for, and to use sovereign reason to thrust aside what they do not desire

Thucydides

The court hereby finds you guilty as charged.

 

[Ernie S.]

The onus of proof is on Lott, not me.

i asked you to reasonably and objectively substantiate your expressed opinion of Lott.
Seems like we both know you cannot

Well, that's the thing.
From my perspective, I have - and you are simply refusing to accept it because you just really want to believe Lott.

You believe that the information you gave is from an objective and verifiable source?

There are quite literally thousands of sources for the information I gave, all of which are only a Google-click away.

All linking back to the same source.

Typical Liberal tactic: If you tell a lie often enough, it will be accepted as fact.
Your insurance premiums will go down $2,500. If you like your plan you can keep it. etc.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The onus of proof is on Lott, not me.

i asked you to reasonably and objectively substantiate your expressed opinion of Lott.
Seems like we both know you cannot

Well, that's the thing.
From my perspective, I have - and you are simply refusing to accept it because you just really want to believe Lott.

You believe that the information you gave is from an objective and verifiable source?

There are quite literally thousands of sources for the information I gave, all of which are only a Google-click away.

Then you should have no issue whatsoever with providing verifiable and unbiased information to back up your position.
Please proceed.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The onus of proof is on Lott, not me.

i asked you to reasonably and objectively substantiate your expressed opinion of Lott.
Seems like we both know you cannot

Well, that's the thing.
From my perspective, I have - and you are simply refusing to accept it because you just really want to believe Lott.

You believe that the information you gave is from an objective and verifiable source?

There are quite literally thousands of sources for the information I gave, all of which are only a Google-click away.

All linking back to the same source.

Typical Liberal tactic: If you tell a lie often enough, it will be accepted as fact.

No, not quite.

This was actually a pretty big deal when it all went down, it was covered in all the major media outlets and many scholarly journals as well.

I already provided two stories on it, from vastly different sources - Michelle Malkin and Reason magazine. There are hundreds more stories on it.

Are you guys really so invested in this guy that you're still going to bury your heads in the sand?

 

[Ernie S.]

John R. Lott Jr is not what I would call an objective source, nor a trustworthy one.

Your soundly reasoned, objective rationale for this is....?

He's got a history of questionable scholarly work on guns and gun control, such as claiming to have done "surveys" that there are no record of actually being performed, and even going as far as creating a fictitious alter ego online to support his own work.

He's also got somewhat shady connections to the NRA and gun manufacturers.

My point is, a shady source relaying here say from a private conversation 20 years ago isn't exactly "proof" of Obama's attitudes on guns.

Yet you gun grabbers will quote Kellerman ad nauseum even though his bullshit studies have been debunked repeatedly, even by himself.

As far as credibility goes, I'm more apt to believe guno the bat shit boy than barack obama.

I'm really curious, where do you get the idea that I'm a "gun grabber"?

I don't even know who Kellerman is, let alone have I quoted him.

Google Kellerman 43 times. I can't recall you ever quoting Kellerman but I've never seen you speak up against JoeB131 when he knowingly cites a study he knows was debunked by Kellerman himself.

That goes to repeating the lie often enough......

 

[Ernie S.]

I simply posted a quote from a book that sounds like something I would expect to hear from the Liar in Chief.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

The myth of the 'gun grabber' is among the more bizarre lies most conservatives seek to propagate.

The sad thing is that so many conservatives have been lying about so many things for such a long time now that they've forgotten what the truth actually is.

It's no myth, twinkle toes.
Look at NY and CA. Esp NY. They first registered "assault weapons" and then moved to confiscate. That is always the pattern.

And when people possess guns they use those guns for crime and murder. That is always the pattern.

Weeeee, isn't over-generalizing fun!!!

Really, I have a 12 gauge shot gun, it hasn't been used for a crime or murder. However, it has been used to deter a break-in through my basement window.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

barack obama is not what I would call an objective source, nor a trustworthy one. Believe only what fits your agenda much?

I don't "believe" much of what Obama says, either. Do you have any other strawmen you'd like to erect?

We know you don't. You're too smart to believe him, but nevertheless, you do support him, because Type Two Gun Grabbers have no morals or principles, they simply side with the most heavily armed group in order not be be harmed by them. That's you, as said by another poster:

"He has you pegged perfectly."

