• 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!

Pro Gun Control does not equal Anti Gun

TurtleDude said:
what do you do? I actually have more than three safes.
Click to expand...
I am 'the poor', Mr.Moneybags. The poor don't have funds to help the poor, because they're poor. That's what the word means.

So you're expecting the poor to pay for the poor instead of a rich supposedly pro-2A guy helping the poor? That's classic fascism. Were you raised this way or are you acting out some PTSD from that street shooting you were in?
 
Wayne Jr said:
I am 'the poor', Mr.Moneybags. The poor don't have funds to help the poor, because they're poor. That's what the word means.

So you're expecting the poor to pay for the poor instead of a rich supposedly pro-2A guy helping the poor? That's classic fascism. Were you raised this way or are you acting out some PTSD from that street shooting you were in?
Click to expand...

Your argument continues to deteriorate. I don't want to make the poor pay for useless government required nonsense-you do.
 
Wayne Jr said:
I am 'the poor', Mr.Moneybags. The poor don't have funds to help the poor, because they're poor. That's what the word means.

So you're expecting the poor to pay for the poor instead of a rich supposedly pro-2A guy helping the poor? That's classic fascism. Were you raised this way or are you acting out some PTSD from that street shooting you were in?
Click to expand...

Gun fanatics think that guns are more important than lives and quality of lives. They look at the physically disabled, mentally handicapped, and emotionally unstable people, and say that's somebody else's problem. Then they talk about guns like it's the most important issue in the world.
 
Media_Truth said:
Gun fanatics think that guns are more important than lives and quality of lives. They look at the physically disabled, mentally handicapped, and emotionally unstable people, and say that's somebody else's problem. Then they talk about guns like it's the most important issue in the world.
Click to expand...

Gun banners pretend that anyone who doesn't support stupid laws that only pretend to do something objectively useful are "fanatics" and then further lie by claiming gun rights advocates don't care about issues that have nothing to do with gun ownership.
 
TurtleDude said:
Your argument continues to deteriorate. I don't want to make the poor pay for useless government required nonsense-you do.
Click to expand...
You could help the poor but you choose not to. That's as if you raised the cost. You're one of the biggest gun banners on this forum.
 
Wayne Jr said:
You could help the poor but you choose not to. That's as if you raised the cost. You're one of the biggest gun banners on this forum.
Click to expand...

Yeah run with that position, it will really help your credibility. You have no idea what I do for the poor. so you are dishonestly making claims you cannot possibly back up.You're the one who wants to make it harder for poor people to legally own guns. That is a point long time established pro gun posters have said about you.
 
Being for gun control doesn't mean banning ALL guns, ALL at once. They only want a couple of very reasonable new laws. Then they will want just a couple more on top of that, because the first two didn't work. Then they will want just a few more "sensible" laws added to their list. Pretty soon you have California, New York City, Washington DC type gun restrictions. And you still got the crime. Gun control is death by a thousand cuts. Gun control advocates; just be honest, you want the guns gone. We don't believe your BS anymore.
 
Harshaw said:
Did anyone claim otherwise? No.

You're still whatabouting.
Click to expand...

Wait, he's whatabouting your whatabouting, and you're complaining? Chutzpah!
 
Waddy said:
Being for gun control doesn't mean banning ALL guns, ALL at once. They only want a couple of very reasonable new laws. Then they will want just a couple more on top of that, because the first two didn't work. Then they will want just a few more "sensible" laws added to their list. Pretty soon you have California, New York City, Washington DC type gun restrictions. And you still got the crime. Gun control is death by a thousand cuts. Gun control advocates; just be honest, you want the guns gone. We don't believe your BS anymore.
Click to expand...

And there is where the argument begins to border on stupid. Slippery slope fallacies and paranoia.
 
CriticalThought said:
And there is where the argument begins to border on stupid. Slippery slope fallacies and paranoia.
Click to expand...

It's so ridiculous. Lots of countries have lots of guns and gun control. Like canada
 
Harshaw said:
Did anyone claim otherwise? No.

You're still whatabouting.
Click to expand...

You made a disingenuous argument, he called you out on it. That's not "Whataboutism," that is mirroring. Calling it out as you did, and insisting it was something it was not, is dishonest. That's my primary point.

It is clear you have a history with the poster. What it is, I don't care. That does not make that post inappropriate or wrong. Your post, on the other hand, was inappropriate.
 
Last edited:
NWRatCon said:
You made a disingenuous argument, he called you out on it. That's not "Whataboutism," that is mirroring. Calling it out as you did, and insisting it was something it was not, is dishonest. Thats my primary point.
Click to expand...

Then your "primary point" is idiotic, because I didn't make a "disingenuous argument." That you think I did is also idiotic.

I'm not even going to explain it to you, because it's incandescently obvious that I addressed the OP head on. If you don't understand it, then that's your problem. It's not up to me to fix it.

Bye, now.
 
Harshaw said:
Then your "primary point" is idiotic, because I didn't make a "disingenuous argument." That you think I did is also idiotic.

I'm not even going to explain it to you, because it's incandescently obvious that I addressed the OP head on.
Click to expand...
I completely disagree. You took the thread off-topic, that is what is incandescently obvious. Indeed, you made the OP's point in doing so. Most of the rest of the thread thus became the routine tit-for-tat that all the threads in this forum devolve to. The thread starter's point was that not all gun control is about being anti gun (i.e. taking guns away). (Check the title) Your point was off-topic, calculated to be so, and instigated the routine and uninformative brawl that followed, I was just pointing out the obvious. A little sensitive to criticism, are we?
 
Once again, facts don't matter. How many presidential elections have you heard republicans telling their base, 'they' are coming for your guns? So far, nobody has come for anyone's guns yet the lie persists election after election.

I'm totally against owning a firearm, yet I support the right of others to own one or two or three, even four.
 
bongsaway said:
Once again, facts don't matter. How many presidential elections have you heard republicans telling their base, 'they' are coming for your guns? So far, nobody has come for anyone's guns yet the lie persists election after election.

I'm totally against owning a firearm, yet I support the right of others to own one or two or three, even four.
Click to expand...

Fear sells guns.....and the gop sells fear
 
CriticalThought said:
And there is where the argument begins to border on stupid. Slippery slope fallacies and paranoia.
Click to expand...

Ask the guy in California who was just asked to register his AR15..... and then got it confiscated a couple of years later.
 
Waddy said:
Ask the guy in California who was just asked to register his AR15..... and then got it confiscated a couple of years later.
Click to expand...

Who was that? Name please.
 
CriticalThought said:
You guys understand that supporting gun control policies does not mean people are against all guns, right?

The rhetoric nowadays borders on stupid.
Click to expand...


All too often it does, or at least almost all of them. At least one poster here who claims he is not a banneroid claims that as long as there is one gun available of any sort, then the requirements of the second have been met. That's the crux of the 12 year old law on the books in Conn or NJ. I forget which.

My position is simple. The second leaves nothing to interpretation. There is nothing easier to understand than Shall not be infringed.

On a personal level, I've been dealing with guns for 70 years. That includes a stint in the army where my job was small arms analysis. I have a very good grasp of what firearms suit my personal needs and wants. You don't. Therefore I have no desire to allow you to pick and choose for me.
 
jimbo said:
All too often it does, or at least almost all of them. At least one poster here who claims he is not a banneroid claims that as long as there is one gun available of any sort, then the requirements of the second have been met. That's the crux of the 12 year old law on the books in Conn or NJ. I forget which.

My position is simple. The second leaves nothing to interpretation. There is nothing easier to understand than Shall not be infringed.

On a personal level, I've been dealing with guns for 70 years. That includes a stint in the army where my job was small arms analysis. I have a very good grasp of what firearms suit my personal needs and wants. You don't. Therefore I have no desire to allow you to pick and choose for me.
Click to expand...

Then I can own any arms I want.

TOW missiles for everyone!!!!!!
 
vegas giants said:
Then I can own any arms I want.

TOW missiles for everyone!!!!!!
Click to expand...

Technically you're correct. That hasn't been much of a problem. There are other limiting factors.

You can own a 600 rounds/minute Gatling or its 6000 RPM modern equivalent. You can purchase a fully operational new Gatling. You don't even need a permit. That has not been a problem. You can also own fully operational shoulder fired machine guns. There is at least one 4 inch towable you see around sometimes.

But back to the OP. I'll pick and choose my firearms based on my perceived needs and wants. Not your idea of whatever you see as your desires. Real or imagined. Or what you decide is best for me.
 
Last edited:
Wayne Jr said:
Do as I do.

I use safe storage devices. Do as I do and use them also.

I carry insurance. Do as I do and carry insurance also.

Your asinine posts are exactly the behavior OP is talking about :D
Click to expand...

Show me a safe storage device that I can access in 4 or 5 seconds in the event of need and I'll pay attention.

I carry insurance for all anticipated liabilities. Including firearms related.
 
jimbo said:
My position is simple. The second leaves nothing to interpretation. There is nothing easier to understand than Shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...
What does or does not constitute infringement is demonstrably not clear cut and demonstrably open to interpretation.
 
jimbo said:
Technically you're correct. That hasn't been much of a problem. There are other limiting factors.

You can own a 600 rounds/minute Gatling or its 6000 RPM modern equivalent. You can purchase a fully operational new Gatling. You don't even need a permit. That has not been a problem. You can also own fully operational shoulder fired machine guns. There is at least one 4 inch towable you see around sometimes.

But back to the OP. I'll pick and choose my firearms based on my perceived needs and wants. Not your idea of whatever you see as your desires. Real or imagined. Or what you decide is best for me.
Click to expand...

Yeah. What could go wrong with me having a TOW missle launcher?
 
pinqy said:
What does or does not constitute infringement is demonstrably not clear cut and demonstrably open to interpretation.
Click to expand...

Shall not be infringed is very clear. Where the founders needed a modifier they used them. The first says Congress. The fourth goes into great detail concerning limits. The third has its limits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom