Jump to content
  • Hey There!

    Please register to see fewer ads and a better viewing experience:100_Emoji_42x42:

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

TruthVsComfort

Kentucky Shooting: Boy, 5, Shoots And Kills 2-Year-Old Sister, Police Say

Recommended Posts

First two are the same one guy.

Third one is a blogger who does not even have their real name in the title.

Fourth one does not say it other than in the title. again, its one guy blogging.

Fifth one is again, one guy - from 2001.

Seventh one, again, one guy blogging (Sixth didn't open anything for me).

Last guy makes some great points, but also acknowledges that banning guns is a target, not a possibility.

So, I asked for information on the the "ban all guns crowd" and I get 5 or six people blogging their opinions. This is what is getting all of you thinking that there's some kind of giant movement out there to take your guns. I get more stupid memes from people on FB that I know, that are less sensical on the subject from the gun nut side EVERY DAY without even looking.

Hopefully you see what I am talking about here. If you don't, well, you have to be kind of dumb and I mean that in the nicest possible way.

Ok then. one up me. show me the people you often reference saying civilians should carry nukes.

e: and my list was done in 5 minutes from the first page of a Google search. you seem to be thinking i put some effort into it.

All i did was prune duplicates (obviously i missed the first two) and one calling for a ban in Canada (oddly enough, that article said 1 in 4 Canadians pack heat vs 1 in 6 Americans.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Conservative:

"Personal responsibility, Parents at fault and should be prosecuted, example made."

 

Liberal.

"Freedom, 2nd amendment!11!!11!!11!!!1"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

by the way i think we should make a clear differentiation between fringe loons and significant voter blocs.

 

the fringe of the liberal voting bloc wants to ban guns. there are very few of them.

 

meanwhile a significant voting bloc of the republican party is on the rabid NRA track of "give everyone a gun."

 

yes, there are extremists on both sides, but that's a fallacious point to make unless you note that the extremist "gun grabbers" are few and far between while the extremist "arm everbody" crowd is indeed a crowd, and a very large one at that. the framework of the debate has been skewed to create an alleged powerful body who wants your guns to counterbalance the crazies rallying against it with equal extremity. it's probably the biggest national-scale strawman attack i've seen in my lifetime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. fringe of the liberal voting bloc wants to ban guns. there are very few of them.

.........

 

meanwhile a significant voting bloc of the republican party is on the rabid NRA track of "give everyone a gun."

 

 

 

"significant voting block".

Can you put a % on both sides?

This should be fascinating.

Facts to back it up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"significant voting block".

Can you put a % on both sides?

This should be fascinating.

Facts to back it up?

 

the NRA is a massive political force on one side of the issue matched on the other by the ...uh the, uh, um, the, uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, hmmmmm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

arguing with forum poster ronald reagan is like playing chess with a pigeon. it knocks over the pieces, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RR quickly loses interest referencing world history/current news when the reply is the same tired 3 or 4 lines the college drop out picked up from their tendered professors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"i don't have a response to anything you say so here's a witty ad hominem"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, still waiting on statistics to back post 48.

*waiting*

 

you don't need to statistics to make every point in the universe, and a good example is the post where i said:

 

the NRA is a massive political force on one side of the issue matched on the other by the ...uh the, uh, um, the, uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, hmmmmm.

 

which pretty handily made the point that the one side of the issue has a massively powerful endorsement behind it while its supposedly menacing binary opposite has zero actual political backing, constituency base, or lobbying clout. i'm not sure how you can continue to argue in this framework unless your tactic is to deny all terms and definitions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



×