Gun control debate (merged)

#27,276
#27,276
luthervol said:
That's not the middle ground. That's the extreme ground.
And that's obviously the ground the gun nuts unwisely are trying to push for.
Click to expand...
I'm going to display some logic here, not sure your far left liberal pea brain can pick up on it but here goes....

I have a $100. You have zero dollars. You tell me I need to give you $20. I say no. You say give me $20 or I'll take your whole $100.

That's not compromise, that's extortion. That's theft. There's zero compromising.

However, I can understand how a communist would view that as a compromise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman, Vol since 77, 82_VOL_83 and 4 others
#27,277
#27,277
luthervol said:
Sure something was given. The guns already in circulation were allowed to remain legal.
Neither extreme got what they wanted. Both sides made concessions. We don't really want the extremes on either side getting what they want. Of course gun nuts are trying to force the issue to where it has to be one extreme or the other.
(No middle ground)
Click to expand...

I’m very open to a middle ground. You’re welcome to change the constitution. Then I’ll gladly to move to the first state that leaves the union. My money is on Texas
 
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#27,279
#27,279
luthervol said:
It's not.
Some think it is, some think it is not.
Because it is up to interpretation.
Click to expand...
something being "up to" the interpretation doesn't mean its changes. It means people's reactions to it change, but the base item itself doesn't change. This is why we constantly push back on your purposefully vague language.

you and I are sitting across from each other. I write down "6" on a piece of paper in front of me. Someone from my side will interpret it as a "6". Someone on your side could interpret it as a "9". neither interpretation changes that I wrote a 6, it is 6. People changing their view of 6 doesn't change 6 from 6.

or a Lincolnism. "How many legs does a dog have if you count its tail as a leg? 5? Wrong. Calling a dog’s tail a leg, doesn’t make it a leg.” saying certain infringements aren't infringements doesn't make them not infringements. Your only argument is that they are "acceptable" infringements. you argue them being acceptable to some means they aren't infringements. but thats not the truth of it, just because people "accept" something doesn't make it correct.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol, 82_VOL_83 and kiddiedoc
#27,281
#27,281
luthervol said:
Sure something was given. The guns already in circulation were allowed to remain legal.
Neither extreme got what they wanted. Both sides made concessions. We don't really want the extremes on either side getting what they want. Of course gun nuts are trying to force the issue to where it has to be one extreme or the other.
(No middle ground)
Click to expand...
except for the pistol brace issue we discussed earlier in this thread. you were fully backing the ATF just making legal weapons illegal, and jailing millions of citizens. you even argued to "just comply" or some such.

the same ATF willing to break the laws to pay its agents millions more than they legally should have been able to.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/02/atf...s-pay-biden-told-in-letter-from-watchdog.html

we are being policed by criminals. and you think we are "nuts" to not trust them.
 
#27,282
#27,282
luthervol said:
That's not the middle ground. That's the extreme ground.
And that's obviously the ground the gun nuts unwisely are trying to push for.
Click to expand...
no its not extreme. you hide in your naivety.

making all uses of all guns constitutionally protected would be extreme.

we are far more rational and reasonable than you would ever want to admit.
 
#27,283
#27,283
LouderVol said:
except for the pistol brace issue we discussed earlier in this thread. you were fully backing the ATF just making legal weapons illegal, and jailing millions of citizens. you even argued to "just comply" or some such.

the same ATF willing to break the laws to pay its agents millions more than they legally should have been able to.
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/02/atf...s-pay-biden-told-in-letter-from-watchdog.html

we are being policed by criminals. and you think we are "nuts" to not trust them.
Click to expand...
Exactly. If you want to see how dumb the ATF is and why we shouldn't give an inch: they outlawed a piece of plastic that does nothing except make shooting more comfortable, and you have to pay $200, get fingerprinted and photographed, and wait 9 months if you want to create less noise pollution/decrease hearing damage when you shoot.

No middle ground. No compromise.
 
#27,284
#27,284
LouderVol said:
no its not extreme. you hide in your naivety.

making all uses of all guns constitutionally protected would be extreme.

we are far more rational and reasonable than you would ever want to admit.
Click to expand...
He's not hiding in naivety. He wants to disarm the population. He's already said he is in favor of banning semi auto weapons, which is around 80% of those sold.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83 and Thunder Good-Oil
#27,285
#27,285
kiddiedoc said:
He's not hiding in naivety. He wants to disarm the population. He's already said he is in favor of banning semi auto weapons, which is around 80% of those sold.
Click to expand...
thats fair. I shouldn't have said it was his naivety. I should have said he was hiding behind a naïve view. and he is doing so purposefully in order to deceive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
#27,286
#27,286
LouderVol said:
thats fair. I shouldn't have said it was his naivety. I should have said he was hiding behind a naïve view. and he is doing so purposefully in order to deceive.
Click to expand...
Communism never takes hold by telling everyone it is going to enslave them and destroy their country and ways of life.

"It's for your own good." The ultimate wolf in sheep's clothing.
 
#27,287
#27,287
kiddiedoc said:
He's not hiding in naivety. He wants to disarm the population. He's already said he is in favor of banning semi auto weapons, which is around 80% of those sold.
Click to expand...
There are 400 million guns in circulation that I have never once advocated for taking.
Can't really see how that is disarming the population.
We could not sell another gun for the next ten years and still be the most heavily armed populace in the world.

Disarming???????? Total nonsense.
But I understand why that's the angle gun nuts take.
 
#27,289
#27,289
luthervol said:
There are 400 million guns in circulation that I have never once advocated for taking.
Can't really see how that is disarming the population.
We could not sell another gun for the next ten years and still be the most heavily armed populace in the world.

Disarming???????? Total nonsense.
But I understand why that's the angle gun nuts take.
Click to expand...
You say that like it's a bad thing.
 
#27,291
#27,291
luthervol said:
There are 400 million guns in circulation that I have never once advocated for taking.
Can't really see how that is disarming the population.
We could not sell another gun for the next ten years and still be the most heavily armed populace in the world.

Disarming???????? Total nonsense.
But I understand why that's the angle gun nuts take.
Click to expand...
No, "total nonsense" is x in y seconds. Bugger off.
 
#27,294
#27,294
kiddiedoc said:
I take being called a "gun nut" by a Communist as a compliment.
Click to expand...

And I take being called a Communist by a rightwing gun nut as a compliment - in a ridiculously humorous sort of way.

I think it's safe to say that we have vastly different perspectives on some issues and that we are each equally assured of the correctness of our view.
 
#27,295
#27,295
luthervol said:
And I take being called a Communist by a rightwing gun nut as a compliment - in a ridiculously humorous sort of way.

I think it's safe to say that we have vastly different perspectives on some issues and that we are each equally assured of the correctness of our view.
Click to expand...
Correct. And one of our views is aligned with the US Constitution, and one with Socialist principles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
#27,296
#27,296
luthervol said:
There are 400 million guns in circulation that I have never once advocated for taking.
Can't really see how that is disarming the population.
We could not sell another gun for the next ten years and still be the most heavily armed populace in the world.

Disarming???????? Total nonsense.
But I understand why that's the angle gun nuts take.
Click to expand...

Acquiring more of something is typically the answer when there is a problem (more guns and armed populace in this instance). Just equate it to society adding more genders and then you should be able to comprehend.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83
#27,298
#27,298
PEPPERJAX said:
Acquiring more of something is typically the answer when there is a problem (more guns and armed populace in this instance). Just equate it to society adding more genders and then you should be able to comprehend.
Click to expand...
Gun nuts are uncomfortable with their assigned gender roles?

I always thought that was a major contributing factor.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top