Crock Hunter wrote:
Seriously... those on the left most often bring verifiable data into a discussion whereas those right "feel" their way to an opinion...
Actually, Mad American does pretty well in the "verifiable data" area as long as he's talking firearms. Despite differing opinions on gun law, I've learned quite a bit from him.
Leo Lyons wrote:I'll go along with obnoxious, though not the most obnoxious. Vrede can't hold a candle to Stinger. I would say that Vrede is more of a taunter than an agitator. Homie and Stinger have the agitator market cornered whereas Vrede writes words and phrases designed to bait and taunt someone into a pissed-off reply that he can continue to twist into knots to further taunt.....but what the hell, it works, he gets what he wants.
Point proven...see above. Vrede can call it running away if he wants....I call it ignoring, much like one does a child throwing a tantrum.
Mad American wrote:This thread alone is a prime example of the degeneration of virtually every thread here and thus the forum itself. People come and expect adult conversation and wind up engaged with a bunch that seems to have not progressed from the 10th grade locker room. I watched with dismay as that same group destroyed the BRN forum due to their inability to follow simple rules and now they are going to destroy this one in much the same way. The difference being is people are simply not going to stay and subject themselves to endless abuse. Perhaps if rules had been followed then the BRN forums would still be active...who knows. However, with no rules this forum will soon become a small group of like minded individuals who, with no one to attack, will grow bored and seek other forums to disrupt. SSDF
Nope, that's just an excuse to for people to run away unchallenged on the Con side. Remember, the cons have their own section of the forum with their own rules and moderator abilities. You have no excuses, that stand scrutiny.
The BRN forums were just about as active as here, we even picked up a couple new people if you hadn't noticed.
Crock Hunter wrote:
Seriously... those on the left most often bring verifiable data into a discussion whereas those right "feel" their way to an opinion...
Actually, Mad American does pretty well in the "verifiable data" area as long as he's talking firearms. Despite differing opinions on gun law, I've learned quite a bit from him.
True.. however don't you think knowing the technical specifications of a weapon has little to do with the "gun rights" discussion?
The one thing that stands out in Phantom's faulty interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is his disregard of the "well regulated" phrase.. ... . The founder's clearly intended for guns and gun owners to be managed... "Gun Laws" are to be expected...
Crock Hunter wrote:
True.. however don't you think knowing the technical specifications of a weapon has little to do with the "gun rights" discussion?
.
May be, but I look at it like this: the Supreme Court has ruled, and apparently for now continues to opine, that the Second Amendment protects individual gun ownership without regard for "militia" but that the right is not absolute and thus some restrictions on types of weapons are Constitutional. So what that leaves as a fundamental dispute is what specific weapons and equipment will be allowed and which ones won't. For that decision to be made in a meaningful manner, it pretty much has to be based on the technical specifications of a weapon. Why? Because if it's not specified in minute detail - and even then - the gun manufacturers will out-technical the lawmakers and get around it like they did in the ill-fated assault rifle ban before. (Ill-fated because it was so weak and easily subverted) Therefore, having an understanding of the structural and capability technicalities of a weapon seems to me to be germane to the argument.
O Really wrote: the gun manufacturers will out-technical the lawmakers and get around it like they did in the ill-fated assault rifle ban before. (Ill-fated because it was so weak and easily subverted) Therefore, having an understanding of the structural and capability technicalities of a weapon seems to me to be germane to the argument.
To my mind.. that is the very reason that approaching this as though it has a finely pointed technical solution will fail.. .. in that we aren't dealing with honest people.. they will find a way to subvert the law.
Perhaps if one is to benefit from the 2nd Amendment's "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." clause then the "well regulated militia" portion should be enforced as well. If not "militia" then "well regulated" for certain.
GunNuts can't be allowed to pick the parts they like and disregard the rest... We already have Christians for that..
O Really wrote: the gun manufacturers will out-technical the lawmakers and get around it like they did in the ill-fated assault rifle ban before. (Ill-fated because it was so weak and easily subverted) Therefore, having an understanding of the structural and capability technicalities of a weapon seems to me to be germane to the argument.
To my mind.. that is the very reason that approaching this as though it has a finely pointed technical solution will fail.. .. in that we aren't dealing with honest people.. they will find a way to subvert the law.
Perhaps if one is to benefit from the 2nd Amendment's "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." clause then the "well regulated militia" portion should be enforced as well. If not "militia" then "well regulated" for certain.
GunNuts can't be allowed to pick the parts they like and disregard the rest... We already have Christians for that..
I'd agree with you in principle, but when it comes down to actually drafting a law, you have to be pretty precise. If you were writing a law limiting possession and use of some types of weapons, how would you word it?
