Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Placebo

USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

Recommended Posts

Because the "discussion" goes nowheres but circles.

Not sure what your waiting for as last I remember you were ignoring my posts and had resigned from the discussion yourself. My opinion lies the same in that I believe (along with many law enforcement officials) that the vetting process to get a gun should be much tougher as well as that the Right To Bear Arms doesn't disqualify Governments both State and Federal from determining what arms are permissible under the law.

No many how many times you want to make it so, gun control != taking everyones guns.

New York City Mayor Bloomberg seems to be on the right track: http://news.yahoo.com/bloomberg-rolls-anti-gun-violence-campaign-201359366.html

And lets cut to the chase GRS: Do you believe the 2nd amendment allows the US citizen unfettered access to ALL and ANY weaponry or just some and how do you make that distinction as based off of the wording of the 2nd?

Bloomberg? On gun control? This forum doesn't have a "ROFL" emoticon intense enough to respond to that. That man is a joke. Oh yeah, he claims to support 2A just like all the anti-gunners "support" it. Then why is it next to impossible for law abiding citizens to get a permit in his "haven" of a joke of a city? You may as well just go ahead cite the brady foundation and claim that they are "unbiased" and "reasonable." I really want to continue to ignore you, especially after you have revealed who you support, but stuff like that just cannot go ignored. Hell, the guy wants to ban high capacity drinks!

I've already answered the rest of your post previously in this thread. This discussion is only going in circles because nobody is providing a backed-up counter-argument, instead continuing to spew the same bullshit. It doesn't matter if someone who doesn't understand the problem doesn't see why people should have AR15's; they haven't given them a reason not to. In fact, and as I've pointed out a million times already, those are the "safest" guns around. But what do I know, I'm only going off of official statistics and not the personal but false belief of an incredibly asinine mayor. There is no evidence supporting any sort of further ban, restriction, or regulation, outside of closing the gunshow loophole. Even that has its issues, but is at least aimed at the right people. Guess what, my opinion is right in line with tons of Law enforcement officers as well. I fail to see how you can say that as though it carries any weight when 1. It works both ways, and 2. it is not a supported claim. I'm not going to go over the logical wording of 2A again. If you want to read what I think about this, re-read this discussion.

Citing Bloomberg on gun control... man that is rich...:laugh: He seems to be "on the right track according" to your and his unfounded and unsupported position. Sure, he says he wants to keep guns out of criminals hands and some of his legal work reflects that. Ok, fantastic, now how about all of his other "legal" work that infringes on the rights of the non-criminals. Where's your take on that? That man is so blatantly and foolishly anti-gun that no reasonable person could support or should cite him on the matter. Given the facts, form offices of the very government that seeks the ban, suggesting that New York, or that idiot bloomberg is what we need when it comes to guns is just foolish. Still waiting for those facts from a real source. (from anybody, this is not directed at froggy)

Tell you what, since you like to claim that I claim that you claim things, please, tell me what it is that you think should be done about firearms in the US. I've already shown, with support that nobody has been able to contest, that 1. AR15's and similar weapons are NOT at all the problem, that 2. guns are used more often in defense than in homicide by quite a lot, and 3. that this magical 10-round number doesn't mean anything; and actually only further endangers people who may need more for their own safety and who don't use them in crimes, which is the vast majority. So, because you (seem to) allude to so much yet actually don't say much on the matter, what is it that you support? Keeping guns out of criminals hands? Ok, yeah, no crap, we need to work on that. Nobody is arguing with that... I've given my position in a very blunt manner many times already and I've supported it. Please, sum up yours, and why, and support it in a one post summary. You keep trying to tell me that the government can regulate types of guns (which I've shown that they cannot) but then tell me you aren't calling for bans and that I am wrongly accusing you of things. You must see why I am making assumptions about your position... If you don't support bans on certain weapons, then why are you so adamant on discussing what 2A allows? Seems like it'd be irrelevant to your argument. Background checks of guns should be a no-brainer. Anything beyond that has not and will not do anything and is an unfounded infringement placed upon the people who obey laws.

Or perhaps you'd like to go back to economics and the affects of the "fiscal cliff"... Probably more interesting at this point.

Edited by GRS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And seriously, the ripping on the NRA is old and pointless. Froggy: no, that is not how it went down. Yes the NRA has flaws. No the NRA does not promote gun violence.

You may as well just go ahead cite the brady foundation and claim that they are "unbiased" and "reasonable."

Ahhh, ok, I see how this works now :rolleyes:

As I stated many pages ago -stat wars here are pointless and I've yet to go "fact digging" from anti-gun websites to back my opinion. Somehow I doubt the same is true for your case as I hear the exact same stats on CNN from NRA spokespeople. As for your "dare" for someone to prove to you that your statistical argument is flawed -I'll leave you proud and to your chest thumping as again I feel no need to get into a stats war with a rabid gun advocate.

