Mass shooting: At Least 11 Shot At Gilroy Garlic Festival

[iceberg]

from reading his replies, he has clarified it. but no, not to the manner you wish.

my take on bluesman:
if you're licensed you should be able to own a gun even up to a machine gun. logic being that to get licensed you've gone through every gambit and check that can be thrown at you and came up clean. while i may not agree with private people owning machine guns, it doesn't matter as he gave a trail from idea to reasoning behind it.

if you're licensed you should be able to carry concealed weapons where you wish. he never said a thing about machine guns in schools and even said no one would or should take them to a football game. i assume he means a school game but in any event, he clarified his point.

as for what other people do - don't care really. i care about what i do cause i'm the only one i can control. sometimes.

I think he is padding his answers hiding behind laws that are currently in the books when I’m trying to get clear about his opinion on our right to make laws that regulate guns. There are many absolutists out there they truly believe that no regulations should be in place as that’s what the constitution says. They want guns everywhere as they think it makes everybody safer. I disagree with this viewpoint and I like to see where the person I’m debating stands. If it is determined that we do have the right and responsibility to regulate guns then we can move into what makes sense.

This debate often gets locked up by the 2nd amendment as an unalienable Right that shall not be infringed upon. Can get into common ground in regulations when you debating somebody who believes that it can’t be regulated

its hard to get into a regulation discussion with a gun rights advocate when the left says GET RID OF THEM ALL after saying WE'RE NOT COMING FOR YOUR GUNS.

most gun rights people would be willing to talk about options except that historically the left never stops at "just 1 statue" to be removed, now do they? they tend to treat a compromise or agreement as a starting point to go after the rest of what they want.

hell it wasn't til recently the media stopped saying an AR15 was an automatic weapon. it is not. it never has been. it's also not an assault rifle but over time, the left, as they tend to do, has degraded the word to fit their views and gets pretty upset if you don't follow along on that journey. when pressed for how an AR15 is different from a browning longtrac rifle (also a semi-automatic in .308 form in this example) they can't do it. when they realized an AR is about the same as a .22 in how they fire, they now want all semi-automatics gone. the more they learn about a topic the more they want it gone, not compromised.

you tell me - how do you reasonably find common ground with people who won't allow that to happen but keep altering the landscape until they get what they FEEL they want?

Well you speak with a person at a time. I’m on the left, I believe in smart regulation, I own guns, I don’t want to take them away. But when you use the slippery slope argument like you opened with and say the left wants to take guns away. I as somebody on the left is not represented and you end up defining me by something I never said... this is the same thing you’ve been critiquing me of doing.

except i'm saying this as a general rule of what the left does, NOT YOU. if you want to wear that mantle because you're on the left, feel free. i, while being usually on "the right" don't have all my beliefs there and don't protect every RIGHT talking point available.

so if i say "the left" is doing something i mean a hallmark of "the left" is doing it - NOT you. if you wish to take offense to it and take it personally even after stating to me you are not part of *that* mindset, that's on you.

all i am saying is the gun advocates are not going to talk about control because the hallmark of the left is CONTROL = REMOVAL, not understanding.

ie - the leftist media is wrong about AR15's. instead of correcting themselves, they change the meaning of words around to still be right. when they can't refute logic / facts, they then broaden their scope vs. apply a focus to the core.

again - you want to defend something you don't believe, have fun but it's going to make for a very fucked up conversation.

Well when do you ever have a conversation with “The Left” that is an arbitrary label that is used as a strawman in political debates. I dont like labels but we are unfortunately defined by them all the time. I’m not a dem or a rep. I actually agree with more republican policies than dems, but I’m a leftard as far as this board is concerned... so whatever

great. so i can understand and be sure - are you saying the stance of the left is NOT coming after guns?

i don't like labels also, but when a trait is far too common to one side, it can and will get referenced. if you need specific examples of the left being full of shit, holler. i can find CNN with animated gifs showing rocket launchers on AR15's and gyrating like giant dildo. i can show you the left in colorado who is after banning high capacity mags and think they are "single use". i can show you people on "the left" who say we're not coming after guns and then their making statements that they are.

while i agree generalities can be and are used in debates far too often, that doesn't mean they're 100% wrong to do or use.

or would you disagree? if so, then fine. i'll just watch out for any stereotypes from you and react accordingly.

 

[iceberg]

last time we got into it was because you were saying trump was making racist statements about GO BACK HOME comments. any attempt to tone that down didn't fare well with you and it just got ugly.

now we find the very people he was talking to/about said the same thing 4+ years ago yet for them it's not racist.

that word changes meaning as people need it to and that's a huge part of our problem.

Go back home is not a racist comment but Trumps was more than that... no need to get back into that discussion, that’s a whole different can of worms

except that is all he said. the rest was you putting YOUR 2+2=Racist comment together by making assumptions we've already also discussed in this thread about blues man and what he was actually saying vs. what you were saying he was saying.

when it's only racist when 1 person does it, it's not racist.

and your not liking the manner in which he answers your questions doesn't make his answers wrong or hiding either.

He told three American citizens to go back to the shitty broken countries they came from. That’s not the same as go home. Home is the USA. Come on Ice. I’m not spinning this, dont equivocate the two statements. You don’t find it racist. Fine. But don’t equivocate, you know it was a different and more pointed attack than “if you don’t like it leave” or “go back home”

Obviously I don't believe it to be different at the core. Please refrain from telling me what I know and we can stop having stupid arguments.

Well we have different thresholds for what we find to be appropriate or not. Just stop accusing me of lying about it via assumptions. I’m expressing my view of his comments. And to me that tweet was racist and inappropriate. It’s the first time I’ve accused him of such

dude - i am not the only one to say you have a very bad habit of making 2+2=whatever and you make large assumptions off limited information. i'm not telling you what to say - say whatever you want. but what i am telling you is if i see you or *anyone* make false assumptions based off non-existent logic, i will say so.

you made a lot of jumps to get to "Racist" and several people made that comment. you don't want people to say these things, don't do it. but again, not telling you NOT to, just telling you what happens when you do.

 

[Polishprince]

Yeah yeah and Rs called Obama hitler all the time. I dont care much about what the wingnut partisans have to say.

Make up your mind then Slade3200
1. if you don't take it literally calling Obama "Hitler" then do you treat liberals
calling Trump Hitler or Racist just as flippantly?
2. Do you want to be taken seriously and your objections addressed and included/represented?
Why treat "rightwing" as not counting seriously, but then want your issues to be considered?

Whatever way you want to be taken,
if you take others that way, you get reciprocal treatment in return.

Respect is earned. If you want to be represented, it makes
sense to respect how others represent their views, issues,
concerns and objections instead of both sides trying to overrule each other.

Wouldn't we be better off ADDRESSING each other's objections
so we can solve problems EFFECTIVELY instead of imposing back and forth?

What science or math problems were ever solved by erasing and excluding
half the data? Doesn't it just make sense if we are going to construct reforms,
policies and programs that REPRESENT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC this means
INCLUDING not excluding input from ALL PEOPLE, not just ones we identify with.

What happened to the Golden Rule, of treating others as you want to be treated?
How else are we going to achieve "equal justice under law" for EVERYONE
if we keep competing to ignore, overrule and exclude opposing groups???

and this is my point not to just slade, but both sides who do this all the time.

they say it's ignorant to call Obama/Trump names like hitler, nazi, racist and other extreme names and defend their chosen side it would seem to the "death". but then they turn around and do the very same thing they called stupid but only now it's ok cause they're doing it to someone they hate.

if someone else doing an action makes them stupid, then i would fall under that same "stupid" connotation if i do the same thing.

Yes iceberg it's equally stupid and detracting when either sides
engages in this.

it looks like Slade3200 acknowledges as much of the hype/hyperbole on the left
is equally dismissable. So that means we can cut all that crap out,
and just stick to the real issues, shall we?

i wish. but he can be hard headed (as we all can) in seeing this at times. when you REALLY HATE SOMEONE objectivity is so very hard to come by. me and hillary for example. there's a lot of things i think about her and none on the good side. but this doesn't mean she deserves or should have less rights than the rest of us. while i think she's "gotten away" with things, it happens in life. there will simply never be a final reckoning here on earth that will satisfy us when looking at those we emotionally cannot stand.

we've let ourselves be driven by 90% emotions and that is a hallmark of the left. being emotional in your arguments. i'm more a math person and does it add up? i try not to take emotional shortcuts but i'm human, it can happen. but i still try to avoid it. i seldom if ever call obama, hillary and others jr high DEMOCRAP / RETHUGLICAN type names cause that's elementary playground bullshit and nothing adults in my mind should be doing.

when people just dive into the name calling i've found it's usually because they have nothing else to offer. Slade3200 does this but hes not completely driven by it. in this thread he even saw it and backed up a bit. more than most do so credit where credit is due. someone like edward37 will just rant and rave in hate and never bother to put it down. terminally a child in my mind but hey - his life.

anyway - time to go do something hopefully a bit more productive today and make some mind maps for projects i've got going on at work.

Edward37 is a realist and sees no good points in this immature slob in the WH

If the D's win next year, what kind of punishment do you see Sleepy Joe or whoever else it is, delivering to the Deplorables in Flyover country?

 

[Slade3200]

I think he is padding his answers hiding behind laws that are currently in the books when I’m trying to get clear about his opinion on our right to make laws that regulate guns. There are many absolutists out there they truly believe that no regulations should be in place as that’s what the constitution says. They want guns everywhere as they think it makes everybody safer. I disagree with this viewpoint and I like to see where the person I’m debating stands. If it is determined that we do have the right and responsibility to regulate guns then we can move into what makes sense.

This debate often gets locked up by the 2nd amendment as an unalienable Right that shall not be infringed upon. Can get into common ground in regulations when you debating somebody who believes that it can’t be regulated

its hard to get into a regulation discussion with a gun rights advocate when the left says GET RID OF THEM ALL after saying WE'RE NOT COMING FOR YOUR GUNS.

most gun rights people would be willing to talk about options except that historically the left never stops at "just 1 statue" to be removed, now do they? they tend to treat a compromise or agreement as a starting point to go after the rest of what they want.

hell it wasn't til recently the media stopped saying an AR15 was an automatic weapon. it is not. it never has been. it's also not an assault rifle but over time, the left, as they tend to do, has degraded the word to fit their views and gets pretty upset if you don't follow along on that journey. when pressed for how an AR15 is different from a browning longtrac rifle (also a semi-automatic in .308 form in this example) they can't do it. when they realized an AR is about the same as a .22 in how they fire, they now want all semi-automatics gone. the more they learn about a topic the more they want it gone, not compromised.

you tell me - how do you reasonably find common ground with people who won't allow that to happen but keep altering the landscape until they get what they FEEL they want?

Well you speak with a person at a time. I’m on the left, I believe in smart regulation, I own guns, I don’t want to take them away. But when you use the slippery slope argument like you opened with and say the left wants to take guns away. I as somebody on the left is not represented and you end up defining me by something I never said... this is the same thing you’ve been critiquing me of doing.

except i'm saying this as a general rule of what the left does, NOT YOU. if you want to wear that mantle because you're on the left, feel free. i, while being usually on "the right" don't have all my beliefs there and don't protect every RIGHT talking point available.

so if i say "the left" is doing something i mean a hallmark of "the left" is doing it - NOT you. if you wish to take offense to it and take it personally even after stating to me you are not part of *that* mindset, that's on you.

all i am saying is the gun advocates are not going to talk about control because the hallmark of the left is CONTROL = REMOVAL, not understanding.

ie - the leftist media is wrong about AR15's. instead of correcting themselves, they change the meaning of words around to still be right. when they can't refute logic / facts, they then broaden their scope vs. apply a focus to the core.

again - you want to defend something you don't believe, have fun but it's going to make for a very fucked up conversation.

Well when do you ever have a conversation with “The Left” that is an arbitrary label that is used as a strawman in political debates. I dont like labels but we are unfortunately defined by them all the time. I’m not a dem or a rep. I actually agree with more republican policies than dems, but I’m a leftard as far as this board is concerned... so whatever

great. so i can understand and be sure - are you saying the stance of the left is NOT coming after guns?

i don't like labels also, but when a trait is far too common to one side, it can and will get referenced. if you need specific examples of the left being full of shit, holler. i can find CNN with animated gifs showing rocket launchers on AR15's and gyrating like giant dildo. i can show you the left in colorado who is after banning high capacity mags and think they are "single use". i can show you people on "the left" who say we're not coming after guns and then their making statements that they are.

while i agree generalities can be and are used in debates far too often, that doesn't mean they're 100% wrong to do or use.

or would you disagree? if so, then fine. i'll just watch out for any stereotypes from you and react accordingly.

That’s a good question. I’d say by definition classic liberals and conservatives both of whom support individual freedoms support less gun control while big government progressives fight for more gun control. You will find people all over the “Left” that supports gun rights, but Ideologically speaking progressives would be the group pushing for government regulation. Although I’d argue that most people fall all over the spectrum depending on the issue

 

[pismoe]

That may be your opinion

But you underestimate what several million committed people can do and how much of the US military would oppose the government if it really came down to it?

I think it would be more than you do obviously.

And the second amendment even if it doesn't expressly state it is also about the right of an individual to protect his own life. The framers all thought that self preservation was such an obvious and natural right that there was no reason to codify it

Does it take 29 rifles to protect your own life? How many handguns?
LIMITING and strictly registering and vetting owners of firearms would not take away the opportunity for responsible people from bearing arms. The founders lived in a very different world, culturally and technologically. That is why the Constitution was designed to change with the times.

--------------------------------------------------------- in the USA you can own any number of cars , motorcycles or guns that you like . And that being said , only one gun at a time can be used at a time OldLady . And your claim that the Constitution was DESIGNED to change with the times is your OPINION OldLady .

And the opinion of many, many others..in fact..probably a majority of Americans believe that the Constitution is a 'living document". I know you find that view abhorrent..but..as you say..that's your OPINION.

----------------------------------- Not me . There seem to be enough like me to keep thing halfway going my way for my lifetime at least . Lots of fights , money spent but things are ok for my generation I think . Depending on your age its YOU and younger Americans that are fecked as things change 'EEFleegle

Hmm..I'm sure you know that we have had a Supreme Court sitting that believed in the living document point of view..in our lifetimes..I refer you to the Warren Court--and his successor Warren Burger ---it is only in the last 20 years that the constructionists have regained the upper hand. The Living Document point of view was taught as gospel in most schools..in the 60's and 70's.
The wheel turns....

-------------------------------------------- As I said , I think that my generation is cool and good for my generation . Its you younger guys and kids that should be concerned about a whole lot of things as 'the wheel turns' . Course , many of youse guys are DOPERS and unsuitable for Adult Freedom and Responsibility anyway EEFl.

 

[iceberg]

its hard to get into a regulation discussion with a gun rights advocate when the left says GET RID OF THEM ALL after saying WE'RE NOT COMING FOR YOUR GUNS.

most gun rights people would be willing to talk about options except that historically the left never stops at "just 1 statue" to be removed, now do they? they tend to treat a compromise or agreement as a starting point to go after the rest of what they want.

hell it wasn't til recently the media stopped saying an AR15 was an automatic weapon. it is not. it never has been. it's also not an assault rifle but over time, the left, as they tend to do, has degraded the word to fit their views and gets pretty upset if you don't follow along on that journey. when pressed for how an AR15 is different from a browning longtrac rifle (also a semi-automatic in .308 form in this example) they can't do it. when they realized an AR is about the same as a .22 in how they fire, they now want all semi-automatics gone. the more they learn about a topic the more they want it gone, not compromised.

you tell me - how do you reasonably find common ground with people who won't allow that to happen but keep altering the landscape until they get what they FEEL they want?

