- Joined
- Mar 8, 2013
- Messages
- 16,339
- Reaction score
- 13,844
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Agreed, but neither would telling someone their arguments are not based in reality. The moment you make such a claim, in which you try to discredit the person rather the argument, you should be required to provide proof.
It's not a progressive idea, it's an idea based around the concept of community. I don't see a community pitching together to achieve a common goal to be a political position. And you wouldn't be paying for my BC, I'd be paying for yours.
Why would I be paying for yours? Because it's a compromise which serves as a win-win solution. I want greater background checks and registration, to maximize our potential for safety. You see those as possibly prohibitive to 2nd Amendment rights due to costs involved. I get what I want, you get what you want and we're both better off for it.
I don't like to use snark.
It wasn't you telling me I was wrong, it was the venom you spewed at the idea of "you haven't had your leftest buddies on MSDNC tell you what to think about it?". That indicates a very strong dislike, if not hatred, for anyone who disagrees and your automatic assumption they are mindless liberal robots who need to be told what to think. You constantly use the word liberal and leftist as an insult, much in the same way a racist would use the "n" word and a homophobic person would use the "f" word.
No, my argument is a "let's find what works" approach. My argument is you don't have unfettered access to any gun you want. Once you understand why you can't have nuclear weapons, you'll understand why things like background checks and registration are no problem.
It also doesn't say anything about a gun.
Umm, what? From what I could tell, the argument being made was that the federal government might collect information which is already provided to the state. How is that taking your freedom? You willingly provided that information to the state and the state provided it to the federal government. Maybe I'm not understanding the argument fully, could you clarify for me?
I'm using a well-used argument, not Obama's argument. And even if I was using Obama's argument, how would that make me a liberal? Does agreeing with one position define a person?
And yes, I know you would disagree with the statistic, which is why I specifically used the language of "up to 40%".
I've already explained how sensible control would make it harder for criminals to obtain guns illegally.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. You said we shouldn't revise the laws in the wake of a tragedy. I said that's a convenient position for you to take, because these tragedies are happening all the time. Your argument is akin to saying I won't go on a diet until I lose ten pounds. Every time another tragedy occurs, you think we need to wait. But when tragedies are happening almost every day, how would we ever fix what's wrong? And if the tragedies were extremely rare, why would we need to fix it?
So it is a civil conversation, because your argument attempts to effectively shut down all conversation ever.
Background checks and gun registration do not violate the Constitution in any way.
But this country has a serious problem. We've seen models from other countries which appear to be affective. Why would you not want to emulate success?
Then why don't you tell us what you meant here, what the underlying agenda is:
You attacked the source, not the argument. I want you to address the argument, and specifically, the example of purchasing a gun in less than 6 minutes and explain how that's not quick and easy.
No, they are not. And before you argue this point, please remember we are talking about this country and you don't think what America should or shouldn't do should be based on other countries.
I'm not arguing to register rifles, I'm arguing to register guns. And guns kill far more people than hammers.
Why would it potentially cost you thousands? If we had a national gun registry, it's not hard to imagine a streamlined process for fighting false positives would exist. We could even put into place an appeals process which occurs before the gun is taken, where you go before the judge and explain your argument for why you've been falsely identified. I'm fine with all of that.
Last edited:
