Napalm

Rana said:
Then why do you need a gun? You have hammers, swimming pools and cars! Someone breaks into your home, hit him with a hammer, run over them with your car and throw them in the pool!
Click to expand...

>Implying that's not the sole reason for having a bayonet
TrenchGun.jpg
 
Rana said:
Then why do you need a gun? You have hammers, swimming pools and cars! Someone breaks into your home, hit him with a hammer, run over them with your car and throw them in the pool!
Click to expand...

i just can't hate you for this post. I just can't.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Don't be trolling with me Gerber. The NRA is out of touch. They are extremist and they do a diservice to our 2nd ammendment rights by their extremism. They consistantly keep making this false equivalency that common sense laws that protect people are the equivalent of Jack booted Nazi's kicking in your doors and demanding you turn over your guns. It's a crock of bullshit. There is a lot that can be done to limit violence with guns that are not a threat to your second ammendment rights and that's the great lie of the out of touch NRA wackos.
Click to expand...

What would you propose be done that can limit violence with guns??? You said there is a lot... list a couple for us.

The NRA isn't out of touch, you are once again being overly dramatic on this issue. You think by calling them 'extremists' that somehow makes it true. What 'common sense' laws have they opposed?
 
Thing1 said:
Please don't kid yourself.

You & yours make as many emotion-based "they're gonna take our guns!" arguments as those on the heartstring side.
Click to expand...

When someone proposes 'lets ban this type of gun'... it is not emotion based to say 'they are trying to take our guns'.
 
Superfreak said:
What would you propose be done that can limit violence with guns??? You said there is a lot... list a couple for us.

The NRA isn't out of touch, you are once again being overly dramatic on this issue. You think by calling them 'extremists' that somehow makes it true. What 'common sense' laws have they opposed?
Click to expand...

How about banning private ownership of guns with a magazine unless kept under lock and key in a licensed gun club.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? We're talking about the power images have to change behavior. No one is talking about legislating the NRA away.....they're talking about changing attitudes so that no decent human being would even want to be associated with extremist nuts, like the NRA and you know what.....it will probably work and that's what scares the shit out of the NRA fanatics.
Click to expand...

Your overly emotional super dramatic bullshit is still bullshit.

You are the extremist Mutt. It is you that wishes to go all bat shit crazy and rewrite the 2nd Amendment. You can't even provide a rational reason for doing so... you think that by screaming 'look at the dead children' that somehow people will forget that banning a certain round capacity or type of weapon is not going to do one fucking bit of good to stop others from events like this. You are holding accountable an inanimate object for the actions of a lunatic.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
How about banning private ownership of guns with a magazine unless kept under lock and key in a licensed gun club.
Click to expand...

How about if we all face the wall naked and don't scream as we are cut down by government wielded machine guns. Would that be enough? You fucking idiot...
 
Rana said:
Then why do you need a gun? You have hammers, swimming pools and cars! Someone breaks into your home, hit him with a hammer, run over them with your car and throw them in the pool!
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with "need", that's just an attempt to move the goal posts. Why do you "need" to be able to say bad stuff about those in power? Why do you "need" to be able to keep the government from housing soldiers in your home? Why do you "need" to force them to get warrants to search your property, what are you hiding?

Your rights are not up for discussion, even the ones you don't like. If you want to take away that right you need to get enough people to agree to a constitutional amendment.
 
Superfreak said:
Your overly emotional super dramatic bullshit is still bullshit.

You are the extremist Mutt. It is you that wishes to go all bat shit crazy and rewrite the 2nd Amendment. You can't even provide a rational reason for doing so... you think that by screaming 'look at the dead children' that somehow people will forget that banning a certain round capacity or type of weapon is not going to do one fucking bit of good to stop others from events like this. You are holding accountable an inanimate object for the actions of a lunatic.
Click to expand...
Strawman! That's what I'm talking about the hyperbole of the NRA fanatics. A common sense law like keeping a list of the criminally/violently insane so that they don't get their hands on firearms is in no way a threat to 2nd ammendment rights. Only a fanatic would believe that.
 
Damocles said:
It has nothing to do with "need", that's just an attempt to move the goal posts. Why do you "need" to be able to say bad stuff about those in power? Why do you "need" to be able to keep the government from housing soldiers in your home? Why do you "need" to force them to get warrants to search your property, what are you hiding?

Your rights are not up for discussion, even the ones you don't like. If you want to take away that right you need to get enough people to agree to a constitutional amendment.
Click to expand...
Again, another Strawman. Rana used a poor example/argument. The point is, no one is threatening anyones 2nd ammendment rights through the use of many common sense gun laws. It's nice to see your State stood up to the NRA fanatics and did just that and I haven't heard of any jack booted government thugs in Colorado kicking in doors and taking peoples guns away. The OP is right. Images can be used to shape public sentiment and we do have a problem with violence in this nation that needs to be dealt with and anyone with half a brain knows that guns are really only a small part of the violence problem. So, to many people in this thread are just having a stupid knee jerk reflex about gun rights (most of the usual suspects). It's not about gun rights. It's about using images to affectively change peoples veiws about violence in our society. How that threatens gun fanatics is beyond me. It just demonstrates how completely irrational some gun fanatics can be.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Strawman! That's what I'm talking about the hyperbole of the NRA fanatics. A common sense law like keeping a list of the criminally/violently insane so that they don't get their hands on firearms is in no way a threat to 2nd ammendment rights. Only a fanatic would believe that.
Click to expand...
is this why idiots like to claim that the slippery slope is a fallacy? so then can keep implementing laws that will not work?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Again, another Strawman. Rana used a poor example/argument. The point is, no one is threatening anyones 2nd ammendment rights through the use of many common sense gun laws. It's nice to see your State stood up to the NRA fanatics and did just that and I haven't heard of any jack booted government thugs in Colorado kicking in doors and taking peoples guns away. The OP is right. Images can be used to shape public sentiment and we do have a problem with violence in this nation that needs to be dealt with and anyone with half a brain knows that guns are really only a small part of the violence problem. So, to many people in this thread are just having a stupid knee jerk reflex about gun rights (most of the usual suspects). It's not about gun rights. It's about using images to affectively change peoples veiws about violence in our society. How that threatens gun fanatics is beyond me. It just demonstrates how completely irrational some gun fanatics can be.
Click to expand...

The problem with this is her argument, based on "need", is against the ownership of guns entirely. Since the argument was against all guns, so the answer was about the right and how it simply isn't something she, or we, have any power over without an amendment.

I point out to her that it is a right, like all of our other rights and really not up for discussion. It isn't based on "need" it simply "is", because that is the wellspring of her argument.

So either, shut up and listen to adults speak, or pay better attention rather than use the very strawman argument you incorrectly announced belonged to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top