Ernie S.

Types of Gun Grabbers by Jews for the Preservation of Firearms US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Ernie S.]

John R. Lott Jr is not what I would call an objective source, nor a trustworthy one.

Your soundly reasoned, objective rationale for this is....?

He's got a history of questionable scholarly work on guns and gun control, such as claiming to have done "surveys" that there are no record of actually being performed, and even going as far as creating a fictitious alter ego online to support his own work.

He's also got somewhat shady connections to the NRA and gun manufacturers.

My point is, a shady source relaying here say from a private conversation 20 years ago isn't exactly "proof" of Obama's attitudes on guns.

And you have a somewhat shady connection to the DNC.
Ya know, Doc, the only thing making your political philosophy any more valid than anyone else's is your imagination.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

John R. Lott Jr is not what I would call an objective source, nor a trustworthy one.

Your soundly reasoned, objective rationale for this is....?

He's got a history of questionable scholarly work on guns and gun control, such as claiming to have done "surveys" that there are no record of actually being performed, and even going as far as creating a fictitious alter ego online to support his own work.

He's also got somewhat shady connections to the NRA and gun manufacturers.

My point is, a shady source relaying here say from a private conversation 20 years ago isn't exactly "proof" of Obama's attitudes on guns.

And you have a somewhat shady connection to the DNC.
Ya know, Doc, the only thing making your political philosophy any more valid than anyone else's is your imagination.

Actually, the connections I have to the DNC are quite above-board, thank you very much. I've even paid the taxes on it.

Where did I say anything about my political philosophy, or anyone else's? Or was that just a non sequitur?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

John R. Lott Jr is not what I would call an objective source, nor a trustworthy one.

Your soundly reasoned, objective rationale for this is....?

He's got a history of questionable scholarly work on guns and gun control, such as claiming to have done "surveys" that there are no record of actually being performed, and even going as far as creating a fictitious alter ego online to support his own work.

He's also got somewhat shady connections to the NRA and gun manufacturers.

My point is, a shady source relaying here say from a private conversation 20 years ago isn't exactly "proof" of Obama's attitudes on guns.

Yet you gun grabbers will quote Kellerman ad nauseum even though his bullshit studies have been debunked repeatedly, even by himself.

As far as credibility goes, I'm more apt to believe guno the bat shit boy than barack obama.

I'm really curious, where do you get the idea that I'm a "gun grabber"?

I don't even know who Kellerman is, let alone have I quoted him.

Google Kellerman 43 times. I can't recall you ever quoting Kellerman but I've never seen you speak up against JoeB131 when he knowingly cites a study he knows was debunked by Kellerman himself.

That goes to repeating the lie often enough......

I've never seen you speak up against shootspeeders and Steve McGarrett, either. Does that mean you're a retarded racist?

I'm not responsible for the posts of anyone else.

 

[Ernie S.]

Then we'll forget Lott and instead read what barack obama has said and done about guns. Here's a start:

FACT: Barack Obama opposes four of the five Supreme Court justices who affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms. He voted against the confirmation of Alito and Roberts and he has stated he would not have appointed Thomas or Scalia. (17)

FACT: Barack Obama voted for an Illinois State Senate bill to ban and confiscate "assault weapons," but the bill was so poorly crafted, it would have also banned most semi-auto and single and double barrel shotguns commonly used by sportsmen. (18)

FACT: Barack Obama voted to allow reckless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the firearms industry. (1)

FACT: Barack Obama wants to re-impose the failed and discredited Clinton Gun Ban. (15)

FACT: Barack Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting. (3)

FACT: Barack Obama has endorsed a 500% increase in the federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition. (9)

The rest can be found with a bibliography, here:
Obama On Gun Control - The Facts

 

[Ernie S.]

John R. Lott Jr is not what I would call an objective source, nor a trustworthy one.

Your soundly reasoned, objective rationale for this is....?

He's got a history of questionable scholarly work on guns and gun control, such as claiming to have done "surveys" that there are no record of actually being performed, and even going as far as creating a fictitious alter ego online to support his own work.

He's also got somewhat shady connections to the NRA and gun manufacturers.

My point is, a shady source relaying here say from a private conversation 20 years ago isn't exactly "proof" of Obama's attitudes on guns.

And you have a somewhat shady connection to the DNC.
Ya know, Doc, the only thing making your political philosophy any more valid than anyone else's is your imagination.

Actually, the connections I have to the DNC are quite above-board, thank you very much. I've even paid the taxes on it.

Where did I say anything about my political philosophy, or anyone else's? Or was that just a non sequitur?

Your philosophy is quite apparent.
The point I was trying to make was that yours is no more valid than mine; just different. Be just as judgemental (authoritarian) as you like. It just proves the point of the OP.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

John R. Lott Jr is not what I would call an objective source, nor a trustworthy one.

Your soundly reasoned, objective rationale for this is....?

He's got a history of questionable scholarly work on guns and gun control, such as claiming to have done "surveys" that there are no record of actually being performed, and even going as far as creating a fictitious alter ego online to support his own work.

He's also got somewhat shady connections to the NRA and gun manufacturers.

My point is, a shady source relaying here say from a private conversation 20 years ago isn't exactly "proof" of Obama's attitudes on guns.

And you have a somewhat shady connection to the DNC.
Ya know, Doc, the only thing making your political philosophy any more valid than anyone else's is your imagination.

Actually, the connections I have to the DNC are quite above-board, thank you very much. I've even paid the taxes on it.

Where did I say anything about my political philosophy, or anyone else's? Or was that just a non sequitur?

Your philosophy is quite apparent.
The point I was trying to make was that yours is no more valid than mine; just different. Be just as judgemental (authoritarian) as you like. It just proves the point of the OP.

Huh?

Being "judgmental" is being "authoritarian"?

Does that mean you're being authoritarian by "judging" what you think my political philosophy to be?

 

[Ernie S.]

Your soundly reasoned, objective rationale for this is....?

He's got a history of questionable scholarly work on guns and gun control, such as claiming to have done "surveys" that there are no record of actually being performed, and even going as far as creating a fictitious alter ego online to support his own work.

He's also got somewhat shady connections to the NRA and gun manufacturers.

My point is, a shady source relaying here say from a private conversation 20 years ago isn't exactly "proof" of Obama's attitudes on guns.

Yet you gun grabbers will quote Kellerman ad nauseum even though his bullshit studies have been debunked repeatedly, even by himself.

As far as credibility goes, I'm more apt to believe guno the bat shit boy than barack obama.

I'm really curious, where do you get the idea that I'm a "gun grabber"?

I don't even know who Kellerman is, let alone have I quoted him.

Google Kellerman 43 times. I can't recall you ever quoting Kellerman but I've never seen you speak up against JoeB131 when he knowingly cites a study he knows was debunked by Kellerman himself.

That goes to repeating the lie often enough......

I've never seen you speak up against shootspeeders and Steve McGarrett, either. Does that mean you're a retarded racist?

I'm not responsible for the posts of anyone else.

Have you seen me in their threads. Mostly I ignore the ignorant.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

He's got a history of questionable scholarly work on guns and gun control, such as claiming to have done "surveys" that there are no record of actually being performed, and even going as far as creating a fictitious alter ego online to support his own work.

He's also got somewhat shady connections to the NRA and gun manufacturers.

My point is, a shady source relaying here say from a private conversation 20 years ago isn't exactly "proof" of Obama's attitudes on guns.

Yet you gun grabbers will quote Kellerman ad nauseum even though his bullshit studies have been debunked repeatedly, even by himself.

As far as credibility goes, I'm more apt to believe guno the bat shit boy than barack obama.

I'm really curious, where do you get the idea that I'm a "gun grabber"?

I don't even know who Kellerman is, let alone have I quoted him.

Google Kellerman 43 times. I can't recall you ever quoting Kellerman but I've never seen you speak up against JoeB131 when he knowingly cites a study he knows was debunked by Kellerman himself.

That goes to repeating the lie often enough......

I've never seen you speak up against shootspeeders and Steve McGarrett, either. Does that mean you're a retarded racist?

I'm not responsible for the posts of anyone else.

Have you seen me in their threads. Mostly I ignore the ignorant.

Have you seen me in Joe's anti-gun threads?