Well you speak with a person at a time. I’m on the left, I believe in smart regulation, I own guns, I don’t want to take them away. But when you use the slippery slope argument like you opened with and say the left wants to take guns away. I as somebody on the left is not represented and you end up defining me by something I never said... this is the same thing you’ve been critiquing me of doing.

except i'm saying this as a general rule of what the left does, NOT YOU. if you want to wear that mantle because you're on the left, feel free. i, while being usually on "the right" don't have all my beliefs there and don't protect every RIGHT talking point available.

so if i say "the left" is doing something i mean a hallmark of "the left" is doing it - NOT you. if you wish to take offense to it and take it personally even after stating to me you are not part of *that* mindset, that's on you.

all i am saying is the gun advocates are not going to talk about control because the hallmark of the left is CONTROL = REMOVAL, not understanding.

ie - the leftist media is wrong about AR15's. instead of correcting themselves, they change the meaning of words around to still be right. when they can't refute logic / facts, they then broaden their scope vs. apply a focus to the core.

again - you want to defend something you don't believe, have fun but it's going to make for a very fucked up conversation.

Well when do you ever have a conversation with “The Left” that is an arbitrary label that is used as a strawman in political debates. I dont like labels but we are unfortunately defined by them all the time. I’m not a dem or a rep. I actually agree with more republican policies than dems, but I’m a leftard as far as this board is concerned... so whatever

great. so i can understand and be sure - are you saying the stance of the left is NOT coming after guns?

i don't like labels also, but when a trait is far too common to one side, it can and will get referenced. if you need specific examples of the left being full of shit, holler. i can find CNN with animated gifs showing rocket launchers on AR15's and gyrating like giant dildo. i can show you the left in colorado who is after banning high capacity mags and think they are "single use". i can show you people on "the left" who say we're not coming after guns and then their making statements that they are.

while i agree generalities can be and are used in debates far too often, that doesn't mean they're 100% wrong to do or use.

or would you disagree? if so, then fine. i'll just watch out for any stereotypes from you and react accordingly.

That’s a good question. I’d say by definition classic liberals and conservatives both of whom support individual freedoms support less gun control while big government progressives fight for more gun control. You will find people all over the “Left” that supports gun rights, but Ideologically speaking progressives would be the group pushing for government regulation. Although I’d argue that most people fall all over the spectrum depending on the issue

then in this case i'm speaking to the liberals i have seen that when you try to tell them functionally there is no difference between the AR-15 and a browning longtrac semi-automatic, they refuse to go "wow, i misunderstood that weapon" and instead say "then semi-automatics needs to go also".

i have *never* heard someone go "wow, i was wrong about that rifle" and to a man/woman/child i've discussed this with, the more they learn the less they want to know and the more they want to control. i don't doubt there are those on the left who are NOT like this, i've just not met one in conversation yet.

 

[Slade3200]

Go back home is not a racist comment but Trumps was more than that... no need to get back into that discussion, that’s a whole different can of worms

except that is all he said. the rest was you putting YOUR 2+2=Racist comment together by making assumptions we've already also discussed in this thread about blues man and what he was actually saying vs. what you were saying he was saying.

when it's only racist when 1 person does it, it's not racist.

and your not liking the manner in which he answers your questions doesn't make his answers wrong or hiding either.

He told three American citizens to go back to the shitty broken countries they came from. That’s not the same as go home. Home is the USA. Come on Ice. I’m not spinning this, dont equivocate the two statements. You don’t find it racist. Fine. But don’t equivocate, you know it was a different and more pointed attack than “if you don’t like it leave” or “go back home”

Obviously I don't believe it to be different at the core. Please refrain from telling me what I know and we can stop having stupid arguments.

Well we have different thresholds for what we find to be appropriate or not. Just stop accusing me of lying about it via assumptions. I’m expressing my view of his comments. And to me that tweet was racist and inappropriate. It’s the first time I’ve accused him of such

dude - i am not the only one to say you have a very bad habit of making 2+2=whatever and you make large assumptions off limited information. i'm not telling you what to say - say whatever you want. but what i am telling you is if i see you or *anyone* make false assumptions based off non-existent logic, i will say so.

you made a lot of jumps to get to "Racist" and several people made that comment. you don't want people to say these things, don't do it. but again, not telling you NOT to, just telling you what happens when you do.

Trumps buddy, the mooch who is on TV non stop defending the Prez, called the comments racist. Was he making assumptions as well? What motivation does he have to be dishonest? Perhaps he, like I, truly read these comments as racist and unacceptable

Anthony Scaramucci Calls Trump Attack On 4 Democrats 'Racist And Unacceptable' | HuffPost

 

[Brain357]

OK for all of the anti gun nut lefttards out there, answer this question. A good portion of households in Switzerland have an evil military assault rifle stashed in a closet so where are the waves of gun violence and mass shootings? If it's the guns as you say then the problem should exist there but if it's people and not guns it's long past time for you to shut your stupid yaps because you don't have brains enough to be preaching to anyone about anything. In fact you should stay away from the voting booth altogether too.

They have much stronger gun control than us and they are making it stronger. Shall we make our laws more like theirs?

 

[edward37]

except that is all he said. the rest was you putting YOUR 2+2=Racist comment together by making assumptions we've already also discussed in this thread about blues man and what he was actually saying vs. what you were saying he was saying.

when it's only racist when 1 person does it, it's not racist.

and your not liking the manner in which he answers your questions doesn't make his answers wrong or hiding either.

He told three American citizens to go back to the shitty broken countries they came from. That’s not the same as go home. Home is the USA. Come on Ice. I’m not spinning this, dont equivocate the two statements. You don’t find it racist. Fine. But don’t equivocate, you know it was a different and more pointed attack than “if you don’t like it leave” or “go back home”

Obviously I don't believe it to be different at the core. Please refrain from telling me what I know and we can stop having stupid arguments.

Well we have different thresholds for what we find to be appropriate or not. Just stop accusing me of lying about it via assumptions. I’m expressing my view of his comments. And to me that tweet was racist and inappropriate. It’s the first time I’ve accused him of such

dude - i am not the only one to say you have a very bad habit of making 2+2=whatever and you make large assumptions off limited information. i'm not telling you what to say - say whatever you want. but what i am telling you is if i see you or *anyone* make false assumptions based off non-existent logic, i will say so.

you made a lot of jumps to get to "Racist" and several people made that comment. you don't want people to say these things, don't do it. but again, not telling you NOT to, just telling you what happens when you do.

Trumps buddy, the mooch who is on TV non stop defending the Prez, called the comments racist. Was he making assumptions as well? What motivation does he have to be dishonest? Perhaps he, like I, truly read these comments as racist and unacceptable

Anthony Scaramucci Calls Trump Attack On 4 Democrats 'Racist And Unacceptable' | HuffPost

He better watch his ass now Trump lets nothing get in his way for revenge A mean spirited mentally ill immature nitwit

 

[Brain357]

And still no mass shootings reported in countries with strong gun control this week. Makes you wonder why they happen so often here...

They didn't have lots of mass shootings before they banned guns.....Britain averaged 1 every 10 years before they banned guns...

Your theory, More Guns = More Mass shootings

Britain.....1 every 10 years with guns.....after they banned guns .....the same

In science, when a theory doesn't actually work, it means the theory is wrong.

Yes countries that have never been filled with guns have never had a mass shooting problem. Go figure.

Move to one of those countries. We won't miss you at all

That won’t fix the problem. Need to deport the gun nuts.

Glory Bee please by all means be the first at the door to make that attempt lol
Shit son make provocative outlandish comments and you call gun owners nuts lol

I stated what would help the problem.

 

[Slade3200]

Well you speak with a person at a time. I’m on the left, I believe in smart regulation, I own guns, I don’t want to take them away. But when you use the slippery slope argument like you opened with and say the left wants to take guns away. I as somebody on the left is not represented and you end up defining me by something I never said... this is the same thing you’ve been critiquing me of doing.

except i'm saying this as a general rule of what the left does, NOT YOU. if you want to wear that mantle because you're on the left, feel free. i, while being usually on "the right" don't have all my beliefs there and don't protect every RIGHT talking point available.

so if i say "the left" is doing something i mean a hallmark of "the left" is doing it - NOT you. if you wish to take offense to it and take it personally even after stating to me you are not part of *that* mindset, that's on you.

all i am saying is the gun advocates are not going to talk about control because the hallmark of the left is CONTROL = REMOVAL, not understanding.

ie - the leftist media is wrong about AR15's. instead of correcting themselves, they change the meaning of words around to still be right. when they can't refute logic / facts, they then broaden their scope vs. apply a focus to the core.

again - you want to defend something you don't believe, have fun but it's going to make for a very fucked up conversation.

Well when do you ever have a conversation with “The Left” that is an arbitrary label that is used as a strawman in political debates. I dont like labels but we are unfortunately defined by them all the time. I’m not a dem or a rep. I actually agree with more republican policies than dems, but I’m a leftard as far as this board is concerned... so whatever

great. so i can understand and be sure - are you saying the stance of the left is NOT coming after guns?

i don't like labels also, but when a trait is far too common to one side, it can and will get referenced. if you need specific examples of the left being full of shit, holler. i can find CNN with animated gifs showing rocket launchers on AR15's and gyrating like giant dildo. i can show you the left in colorado who is after banning high capacity mags and think they are "single use". i can show you people on "the left" who say we're not coming after guns and then their making statements that they are.

while i agree generalities can be and are used in debates far too often, that doesn't mean they're 100% wrong to do or use.

or would you disagree? if so, then fine. i'll just watch out for any stereotypes from you and react accordingly.

That’s a good question. I’d say by definition classic liberals and conservatives both of whom support individual freedoms support less gun control while big government progressives fight for more gun control. You will find people all over the “Left” that supports gun rights, but Ideologically speaking progressives would be the group pushing for government regulation. Although I’d argue that most people fall all over the spectrum depending on the issue

then in this case i'm speaking to the liberals i have seen that when you try to tell them functionally there is no difference between the AR-15 and a browning longtrac semi-automatic, they refuse to go "wow, i misunderstood that weapon" and instead say "then semi-automatics needs to go also".

i have *never* heard someone go "wow, i was wrong about that rifle" and to a man/woman/child i've discussed this with, the more they learn the less they want to know and the more they want to control. i don't doubt there are those on the left who are NOT like this, i've just not met one in conversation yet.

I think a lot of people are scared, frustrated, and heartbroken from the horrendous gun violence that happens in this country and they just want to do something to try and limit the carnage. Regulating guns is something g that makes sense to them so that’s what they push because guns scare them. Others feel protected by them and want to defend their rights to carry. It’s a very heated and emotional debate which needs more understanding and compassion like most political issues

 

[Defiant1]

except that is all he said. the rest was you putting YOUR 2+2=Racist comment together by making assumptions we've already also discussed in this thread about blues man and what he was actually saying vs. what you were saying he was saying.

when it's only racist when 1 person does it, it's not racist.

and your not liking the manner in which he answers your questions doesn't make his answers wrong or hiding either.

He told three American citizens to go back to the shitty broken countries they came from. That’s not the same as go home. Home is the USA. Come on Ice. I’m not spinning this, dont equivocate the two statements. You don’t find it racist. Fine. But don’t equivocate, you know it was a different and more pointed attack than “if you don’t like it leave” or “go back home”

Obviously I don't believe it to be different at the core. Please refrain from telling me what I know and we can stop having stupid arguments.

Well we have different thresholds for what we find to be appropriate or not. Just stop accusing me of lying about it via assumptions. I’m expressing my view of his comments. And to me that tweet was racist and inappropriate. It’s the first time I’ve accused him of such

dude - i am not the only one to say you have a very bad habit of making 2+2=whatever and you make large assumptions off limited information. i'm not telling you what to say - say whatever you want. but what i am telling you is if i see you or *anyone* make false assumptions based off non-existent logic, i will say so.

you made a lot of jumps to get to "Racist" and several people made that comment. you don't want people to say these things, don't do it. but again, not telling you NOT to, just telling you what happens when you do.

Trumps buddy, the mooch who is on TV non stop defending the Prez, called the comments racist. Was he making assumptions as well? What motivation does he have to be dishonest? Perhaps he, like I, truly read these comments as racist and unacceptable

Anthony Scaramucci Calls Trump Attack On 4 Democrats 'Racist And Unacceptable' | HuffPost

New Yorkers can't be trusted as true conservatives.

 

[iceberg]

except that is all he said. the rest was you putting YOUR 2+2=Racist comment together by making assumptions we've already also discussed in this thread about blues man and what he was actually saying vs. what you were saying he was saying.

when it's only racist when 1 person does it, it's not racist.

and your not liking the manner in which he answers your questions doesn't make his answers wrong or hiding either.

He told three American citizens to go back to the shitty broken countries they came from. That’s not the same as go home. Home is the USA. Come on Ice. I’m not spinning this, dont equivocate the two statements. You don’t find it racist. Fine. But don’t equivocate, you know it was a different and more pointed attack than “if you don’t like it leave” or “go back home”

Obviously I don't believe it to be different at the core. Please refrain from telling me what I know and we can stop having stupid arguments.

Well we have different thresholds for what we find to be appropriate or not. Just stop accusing me of lying about it via assumptions. I’m expressing my view of his comments. And to me that tweet was racist and inappropriate. It’s the first time I’ve accused him of such

dude - i am not the only one to say you have a very bad habit of making 2+2=whatever and you make large assumptions off limited information. i'm not telling you what to say - say whatever you want. but what i am telling you is if i see you or *anyone* make false assumptions based off non-existent logic, i will say so.

you made a lot of jumps to get to "Racist" and several people made that comment. you don't want people to say these things, don't do it. but again, not telling you NOT to, just telling you what happens when you do.

Trumps buddy, the mooch who is on TV non stop defending the Prez, called the comments racist. Was he making assumptions as well? What motivation does he have to be dishonest? Perhaps he, like I, truly read these comments as racist and unacceptable

Anthony Scaramucci Calls Trump Attack On 4 Democrats 'Racist And Unacceptable' | HuffPost

there are a lot of people who called it racist. there are a lot of people who call him eating a tub of chicken racist.

like i said - the word has been so devalued and de-sensitized, no one really cares about having that "on them" like they used to.

 

[iceberg]

except i'm saying this as a general rule of what the left does, NOT YOU. if you want to wear that mantle because you're on the left, feel free. i, while being usually on "the right" don't have all my beliefs there and don't protect every RIGHT talking point available.

so if i say "the left" is doing something i mean a hallmark of "the left" is doing it - NOT you. if you wish to take offense to it and take it personally even after stating to me you are not part of *that* mindset, that's on you.

all i am saying is the gun advocates are not going to talk about control because the hallmark of the left is CONTROL = REMOVAL, not understanding.

ie - the leftist media is wrong about AR15's. instead of correcting themselves, they change the meaning of words around to still be right. when they can't refute logic / facts, they then broaden their scope vs. apply a focus to the core.

again - you want to defend something you don't believe, have fun but it's going to make for a very fucked up conversation.

Well when do you ever have a conversation with “The Left” that is an arbitrary label that is used as a strawman in political debates. I dont like labels but we are unfortunately defined by them all the time. I’m not a dem or a rep. I actually agree with more republican policies than dems, but I’m a leftard as far as this board is concerned... so whatever

great. so i can understand and be sure - are you saying the stance of the left is NOT coming after guns?

i don't like labels also, but when a trait is far too common to one side, it can and will get referenced. if you need specific examples of the left being full of shit, holler. i can find CNN with animated gifs showing rocket launchers on AR15's and gyrating like giant dildo. i can show you the left in colorado who is after banning high capacity mags and think they are "single use". i can show you people on "the left" who say we're not coming after guns and then their making statements that they are.

while i agree generalities can be and are used in debates far too often, that doesn't mean they're 100% wrong to do or use.

or would you disagree? if so, then fine. i'll just watch out for any stereotypes from you and react accordingly.

That’s a good question. I’d say by definition classic liberals and conservatives both of whom support individual freedoms support less gun control while big government progressives fight for more gun control. You will find people all over the “Left” that supports gun rights, but Ideologically speaking progressives would be the group pushing for government regulation. Although I’d argue that most people fall all over the spectrum depending on the issue

then in this case i'm speaking to the liberals i have seen that when you try to tell them functionally there is no difference between the AR-15 and a browning longtrac semi-automatic, they refuse to go "wow, i misunderstood that weapon" and instead say "then semi-automatics needs to go also".

i have *never* heard someone go "wow, i was wrong about that rifle" and to a man/woman/child i've discussed this with, the more they learn the less they want to know and the more they want to control. i don't doubt there are those on the left who are NOT like this, i've just not met one in conversation yet.

I think a lot of people are scared, frustrated, and heartbroken from the horrendous gun violence that happens in this country and they just want to do something to try and limit the carnage. Regulating guns is something g that makes sense to them so that’s what they push because guns scare them. Others feel protected by them and want to defend their rights to carry. It’s a very heated and emotional debate which needs more understanding and compassion like most political issues

but this is also why you're not likely to get that debate or discussion from gun owners. they've met far too many who won't listen to the mechanics behind their fears and simply expand their fears instead.

when you can think of a good way to rationalize with someone who is willing to keep their views alive despite learning to the contrary, let me know and i'll help get this discussion going.

 

[Brain357]

Well when do you ever have a conversation with “The Left” that is an arbitrary label that is used as a strawman in political debates. I dont like labels but we are unfortunately defined by them all the time. I’m not a dem or a rep. I actually agree with more republican policies than dems, but I’m a leftard as far as this board is concerned... so whatever

great. so i can understand and be sure - are you saying the stance of the left is NOT coming after guns?

i don't like labels also, but when a trait is far too common to one side, it can and will get referenced. if you need specific examples of the left being full of shit, holler. i can find CNN with animated gifs showing rocket launchers on AR15's and gyrating like giant dildo. i can show you the left in colorado who is after banning high capacity mags and think they are "single use". i can show you people on "the left" who say we're not coming after guns and then their making statements that they are.

while i agree generalities can be and are used in debates far too often, that doesn't mean they're 100% wrong to do or use.

or would you disagree? if so, then fine. i'll just watch out for any stereotypes from you and react accordingly.

That’s a good question. I’d say by definition classic liberals and conservatives both of whom support individual freedoms support less gun control while big government progressives fight for more gun control. You will find people all over the “Left” that supports gun rights, but Ideologically speaking progressives would be the group pushing for government regulation. Although I’d argue that most people fall all over the spectrum depending on the issue

then in this case i'm speaking to the liberals i have seen that when you try to tell them functionally there is no difference between the AR-15 and a browning longtrac semi-automatic, they refuse to go "wow, i misunderstood that weapon" and instead say "then semi-automatics needs to go also".

i have *never* heard someone go "wow, i was wrong about that rifle" and to a man/woman/child i've discussed this with, the more they learn the less they want to know and the more they want to control. i don't doubt there are those on the left who are NOT like this, i've just not met one in conversation yet.

I think a lot of people are scared, frustrated, and heartbroken from the horrendous gun violence that happens in this country and they just want to do something to try and limit the carnage. Regulating guns is something g that makes sense to them so that’s what they push because guns scare them. Others feel protected by them and want to defend their rights to carry. It’s a very heated and emotional debate which needs more understanding and compassion like most political issues

but this is also why you're not likely to get that debate or discussion from gun owners. they've met far too many who won't listen to the mechanics behind their fears and simply expand their fears instead.

when you can think of a good way to rationalize with someone who is willing to keep their views alive despite learning to the contrary, let me know and i'll help get this discussion going.

The debate is rather simple. If more guns made us safer we would have the lowest homicide rate in the world. Instead ours is 4-5x higher than countries with strong gun control. We also have regular mass shootings, law enforcement shoots hundreds, law enforcement is shot and killed weekly, hundreds die each year in gun accidents... the effect of too many guns is clear, and not good.

 

[pismoe]

Does it take 29 rifles to protect your own life? How many handguns?
LIMITING and strictly registering and vetting owners of firearms would not take away the opportunity for responsible people from bearing arms. The founders lived in a very different world, culturally and technologically. That is why the Constitution was designed to change with the times.

--------------------------------------------------------- in the USA you can own any number of cars , motorcycles or guns that you like . And that being said , only one gun at a time can be used at a time OldLady . And your claim that the Constitution was DESIGNED to change with the times is your OPINION OldLady .

And the opinion of many, many others..in fact..probably a majority of Americans believe that the Constitution is a 'living document". I know you find that view abhorrent..but..as you say..that's your OPINION.

----------------------------------- Not me . There seem to be enough like me to keep thing halfway going my way for my lifetime at least . Lots of fights , money spent but things are ok for my generation I think . Depending on your age its YOU and younger Americans that are fecked as things change 'EEFleegle

Hmm..I'm sure you know that we have had a Supreme Court sitting that believed in the living document point of view..in our lifetimes..I refer you to the Warren Court--and his successor Warren Burger ---it is only in the last 20 years that the constructionists have regained the upper hand. The Living Document point of view was taught as gospel in most schools..in the 60's and 70's.
The wheel turns....

