Will the NRA's grip on the GOP diminish in your lifetime? (Y/N)

38,908 Views | 730 Replies | Last: 3 mo ago by bearister
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

And fwiw, gun ownership has increased as gun violence has decreased (however, I don't think that correlation should strongly influence the merit of certain gun control policies)

Also wrong. Gun OWNERSHIP rates are down. Gun SALES are up (or at least were throughout the Obama years). That means that fewer people own guns, but people who already own guns are buying many more.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/29/american-gun-ownership-is-now-at-a-30-year-low/?utm_term=.1f6f65b7f9fd

Does any private citizen really need to own an arsenal?
I'd say no, but that's not why our homicide rate is where it's at. That's just you mouth-breathing your hatred of guns in principle.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearsWiin said:



I've owned nine for over 25 years now, and if I didn't have kids draining my resources I'd probably have more. Some people collect paperweights and chess sets; some collect firearms. But I have no problem with having to jump through serious hoops in order to do so.

I've said it before: Canada has relatively loose regulation of long guns and much more stringent regulation of handguns. Their per capita firearm homicide rate is 1/7th of what it is in the US. Theirs is the model that we should be looking at.
But the mouth-breathers aren't really interested in saving lives. The political activists who exploit victims and innocents to advance their agenda rarely do.

You can tell how insincere they are when they attack rifles under the cloak of mass shootings.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:


I don't think it's bad, that's the thing.
And this is what make's the Right's unwillingness to compromise understandable.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GB4L - complains about ad hominems but refers to people as mouth breathers. I'm not a betting man, but I do think I would take even money that gun owners are more likely to sleep with CPAP machines than non gun owners.

Please though don't let this criticism stop you from ****posting your way through this forum. Your contributions make everyone else feel better about themselves.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
All interactions are predicated on reciprocity (yet I didn't go for "LWNJs"). Stop pretending you care about ad hominems or incivility -- you encourage it so long as it aligns with your approved in-group/out-group ideology.

Moreover, it applied to those engaging in specific actions and behaviors, not an identitarian perspective like "gun owners/non gun owners using CPAP machines".

I don't think anybody else needs my posts to feel more self-important and self-righteous, that may be just you projecting.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

Stop pretending you care about ad hominems or incivility


Was this cathartic for you?
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

And fwiw, gun ownership has increased as gun violence has decreased (however, I don't think that correlation should strongly influence the merit of certain gun control policies)

Also wrong. Gun OWNERSHIP rates are down. Gun SALES are up (or at least were throughout the Obama years). That means that fewer people own guns, but people who already own guns are buying many more.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/29/american-gun-ownership-is-now-at-a-30-year-low/?utm_term=.1f6f65b7f9fd

Does any private citizen really need to own an arsenal?
I'd say no, but that's not why our homicide rate is where it's at. That's just you mouth-breathing your hatred of guns in principle.

Please provide the evidence for your assertion here. I showed you mine.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:


I don't think it's bad, that's the thing.
And this is what make's the Right's unwillingness to compromise understandable.

Except I was willing to compromise. I'd love to have no more guns among the populace, period. That would be my ideal. But I will also accept any proposals that help reduce the number, because I'm a grown-up and realize I can't have everything I want.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
a gun is the only thing that neutralizes threats towards myself and my property from rogue citizens. This is especially true for women.

A gun ban would be the worst legislation in U.S. history.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

a gun is the only thing that neutralizes threats towards myself and my property from rogue citizens. This is especially true for women.

It's definitely not the only thing.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Frankly if I want to hurt or kill anyone I don't need a gun.
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Former Oregon Duck Keanon Lowe subdues armed student who was possibly about to blow some people away, I'm guessing. And that concludes our almost daily school-related reminder of the cost of Republicans in power.

https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2019/05/officers-spot-person-with-gun-near-parkrose-high-school-police-on-scene.html
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Interesting. Obviously another Columbine copy cat- who knew those two boys would
spawn dozens of pilgrim gun men. And senior Justyn Wilcox?

"About 10 minutes before the end of class, the student appeared doorway in a black trench coat and pulled out a long gun from beneath his coat, said senior Justyn Wilcox, who also was in the room."
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
B.A. Bearacus said:

Former Oregon Duck Keanon Lowe subdues armed student who was possibly about to blow some people away, I'm guessing. And that concludes our almost daily school-related reminder of the cost of Republicans in power.

https://www.oregonlive.com/portland/2019/05/officers-spot-person-with-gun-near-parkrose-high-school-police-on-scene.html
Give that Duck a medal!
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

a gun is the only thing that neutralizes threats towards myself and my property from rogue citizens. This is especially true for women.

It's definitely not the only thing.
That is not an argument.

Moreover, it is the only thing if the other person has a weapon and/or physicality supersedes your own. You know this.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

a gun is the only thing that neutralizes threats towards myself and my property from rogue citizens. This is especially true for women.

It's definitely not the only thing.
That is not an argument.
Yes, I responded in kind to your nonsense statement.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

a gun is the only thing that neutralizes threats towards myself and my property from rogue citizens. This is especially true for women.

It's definitely not the only thing.
That is not an argument.
Yes, I responded in kind to your nonsense statement.
Uh, no you weren't. You were actually countering my post, which wasn't a statement, it was a fact: firearms is the one neutralizer, unlike other weapons, that can fully protect you when the perp is physically dominant or has a weapon of any kind. And again, you did not address the content of the post, you obfuscated by citing the tangential.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:

a gun is the only thing that neutralizes threats towards myself and my property from rogue citizens. This is especially true for women.

It's definitely not the only thing.
That is not an argument.
Yes, I responded in kind to your nonsense statement.
Uh, no you weren't. You were actually countering my post, which wasn't a statement, it was a fact: firearms is the one neutralizer, unlike other weapons, that can fully protect you when the perp is physically dominant or has a weapon of any kind. And again, you did not address the content of the post, you obfuscated by citing the tangential.

Just calling something a "fact" doesn't make it one. Again: nonsense.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:



Uh, no you weren't. You were actually countering my post, which wasn't a statement, it was a fact: firearms is the one neutralizer, unlike other weapons, that can fully protect you when the perp is physically dominant or has a weapon of any kind. And again, you did not address the content of the post, you obfuscated by citing the tangential.

Just calling something a "fact" doesn't make it one. Again: nonsense.
Yet you won't refute it.

The only "nonsense" in this thread is your unfounded confidence in and support for a gun-ban.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

sycasey said:

GBear4Life said:



Uh, no you weren't. You were actually countering my post, which wasn't a statement, it was a fact: firearms is the one neutralizer, unlike other weapons, that can fully protect you when the perp is physically dominant or has a weapon of any kind. And again, you did not address the content of the post, you obfuscated by citing the tangential.

Just calling something a "fact" doesn't make it one. Again: nonsense.
Yet you won't refute it.

The only "nonsense" in this thread is your unfounded confidence in and support for a gun-ban.

And yet I was willing to compromise on gun control (the same plan you said you supported) and you are still arguing with me. Is this a pathological thing?
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:



And yet I was willing to compromise on gun control (the same plan you said you supported) and you are still arguing with me. Is this a pathological thing?
Nobody is arguing with you. Somebody is pointing out your poor arguments and you're propensity for dodging them which you keep obfuscating through pedantry. Who cares whether you're willing to compromise? You support a gun ban, a laughable, explicitly unconstitutional position.

The pederast supports legalizing kiddie porn, but is willing to compromise and support legalizing teen porn.
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

Nobody is arguing with you. Somebody is pointing out your poor arguments and you're propensity for dodging them which you keep obfuscating through pedantry.



GBear4Life said:

Who cares whether you're willing to compromise? You support a gun ban, a laughable, explicitly unconstitutional position.

The pederast supports legalizing kiddie porn, but is willing to compromise and support legalizing teen porn.

