Gun control debate (merged)

#13,901
#13,901
NorthDallas40 said:
So change the Constitution if you don’t like it. That’s what it will take to get what you want. Count on us in the opposition party.
Click to expand...

I didn’t advocate for anything, just pointed out a simple problem. Choosing to ignore it is anyone’s prerogative, doesn’t make it any less of a problem though. Usually people tend to at least discuss solutions to problems, then hash out the pros and cons to said solutions and come to a sensible agreement. Choosing to completely ignore a problem is unproductive, unscientific, and continuously costing lives.
 
#13,902
#13,902
hndog609 said:
Well hell if we're just going to play that game:

Media Bias Fact Check: Incompetent or Dishonest? - Just Facts

PolitiFact Bias: Can you trust what "Media Bias/Fact Check" says about PolitiFact? (Updated)

Or for a more across the board observation:

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/fact-checkers-big-media/

So how about something crazy...like addressing the actual statements made in the article.
Click to expand...

That’s fine, so what is my original source’s credibility? Because yours is garbage, that was the point.
 
#13,906
#13,906
OHvol40 said:
I didn’t advocate for anything, just pointed out a simple problem. Choosing to ignore it is anyone’s prerogative, doesn’t make it any less of a problem though. Usually people tend to at least discuss solutions to problems, then hash out the pros and cons to said solutions and come to a sensible agreement. Choosing to completely ignore a problem is unproductive, unscientific, and continuously costing lives.
Click to expand...
You’re deflecting. The correct approach to what you are advocating is a constitutional ammendment. You know you can’t have that. So you’re trying to circumvent that and talk people into agreeing to more restrictions. The ones counter to you in this discussion are not interested in more firearm restrictions. In fact we aren’t even interested in entertaining talking about them. The only talk were interested in is removal of existing legislation. The law is currently on our side, we aren’t interested in more restrictions, and many states have legislation in work to remove or ignore federal firearms over reach into their states. We are not interested in discussing your agenda, you would probably have more success in an echo chamber.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NurseGoodVol and BennesseeVols
#13,911
#13,911
NorthDallas40 said:
You’re deflecting. The correct approach to what you are advocating is a constitutional ammendment. You know you can’t have that. So you’re trying to circumvent that and talk people into agreeing to more restrictions. The ones counter to you in this discussion are not interested in more firearm restrictions. In fact we aren’t even interested in entertaining talking about them. The only talk were interested in is removal of existing legislation. The law is currently on our side, we aren’t interested in more restrictions, and many states have legislation in work to remove or ignore federal firearms over reach into their states. We are not interested in discussing your agenda, you would probably have more success in an echo chamber.
Click to expand...

Why would I want a constitutional amendment? I believe in the amendment, I think expounding on the “well regulated” portion of the current amendment is important.
 
#13,914
#13,914
OHvol40 said:
Why would I want a constitutional amendment? I believe in the amendment, I think expounding on the “well regulated” portion of the current amendment is important.
Click to expand...
Nope. You’re mis interpreting and mis using the statement. It’s been covered ad nauseam in this thread. The basis for your argument is incorrect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BennesseeVols and Pepe_Silvia
#13,921
#13,921
OHvol40 said:
I didn’t advocate for anything, just pointed out a simple problem. Choosing to ignore it is anyone’s prerogative, doesn’t make it any less of a problem though. Usually people tend to at least discuss solutions to problems, then hash out the pros and cons to said solutions and come to a sensible agreement. Choosing to completely ignore a problem is unproductive, unscientific, and continuously costing lives.
Click to expand...

More gun regulation isn’t going to fix the people problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#13,922
#13,922
NorthDallas40 said:
Nope. You’re mis interpreting and mis using the statement. It’s been covered ad nauseam in this thread. The basis for your argument is incorrect.
Click to expand...

Lol how am I misinterpreting a statement? I didn’t change the words. They are there, I know some people wish they weren’t, but they are.
 
#13,925
#13,925
OHvol40 said:
Lol how am I misinterpreting a statement? I didn’t change the words. They are there, I know some people wish they weren’t, but they are.
Click to expand...
Now you’re ignoring the information in the link I provided. I thought you were interested in honest discussion? Turns out that only applies if we are willing to accept your incorrect argument premise.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top