take the time to really listen with an open mind and not a snarky biased attitude and you may be enlightened because what you are supporting is lazy. Problems don't just go away by writing a law banning an object.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkeZzLL6LRc

like he says, it is a cultural problem and if you don't think so, you are kidding yourself.

oh no, I got it and it was dumb...you should read this...you are barking up the wrong tree with your talking points


https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/...wyN/story.html

Join the your wrong I am right club.. we get that alot from 2a guys.. its a typical response along with long theorize responses ..

Just the kind of people you can never have a conversation with..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Seems you've missed the point.. i wont waste time explaining it to you.. you already got it figured out
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there's a lot to love here :D

You and RR take a page right out of Trump's playbook, can't win one argument, move to distraction and another direction. Did my post say I was suggesting background checks and closing show and private sale loopholes was going to end mass shooting? NO it didn't, my point was made and in response to RR's distraction, I asked why those simple changes (which the majority of the country) would impact your 2A rights. They don't of course, so distraction time, cut and paste time, same old arguments. OMG were all coming for your guns, this is just the first step.

Trump is a dealmaker who goes into any discussion where differences are apparent with the assumption that the other side is honest and wants to solve the immediate problem. Anti-gunners can not be afforded such confidence. There are plenty of reforms and changes that can be done to make the background check better but they will be sacrificed on the altar of poking a stick in the eye of legal gun owners and their evil overlords, the NRA.

Those "talking points" are direct attacks on your positions and beliefs, exposing them to be deficient, unworkable and usually unconstitutional. I realize and understand why you feel compelled to dismiss and ignore my arguments but please know, your inability and/or incapability to rebut my position or defend your position speaks louder than your diversionary bleats and whines about talking points.

There's a lot to find disgusting and detestable in leftist, statist authoritarian anti-gun arguments but the worst is that you feel you don't need to defend your positions and that's OK . . . Truth is, you can't defend them; such is the flaw in positions held as emotional constructs. A position that the holder is unwilling or incapable of defending, is hardly worth any respect or consideration in the debate over public policy enactments.

That you hold the Constitution and liberty principles in such disdain sure is cutting edge and novel; no wonder you think my points are old. Sorry, the Constitution doesn't change like liberals think it does and yes, the arguments that oppose what you promote don't vary too much over the years . . . They don't need to. The same late 18th century arguments in opposition to the King's edicts still apply to the proposals of today's statist authoritarian left.

That you have such a short attention span, that you can't comprehend anything longer than a few short sentences, demonstrates you will never "get" what the core of the argument is. Thus, you are dismissed as a complete waste of time and energy.

And yet you slog on, dismissing the corrective information, content that the positions and beliefs you "feel" are correct (thus are content to refuse to defend) are absolutely factually correct. Problem is, they aren't. . .

https://i.postimg.cc/CLYs1Vsd/answers.jpg

Well, when you can't even acknowledge that the base "conversation" is governed by a set of rules, it's hard to have any structure or arrive at any consensus. You dismiss the Constitution as having any effect on your ideas, the singular directing force for you is opinion, based in emotion, divorced from principle. You react to challenges to defend your policy positions as a personal attack on your feelings which is why you find it impossible to have an intelligent, reasoned conversation.

.

[QUOTE=ReelinRod;1172789
Well, when you can't even acknowledge that the base "conversation" is governed by a set of rules, it's hard to have any structure or arrive at any consensus. You dismiss the Constitution as having any effect on your ideas, the singular directing force for you is opinion, based in emotion, divorced from principle. You react to challenges to defend your policy positions as a personal attack on your feelings which is why you find it impossible to have an intelligent, reasoned conversation.

.[/QUOTE]

This is the critical distinction between the positions held on both sides of the argument. One side is based on a set of fundamental rules and principles, the other on transitory opinions that seem right for the moment.

Got Stripers, for instance, cannot understand why someone could object to a solution that would not harm the ability to lawfully own a gun. But he does not understand that there are principles that can be harmed by that solution.

It's similar to the idea of wondering what real harm there would be in having sex with others to whom you are not married. You can still love your wife or husband, still provide, give comfort and passion, raise children, be companions for life, and cooperate in building a home and life together. Aren't those the real, meaningful reasons to get married? There are folks who understand that and have "open" marriages.

But, on the other hand, is it necessary to marry in order to do those things? If there is no actual harm in so called infidelity, what is the point of having fidelity? What is the point of having marriage?

I suppose that the point would be determined by those who do it. But there will always be a point. A reason. A principle. All things, material or imaginary are based, for humans, on a principle. Otherwise they would not actually exist, not be comprehensible to the human mind.

Transitory opinions may be based on some principle such as carpe diem. And therein lies the problem of applying that principle to society as a whole. To have a society, a community, a nation, the principles must be lasting, structurally foundational rather than quicksand. That is they becomes rules. Laws. Rule of law.

For there to be such a thing as "marriage," it must be founded on some principle. "Marriage" is merely the name we give to the realization of that principle. And if our definition of "marriage" requires fidelity, and if we stray from that principle, in effect we have destroyed it, and the name has no meaning. So then it no longer exists.

And so, what is the rule, the principle, that we stray from when we apply the principle of "no harm" on the ability to legally own something if we impose various regulations on those for whom it is not necessary, nor constitutional, to do so merely because it would not harm their ability to own that thing legally in terms of a law we create?

Simply put we destroy the principles on which this nation was founded. We will still seem to have a nation, but really more of a mirage of one. An uncertain, vague, undefined one whose principles are no longer fundamental. No longer lasting. They are quicksand. They are transitory opinions which, as in this case as pointed out by Scott's post, are not founded on solid reality. They are desperate attempts at "solutions" which only further erode what is left of original principles and lead us into the rule by the few, whose motives we ultimately do not know.

I don't make personal attacks, they're just observations. As for my trousers, don't bait me into posting pics of my wardrobe, I assure you it's well appointed :humpty:

I don't know anyone who thinks the problem will go away, it's a complex issue with easy access to military weapons being only one facet.

It depends on the state but there certainly is a loophole.

And that such transitory opinion is the basis for public policy is the hallmark of Progessivism. That's why they focus on "values" instead of "principles". Having "values" allows one to feel certain things to be true; problem is, a tenet of Liberal / Progressive "values" ideology is that at any time those "truths" may become "untrue" because new heartstrings have been tugged. This constant flux, this forced infirmity is of course frustrating (mostly on a subconscious level) and leads to anger when one is pressed to defend their positions.

Since the support for their policy positions are held as emotional constructs, any challenge to defend their policy positions as logical or legal constructs is perceived as a personal attack on "feelings" and is responded to with vitriol and derision. One only receives white-hot indignation that you would have the gall to even stand up and question them.

That's what is so amusing, their intelligence and authority on issues really only exists in leftist echo chambers where they can congratulate each other for being so enlightened and now, "woke". Their proposals rarely survive full exposure and open discussion. Such examination and explanation and demands for defense is rejected out of hand, there is no consideration of it -- cause you know, it is just old "talking points" (which really means they have for years enjoyed evading and avoiding rebutting those points LOL).

This explains why Liberals / Progressives are at their core, such an angry bunch; they just can not handle people who disagree with them. Projection of their anger is a major component of their interaction which is why simple civil debate / discussion (or "conversation" as it has been called here) is utterly impossible.

.

well if you stop calling them military weapons, you can make progress in a discussion

Ever the optimist!

As if duplicitousness and misrepresentation will ever be set-aside by the left, as their core foundation for "discussing" guns and gun control.

You dismiss the Constitution as having any effect on your ideas

No .. I dont hide behind it like yourself...making interpretations that only a grandeious few see.. all in a defense in a selfish claim that owning any weapon is a Right.

Ive said it 100 times have no issues with owing a gun .. I take issue with the i can have any gun mantra or any regulations lead to confiscation .. help find the common ground or the common ground will found for you...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your cracking me up with your posts, I suggest the NRA got into Trumps head after he talked about getting better background checks in play and suddenly I have disdain for the constitution 🤣🤣🤣. So tell me why getting better background checks in place and closing any loopholes either impacts your rights to bear arms or why that makes sense to me suddenly makes me throw the constitution to the curb? DON’T go into why partisan politics makes that something that will be sacrificed at the alter (love the drama), you keep going off in a different direction to make your manifesto bold, but I’d expect nothing less.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I couldn't respond to him because I was laughing so hard. The principals and values line has been beaten to death. Tell that to the millions of "conservatives" who put faith in a POTUS who violates nearly everything they say they hold dear.

you know that's not a word... right?

your call for checks, loopholes and such is a result of a few incidents which would not have been prevented if what you call for was in place....that's the objection and your constant repetition of the same words reveals your true motives and perhaps some senility :spin:

Just another NRA talking point. Nothing can be done, move along...:heybaby:

I wonder if most mass shootings could be avoided if a typical male (or female) could be able to afford to work a normal job and bring home enough income to support a family.
You see, most can not and kids are left on their own to their devices after shchool. Roll models and solid parenting are rare... things slip through the cracks and you end up with a psycho.

When I think of making America great again, that’s what I fantasize about. A stay at home parent raising solid kids with a solid education.

“Gun control” will never stop someone from killing others.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So predictable
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't own any guns, I'm not an NRA member and I don't receive talking points from them so stfu :hihi:

Common sense :kewl:.

Definitely a big piece of the puzzle.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I’m convinced it is. This is why we as a society need to embrace some democratic socialism and tax the ever living chit out of billionaires so that they pay their employees more to prevent themselves from entering that tax bracket. The democrats and republicans want everyone to think that this type of behavior doesn’t work but they are being bribed by lobbyists and donors to provide that message.
The American masses are just simply being raped by the billionaires of this country and being duped into thinking all of their problems are because of the poor and immigrants. It’s sad I tell ya.

So there you go. Raise people’s pay to bring back a solid family and there’s your gun control. (For the most part)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

knew that was where this was going :jester:

if you want to eliminate gun violence simply raise the minimum wage to $20 an hour and redistribute all the rich people's money...brilliant....free college and everyone's student loans forgiven would also help


I was reading a study or analysis of the el Paso shooter done by a college professor who said that he was motivated, as was the New Zealand killer, by fear that the planet was dying and that they had no futures because of pollution and over population...wonder where they got those ideas?...they were eco-terrorists...she tried to claim that these were simply examples of white nationalists using the environmental movement to further their desires because nobody in the environmental movement would ever hurt anyone:rollem:....but the el Paso guy was a registered democrat and chose Walmart and the other Dayton guy was a democrat who loves Lizzy Warren .....weird

Take this approach and then think about the amount of broken families,especially in the black community,and you get some insight as to why we are doomed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It’s only doomed if you can’t see the solution.
When you remove greed from the equation and substitute it with fairness solutions can become a reality.

The problem of course is when one mans idea of what is fair conflicts with another’s...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device