- 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.I simply mean that....Think of it as if we were having a conversation sitting by the pool, sipping a beer or two. In that vein of friendly conversation you would not say to me that I need to come armed with a file cabinet of documentation backing up everything offered in opinion, would you? Because that would not be a very friendly, nor productive conversation....
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.So, You're not a liberal, or conservative, but you ascribe others paying for something that you require....That is a progressive idea at best. Why should I pay for your BC?
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.So, you like to use "snark" toward others, but no one can use it back otherwise you get offended....Hmmmm...Ok...
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.Telling you that you are wrong is not 'hatred'....
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.So your argument is really an incremental approach to eliminating my rights....Thanks for proving that for me.
It also doesn't say anything about a gun.Why not? Show me in the 2nd amendment where it restricts different types of weaponry....Hint, it doesn't.
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?Now, care to explain why it is that we have to constantly scour language from our legislators, and this administration for what they don't include, to ensure that they don't back door take our freedom? It's BS!
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?So you are not a liberal, but are using Obama's argument of 40%....It is false ofcourse....
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.Then it should be easy for you to explain how making it harder for legal citizens to obtain firearms, will stop illegal firearms from being sold
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 this is how you have a civil conversation? Thank goodness you're not in person...I don't think many people would take a statement like that too kindly...
No....It isn't the frequency at all....It is more reported due to the agenda of the MSM, coupled with a 24/7 news media....Progressivism is a cancer to freedom.
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.I have no problem with change, but why can't you progressives effect change the way it is laid out in the constitution? My guess is that you know full well it would never pass.
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?We are talking about this country...I don't base what we should, or shouldn't do on what other countries do...If you think a different country has a better idea, you should go there.
Then why don't you tell us what you meant here, what the underlying agenda is:No conspiracy here....You even stated it in this post....Remember?
Completely? hell, it won't even slow it down...Which poses the question what is the true underlying agenda here....We know full well what that is don't we.
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.Are you serious? You used his group to highlight a point of yours...I dismiss him, and Kelly as unabashed gun grabbing elites....
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.Registries are a step in confiscation....
I'm not arguing to register rifles, I'm arguing to register guns. And guns kill far more people than hammers.More people are killed with hammers, and other blunt objects, than with rifles in this country...Should we register 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.My 9mm cost me $300.00, My Shotgun cost me $125.00...To take a wrongful confiscation case to court would cost me potentially thousands....I don't have it. Why should I have to?
Last edited: