• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Understanding the disarmament mentality

Slyfox696 said:
That's the best argument. Gun owners crave the power a gun brings, and feel helpless without it, but then accuse those who advocate for reform as being intimidated.

The irony is incredible.
Click to expand...

gun banners hate the freedom and independence gun ownership promotes. IN addition gun banners often hate the dissipation of power that gun ownership provides. Furthermore, many gun banners are enablers or excusers of violent criminals and they think criminals are victims of an economically unjust society. They thus oppose people having the power to kill or harm violent criminals.
 
TurtleDude said:
yes and no. the average person who buys into anti gun arguments often does so out of emotional reasons because that is what those who engage in such pandering appeal to. Those who conceive of and promote anti gun schemes are machiavellian and have often have planned for years their anti gun programs which are designed to advance left wing politicians and policies.
Click to expand...
What an incredibly dishonest argument:

"Those who disagree with me are either too emotional for rational thought or are secretly evil geniuses using the cause of 'anti-gun schemes' in their neverending quest for power."

Talk about emotional response devoid of any logic.
 
Harshaw said:
Most of your arguments are emotional, but it doesn't absolve you from trying to mount a logical refutation of the article.

You just don't want to.
Click to expand...

haha says the person who always flips out in every single argument we've ever had. I know I said that I couldn't debate someone who thinks my arguments aren't logical. I meant to say, I can't debate people who are emotional but think they have rational arguments. All I have to do is mention changing the second amendment and you all freak out on an emotional level that is higher than my hate for President Swampy.
 
Slyfox696 said:
What an incredibly dishonest argument:

"Those who disagree with me are either too emotional for rational thought or are secretly evil geniuses using the cause of 'anti-gun schemes' in their neverending quest for power."

Talk about emotional response devoid of any logic.
Click to expand...

You sacrifice freedom for security from the government. You can't have both.
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
I have a feeling a lot of it is compensating for something else
Click to expand...

And you get upset when I note that you anti gun advocates have almost no rational arguments supporting your anti gun positions. You all start off claiming its about crime control and public safety, and with the slightest of prodding, you all de-evolve into your cultural hatred of lawful gun owners and you make up silly claims that are based on your common fixation on penis size
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
I have a feeling a lot of it is compensating for something else
Click to expand...
Your obvious penis insinuation aside, I agree. I think the near fanatical obsession with guns is either a desire to maintain a favorite hobby or because they lack the self-confidence in themselves to interact in society.
TurtleDude said:
gun banners hate the freedom and independence gun ownership promotes.
Click to expand...
It's funny. I provided you with a long breakdown of why your article was stupid, using nothing but logic, and you ignore that. I even challenged you to respond and you ignored it. Instead, you respond to this comment with an emotional response of useless rhetoric.

Pot, meet kettle.
enderpotato00 said:
You sacrifice freedom for security from the government.
Click to expand...
You don't have the first clue as to what I believe. Learn before you post.
 
MrWonka said:
Already one of the dumbest articles I've read in 35 years.

The constitution says the right to bear arms.... So why don't I have access to nuclear arms? Why can't I buy surface to air missiles capable of downing a C-17? Wouldn't I need access to those if I ever found myself in a position where I needed to defend the free state from tyranny?

Facts...lol... didn't even bother to cite one supposed fact. Meanwhile
https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html

Physics... ummm wut? What the **** do physics have to do with gun control arguments? The only way I could see physics playing into this discussion is asking how exactly the ability to fire 100 rounds with accuracy at a distance in less than a minute could possibly constitute a "defensive" necessity.

Basic Human nature: Umm... if basic human nature was pro-gun, then you wouldn't see polls trend toward gun control immediately following a mass shooting. In fact, the whole reason we needed a Bill of Rights, the whole reason you cite facts, and the whole point of exhaustive scientific study like the kind used in physics is to make absolutely certain we don't make emotional gut instinct decisions out of fear that in hind sight don't actually make sense. So which is it? Do you have the constitution, facts, and physics on your side, or do you have basic human nature.

The truth is that you only think it's basic human nature to need a gun, because it's YOUR basic instincts. But the reason certain types of people tend to gravitate towards powerful weapons is because they themselves feel powerless. It is insecurity and fear that drive certain people to think they need guns. For the gun nuts, having a gun by your side is a lot like getting drunk. Instead of liquid confidence it's weapon confidence. Carrying a gun on you at all times makes you feel like you take on the world, and hand anything. But just like alcohol your confidence is misplaced. The truth is that even if you found yourself in a situation where your gun might actually be useful you'd probably be dead before you could even take the safety off. Either that or you'd be so over come with fear and adrenaline, that you wouldn't be able to hit the broad side of a barn anyways. There was a stat I saw yesterday that was hilarious. It said that approximately 70% of all shots fired by police officers miss their target. Think about that. These are trained professionals and when the **** hits the fan they can shoot straight either.

Take a little friendly advice. If you ever find yourself in a shootout situation your best odds for survival are to run and hide. Confronting the shooter with your own gun should be your last resort, and you'd be better off letting the police handle it.
Click to expand...

Proof number one
 
Slyfox696 said:
Nothing but a hack piece. Not surprising. Let's just take one of the more absurd comments it makes, without any research to support.


That's just nonsense. If I'm around people I know and trust (and I've been around more than my fair share over the years), the fact they are carrying a gun (openly or concealed) causes absolutely zero physiological reaction within me. It's when people I don't know, people who could every bit as crazy as every mass shooter we've seen in the past decade, have a gun that my adrenaline starts pumping. For comparison's sake, if that same person was openly carrying a machete and was advancing on me, I'd feel exactly the same.

It's not the gun, it's the fact our country does an absolutely wretched job ensuring those who do have them actually are "responsible" and "self-disciplined". This theory floated without a shred of research to support it is just nothing more than gun porn, a way for a gun owner to feel superior for no reason at all, for a gun owner to get their jollies off as they worship at the altar of a firearm.

Let's examine another stupid statement:

I wouldn't need an armed protector if I knew the person breaking into my home didn't have a firearm.

Over and over, it's the same useless rhetoric with zero research behind it. The fact you think it is "one of the best written articles" you've seen suggests a severe lack of scholarly pursuits in your "40 years". When one tries to pretend they are a psychologist and doen't even begin to understand the basic psychology or argument of the opposition they are pre-emptively trying to rebut, then their words hold absolutely no meaning.

Now, let's see if you can respond to this intelligently without using the words "bannerhoid" "anti-gunner" "gun hater" or something of similar stupidity.
Click to expand...

Proof Number two. think that through people.
 
enderpotato00 said:
Thats because we really don't want to government to get bigger, cause then they can easily take rights away if they want.
Click to expand...

gun banners don't want their political enemies to have any power.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Your obvious penis insinuation aside, I agree. I think the near fanatical obsession with guns is either a desire to maintain a favorite hobby or because they lack the self-confidence in themselves to interact in society.

It's funny. I provided you with a long breakdown of why your article was stupid, using nothing but logic, and you ignore that. I even challenged you to respond and you ignored it. Instead, you respond to this comment with an emotional response of useless rhetoric.

Pot, meet kettle.
You don't have the first clue as to what I believe. Learn before you post.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask about your beliefs, I'm stating something.
 
TurtleDude said:
Proof Number two. think that through people.
Click to expand...
You didn't respond to a single thing I said. I'm not surprised. As usual, the pro gun obsession argument has nothing but emotional responses.
 
Slyfox696 said:
You stated something claiming what I was "sacrificing". Try again.
Click to expand...

I didn't claim I was saying that "you would have to sacrifice FREEDOM for security from the government". I didn't say YOU would yourself.
 
Slyfox696 said:
You didn't respond to a single thing I said. I'm not surprised. As usual, the pro gun obsession argument has nothing but emotional responses.
Click to expand...

you don't get it do you? I didn't think so. You can never be certain if someone who breaks into your home or threatens you is armed or not. Being disarmed yourself puts the odds against you
 
TurtleDude said:
you don't get it do you? I didn't think so. You can never be certain if someone who breaks into your home or threatens you is armed or not. Being disarmed yourself puts the odds against you
Click to expand...

Exactly. And you should never assume if the intruder is unarmed.
 
TurtleDude said:
you don't get it do you?
Click to expand...
I get it just fine. You posted a hack article and challenged someone to logically refute it. I did refute it logically, pointing out the stupidity in the article and suddenly you don't want to have a logical debate. I get it just fine...you don't have a valid position when confronted with logic.

You can never be certain if someone who breaks into your home or threatens you is armed or not.
Click to expand...
You still don't get it. That's not the point and your red herring does not go unnoticed. When you think you can understand, get back to me. And then you can reply to everything else in my original post which absolutely destroyed the stupidity of your article.
 
TurtleDude said:
And you get upset when I note that you anti gun advocates have almost no rational arguments supporting your anti gun positions. You all start off claiming its about crime control and public safety, and with the slightest of prodding, you all de-evolve into your cultural hatred of lawful gun owners and you make up silly claims that are based on your common fixation on penis size
Click to expand...

Wow. So predictable, who would have guess this coming??? Oh wait...

NeverTrumpGOP said:
How can I make an attempt w/a person who thinks my positions are not logical but emotional?

So predictable. You don't think strong gun policies are logical or reasonable so therefore, nothing I say will change your mind.
Click to expand...
 
Slyfox696 said:
I get it just fine. You posted a hack article and challenged someone to logically refute it. I did refute it logically, pointing out the stupidity in the article and suddenly you don't want to have a logical debate. I get it just fine...you don't have a valid position when confronted with logic.

You still don't get it. That's not the point and your red herring does not go unnoticed. When you think you can understand, get back to me. And then you can reply to everything else in my original post which absolutely destroyed the stupidity of your article.
Click to expand...

you're engaging in the squid defense-lots of ink and no substance. What in that article have you actually refuted? nothing
 
enderpotato00 said:
He never said everyone was a gun banner. Try again.
Click to expand...

NTGOP lies all the time on these threads. Look how quickly his argument turned into hatred of gun owners-proving just bout everything I have said. Its not about crime control. Its not about them hating violent criminals-its all about them hating us because we don't share their political agenda or their leftwing politics.
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
So predictable. You don't think strong gun policies are logical or reasonable so therefore, nothing I say will change your mind.
Click to expand...

Are they Constitutional, effective, enforceable and necessary?
 
NeverTrumpGOP said:
haha says the person who always flips out in every single argument we've ever had. I know I said that I couldn't debate someone who thinks my arguments aren't logical. I meant to say, I can't debate people who are emotional but think they have rational arguments. All I have to do is mention changing the second amendment and you all freak out on an emotional level that is higher than my hate for President Swampy.
Click to expand...

I've never "flipped out" in any argument with you. You're arguing emotionally again.

All you're doing is making excuses for not refuting the article logically.

You can't.

If you think you can, do so. Excuses are just excuses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom