Koko78 Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Commsvet11 said: So here is my question, every time a cop shoots someone unarmed, it’s the cops fault, but every time we have a mass shooting, it’s the guns fault? Which one is it? Well, it all depends on whose political agenda you're looking at. 10 minutes ago, LA Grant said: Doesn't change the fact that gun restrictions make sense & there's no logical counterargument to it. Especially when your listening/debate skills amount to putting your fingers in your ears saying "Lalalalalalalalala I can't hear you!" Edited February 28, 2018 by Koko78 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 3 minutes ago, LA Grant said: Indeed. Furthermore, most Americans overwhelmingly support this plan. Yet somehow this entirely rational course of action is shouted down with the most emotional logic-less histrionic bluster imaginable. "Shut up" is the only dish the Right can serve in return, with some "don't tread on me, not my responsibility" NRA talking points as garnish. Oh you don't like me? Woe is me. Doesn't change the fact that gun restrictions make sense & there's no logical counterargument to it. If you're able to rub brain cells together enough to provide a response with some kind of substance, we're all ears. How do guns make someone commit gun violence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 11 minutes ago, B-Man said: So............................the premier issue of the day according to the media...........................and CNN and MSNBC aren't covering it ? Why ? . Odd this NBC reporter is covering it, Boy Man, isn't it? It's also the top story at CNN.com. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 9 minutes ago, LA Grant said: Indeed. Furthermore, most Americans overwhelmingly support this plan. Yet somehow this entirely rational course of action is shouted down with the most emotional logic-less histrionic bluster imaginable. "Shut up" is the only dish the Right can serve in return, with some "don't tread on me, not my responsibility" NRA talking points as garnish. Oh you don't like me? Woe is me. Doesn't change the fact that gun restrictions make sense & there's no logical counterargument to it. If you're able to rub brain cells together enough to provide a response with some kind of substance, we're all ears. If not, get out of the way. The wonderful thing about guns and the Second Amendment is that if you try to make an end run around the Second Amendment and infringe on the right to bear arms, we get to do the opposite of get out of the way. We get to stand in front of you. With guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: Democracy dies in darkness and those networks have no interest in shining a light. I love the irony of visiting WaPo with the Democracy Dies in Darkness banner at the top of the page meanwhile the rest of the page is blocked by a paywall. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cugalabanza Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 Sad to say, but the NRA totally owns this issue. They got the whole machine in place, the money, the lobbying, the hearts & minds, the paranoia, etc... It's a perfect market scenario for them. I don't see them letting it slip away. There are already more guns than people in the USA. Now the response to more kids getting shot up is a plan for millions of new guns for teachers. I can't help seeing the whole thing as more than greed--it's beyond absurd to the point of fetishism. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA Grant Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 Just now, Koko78 said: As to your parenthetical comment: No Schiff, I know what I quoted. I quoted it. As for the rest: Nice that you're trying to move the goalposts and claim "legal" heroin now. Your halfassed example was absurd, and you should be ashamed of yourself. The parenthetical comment was for context, for the benefit of other readers, to make it clear what the conversation was, you overly-sensitive snowflake. "Moving the goalposts." Koko how can you be so ridiculously devoid of self-awareness?... What do you think we're discussing? Gun laws, fool. The Parkland shooter bought his gun legally a block or two away from the school. "Heroin" came in because he could not have purchased that so easily, now could he? Except you say he could. I'll even move toward your goalposts: What you're really suggesting is that the Parkland shooter could have acquired his gun illegally anyway, as easily as he purchased the gun legally. You say he could have also just as easily purchased heroin illegally. Your challenge is to show me where & how he could've acquired heroin just as easily (which you're attempting in order to disprove the idea that regulations provide any kind of preventive measures). Which would mean in a store, blocks away from the school. Those are the goal posts. Happy hunting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 58 minutes ago, jrober38 said: Australia institutes gun control in 1996 - ZERO mass shootings of random civilians since UK institutes gun control in 1996 - One mass shooting of random civilians since (12 total deaths) Canada institutes gun control in 1995 - Two mass shootings of random civilians since (10 total deaths) USA - no gun control - Sixteen mass shootings of random civilians since 1995 (328 total deaths) Protecting freedom is more important and desirable than stopping mass shootings, which wouldn't be stopped by heavy gun restrictions anyway. Factoring for population, mass shootings are not a uniquely American problem. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, LA Grant said: The parenthetical comment was for context, for the benefit of other readers, to make it clear what the conversation was, you overly-sensitive snowflake. "Moving the goalposts." Koko how can you be so ridiculously devoid of self-awareness?... What do you think we're discussing? Gun laws, fool. The Parkland shooter bought his gun legally a block or two away from the school. "Heroin" came in because he could not have purchased that so easily, now could he? Except you say he could. I'll even move toward your goalposts: What you're really suggesting is that the Parkland shooter could have acquired his gun illegally anyway, as easily as he purchased the gun legally. You say he could have also just as easily purchased heroin illegally. Your challenge is to show me where & how he could've acquired heroin just as easily (which you're attempting in order to disprove the idea that regulations provide any kind of preventive measures). Which would mean in a store, blocks away from the school. Those are the goal posts. Happy hunting. No, my challenge was to point out what how absurd and irrational your "arguments" are. Pretty sure I accomplished my mission. However, to play your game: define store. Any heroin/crack house is technically a store, as they are physical structures, open to their customers, who provide goods for value. Do you really think that all drug houses ensure that they're more than two blocks away from a school? Edited February 28, 2018 by Koko78 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 Just now, Koko78 said: No, my challenge was to point out what how absurd and irrational your "arguments" are. Pretty sure I accomplished my mission. However, to play your game: define store. Any heroin/crack house is technically a store, as they provide goods for value. Do you really think that drug houses ensure that they're more than two blocks away from a school? Talk about moving the goalposts 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 33 minutes ago, garybusey said: Get bent Why? It's true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA Grant Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 2 minutes ago, Cugalabanza said: Sad to say, but the NRA totally owns this issue. They got the whole machine in place, the money, the lobbying, the hearts & minds, the paranoia, etc... It's a perfect market scenario for them. I don't see them letting it slip away. There are already more guns than people in the USA. Now the response to more kids getting shot up is a plan for millions of new guns for teachers. I can't help seeing the whole thing as more than greed--it's beyond absurd to the point of fetishism. Correct on all counts. I can see two ways the NRA can be challenged — one is voting out officials who are taking their bribes as campaign donations. This is incredibly difficult, though not impossible, due to, above all, the horrible gerrymandering and the entire electoral map being rigged to benefit the Republican Party makes this incredibly challenging (you'll also never hear the Right complain about this, despite even having the last two Republican presidents winning without the popular vote; when the system benefits them personally, then the system is good). The other, simpler, more effective way is for Lawful Gun Owners to stand up to the NRA. The NRA has a huge amount of members, and a lot of them pay dues, right? The capitalistic approach then is "voting with your dollar" and finding a way to be a Lawful Gun Owner who isn't also supporting lobbying for huge corporations. We're seeing the second approach happen in some ways already — with Dick's, Hertz, and other businesses cutting ties — but it will take some of the NRA members individually also challenging the organization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 3 minutes ago, garybusey said: Talk about moving the goalposts He said store. His challenge is to define what a store is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 8 minutes ago, Cugalabanza said: Sad to say, but the NRA totally owns this issue. They got the whole machine in place, the money, the lobbying, the hearts & minds, the paranoia, etc... It's a perfect market scenario for them. I don't see them letting it slip away. There are already more guns than people in the USA. Now the response to more kids getting shot up is a plan for millions of new guns for teachers. I can't help seeing the whole thing as more than greed--it's beyond absurd to the point of fetishism. Yet we have no issues with Planned Parenthood's firm grip on the "whole machine." Wonder why that is. "Fetishism" seems oddly appropriate in that context, don't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA Grant Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, garybusey said: Talk about moving the goalposts LOL. Thank you. 8 minutes ago, Koko78 said: No, my challenge was to point out what how absurd and irrational your "arguments" are. Pretty sure I accomplished my mission. However, to play your game: define store. Any heroin/crack house is technically a store, as they are physical structures, open to their customers, who provide goods for value. Do you really think that all drug houses ensure that they're more than two blocks away from a school? "Define store." Well, listen — how about, to keep it simple, "store" means... "store"? The Parkland shooter bought his gun legally from a store, like, what you would assume I would mean if I said a store. A place where you can legally trade money for goods or services. S-t-o-r-e. "Store." To your more absurd philosophical question — you're still free to prove to me that he could find an illegal "drug house store" for heroin as easily as he could have purchased a legal gun from a legal store. That was your counterargument, if you're forgetting. Edited February 28, 2018 by LA Grant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 3 minutes ago, LeviF91 said: Yet we have no issues with Planned Parenthood's firm grip on the "whole machine." Wonder why that is. "Fetishism" seems oddly appropriate in that context, don't it? The lube of dead babies moistens my skin and keeps me young. #fetish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 1 minute ago, Koko78 said: He said store. His challenge is to define what a store is. Professor Choas chaotically moved goalposts as he sees fit. WHO IS THIS SPORTS FIELD ALTERING MYSTERY MAN! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 2 minutes ago, LA Grant said: LOL. Thank you. "Define store." Well, listen — how about, to keep it simple, "store" means... "store"? The Parkland shooter bought his gun legally from a store, like, what you would assume I would mean if I said a store. To your more absurd philosophical question — you're still free to prove to me that he could find an illegal "drug house store" for heroin as easily as he could have purchased a legal gun from a legal store. That was your counterargument, if you're forgetting. I have no doubt that it's easier to get heroin from the "drug house store" than it is to buy a gun. Far less paperwork. Your comparison is still really stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 49 minutes ago, garybusey said: All over the map says the dweeb who claims Dicks no longer sells guns The reason leftists like you are staring at a President Trump is because you're simply too !@#$ stupid to understand the difference between implied and inferred. Show me where you think I implied Dicks no longer shows guns and I'll show you were you inferred it. Dumbass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted February 28, 2018 Share Posted February 28, 2018 2 minutes ago, garybusey said: Professor Choas chaotically moved goalposts as he sees fit. WHO IS THIS SPORTS FIELD ALTERING MYSTERY MAN! Oh no, a dipShiff is trying to accuse me by using my "moved the goalposts" comment against me! Pretty sure you have no clue what you're actually talking about, junior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts