Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Argument with anti-gun liberal reporter, wait till you read this

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by daiello91, Jan 18, 2011.

  1. daiello91

    daiello91 NW Oregon Active Member

    Messages:
    341
    Likes Received:
    37
    So I'm facebook friends with a liberal reporter, don't ask why because I'm not getting into it. Getting back to the point. She posted a Guardian UK gun control article. First of all, why the **** do they care...and why should we care what they think. Initially because I've been sucked into some of her post before, I was just going to post my opinion and then leave it at that. Well that didn't happen. I think many of you will find her argument appalling. This happened over a several hour period, while I was at work, so my grammar is off at times. Additionally I got very angered at times, but tried to keep it in check during the conversation. Enjoy



    Oh, I don't claim to be a great debater and I'm sure I made some mistakes just as she did but her simple belief is what's really appalling. However, about halfway though, just inspite of her I bought 10 more 30 rd ar mags :D



    -----
    Unnamed Person- Perhaps we need to begin with a "discussion" rather proceeding to a "debate" for a start. As the most recent incident in Arizona compounds the need for rational consideration of a possible moderation of gun laws state and nationwide, memories of other needless tragedies: JFK, MLK,Jr., RFK, attempts on Reagan, Ford, GHW Bush etc. all point to our need to listen to one another and discuss how best to proceed.
    -----
    Me
    Each state has the ability to restrict weapon type & magazine capacity. Federal law already prohibits mentally ill & felons from owning firearms.

    We have LOTS of gun control already, they're just not enforced properly. Why should we enact new laws when enforcement already fails to do it's job with what's before it?

    That's my opinion, and it's not changing. So I'm not going to continue to read this thread.
    -----
    Unnamed Person 2- I'm tired of losing that debate. Truly, I am.
    -----
    Reporter ‎@Me: If it's a question of enforcement (an argument I've heard before), then that's a substantive part of the debate. What's keep it from happening? And is it best left to the states--as easy as it is to cross state lines and obtain weapons? It seems to me it's time to vigorously revisit this issue.
    -----
    Unnamed Person 3-
    As one who grew up in a hunting family, I'm obviously very supportive of not deteriorating the 2nd Amendment. However, I see no point in semi-automatic weapons for non-military or law enforcement purposes, or folks in the general public having military-type weapons. I fully support the Brady Bill, and would consider legislation that calls for further background checks and permits, as long as it doesn't become red-tape laden and cause long delays in ordinary citizens being able to purchase guns in a timely manner.

    Secondly, as a former journalist, I covered the issue of concealed weapons permits, and the evidence proves that 99% of permit holders are law-abiding and responsible people and the incidents of gun violence or deaths in this category of people is virtually non-existent. In fact, the 1% that have their license revoked is due to a felony or criminal charge that isn't related to use of a gun. For example, a man who's charged with domestic violence can lose his permit, even though the gun wasn't involved. The reality is that most gun violence is committed by criminals and those with mental illness, like schizophrenia.

    I bring this up to say that any new laws/or the amendment of existing laws should be done to deal with the actual problems and people who commit most gun crimes, and to not further punish the majority of Americans who are responsible and safe with guns.
    -----
    Unnamed Person 4 - ‎@Me, "That's my opinion, and it's not changing. So I'm not going to continue to read this thread." Weren't you the one protesting that liberals all want everyone to be like them? And here you are, declaring that you'll not pay attention to what others have to say because you've made up (and apparently closed and shut off) your mind.
    -----
    Unnamed Person 5 - Do criminals give a hoot about gun legislation? Do they care anything about any legislation? Just a thought.
    -----
    Reporter By that logic--should we have any laws at all--because criminals won't follow them?
    -----
    Me-
    ‎@Person 4-, I couldn't believe what I read in my email, you suckered me back in. By formulating my very informed opinion and not wavering in such I am not forcing anyone to be like me. CHOICE ... something this country was founded on.

    Carla... fights for the CHOICE to have an abortion if she prefers to do so.

    Many fight for the CHOICE of religion.

    Many fight for the CHOICE to speak up against one political party or politician without being imprisoned or punished.

    Millions have died before you by CHOICE, to DEFEND your freedom of CHOICE!

    I fight for the CHOICE to defend myself, friends and family against criminals, a potential tyrant government and any other imminent threat. Which may never happen in my lifetime, but I CHOOSE to be prepared and not be a victim like millions in this world have. Millions of people in this world have been murdered by the government sworn to protect them, including people in this country. Have we forgotten to what this country did to the Japanese during WWII?

    Luckily for me the 2nd amendment, re-strengthened by the Supreme Court in 2009, protects the RIGHT of individuals to bear arms. Luckily for me it doesn't specify the purpose for which I must own a firearm. It does not restrict that I must only own firearms for hunting or home protection. It protects the right of individuals to own firearms like the rest of the constitution protects this conversation.

    If you want me to hand over my firearm you better be willing to hand over your freedom of speech.
    -----
    Reporter ‎@Me: I don't have the right to unfettered free speech. For example, I can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater without legal repercussions. My right to free speech also doesn't mean I am free from being criticized. It doesn't mean I can commit libel, either. All of our rights, including the right to bear arms, ought to be the same.
    -----
    Me-
    You're arguing criticism & defamation...nice straw.

    I can't walk down the street without a loaded rifle with out the expectation of being stopped by police, legal or not. I can't fire any weapon within city limits unless in legal self defen...se. I can't drive a vehicle with a loaded firearm unless I have a concealed weapons permit, which requires a full background check, waiting period, safety class and other restrictions...which are above and beyond the requirements to purchase the firearm.

    There is already lots of restrictions on firearms, just like your claimed freedom of speech restrictions.
    -----
    Reporter
    ‎@Me: As you likely know, in fact in some states you can walk down the street with a loaded weapon without the expectation of being stopped by police. Arizona is one such state. In fact, the regulation of firearms varies widely state ...by state.

    The question on the table is whether or not greater federal regulations should be considered.
    -----
    Me-
    Untrue;
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJVpCMyMKWU

    Their have been many lawsuits against cities & counties because of police harassment on this issue.

    ...Ok, lets make it simple. No further federal regulations should be considered because that infringes my 2nd amendment. "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
    -----
    Reporter
    True, actually. Citizens in Arizona can in fact can legally carry a loaded weapon in public: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarep...29/20100729arizona-concealed-weapons-law.html

    Your link actually backs up what I'm... saying: firearms regulations vary widely from state to state. It's not a "simple" issue, and virtually plugging our ears and pretending otherwise does an injustice to it.

    Shutting down any debate whatsoever on this--whether it leads to more (or less) regulation for firearms, or whether it leads to a serious discussion of how we deal with the mentally ill...or how we're going to pay for larger public safety issues, is a vital conversation. Just because it happens to roll through the venue of a discussion on firearms, its irresponsible to close it off.

    -----
    Me-
    You've completely decided to ignore my point that just because it's legal doesn't mean I won't be criticized for it, like you tried to argue about free speech. I already stated that each state has the ability to regulate firearms. Although ...if legal or not (Chicago) is a different matter.

    It's already illegal for mentally ill to own or possess firearms. No more needed debate. If the state FAILS to identify them as such, that has no business in a firearms debate.
    -----
    Reporter
    The issue of mental health is only PART of the debate, and if the state if failing to recognize, then it's absolutely part of the discussion. Just because you personally don't like it, doesn't mean it isn't fully appropriate and necessary.

    Second, it's clear in the case of Arizona that are more armed populace isn't necessarily a safer populace. As has been widely noted, a citizen with a loaded weapon was there, on site, ready to fire--and almost shot an innocent bystander who managed to pull the gun away from Loughner:

    http://www.slate.com/id/2280794/

    Where do we draw the line? We don't allow citizens to own tanks, missiles and nuclear weapons. Why do we allow weapons such as the kind used by Loughner?
    -----
     
  2. daiello91

    daiello91 NW Oregon Active Member

    Messages:
    341
    Likes Received:
    37
    Me- Definition of firearm: A rifle, shotgun or handgun using gunpowder as a propellant. By federal definition, under the 1968 Gun Control Act.

    When did a tank or a nuclear weapon get protected by the Constitution of the United States?
    -----
    Me- Ever heard..."where there is a will there is a way?". Timmothy McVay didn't use a firearm, the Unibomber didn't use a firearm, The olympic bomber in ATL didn't use a firearm...shall I continue?
    -----
    Me- ‎"Just because you personally don't like it, doesn't mean it isn't fully appropriate and necessary." - I think you need to take your own advise.
    -----
    Reporter The 1968 Gun Control Act has a "sporting purpose" test for firearms. We crossed that line with allowing military-style weapons into the public domain long ago.
    -----
    Reporter That's right "me"..I'm taking my advice. I'm asking that we have a DEBATE--so that we can determine what is fully appropriate and necessary. Clearly there's some stuff going on that isn't appropriate and very unnecessary that needs addressing.

    -----
    Me-
    I haven't read the whole 1968 Gun Control Act, however this doesn't sound like it has a "sporting purpose"..?????

    It primarily focuses on regulating interstate commerce in firearms by generally prohibiting interstate firearms transfers except among licensed manufacturers, dealers and importers. The GCA incorporated several earlier laws and regulations into a comprehensive system of industry licensing and record keeping under the supervision of the federal government.

    Various provisions of the GCA regulate firearms in greater detail, by banning certain types of firearms and regulating firearms possession in certain areas such as school zones and federal government buildings.

    The GCA also includes penalties for violations and for use of firearms in crime.
    -----
    Me- Again: sporting, hunting, defense purpose is irrelevant. The constitution does not define for what purpose I have to own a firearm.
    -----
    Reporter It's not irrelevant under the 1968 Gun Control Act, which you cited. If you want to talk only about what the Constitution guarantees, then that's a different discussion. The Constitution does not guarantee an unfettered right to ANYTHING, much less firearms.
    -----
    Reporter
    ‎"The 1968 Gun Control Act added a "sporting purpose" test which barred imports of military surplus rifles (a goal of many domestic gun makers) and a "points system" for imported handguns which barred from importation handguns based on penalizing features (short barrels, small caliber, short overall length or height, non-adjustable sights, etc.) believed to define the Saturday night special class of handgun."
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968See More

    -----
    Me- It bares IMPORT of non-sporting purpose firearms....that doesn't define a "firearms" as sporting purpose weapons.
    -----
    Reporter I know that, But we've clearly got IMPORTED weapons in this country that are way beyond that standard. For example, AK-47s aren't manufactured in the US, but they're quite available for sale in this country: http://www.atlanticfirearms.com/ , http://www.gunsamerica.com/Search/Category/8/2/Guns/Rifles/AK-47-Rifles.htm, http://www.impactguns.com/store/howtoorder.html
    -----
    Me-
    You're agreeing with me on the definition that a firearm is a rifle, shotgun or handgun using gunpowder as a propellant by taking that direction in your argument. Therefore abandoning the view that we must only own firearms for sporting purposes.

    Besides those guns of made of majority US Parts. They are not imported as firearms, and comply with the federal law. Additionally they're less powerful than many US made rifles, although less expensive.
    -----
    Reporter
    I'm saying that the you cited is clearly not working as it was designed. It was quite clearly intended to keep out this sort of stuff.

    You can make excuses all you like, but its clear there's a problem. It's time for us to stop dithering and pretending--and step up as a society to deal with it.
    -----
    Reporter That should say, "I'm saying that the law you cited is clearly not working as it was designed.."

    -----
    Me-
    It's a loophole, sure. The only thing is you keep using "sporting purpose" as a crutch when there is no definition, law, or anything that says I must only own sporting purpose firearms.

    Final point; here's the problem. That old phrase "give ...and inch and they'll take a mile". Say gun owners say, OK fine...ban importation of glocks. What's next after the next tragedy...this whole debate starts again and again and again until firearms are going. Oh but here's the real clincher....the problems keep happening......

    What then???

    Who are you going to find to blame then???
    -----
    Me- Should say "until firearms are gone".
    -----
    Reporter
    If there are loopholes in that law, what other laws have loopholes that need addressing? Let's figure it out and take care of it.

    Firearms in this country will NEVER be gone. It's too much a part of our culture. The "slippery-slope" argument in this regard just doesn't wash. If anything, we've got the door so wide open to firearms that it's the exact opposite of that.

    Where's the line? I asked you that once, and you deflected. So I'll ask again and rephrase: is there any gun at all, anywhere, that should be regulated in the US? why? why not?
    -----
    Me- No "firearm" as I already defined should be bared from any individual unless a convicted felon or mentally ill as determined by the state. As I said Tanks & Nuclear weapons are not defined as firearms and therefore are not open for possession of individuals.
    -----
    Reporter Then we have a fundamental disagreement. I don't think any military style weapon is appropriate for rank and file citizens.
    -----
    Me- That was clear from the start of this discussion. Mission nothing accomplished. Good thing the Supreme Court & Constitution are on my side.
    -----
    Reporter The SCOTUS may be on your side now, but I suspect it won't always be. And there are many Constitutional scholars who say that the document is in fact not on your side.
    -----
    Me-
    They say it isn't based on 1 word "militia", which has been clearly defined as any able body and trained individual.

    If it ever does sway to the other side then those people shall shoulder the guilt of any genocide that ever happens in the ...USA, and don't think it can't. We're bound to repeat history, that's a guarantee, time and time again humans ignore the past by believing we've "progressed".
    -----
    Reporter
    Riiiight..cuz all those Native Americans were mostly wiped out because we had them out-armed? Bzzzt. No. It was genocide by disease (small pox, typhus, measles, bubonic plague, influenza, cholera, etc). If your big concern is "genocide", then any arsenal you might have is unlikely to save you.

    You'll be better off with a top notch infectious disease specialist.
    -----
    Me-
    Right, we didn't march a million of them off to reservations as they died from exposure and starvation along the way. How wrong I am.

    On a side note you only further proved my point about extreme liberals. You wanted "discussion", only until... you couldn't persuade me to agree with you.

    Liberal agenda tries to ban anything that isn't exactly like it.
    -----
    Reporter
    You wanna change the terms of the discussion? Then we can--but when you use words like "genocide" --you'd best be prepared to back them up. If you're worried about history repeating itself along those lines--then you should back t...hat up too. Marching the natives to reservations isn't what killed them off in droves. Not by a long shot. Let's at least get the facts straight.

    I have no delusions about persuading you to agree with me--and you seem at least as intent on trying to persuade me as you accuse me of. I don't know what a "liberal" agenda is--I don't speak for all liberals any more than you speak for all conservatives--or any other group you self-identify with.
    -----
    Me-
    I disagree with your perception & "poor Indians" didn't have an immune system history book lesson of how they "died". Maybe we should take a trip to Grand Rhonde and ask them how they felt their ancestors "died".

    I was defending your attack...s. I from the start said my opinion is formulated and not changing.

    I don't have a group, both strongly disagree with me at times. The two party system is one of the major issues killing this country. The liberals & the conservatives are reaching a boiling point.
    -----
    Reporter
    You have the right to your opinion and perception. But you don't have the right to your own facts. The issue of disease being the chief contributor to Native American genocide is fact:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_histor...y_of_indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas

    http://www.thefurtrapper.com/indian_smallpox.htm

    http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-St...1310/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1295385132&sr=8-1

    http://www.amazon.com/Born-Die-Conq...7303/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1295385501&sr=8-4

    You also have a right to formulate an opinion and never change it. But you can't expect others to respect or agree with that kind of rigidity and inflexibility. You've chosen to come here and attack others with that opinion--but expecting that you won't get pushback is simply naive.
    -----
     
  3. daiello91

    daiello91 NW Oregon Active Member

    Messages:
    341
    Likes Received:
    37
    Me-
    Notice the word at the bottom of the paragraph;

    "The population of Old World peoples in the Americas grew steadily, while the number of the indigenous people plummeted. Old World diseases such as smallpox, influenza, bubonic plague and pneumonic plagues devastated the previously isolated Native Americans. Conflict and outright warfare with European newcomers and other American tribes reduced populations and disrupted traditional society. The extent and causes of the decline have long been a subject of academic debate, along with its possible characterization as a genocide."

    From one of YOUR sources.
    -----
    Me- Additionally, how many of those sources were written by Native American's??? None that I can tell. Sounds like a 1 sided story to me.
    -----
    Reporter
    If you believe this multitude of academic sourcing to be in error, by all means, prove it. I'm sure the individuals that have put in decades of work in this area will be interested in your findings.

    From the source you cited:

    Nearly all scholars now believe that widespread epidemic disease, to which the natives had no prior exposure or resistance, was the overwhelming cause of the massive population decline of the Native Americans.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popula...nous_peoples_of_the_Americas-----cite_note-21

    You wanna keep parsing this out, we can. But the facts won't change.
    -----
    Me-
    If you deny even the remote possibility that what was done to Native American's should be classified as genocide then you're doing nothing but turning a blind eye. Those that have put "decades of work" into research again are not Native American's and they're using data from the American government. There is plenty of incomplete & unexplainable data that suggest direct government involvement in the spread of disease and or failure to assist the Indians, in your sources.

    Regardless, I'm done arguing this. It's wasting both our time. I'll see you at the ballot box with the other 100 Million + gun owning Americans.
    -----
    Reporter
    Since I haven't denied that what happened to Native Americans wasn't genocide--then your premise is faulty.

    As I said, if you have evidence that these academic works are in error, then by all means--post it. And forgive me, but based on what you're saying here, you haven't read the material so you have no idea what all the data is from, American government or otherwise.

    I haven't said that the government wasn't involved in spreading disease to the Native Americans. In fact, if that's true, it buffets my earlier point that brought us to this tangent: if your big concern is the government committing genocide against civilians in the US, you're better off with a top notch infectious disease specialist than you are an arsenal.

    And yes, those of us who believe in sane gun regulations will be at the ballot box, too.
    -----
    Reporter that should say "was genocide" in the first sentence. Sorry.
    -----
    Me- Actually, I read 2 of the sources posted that were able to be read in full, 2 were print books not able to be read online.
    -----
    Reporter
    Really? And which of the authors have no Native blood?

    Here's more:

    http://jhmas.oxfordjournals.org/content/65/4/445.abstract?ct=ct
    ...
    http://www.amazon.com/Iberia-Americ...1_fkmr1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1295390079&sr=1-1-fkmr1

    http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-North-A...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1295390155&sr=1-1

    http://www.questia.com/googleSchola...F2C52687F4AF02297B9.inst2_3a?docId=5002023727
    -----
    Me- Your straw grasping attempts are getting laughable.
    -----
    Reporter You're making lots of assertions you can't back up. "Laughable" is apparently in the eye of the beholder.
    -----
    Me- Laughable is always in the eye of the beholder you just can't admit when you're wrong. You back pedal and deflected. Now just let this die, you're humiliating yourself.
    -----
    Reporter Oh c'mon --you've done everything you could to act like a jerk on this thread. And now you're just being petty. You lost this one--come back to fight another day and stop acting childish.
    -----
    Me- I only acted like a jerk in the last couple post because you're being a "I got the last word, I win", "holier than thou", "the constitution doesn't matter", "I won't answer the important questions because I can't", "be like me or I'll ban it" liberal.
    -----
    Reporter
    You've acted like a jerk throughout. Whether you realize it (or cop to it) or not. Your own holier than thou attitude and "I've made up my mind and now I'm here to push you to do it my way" isn't winning any converts, and your inability to... back up even the most basic of your premises isn't either. You've accused me of saying things I haven't said, you've assigned beliefs to me that I don't have and you've consistently (and wrongly) assumed, all without apology--just a sense of entitlement.

    You think I'm wrong--fine. But you've done nothing to prove it besides stamp your feet.
    -----
    Me-
    Back up my basic premise?? You must be kidding??? That's just a flat lie. You even ignored the most important question, who are you going to blame when people continue to commit murder in the USA without "military rifles". Yet you so quickly point out my deflection.

    I by no means "pushed" you to do it my way. If you don't want to bear arms I'm not asking you to. I'm telling you don't tell me I can't. You're the one telling me to be like you, by trying to legally force me to conform to your way of life.
    -----
    Me- You're the one stamping your feet against SCOTUS & the Constitution...that as you said provides no guaranteed rights. You are the minority.
    -----
    Reporter
    Now you've just become silly,--and calling me a liar to boot. That's not welcome and not appreciated. I certainly don't come to your wall and treat you this way. Don't do it to me. If it happens again, we're done.

    Your basic premise above is that we should let people do what they want, whenever they want, even in the face of the infringement of the lives of others. That's over the line--both in the legal sense and in the essential freedoms sense. You don't get to behave or conduct yourself in a way that infringes on someone else's basic rights.

    That is the point.

    -----
    Reporter
    The current justices are weighted heavily to the conservative extreme. Previous justices have been much more amendable to gun control laws--the court is fluid like that. That's not stamping feet. That's just the way it is. When this crop ...moves on, there's a reasonable chance that the new crop will once again get back to sane gun control.

    And on the Constitutional issue, as I said, there are many scholars who disagree with your take on the 2nd. I'm inclined to believe they're right.
    -----
    Me-
    Please quote where I said people should be able go do whatever where ever they want. You can't becuase I didn't. You accuse me of so many things but you make false claims.

    Legally owning a military style rifle does not infringe on your or another person's rights. Another false statement. You trying to tell others thus can't IS.

    "Some" scholars my DISAGREE with the second amendment but it's not their position to decide, and it's been decided.
    See More
    -----
    Me- ‎*others they can't, IS
     
  4. Just Jim

    Just Jim Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    6,828
    Likes Received:
    6,266
    "And on the Constitutional issue, as I said, there are many scholars who disagree with your take on the 2nd. I'm inclined to believe they're right."

    The reporter is educated by the liberal left in liberal schools to believe what is liberal is the only correct way. The scholars come from those liberal institutions. Rights written in a constitution are not subject to interpetation as the rights were written to be rights given by god and no man can take that right away.

    If this leftist believes new laws that define our rights should take place the person should be asked "why new laws since you don't follow the original ones?" They change the peoples rights like they change their clothes, without thought other than what looks good.

    jj
     
  5. mjbskwim

    mjbskwim Salmon,Idaho Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,394
    Likes Received:
    7,615
    I would have deleted her as a friend very early in on this one.To go on as long as you did is kinda silly.
    But I use Facebook to talk to relatives and share pictures of travels,not to debate guns or religion.

    My responses to someone bashing my 2nd amendment posts are "hehehe" and more quotes from the Founding Fathers

    Hey good luck at the next party she's at.
     
  6. drew

    drew OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,052
    Likes Received:
    970
    Wow. Looks like you fell victim to a troll, unnamed person 4. I'll let the arguments of the reporter stand on their own merit. Excluding pertinent clauses from laws to make a point was a nice attempt. I think you held your own. The fact you called her on that was kind of funny.
     
  7. Swedish K

    Swedish K SW Washington Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,943
    Likes Received:
    1,231
    The problem with reporters and politicians is that they only pay attention to polls and laws that suit their opinion. I've seen politicians try to blame unions for the debt of the state when they voted for the pay raises that they are blaming the situation on. When cornered they backpedal and cry that they had to vote on the bill before the legislative digest and review of the bill was complete... So its ok for them to blame others for the way that they voted because they chose to vote on it before they read it in its entirety and before it had been reviewed by the Legislative Analyst's Office for both legality and fiscal impacts.

    Ahh I think it may be a waste of time and breath to try to persuade the anti 2nd rights people - though it is fun when they break down in tears because they can't change your view or back up their own:thumbup:
     
  8. Murphy

    Murphy Oregon Member

    Messages:
    218
    Likes Received:
    16
    Please ask her if the Trail of Tears was not genocide, what was it?
     
  9. clearconscience

    clearconscience Vancouver, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    5,581
    Likes Received:
    7,099
    Dang you guys said a lot. But arguing for gun control is like being in the special olympics. It doesn't matter what they say their still retarded.

    Should have brought up the New Jersey/Chicago/Cali firearms laws and how they have some of the worst crime/murder rates in the nation.
    Also the several nations that forced strong gun control only to cause the destruction of the people. (Nazi Germany)

    It's kind of like arguing with your wife. They do this mind ninja trick where they have a heated debate with no facts or common sense that completely throws you for a loop and makes you lose your mind.
     
  10. MA Duce

    MA Duce Central Oregon Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,065
    Likes Received:
    117
    Arguing with these people is like beating your head against a wall. You will never change their mind because they do not want to find fact, but to sustain their belief no matter what the facts are. This is a deeply held ethos, a religion if you will, and the anti-gun faction will never see the points we try to make. They want to believe that taking away guns from everyone is the only answer. I once won a college debating competition by using the same tactic. The premise was that lead in soldered cans was unhealthy, and should be banned. I took the stance that no lead content was acceptable...period. By taking a non-negotiable stance I eliminated the opposition's ability to argue for safe levels. ( the teams got their stance by drawing lots, I got lucky) This is exactly the tactic used by the anti-gun lobby, by arguing that NO private gun ownership is safe they can avoid any meaningful compromise.
     
  11. daiello91

    daiello91 NW Oregon Active Member

    Messages:
    341
    Likes Received:
    37
     
  12. Redcap

    Redcap Lewis County, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,990
    Likes Received:
    2,731
    tl;dr
     
  13. dario541

    dario541 medford, or 97504 Member

    Messages:
    696
    Likes Received:
    24
    Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership has definately proved the the 1968 American gun Law is based on the 1938 German Nazi law. Check it out!
     
  14. spengo

    spengo GLORIOUS CASCADIA Active Member

    Messages:
    1,267
    Likes Received:
    25
    2nd amendment does not specify firearms in particular it just says Arms. I don't know about you guys, but personally I want my own tactical nuke.
     
  15. lesscubes

    lesscubes Burien Member

    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jefferson didn't want a standing army. Any military needs were supposed to be met by raising the Militia. That model doesn't work in our times for a country of our size. However...

    Jefferson also envisioned that when the government out-stepped it's bounds, the citizenry remove them by force. RKBA doesn't mean "put food on table with gun," which is a generally outdated idea now, as it was then for the people who lived in the cities, RKBA is so the citizenry can stand toe to toe with the Government in revolution.

    It's scary as **** to a lot of people. There's no "Sporting" purpose in killing. You kill an animal- It's cause it's either a threat to your well-being, or you are hungry. (I despise the taking of game for trophy. Every time I flip through the channels and hear "What a beautiful buck." *BANG* I feel sick.) You shoot a person, it's because they've become a clear and present danger to you.

    I'm not one that thinks liberalism is a disease, I certainly don't trust the GOP any more than I trust the Democrats. I hate the idea of Europe's draconian laws but certain aspects of it do appeal to me as a member of the working poor. But the opportunism rampant on this subject is appalling. The good news for the RKBA, not necessarily the rest of our lives, is that with Republican dominance, legislation wont pass.

    Tucson, Virginia Tech... Laws wouldn't have stopped them any more than they did OKC. You can't legislate a sick mind.
     
  16. daiello91

    daiello91 NW Oregon Active Member

    Messages:
    341
    Likes Received:
    37
    I must point out that hunting weather for food or trophy is a choice and many states have laws requiring that animals harvested not go to waste, so they are eaten. Hunters donate millions of pounds of meat to feed the needy annually. I hunt for meat, but I won't stand by idly by and let someone trash talk legal hunting.
     
  17. VW_Factor

    VW_Factor Woodburn Oregon Active Member

    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    101
  18. lesscubes

    lesscubes Burien Member

    Messages:
    44
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'm not a politician or a activist. Just because I don't like a a practice doesn't mean I'd like to take that away from people. Besides, whether we evolved or were created- somebody didn't want bambi to win, or he'd of grown thumbs and developed high powered rifles. ;)
     
  19. Swedish K

    Swedish K SW Washington Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,943
    Likes Received:
    1,231
    OK but not in San Francisco, Oakland, Davis, or Berkley - unless you want to pay the $500 fine and be charged with a misdemeanor!
     
  20. jyerxa

    jyerxa Graham Member

    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    1
    I got this pic in an email so this is the best I can do about posting it here. But I like it.

    GeorgeWashington.jpg