It has already been established that "militia" can refer to several groups of people including ordinary citizenry. Therefore "a well regulated militia" refers to regulating a group or groups of PEOPLE, not weapons. With that said, we have a pretty large amount of regulation in place on the people. Including but not limited to, waiting periods for handguns purchases, NICS checks for all firearm purchases, and felons banned from ownership (how is that working out). I'm all in favor of strengthening the background checks to include mental health records. However, I still do not see how background checks can be required or enforced on private sales.
Well, the old BRN forum was pretty rough and tumble too, until the censors came
along and wouldn't allow anything that upset their overly tender sensibilities. Which
reminds me, hey go fuck yourselves, former BRN censors. What's funny is they still
have the forum heading over there. Whatever.
Mad American wrote:... and felons banned from ownership (how is that working out). ....
Pretty well, overall. Not that a lot of felons don't get guns. Sure they do. And a lot of people rob banks despite its being illegal, too. But having the additional illegal weapon charge to hang on somebody will frequently send them to jail when they might not otherwise have gone, or keep them there longer. If no law were passed until it was guaranteed to be 100% violation-proof, there would never be any laws passed at all.
Mad American wrote:... and felons banned from ownership (how is that working out). ....
Pretty well, overall. Not that a lot of felons don't get guns. Sure they do. And a lot of people rob banks despite its being illegal, too. But having the additional illegal weapon charge to hang on somebody will frequently send them to jail when they might not otherwise have gone, or keep them there longer. If no law were passed until it was guaranteed to be 100% violation-proof, there would never be any laws passed at all.
And you have just proven the point that most have against further gun regulation. In passing more laws limiting guns you are only going to limit them from law abiding citizens.
Bungalow Bill wrote:Well, the old BRN forum was pretty rough and tumble too, until the censors came
along and wouldn't allow anything that upset their overly tender sensibilities. Which
reminds me, hey go fuck yourselves, former BRN censors. What's funny is they still
have the forum heading over there. Whatever.
Yeah, they never have been very bright. Perhaps I should start spamming the facebook comments :>
Mad American wrote:... and felons banned from ownership (how is that working out). ....
Pretty well, overall. Not that a lot of felons don't get guns. Sure they do. And a lot of people rob banks despite its being illegal, too. But having the additional illegal weapon charge to hang on somebody will frequently send them to jail when they might not otherwise have gone, or keep them there longer. If no law were passed until it was guaranteed to be 100% violation-proof, there would never be any laws passed at all.
And you have just proven the point that most have against further gun regulation. In passing more laws limiting guns you are only going to limit them from law abiding citizens.
Not "only." but if that's a side effect of making certain types of weapons more difficult to get and more expensive to keep, I've got no problem with it. Just because a person is "law-abiding" doesn't mean that their access can't be limited with regard to particular types of weapons.
BTW, did you see where a guy turned in a rocket launcher at a Seattle buy-back?
Partisan62 wrote: Or are you too stupid to recognize what I have been using to bludgeon you with on this forum. So sad.
"Stupid" and "knee-jerk conjecture" don't really make effective bludgeons, but if you imagine that they do, and somehow magically imbue you with a sense of victory, then, by all means, keep it up.
At least you're consistent.
Considering that your idiotic responses are devoid of any sign of intelligence, assuming that you must be comatose from the bludgeoning was a reasonable assumption.
For empty responses from Stinger, see above or just peruse any of this troll's other posts. It's not even a contest when you are too weak to enter the ring.
Considering that your idiotic responses are devoid of intelligence, assuming that you would fail to comprehend that you claimed to have bludgeoned Vrede, not me -- i.e. assuming that you won't even know what you're talking about -- is a piece of cake. QED.
Empty posts and responses from Pantywaist69, see above or just peruse any of this troll's other posts. It's not even a contest if you're too weak to enter the ring.
And it's doubly hilarious when you pound your little chest and claim "bludgeonly" victory in bouts where you never land a punch.
Vrede wrote:An alternate theory - Could it be that some of the cons left because Banni created the Conservative (moderated) Forum and thus took away their ability to whine about the "unfair" moderation here in excusing their own failings? The timing was suspicious.
I believe you may have hit on something. Take away their ability to play their victim card and their ability to post "stupid" without having to assume responsibility for it, and they have nothing left.
Vrede wrote:An alternate theory - Could it be that some of the cons left because Banni created the Conservative (moderated) Forum and thus took away their ability to whine about the "unfair" moderation here in excusing their own failings? The timing was suspicious.
I believe you may have hit on something. Take away their ability to play their victim card and their ability to post "stupid" without having to assume responsibility for it, and they have nothing left.
Now take a look at the member's list and note the liberals who no longer post. Could it be they're tired of your bulls*it as well?
The timing is suspicious
What's funny is they stillThe timing was suspicious.
