"no one is coming to take your guns"

Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
You are all talk. How are they different?
Click to expand...

Go buy one of these then:

Le_Mat_Revolver.jpg
 
Cave Johnson said:
Oh you support the NFA as well? I bet you support the illegally passed Hughes amendment as well. I'm starting to think Grind was right about those fake Libertarian claims.
Click to expand...

I did not say I was in favor of it. That was not the point. I have told you before that I think much of it is unneeded. I do support the limits on destructive devices. Also, I think the regulation of gadget guns and suppressors is likely warranted.

The point was that this paranoid narrative is silly and inaccurate.

Crypto conspiratard libertarians might be worse than the neo confederates.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Too bad Grind can't take a little honest debate.




A quick review of the document Grind posted shows what he's claiming is just nonsense.

NO ONE is coming to take anyone's guns, in fact, if a gun is non-compliant, owners can MODIFY their guns so they are in compliance and KEEP THEIR GUNS.

In other words it's just another lie from a poster who has stated numerous times he thinks guns are more important than the lives of children.
Click to expand...
so all a state has to do is make a law that says no gun can be capable of firing ammunition and all we have to do is modify our guns and nobody takes them, right?????

are you really that fucking stupid??? better yet, do you really think we are that stupid?
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Thank you for proving my point. The NFA was passed in 1934. Now just 80 years later you still pretty much have the same right to bear arms. There have been small advances in gun control that have then been rolled back.
Click to expand...
it helps to have at least a working knowledge of gun control laws before posting something that makes you look ignorant.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I don't think that's a fair assessment of Topper at all. The fact that he pokes fun at the irrational and religious reverence towards guns of some doesn't mean he's "anti-gun" at all. The fact that he points out some cold hard facts about guns that you may not like doesn't mean you can dismiss those facts because "He wants to take your guns." He doesn't. He's trying to make you think.

In fact this near religious worship of guns is what puts off and frustrates many about gun enthusiast. Particularly the right wing NRA trailer park crowd.

The fact that we want to have a discussion about implementing common sense methods to keep nut jobs from having access to military style weapons so they can't gun down elementary school kids doesn't mean we want to take your guns or that we want European style gun control or that we don't believe in 2nd amendment rights. That is complete nonsense and what it really shows is the irrational border line fanaticism of some gun enthusiast.

The fact that we don't want wack jobs having access to military style weapons doesn't mean we want to take your guns away. The fact that we don't want to live our lives in an armed camp or in fear doesn't mean we want to take anyones arms away. The slippery slope argument the NRA and their supporters present speaks more to fanaticism than it does to gun advocacy. The fact that you don't feel safe going to a public place such as a movie theater, unless your packing heat, speaks to far greater social problems that need to be addressed than anything ever having to do with guns. None of that means that anyone wants to take your guns away or implement European style gun control or violate anyones 2nd amendment rights.

We simply want to be able to go to a movie or send our kids to school without some total nutjob, showing up with enough armaments to break the siege of Bastogne cause...well...it's not Bastogne! That and most of us don't believe that the answer to gun violence is more guns.

The NRA's slippery slope argument that any common sense methods that deny the mentally insane and criminals easy access to military style weapons will open the gate to taking our guns is utter nonsense. Something can be done to prevent these tragedies happening and more guns is not the answer. That's treating the symptom and not the problem.
Click to expand...

there are times when you can appear near brilliant, and then there are times like this where you look like a total retard.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
What points? You didn't make any points. A fanatical rant isn't making a point. You didn't even address my points. You went off on an irrelevant fanatical rant and deriving conclusions from points you made up. Not the points I made. Get real.

I have simply made two factual points and you can't deal with them.
Click to expand...

#1. We want an intelligent adult discussion on how to prevent the insane from accessing large capacity military style weapons. Not dismissive rants of "you don't know what your talking about." from a fanatic.
no, you do not want an intelligent adult conversation about it because you refuse to entertain the possible lifetime incarceration in a mental facility as an option to do what you're wanting done.

#2. We don't want to live in an armed camp. You may either prefer that or like that or feel scared enough to need it. The rest of us don't. We want our right to defend ourselves but we don't want to live in your paramilitary society.
you already live in a paramilitary society. it's not our fault that your ignorance about the militarization of law enforcement prohibits your acceptance of the armed camp you already live in
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
You are all talk. How are they different?
Click to expand...
we went from firearms freedoms to having to pay an exorbitant tax on 3 certain items. then we were prohibited from purchasing firearms through mail order establishments unless they were shipped to a federally licensed dealer to undergo an unconstitutional breach of our privacy by an unconstitutional agency of the federal government. Then some 20 years after that, a complete class of firearm was unconstitutionally declared to be too dangerous for we the people to own.

there are lots more if you need to be made aware of more of them
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I don't think that's a fair assessment of Topper at all. The fact that he pokes fun at the irrational and religious reverence towards guns of some doesn't mean he's "anti-gun" at all. The fact that he points out some cold hard facts about guns that you may not like doesn't mean you can dismiss those facts because "He wants to take your guns." He doesn't. He's trying to make you think.

In fact this near religious worship of guns is what puts off and frustrates many about gun enthusiast. Particularly the right wing NRA trailer park crowd.

The fact that we want to have a discussion about implementing common sense methods to keep nut jobs from having access to military style weapons so they can't gun down elementary school kids doesn't mean we want to take your guns or that we want European style gun control or that we don't believe in 2nd amendment rights. That is complete nonsense and what it really shows is the irrational border line fanaticism of some gun enthusiast.

The fact that we don't want wack jobs having access to military style weapons doesn't mean we want to take your guns away. The fact that we don't want to live our lives in an armed camp or in fear doesn't mean we want to take anyones arms away. The slippery slope argument the NRA and their supporters present speaks more to fanaticism than it does to gun advocacy. The fact that you don't feel safe going to a public place such as a movie theater, unless your packing heat, speaks to far greater social problems that need to be addressed than anything ever having to do with guns. None of that means that anyone wants to take your guns away or implement European style gun control or violate anyones 2nd amendment rights.

We simply want to be able to go to a movie or send our kids to school without some total nutjob, showing up with enough armaments to break the siege of Bastogne cause...well...it's not Bastogne! That and most of us don't believe that the answer to gun violence is more guns.

The NRA's slippery slope argument that any common sense methods that deny the mentally insane and criminals easy access to military style weapons will open the gate to taking our guns is utter nonsense. Something can be done to prevent these tragedies happening and more guns is not the answer. That's treating the symptom and not the problem.
Click to expand...


Hear hear!

Thank you for clearly and rationally making the point so many have tried to make so many times.

Of course everyone with half a brain understands such a reasonable post will of course be met with the same tired irrational nonsense.

But thanks for trying none the less.
 
Cave Johnson said:
Oh you support the NFA as well? I bet you support the illegally passed Hughes amendment as well. I'm starting to think Grind was right about those fake Libertarian claims.
Click to expand...

OF COURSE I am right god damnit.

professor fakester is the biggest fake libertarian around. It's so immensely obvious.
 
Cave Johnson said:
We can't help you if you're being this deliberately ignorant.

Yes, wanting to maintain our human rights is clearly a sign of a bad person.

Except none was proposed, and you seem to think that all rights exist in a vacuum, where precedent won't get worse or this be used as precedent to infringe upon other rights. No, it'll work out just the way you want with no negative consequences whatsoever. And WE'RE the irrational ones.

Stop. Right now. You don't know shit if you're going to keep using loaded, meaningless terms like that.
I don't hear you voicing displeasure with any of the NY or CA or NJ or CT or HI or CO laws that were passed. I don't see you fighting against confiscatory measures when they're proposed. So if 'you' don't want to do something, you sure aren't fighting to see that it doesn't happen
Both here and abroad the slippery slope argument is grounded in historical fact.
So you're worried about mass-shooters and want to restrict hundreds of millions of peoples rights based on several events that when all is said an done don't even affect .01% of the population, but wanting to defend ones self from said people (and every other type of criminal) is paranoid? Ok there buddy, that's logical.
Again, the head of the fucking Senate Judiciary committee said they wanted to. Mr and Mrs. America Turn Em All In. But you'll be deliberately ignorant about that too. I'll bet money on it.

So when WE worry about protecting ourselves, it's paranoid. But when you do it (in a way that affects everyone not just yourselves, unlike our chosen method), it's good and rational? No, fuck you.

That fact that you so casually brush off the idea of infringing upon hundreds of millions of Americans Constitutional rights is an even greater problem, and one that we are rightly more concerned about.
Click to expand...


Yup...I called it yet again.

A perfectly reasonable comment from Mott met with the same hysterical, empty-headed name calling and hyperbole.
 
Cave Johnson said:
Oh really? I'm unwilling to have a mature conversation about the the issue? And how might that be Mott? Because I believe that any infringement of a human right is a bad thing? What is 'immature' or 'irrational' about that? Please then, offer me this supposed rational solution that has been proposed, as I have yet to see it. I mean, I've only been involved in this sort of debate for 16 years or so, I guess I wouldn't have a wealth of information on it or anything.
Click to expand...

if you don't agree with him, you are irrational and immature. if you don't infringe on some portion of gun rights even though the 2nd amendment says that ones right to bear arms shall not be infringed, you are immature. if a certain gun LOOKS like a military weapon in a superficial manner but doesn't function like one and you don't see any reason to ban it, you are irrational. if you don't take magazine capacity's down to some arbitrary number to help people with their feelz, you are irrational. don't do anything mott likes, immature.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
so all a state has to do is make a law that says no gun can be capable of firing ammunition and all we have to do is modify our guns and nobody takes them, right?????

are you really that fucking stupid??? better yet, do you really think we are that stupid?
Click to expand...


You're asking me if I'm the stupid one?

After you make a patently ridiculous statement like you did above?

Tell us please, which state do you think might pass such a law anytime soon?

Can't think of one? Well that's because it's just another BS strawman argument.

How desperate you must be to postulate such irrational nonsense.
 
Grind said:
if you don't agree with him, you are irrational and immature. if you don't infringe on some portion of gun rights even though the 2nd amendment says that ones right to bear arms shall not be infringed, you are immature. if a certain gun LOOKS like a military weapon in a superficial manner but doesn't function like one and you don't see any reason to ban it, you are irrational. if you don't take magazine capacity's down to some arbitrary number to help people with their feelz, you are irrational. don't do anything mott likes, immature.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the 'you're less intelligent' angle. How was it Zapp put it? Something about "half a brain." And then they'd like you to believe that no one wants European type of gun laws. Look at the first paragraph of Mott's drivel ... " I don't think that's a fair assessment of Topper at all ..." and ... "He's trying to make you think." LOL ... Yea, I know what I'm thinking.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
we went from firearms freedoms to having to pay an exorbitant tax on 3 certain items. then we were prohibited from purchasing firearms through mail order establishments unless they were shipped to a federally licensed dealer to undergo an unconstitutional breach of our privacy by an unconstitutional agency of the federal government. Then some 20 years after that, a complete class of firearm was unconstitutionally declared to be too dangerous for we the people to own.

there are lots more if you need to be made aware of more of them
Click to expand...

This has eliminated all personal possession of firearms? Been effective in decreasing it? Made it significantly more difficult to get firearms?

You still enjoy a right to bear arms without significant limit, unless you are a felon or are clinically insane.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Bring it on, fucko! Or are you just another empty bag of wind.
Click to expand...
before may of 86, i could buy an automatic weapon from an FFL, now I cannot unless it's been manufactured before may of 1986, and because of that, the price of that weapon is near 18,000 dollars. so billy and I are right and you are wrong. deal with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top