Bloomberg makes reasonable requests and I hope many of his ideas are implemented as I'm sure much of the Nation agrees. We agree on closing the gun show loopholes and if the assault weapon ban gets reinstated I wont lose a wink either. Its just sad so many feel the need to cling to their $500 piece of metal living in fear of the unknown or that Blue Helmeted soldiers sent from the Hague are coming to bust open their bomb shelter basements and *gasp* let the sunlight in by force :butbut:

I leave you to your open ended challenge and good luck to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rabid gun advocate? I cited the damn NCVS, not the NRA or some whack-job far-left New York mayor; way to change up the facts there. You'll note that I said that stupidly blaming the NRA for things that they were uninvolved in is dumb, not that I back everything they say or am using them to support my argument. Hell, I used GOVERNMENT studies, which really works the LEAST for my cause if anything, especially using the NCVS which is famous for under-reporting and the defensive gun use presented in it is the lowest number of any real source I could find. I used my weakest statistics against you and you still call me a "rabid gun advocate." If you really did hear the same stats from the NRA, then good for them for actually using the real statistics. Or do you want to claim that the government that is calling for unreasonable and noneffective bans is using false and "nurtured" numbers in support of their opposition? "...cling to their $500 piece of metal living in fear of the unknown..." You mean the known 100,000+ defensive gun uses per year according TO THE GOVERNMENT? Not much "unknown" about that. Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you "are sure" that the nation agrees with you. I should know better than to question your unsupported claims. Not to mention, whether or not anybody agrees, doesn't make it reasonable or correct, since, as I've showed again and again, it doesn't work, and therefore has no reason, thus not *reasonable*. Its just sad so many (like YOU) feel the need to cling to their idiotic and unsupported belief in fear of the non or barely-existent. Guess what, a lot of people agree with me too; big deal, that claim is not a fact source.

Oh, yeah, Bloomberg certainly is a brilliant being. Gotta ban dem horrid, evil, high capacity beverages too! The guy is a nut.

Rabid gun advocate my ass.... Close the gunshow loophole. I don't like it, but there is actually some reason behind it. Banning AR15's and standard capacity magazines? None what-so-ever. Actually: correction: VERY little, which is FAR outweighed by the good they are used for, so yeah, none. I think you are just a rabid anti-gunner who can't handle the truth. :j:

Edited by GRS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been here long enough and when I say something, it's because I know for sure that it will go nowhere.

I am locking this thread for a few days so all sides can calm down. After that I do not wish to see gun debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT: removed the video links.

Edited by mrcash2009
Was still gun debate, oops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@mrcash2009

the instruction was quite clear:

I've been here long enough and when I say something, it's because I know for sure that it will go nowhere.

I am locking this thread for a few days so all sides can calm down. After that I do not wish to see gun debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it would be a good idea to move all this discussion to seperate thread, and let them continue there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myke;2277065']@mrcash2009

the instruction was quite clear:

Hi Myke' date=' ah ok, I havent been on the forum that much recent and saw prior conversations, must have missed that last wording of the post so removed the (almost comedy) videos.

As a thought, maybe mods could edit the thread title and end it with [b']{*NO GUN DEBATE PLEASE*)[/b] or something. Only becuase the odd post gets lost and things might end up back that way if missed. Just an idea, becuase lets face it USA Poltics is exactly what it falls into as a title which can also get missed at present. Dont let that be confused with being critical, just might help I guess.

Edited by mrcash2009

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe just have anyone not from the US stay the fuck out of this thread.

Or maybe take that attitude and stay away from the forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seen The Campgin by Will Ferrel and Zach Galifianakis this night. It seemed like a pretty spot on representation of US campaign wars :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I said it shouldn't have one.

Theres always the moderator request thread :p Or going by your previous statement posters need to be vetted by location before posting anything, now that WOULD make it pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe just have anyone not from the US stay the fuck out of this thread.
This site more than any other in history needs to not have an off topic area.

Off topic section is useful when people tries to post useful things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Change it to USA politics thread (Gun Debate = Ban) and that should help ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But is it really possible to separate USA Politics and Gun Debate?

Well I guess we have to try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But is it really possible to separate USA Politics and Gun Debate?

Well I guess we have to try.

USA and guns, not really possible. USA politics and guns, somewhat.

Truth be told, guns aren't main problem in the US, whatsoever most of the supplies made it to mid east while crime rates are on decline across US, the reason why it's so hyped in this thread and across the globe is media, majority of people will believe what they see on tv, but then again that's another story.

What's really going wrong in US is high levels of immigration, worsening health care, higher taxes, bank loans, lack of education in some areas, ageing road infrastructure, war/combat expenses, gadget materials (most are imported, which costs a lot) unhealthy food, endangered cultures, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends from which side you are looking at it ;)

If you are the one seeking a better life in another country, then it's the best thing that can happen to you and your family, if you are a native to your country, then immigration is a very bad thing because it not only distorts your original country's culture but puts your country at risk because most immigrants come with almost nothing, have to build from scratch, live in the shadows, are poorly educated and can't find proper jobs, and if they can't find proper jobs they commit crimes. It's a very important yet sensitive topic, specially in the US where half are white, other half are mixed/black and each race holds different views regardless of whether immigrants are white, mixed, black or whatever.

Helping someone is a good thing for humanity, US does this by letting many immigrants flock in and live a better life, but this comes with a very high price of nationwide instability (just take a look at all those protests, Anonymous-like groups, etc) which almost always results in a civil war (in developed nations) or invasion (in poor 3rd world countries).

The reason why immigration views may be labeled as racist is because most immigrants are mixed race and because of their cultural diversity they gather up in same places (China towns, Indian blocks, etc) places that then end up being poorly developed because all those immigrants had to start from little or nothing at all and compete with people who have a lot more than them. This then leads to racial abuse and eventually to bloodshed, we all know who wins this fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×