Wait, now you're equating our already agreed-upon compromise (as proposed by Unit2) with "teen porn?" I don't get it.

Clearly the pro-gun side is not negotiating in good faith and cannot be reasoned with. This is why I support taking away all of their guns.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
sycasey said:



Wait, now you're equating our already agreed-upon compromise (as proposed by Unit2) with "teen porn?" I don't get it.
Yeah, you do get it. You've also following your schtick of pedantry. You know it was an analogy -- "a comparison between two things, usually for the purpose of explanation or clarification" -- to expose your misdirection regarding "well I compromised!" as being wholly irrelevant, not an attempt to equate positions on guns with kiddie porn.


Quote:

Clearly the pro-gun side is not negotiating in good faith and cannot be reasoned with. This is why I support taking away all of their guns.
Probably true for some sub-set of the pro-gun lobby, but so are you. You're wondering why some number of people won't budge with folks who have disdain for the 2nd amendment.

Furthermore, you supporting a gun ban is NOT because some number on the pro-gun side is not "negotiating in good faith" lol. You have stated "we've lost the privilege/right to guns"
sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

Furthermore, you supporting a gun ban is NOT because some number on the pro-gun side is not "negotiating in good faith" lol. You have stated "we've lost the privilege/right to guns"
That's true. So we can add a second reason to the pile.
Unit2Sucks
How long do you want to ignore this user?
For all of GB4L's weak attempts to criticize other people's logic, he once again proves he is unable to understand even the most simple of arguments. Sycasey has never said banning guns was compatible with the 2nd amendment, just that he is in favor of banning guns. Sycasey is clearly in favor of the most restrictive gun control that can be accomplished. If the 2nd amendment could be repealed, I'm going to assume he would be in favor of it. Sycasey's position is perfectly logical and if you actually understood logic you would be able to make out his argument. But please come back and talk to us about "tropes" and your other preferred buzzwords.

Gun nuts and RWNJs like you assume that a desire to limit guns means that gun control advocates are advocating for a violation of the constitution in practice whereas what is being advocated is meaningful gun control within the confines of the system. Maybe you can go back to your 4th grade logic class and tell us what fallacy you are guilty of.

By the way, you can contrast with anti-choice advocates who regularly pass unconstitutional laws.

Also for what it's worth as it relates to the prior beef, guns are not a perfect neutralizer and it was a ludicrous statement or "trope" to support. Guns are great at protecting yourself against someone without a gun who is probably not a threat to you to begin with. Guns are terrible at protecting you from someone who genuinely wants to do you harm because most of the time you would be dead before you are able to access your weapon. Guns are also far more likely to be stolen from a gun owner (like 1000x more likely) than they are to be used in self-defense.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?


GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Tribes to the rescue!

Quote:


if you actually understood logic you would be able to make out his argument. But please come back and talk to us about "tropes" and your other preferred buzzwords.
Dismisses points by accusations of buzzwords.

Then proceeds to use them


Quote:

Gun nuts and RWNJs like you


sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Unit2Sucks said:

For all of GB4L's weak attempts to criticize other people's logic, he once again proves he is unable to understand even the most simple of arguments. Sycasey has never said banning guns was compatible with the 2nd amendment, just that he is in favor of banning guns. Sycasey is clearly in favor of the most restrictive gun control that can be accomplished. If the 2nd amendment could be repealed, I'm going to assume he would be in favor of it. Sycasey's position is perfectly logical and if you actually understood logic you would be able to make out his argument.

See? Someone gets it.
Eastern Oregon Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I've never seen any sign that the millions of gun owners have formed a "well regulated Militia".
Anarchistbear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I'm pro gun and anti constitution. The federal government and Supreme Court are repressive organs of a corrupt state. Repeal the second amendment so all of us can decide locally what to do or not do with guns.
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Cocked and unloaded.

sycasey
How long do you want to ignore this user?
B.A. Bearacus said:

Cocked and unloaded.



Thoughts and prayers.
B.A. Bearacus
How long do you want to ignore this user?
 
×
Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.