Page 27 of 33 FirstFirst ... 172526272829 ... LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 330

Thread: Mother of Sandy Hook Victim Delivers White House Weekly Address.....[W322]

  1. #261
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,719

    re: Mother of Sandy Hook Victim Delivers White House Weekly Address.....[W322]

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    And yet, accurate. Have you even read some of his posts? He lives in fear, he's basically admitted it. He sees "gun grabbers" behind every door and in every corner. It's entirely accurate.
    Actually hes accurate. Registration, in every instance its been used, has been the roadmap for confiscation because officials knew where the legal guns were and later obtained the ability to take them. So to say it cannot happen when it HAS happened in every other instance is more than a little dinsingenuous on your part.

    I've already said I would support tax money covering the costs of my ideas of control. So that would make me someone telling the truth, not lying.
    After you attempted to not understand what I was talking about. I dont care what YOUR ideas on the subject are, I already know what democrats will do--they will see gun owners as a group they can isolate and tax as much and as hard as they want to, not recognizing this will raise barriers to others to obtain a gun for their self defense.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1061697800



    This doesn't even make sense.
    It makes complete sense, if you are a gun owner and recognize that gun control states dont respect the rights of gun owners in other states when it comes to gun transport, sale, and registration.

    I'll make you a deal. You (and others) don't resort to empty worthless rhetoric and I won't post snarky bull****. Deal?
    You are forgetting I read this thread, you cant seem to help yourself.

    The 2nd Amendment says nothing about acquiring. You cannot just automatically wish for that to be included in the 2nd Amendment when it's not.

    So yes, I'm advocating a system which in no way infringes upon any rights. My system does make it more difficult for you to purchase (but does not prohibit), but does nothing for those who already own.
    Aquiring would as a neccessity be part of the keep and bear portion. The fact you are engaging in hair splitting shows how little legal ground you have to tread upon. Infringing upon a right is restricting it, it doesnt have to prohibit it in order to infringe. Thats extremely basic and always ignored by control advocates.

    I'm not the aggressor with regards to those who already own a gun. Those people do not change. And we limit what people can purchase all the time. So I guess you could say I'm the aggressor simply because I'm proposing change, but then you'd also have to say the others are being obstinate, for refusing to change.
    Im sorry I expect the generations to come after me to have the same freedoms I do. If you feel differently, maybe you shouldnt have the right of assembly or free speech, oh, wait, your grandkids shouldnt. Its an absurd argument when applied to any other right.

    You clearly have no idea what people want. For you to continue to claim you do is beyond absurd and, as I said, reeks of paranoia.
    Judgement call and yours is clearly impaired---see paragraph immediately above.

    It wouldn't and I have.
    Registration with ANY cost attached most definitely will as will your so called grandfather clauses.

    To fully understand my previous sentence, please go back and read the posts I've made in which I explain it.
    Why bother? You are splitting hairs, denying basic facts and thinking your liberal allies will apply your principles to the legislation when we know from hard experience in so many other areas that they will not. Give a liberal democrat an ability to tax and they will wield it without limit. Give a liberal democrat an ability to restrict and they will five more related items they want to restrict. Trust is something earned, and liberals are deep in the red on this issue.

  2. #262
    Professor

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    1,321

    re: Mother of Sandy Hook Victim Delivers White House Weekly Address.....[W322]

    Just out of curiosity, do any of you gun supporters believe in any type of limitation on gun rights?

  3. #263
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,719

    re: Mother of Sandy Hook Victim Delivers White House Weekly Address.....[W322]

    Quote Originally Posted by rcart76 View Post
    Just out of curiosity, do any of you gun supporters believe in any type of limitation on gun rights?
    Those who commit violent felonies and mentally unstable persons.

    There should be more than a doctor's say so on removal of gun rights, a review board is probably the best solution. Removal of rights should occur via notification in writing and verbally so it is understood what is occurring.

    The problem I am quickly finding is that open carry is deemed "suspicious" (read subject to arrest and confiscation irregardless of legality) and concealed carry is a multiple hoop process leaving the ability to protect yourself one that is onerous to a gun owner when it shouldnt be.

  4. #264
    Professor

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    1,321

    re: Mother of Sandy Hook Victim Delivers White House Weekly Address.....[W322]

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    Those who commit violent felonies and mentally unstable persons.

    There should be more than a doctor's say so on removal of gun rights, a review board is probably the best solution. Removal of rights should occur via notification in writing and verbally so it is understood what is occurring.

    The problem I am quickly finding is that open carry is deemed "suspicious" (read subject to arrest and confiscation irregardless of legality) and concealed carry is a multiple hoop process leaving the ability to protect yourself one that is onerous to a gun owner when it shouldnt be.
    So from what I am understanding the answer is no because the limitations would breach your 2nd amendment rights ???

    Is that fair to say ???

  5. #265
    Sage
    Slyfox696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    7,964

    re: Mother of Sandy Hook Victim Delivers White House Weekly Address.....[W322]

    Quote Originally Posted by Federalist View Post
    I made no claims regarding the 2nd amendment.
    Fair enough.

    I'm simply pointing out that your suggestion interferes with people's ability to acquire, keep, and bear arms. Thus, you are proposing to interfere with people's ability to effectively defend themselves. You should not then be surprised when people regard you as the attacker that you in fact are.
    I see what you are saying, but I think your choice of words is incredibly unfair and are prejudicial. I'm not attacking anything, I'm suggesting ways to keep those who would do harm from being able to do harm as easily. An attack suggests an unwarranted and unreasonable action, and I'm not doing such a thing.

    Your proposal places obstacles in the way of acquiring the means of effective self-defense.
    Someone who is truly wanting a gun for self defense will have no problem hurdling those obstacles, especially with the understanding these obstacles are also a measure of defense.
    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    Actually hes accurate.
    No, he's professing a paranoia. I'm not out to enslave him and I don't want to take his guns because I have an inferiority complex. I want to protect myself and other Americans from guns getting into the hands of people who should not have them. There's a big difference.

    After you attempted to not understand what I was talking about.
    So...I attempted to not understand something you were talking about...even though I had answered it before you brought it up.

    I'm not sure I follow.

    It makes complete sense, if you are a gun owner and recognize that gun control states dont respect the rights of gun owners in other states when it comes to gun transport, sale, and registration.
    No, it doesn't. The first comment was why pass new laws which aren't enforced, at which point I said if the laws aren't enforced, why are you so concerned about them?

    Your comment did not make sense. You're just repeating talking points.

    You are forgetting I read this thread, you cant seem to help yourself.
    I've engaged in mature and civil discussion with a few different posters in this thread. It's only when I deal with people who do not engage in the same type of discussion that I become annoyed and "snarky".

    As I said though, if you just discuss that actual topics and do not regurgitate rhetoric, I'll be happy to discuss this maturely with you. But that DOES require you to realize you cannot just keep repeating talking points without thinking how they actually apply to what I'm talking about.

    Do you accept this deal?
    Last edited by Slyfox696; 04-17-13 at 03:41 PM.

  6. #266
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,719

    re: Mother of Sandy Hook Victim Delivers White House Weekly Address.....[W322]

    Quote Originally Posted by rcart76 View Post
    So from what I am understanding the answer is no because the limitations would breach your 2nd amendment rights ???

    Is that fair to say ???
    What kind of response is this? I just gave you some restrictions upon 2nd ammendment rights vis a vis felons and those under mental treatment. How the heck do you read that as no restrictions?

  7. #267
    Sage
    OpportunityCost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,719

    re: Mother of Sandy Hook Victim Delivers White House Weekly Address.....[W322]

    Quote Originally Posted by Slyfox696 View Post
    Fair enough.

    I see what you are saying, but I think your choice of words is incredibly unfair and are prejudicial. I'm not attacking anything, I'm suggesting ways to keep those who would do harm from being able to do harm as easily. An attack suggests an unwarranted and unreasonable action, and I'm not doing such a thing.
    Attack doesnt always suggest unreasonable or unwarranted, it suggests to assail or challenge and you most certainly are. Yet more hairsplitting because you dont like the characterization of what you are doing.

    Someone who is truly wanting a gun for self defense will have no problem hurdling those obstacles, especially with the understanding these obstacles are also a measure of defense.
    No, he's professing a paranoia. I'm not out to enslave him and I don't want to take his guns because I have an inferiority complex. I want to protect myself and other Americans from guns getting into the hands of people who should not have them. There's a big difference.
    Except they shouldnt have to face a lot of obstacles. Arent you the one saying aquisition is different from keeping and bearing arms? Youre talking out of both sides of your mouth.

    So...I attempted to not understand something you were talking about...even though I had answered it before you brought it up.

    I'm not sure I follow.
    Dont make an asinine response indicating non comprehension then.
    No, it doesn't. The first comment was why pass new laws which aren't enforced, at which point I said if the laws aren't enforced, why are you so concerned about them?

    Your comment did not make sense. You're just repeating talking points.
    Transport, sale, ownership and registration varies greatly from state to state---I would be for federal guidelines to make some uniformity from state on gun laws.

    I've engaged in mature and civil discussion with a few different posters in this thread. It's only when I deal with people who do not engage in the same type of discussion that I become annoyed and "snarky".
    Ive been mature and civil throughout. Your posting patterns are peppered with snark and hairsplitting to avoid substance. Stones and glass houses.

    As I said though, if you just discuss that actual topics and do not regurgitate rhetoric, I'll be happy to discuss this maturely with you. But that DOES require you to realize you cannot just keep repeating talking points without thinking how they actually apply to what I'm talking about.

    Do you accept this deal?
    I do not. Civil discussion is not subject to you framing the discussion in YOUR terms. You are engaging in talking points every bit as much as everyone else. Get over it.

  8. #268
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,342

    re: Mother of Sandy Hook Victim Delivers White House Weekly Address.....[W322]

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    What kind of response is this? I just gave you some restrictions upon 2nd ammendment rights vis a vis felons and those under mental treatment. How the heck do you read that as no restrictions?
    Without universal background checks your "restrictions" are meaningless. So I'm afraid that makes you a liar.

  9. #269
    Professor

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    1,321

    re: Mother of Sandy Hook Victim Delivers White House Weekly Address.....[W322]

    Quote Originally Posted by OpportunityCost View Post
    What kind of response is this? I just gave you some restrictions upon 2nd ammendment rights vis a vis felons and those under mental treatment. How the heck do you read that as no restrictions?
    Because what you are requesting requires background checks and I am assuming that is a non starting for pro gun advocates like yourself since everyone is making a big stink about it now. Most of you believe that background checks are a breach to your 2nd amendment rights.


    So I am asking how do you keep criminals from purchasing guns without background checks???

  10. #270
    Professor

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    1,321

    re: Mother of Sandy Hook Victim Delivers White House Weekly Address.....[W322]

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    Without universal background checks your "restrictions" are meaningless. So I'm afraid that makes you a liar.

    agreed

    And that is why I ask that question. I honestly do not think there are any limitation on gun rights that the pro gun crowd agrees with. In fact, many of them would say the solution is to arm more people with guns. The universal background check will not get the votes it need to pass because the NRA has scared the s*** out of politicians (both democrats and republicans).

    I see our streets looking like this in less then 20 years at this rate.





    This is a gun retailer's wet dream.

Page 27 of 33 FirstFirst ... 172526272829 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •