Exaggerations and Lies Fuel GOP Gun Reform Opposition

Hello martin,

martin said:
No one expects any gun law "to solve all the gun problems in America," another exaggeration of the kind I mentioned. The most we can do is lower the carnage. The Second Amendment assures that no law will be able to "disarm law abiding Americans". As for the phony "stepping stone" argument, laws are only stepping stones if they later are made by legislators into something else; they don't make themselves, and legislators aren't puppets caught in some
time warp that impels them to endlessly expand a given law. Dismissing a sound proposal on that basis is cowardly and dishonest. For example, a law imposing an age qualification of 21 would have no "stepping stone" dread whatsoever, and should be passed. By your theory a state law that set 16 as the minimum age for a driver's license would soon be reduced to age 9, but such minimum requirements have remained unchanged law for decades. Let Congress listen to the public on this instead of the NRA and witless ideologues like you.
Click to expand...

Totally sound reasoning. Bravo!
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Dutch,



BS. I already answered both of those questions.



I'll repeat my answers to both questions:

The measure would have helped, but it would not have solved all the gun problems in America. More would have been needed.

It is rather obvious why it would not have solved all the gun problems in America. Because Republicans would never vote for a more complete bill intended to do that. That forced Obama to try to get whatever he thought he could get. And that is when the nation learned that Republicans have zero intention of doing anything about our gun problems. That's why they let the AWB expire.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Martin, but disagreed.

Hence my point; Democrats believe that there will be a "gun problem" in America as long as lower income and middle-class Americans have access to guns. They believe that once only the rich have guns, then the "gun problem" will go away.
 
Hello Dutch,

Dutch Uncle said:
Thanks, Martin, but disagreed.

Hence my point; Democrats believe that there will be a "gun problem" in America as long as lower income and middle-class Americans have access to guns. They believe that once only the rich have guns, then the "gun problem" will go away.
Click to expand...

Such stereotyping. A nonsense exercise in just making things up. I would be shocked if you could find a credible link stating that restricting gun ownership to the rich is the intention of Democrats. The Las Vegas shooter was very rich. I have never heard that Democrats want only the rich to have guns. It's an absurd claim.

Democrats have a lot more diversity of viewpoints than Republicans. There is no proposal on the gun issue which is shared by all Democrats.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Dutch Uncle,



A comment from one person now becomes the position of all Democrats?

I call BS.
Click to expand...

When it toes the ideology, it's the one person toeing the Democratic agenda.

You and I both know the Democrats have embraced the anti-gun agenda ever since Clinton made it a campaign issue in 1992 to counter Republican accusations of Democrats being soft on crime.
 
zymurgy said:
so now we have a caste system, where adults of a certain age are vulnerable to adults of another age.

Add in where we have juveniles that get soft sentencing for rule violations, and now the 18-20 year old's become easy targets for people both younger and older

rather than admit the previous attempts to fix issues has made it worse, you keep throwing shit at the wall, and keep making it worse

I'm sorry, but your ideas are ignorant. you can't see the forest through the trees
Click to expand...

You would be pleased, not sorry, if an idea opposed to your own was ignorant. But the fault with your own argument is not so much its ignorance as its stubborn unintelligence.
 
AssHatZombie said:
the consititution isn't a lie or an exaggeration.
Click to expand...

Why state the obvious? If you have a Constitutional argument against a law that provides a 21 year old age requirement for the purchase of a gun, let's hear it. Connecticut has had for years exactly that law on the books for the purchase of handguns. The NRA has had the sense not to challenge it.
 
martin said:
Why state the obvious? If you have a Constitutional argument against a law that provides a 21 year old age requirement for the purchase of a gun, let's hear it. Connecticut has had for years exactly that law on the books for the purchase of handguns. The NRA has had the sense not to challenge it.
Click to expand...

yeah. the consitution say gun rights shall not be infringed.

it's easy.

learn to read, dipshit.
 
martin said:
You are a different example of the same dishonesty. There is no legislative proposal before Congress to take guns away from anyone.
Click to expand...

You are the same example of dishonesty.
The let's anti gun policy is known as boiling a frog.
 
archives said:
And a law binding militia fully trained in handling such situations stood in a hallway for over an hour, even those prepared for the situation couldn’t handle it, and you are telling us the average Joe is going to preform. Problem here is that gun lovers see themselves as Clint Eastwood when Barney Fife is more appropriate
Click to expand...

Cops are the biggest band of criminals
 
AssHatZombie said:
yeah. the consitution say gun rights shall not be infringed.

it's easy.

learn to read, dipshit.
Click to expand...

If you had a brain and not just an attitude you would know there is also a Supreme Court. The Heller case is well known to people who do read and have an interest in what they are talking about concerning The Second Amendment. As with so many other Righties at this forum, that leaves you in dark, nitwit.
 
martin said:
If you had a brain and not just an attitude you would know there is also a Supreme Court. The Heller case is well known to people who do read and have an interest in what they are talking about concerning The Second Amendment. As with so many other Righties at this forum, that leaves you in dark, nitwit.
Click to expand...

any infringements are unconstitutional. the language is clear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top