Legacy Fan Posted May 27, 2014 Report Share Posted May 27, 2014 It's not. We agree on a segment of the issue. That isn't to say I think the law should over reach and impact my ability to protect myself and my family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted May 27, 2014 Report Share Posted May 27, 2014 Exactly. Australia found out. Making law abiding people pay $$$$ for having guns, and restricting gun ownership hugely... criminals and crazy people still murder, commit crimes. I still think it's politically corrupt thought that drives the anti-gunners. Surely they aren't so stupid they can't see that criminals don't obey the law, so.... what is it? It's political expediency via a phony emotional issue. You anti-gunners don't make any sense - going after law abiding citizens who have guns, "because criminals and crazy people commit crimes".... Truth is, I think most anti-gun sentiment is secret wishes by huge gov services and control funds. By "mmgw" taxes. And gun fees and fines. And EPA watershed laws and rules and exec orders to control ...again, almost anything. And forcing the sale of health care, including making millions LOSE their healthcare. More fines and fees. And control. Even to the point of Moochelle Obamao advising kids to inform on their parents and families for any "perceived" politically incorrect verbage, perceived racial statements. Say, that sounds eeriely familiar... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browns149 Posted May 27, 2014 Report Share Posted May 27, 2014 You anti-gunners don't make any sense - going after law abiding citizens who have guns, "because criminals and crazy people commit crimes".... Didn't this guy run people over with his Beemer too, or at least try ? Maybe we should ban cars for all the law abiding drivers too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 Oh god... The "maybe we should ban cars" argument for the millionth time.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 Mental health, misogyny, spoiled/entitlement,gender placement in society. These are the issues. not the gun/knife Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 You anti-gunners don't make any sense - going after law abiding citizens who have guns, "because criminals and crazy people commit crimes".... Didn't this guy run people over with his Beemer too, or at least try ? Maybe we should ban cars for all the law abiding drivers too The cars=guns argument is a very popular deflection around here no matter how ridiculous it is. Congratulations. Now you=bunker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 Mental health, misogyny, spoiled/entitlement,gender placement in society. These are the issues. not the gun/knife And like I said before are you willing to pay more taxes for a mental health overhaul? You know that would mean changing the standard for gun ownership don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 You guys call anyone that advocates a better standard for gun ownership "anti gunners" because that makes us more threatening to you and therefore an enemy. Perhaps an enemy to be gunned down, no? Since all we want is to take all your guns and rights away after all. Murica. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 Perhaps an enemy to be gunned down, no? Since all we want is to take all your guns and rights away after all. Murica. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 Can we at least edit the title of this thread? You know... so its actually true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 Can we at least edit the title of this thread? You know... so its actually true? No. I prefer my threads murky and non-informative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 Perhaps an enemy to be gunned down, no? Since all we want is to take all your guns and rights away after all. Murica. So why else call us "anti gunners". Why make it us vs them? That's a sure way to never reach a compromise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 So why else call us "anti gunners". Why make it us vs them? That's a sure way to never reach a compromise. Implying that one side is making it an us vs. them and implying that they would want to gun down the other is just straight up trolling. As for the anti gunner label, I find it unproductive to a discussion. Not nearly as unproductive as calling gun owners weak and pathetic, but pretty unproductive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 No I'm just playing up my role as an "anti gunner". by the way please inform me where changing the standard for gun ownership is "anti" gun. You must be a square because logic is not making an appearance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 No I'm just playing up my role as an "anti gunner". by the way please inform me where changing the standard for gun ownership is "anti" gun. You must be a square because logic is not making an appearance Who are you arguing with? I never said anything about "anti-gun". Confusing your targets, Cal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 Dude if guys like legacy want to go on the attack rather than stick to actual points they're going to find I have no problem counter attacking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 Dude if guys like legacy want to go on the attack rather than stick to actual points they're going to find I have no problem counter attacking. When has anyone stuck to the points in any debate on this forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 As for trolling we've been having this go round for thousands of posts before you arrived. I've come to the conclusion long ago that trying to discuss here is utterly pointless. One does not simply "discuss" an issue on the browns board. You attack or you defend but you do not discuss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 When has anyone stuck to the points in any debate on this forum? Basically this is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 As for trolling we've been having this go round for thousands of posts before you arrived. I've come to the conclusion long ago that trying to discuss here is utterly pointless. One does not simply "discuss" an issue on the browns board. You attack or you defend but you do not discuss. That is the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 But for real when pointing the finger at mental health as legacy is doing you have to realize reforming mental health would inevitably change the standard of legal gun ownership. So why the backlash to suggesting a change in the standard of gun ownership? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 Unless you don't think there is a problem and then you are probably mentally ill equipped to be trusted with a gun, since you'd be living in a fantasy world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 I have no problem keeping guns away from those who shouldn't have them. The NRA is fine with that. But telling millions of good, decent, law abiding citizens who have guns, that they are guilty of something, then penalize them, then fine them and fee them, force them to register all guns, then publish the lists of those who registered, then start dickering with definitions of what kind of gun they are allowed to own, etc etc etc.... with the "idea" that it will stop nutjobs and crooks from having guns.... is bogus. So, I call it "anti-gunners" because of the apparent ulterior motives. There, I'm giving anti gunners the benefit of the doubt for being intelligent and well meaning. Like Feinstein - she has a gun, has used it to defend herself, yet she said that if she could have gotten the votes, she'd ban them. I'm fine with background checks. But those aren't going to stop crooks from getting guns on the black market, and reselling them to violent nutjobs. The more obvious explanation for the conflicting "intent", and dubious actions behind the words - is political antagonism, posturing for liberal dominance over conservatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 Re: Mental Health Therapy is only going to help those who want to help themselves. I read that this kid was cleared by a therapist a few weeks/months prior because he was able to game the system. The kid was intelligent, but so deluded that he was practically untreatable. The kid needed to be committed to a hospital, but if there's no prior criminal history, and he's unwilling to commit himself, there wasn't much evidence that would convince a judge to order him help. As a country, we've decided that the right to own firearms is covered by the 2nd amendment. Unfortunately, that means that people with a clean background who go off the deep end will occasionally do something like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 Unless the NRA thinks everyone should have guns and views any kind of reform as an attempt to eliminate all guns. What exactly is the issue with "smart" guns again? Something to do with some big brother Obamao spying conspiracy, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 smart guns? What happens when they don't work? What happens when they are interfered with by a jammer? Of course, the biggest problem, is cost. Instead of a pistol costing somewhere around 400 = 500 bucks, the cost could easily triple. And, no smart gun is smart enough to not be used by a nutjob in a violent crime. so the point is............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 Any change we are going to make has to start somewhere. This idea of "all or nothing" is ridiculous. "We could start requiring auto manufacturers to put seatbelts in cars, but there are already so many out there without them. Why even bother? 'Criminals just won't use it anyway"..... Do you even know exactly how a jammer would work or how feasible it would be? How much of your believes as far as the smart gun not working are based in reality and fact and how much of it is just what you hope or what pro gun groups have told you? There are many methods and technologies to use to make a gun "smart". I would think the benefits of only the owner of the gun being able to use it outweigh any negatives. No teens taking guns are doing something dumb, not kids accidentally hurting themselves, no one having their gun used against them, etc. I would think most people would be completely behind furthering this technology and implementing it in the USA. Instead store owners that have said they will sell it have received death threats and it has forced them to take them off the shelves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 And like I said before are you willing to pay more taxes for a mental health overhaul? You know that would mean changing the standard for gun ownership don't you? I already responded to this (you ignored it, and started crying about an autism witch hunt). No overhaul necessary. The data is there. Use it. (California is the only state that kind of is, actually). Don't be afraid to hurt somebody's feelings, is all this 'overhaul' really boils down to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legacy Fan Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 Re: Mental Health Therapy is only going to help those who want to help themselves. I read that this kid was cleared by a therapist a few weeks/months prior because he was able to game the system. The kid was intelligent, but so deluded that he was practically untreatable. The kid needed to be committed to a hospital, but if there's no prior criminal history, and he's unwilling to commit himself, there wasn't much evidence that would convince a judge to order him help. As a country, we've decided that the right to own firearms is covered by the 2nd amendment. Unfortunately, that means that people with a clean background who go off the deep end will occasionally do something like this. That would be nice. As for the rest of your post, I agree with it except that questions regarding the nature of the youtube videos (that sparked the initial phone call) should have been pursued. This would have ultimately led to somebody with some common sense (hopefully) in the police dept. viewing said videos and getting a warrant to search the apt. This combined with the police report of the kid trying to shove some frat bros off a porch the previous summer (no charges filed, but a police report on the matter still exists) would have been enough for a warrant demonstrating that the kid had some real, violent tendencies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted May 28, 2014 Report Share Posted May 28, 2014 Woody, You used "VIOLEVE" for "VIOLENCE". "Violeve" isn't a word. You used "knowing the different" instead of "knowing the difference" Now, you used "How much of your believes as far as"...when you should have said "How many of your beliefs as far as". Face it. You can't keep up with any conservation. Perhaps you need some cognitive speech therapy or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.