-------------------------------------------- As I said , I think that my generation is cool and good for my generation . Its you younger guys and kids that should be concerned about a whole lot of things as 'the wheel turns' . Course , many of youse guys are DOPERS and unsuitable for Adult Freedom and Responsibility anyway EEFl.

---------------------------------------- I mean , look at it logically . On a different subject but as an example do you remember that thread where many younger and assumed by me to be female posters wanted the Judge Kavanauh to be assumed guilty rather than the American standard of Innocent till proven Guilty . The next generation and especially kids are going to have a fecked up USA . --------------------- And YES , any of these young dopers are judged by USA Government that they are unsuitable for gun ownership if they admit to being Dopers Edward .

 

[pismoe]

OK for all of the anti gun nut lefttards out there, answer this question. A good portion of households in Switzerland have an evil military assault rifle stashed in a closet so where are the waves of gun violence and mass shootings? If it's the guns as you say then the problem should exist there but if it's people and not guns it's long past time for you to shut your stupid yaps because you don't have brains enough to be preaching to anyone about anything. In fact you should stay away from the voting booth altogether too.

They have much stronger gun control than us and they are making it stronger. Shall we make our laws more like theirs?

-------------------------- the 'swiss' are stupid Brian .

 

[Brain357]

OK for all of the anti gun nut lefttards out there, answer this question. A good portion of households in Switzerland have an evil military assault rifle stashed in a closet so where are the waves of gun violence and mass shootings? If it's the guns as you say then the problem should exist there but if it's people and not guns it's long past time for you to shut your stupid yaps because you don't have brains enough to be preaching to anyone about anything. In fact you should stay away from the voting booth altogether too.

They have much stronger gun control than us and they are making it stronger. Shall we make our laws more like theirs?

-------------------------- the 'swiss' are stupid Brian .

They have a much lower homicide rate, are we stupider then?

 

[Dick Foster]

OK for all of the anti gun nut lefttards out there, answer this question. A good portion of households in Switzerland have an evil military assault rifle stashed in a closet so where are the waves of gun violence and mass shootings? If it's the guns as you say then the problem should exist there but if it's people and not guns it's long past time for you to shut your stupid yaps because you don't have brains enough to be preaching to anyone about anything. In fact you should stay away from the voting booth altogether too.

Culture is totally different..and the small population in comparison to ours makes the argument invalid..IMO. BTW..I don't think it's guns either...as I've said before it's culture and how we view violence. We will not legislate gun violence away. We can make it a bit harder..if we choose.

Thanks for proveing my point dumbass. It's the people and NOT the guns.
Guess what it didn't use to be a problem here either but that was back when we locked all the nut cases up in insane asylums instead of turning them loose on the streets and calling them democrats.

 

[pismoe]

great. so i can understand and be sure - are you saying the stance of the left is NOT coming after guns?

i don't like labels also, but when a trait is far too common to one side, it can and will get referenced. if you need specific examples of the left being full of shit, holler. i can find CNN with animated gifs showing rocket launchers on AR15's and gyrating like giant dildo. i can show you the left in colorado who is after banning high capacity mags and think they are "single use". i can show you people on "the left" who say we're not coming after guns and then their making statements that they are.

while i agree generalities can be and are used in debates far too often, that doesn't mean they're 100% wrong to do or use.

or would you disagree? if so, then fine. i'll just watch out for any stereotypes from you and react accordingly.

That’s a good question. I’d say by definition classic liberals and conservatives both of whom support individual freedoms support less gun control while big government progressives fight for more gun control. You will find people all over the “Left” that supports gun rights, but Ideologically speaking progressives would be the group pushing for government regulation. Although I’d argue that most people fall all over the spectrum depending on the issue

then in this case i'm speaking to the liberals i have seen that when you try to tell them functionally there is no difference between the AR-15 and a browning longtrac semi-automatic, they refuse to go "wow, i misunderstood that weapon" and instead say "then semi-automatics needs to go also".

i have *never* heard someone go "wow, i was wrong about that rifle" and to a man/woman/child i've discussed this with, the more they learn the less they want to know and the more they want to control. i don't doubt there are those on the left who are NOT like this, i've just not met one in conversation yet.

I think a lot of people are scared, frustrated, and heartbroken from the horrendous gun violence that happens in this country and they just want to do something to try and limit the carnage. Regulating guns is something g that makes sense to them so that’s what they push because guns scare them. Others feel protected by them and want to defend their rights to carry. It’s a very heated and emotional debate which needs more understanding and compassion like most political issues

but this is also why you're not likely to get that debate or discussion from gun owners. they've met far too many who won't listen to the mechanics behind their fears and simply expand their fears instead.

when you can think of a good way to rationalize with someone who is willing to keep their views alive despite learning to the contrary, let me know and i'll help get this discussion going.

The debate is rather simple. If more guns made us safer we would have the lowest homicide rate in the world. Instead ours is 4-5x higher than countries with strong gun control. We also have regular mass shootings, law enforcement shoots hundreds, law enforcement is shot and killed weekly, hundreds die each year in gun accidents... the effect of too many guns is clear, and not good.

---------------------------------------- its about FREEDOM and not about SAFETY Brian .