Your logic is dizzying

this is only the most recent example of "GOP logic" that spins the head in circles. republicans are a dying breed. i never thought i'd see the NRA on its back foot in my lifetime, but it happened with the suddenness of a broken shoelace. that recent press conference was a joke.

i personally have changed my view from "yes, i would like common sense gun safety measures, but it's a losing battle" to "OK, let's get some common sense gun safety measures in place" with this recent tragedy.

and before anyone accuses me, wanting common sense gun safety measures does not make me anti-gun anymore than wanting common sense automobile safety measures makes me anti-automobile. yes, one is a right and the other is a privilege, but all rights are abridged.

even reagan fervently supported the assault weapons ban. listen to your savior, righties. follow his example. or perish. your choice.

UncleBuck said:

and before anyone accuses me, wanting common sense gun safety measures does not make me anti-gun anymore than wanting common sense automobile safety measures makes me anti-automobile. yes, one is a right and the other is a privilege, but all rights are abridged

Click to expand...

I think everyone is for common sense gun safety measures.

Where people diverge is on what exactly should be included in there "common sense gun safety measures".
The left wants bans and controls which results in a loss of liberties and freedoms for everyone
The right wants education and more persons to be able to protect themselves with weaponry from the mentally unstable and crazy

I think the best and only way to describe the situation is: there is no "perfect" solution.

fb360 said:

I think everyone is for common sense gun safety measures.

Click to expand...

demonstrably false. 1 out of every 20 americans doesn't believe in a simple background check.

fb360 said:

Where people diverge is on what exactly should be included in there "common sense gun safety measures".
The left wants bans and controls which results in a loss of liberties and freedoms for everyone

Click to expand...

overgeneralization. i can not come up with any democrat who favors outright bans. the only bans being called for are on weapons of war, not self defense or hunting.

and since you seem to agree that we should have "common sense gun safety measures", what is the difference between those measures and "controls"?

also, gun ownership is a right, not a "liberty", it is a right. and every right is abridged. the right to own a gun was included for "the militia" to ensure "the security of a free state". as it was written, that pretty much meant to repel invading armies.

UncleBuck said:

overgeneralization. i can not come up with any democrat who favors outright bans. the only bans being called for are on weapons of war, not self defense or hunting.

Click to expand...

Have you not read the threads in this subforum?

UncleBuck said:

and since you seem to agree that we should have "common sense gun safety measures", what is the difference between those measures and "controls"?

Click to expand...

I never stated that there are any differences, nor did I state they are equivalent. In fact, I imply that "common sense gun safety measures" can be "controls" through my statement of what I believe the left wants.

UncleBuck said:

also, gun ownership is a right, not a "liberty", it is a right. and every right is abridged. the right to own a gun was included for "the militia" to ensure "the security of a free state". as it was written, that pretty much meant to repel invading armies.

Click to expand...

It was also meant to repel our government, and any organization trying to take away the "rights" our forefathers fought for, listed in our Constitution

For me limiting the guns that are sold isn't the issue. The issue for me is that doing so is a waste of time. It's the easy knee jerk reaction that will not solve any problems at all.

fb360 said:

Have you not read the threads in this subforum?

Click to expand...

how many of our members legislate in washington?

fb360 said:

I never stated that there are any differences. In fact, I imply that "common sense gun safety measures" can be "controls" through my statement of what I believe the left wants.

Click to expand...

so you support gun controls then. good to know, fellow comrade.

fb360 said:

It was also meant to repel our government, and any organization trying to take away the "rights" our forefathers fought for, listed in our Constitution

Click to expand...

they decidedly penned "the security of a free state". their idea was that the muskets they used could overthrow their own government if need be. not sure they ever imagined nukes, chemical weapons, tanks, and assault rifles.

overthrowing our own government only applies if you view the constitution as an evolving, living, document. so it's your choice. either option is generally unacceptable to righties, although cannabineer has no such conflict as a radical centrist.

sync0s said:

For me limiting the guns that are sold isn't the issue. The issue for me is that doing so is a waste of time. It's the easy knee jerk reaction that will not solve any problems at all.

Click to expand...

knee jerk?

how many massacres did we let go in the last year or two before this one? how many murders at the point of a gun have we seen since those 20 kids were removed from this mortal coil?

this has been a long time coming. the fact that it happened to a couple dozen kindergarteners was the catalyst.

UncleBuck said:

knee jerk?

how many massacres did we let go in the last year or two before this one? how many murders at the point of a gun have we seen since those 20 kids were removed from this mortal coil?

this has been a long time coming. the fact that it happened to a couple dozen kindergarteners was the catalyst.

Click to expand...

My point exactly. This happened, now you run to gun control. It won't do anything.

UncleBuck said:

how many of our members legislate in washington?

Click to expand...

You said, "any democrat", so I took it as all individuals who can be classified as "democrat".

UncleBuck said:

so you support gun controls then. good to know, fellow comrade.

Click to expand...

Yes I do, but only to an extent. I believe background checks would be a good start, as well as education on gun safety, gun use, and gun storage. I do not believe in gun bans, many gun restrictions and controls, or gun free zones

UncleBuck said:

they decidedly penned "the security of a free state". their idea was that the muskets they used could overthrow their own government if need be. not sure they ever imagined nukes, chemical weapons, tanks, and assault rifles.

overthrowing our own government only applies if you view the constitution as an evolving, living, document. so it's your choice. either option is generally unacceptable to righties, although cannabineer has no such conflict as a radical centrist.

Click to expand...

I do not classify myself as a righty. I do not endorse their social beliefs, nor do/did I have any faith in their last 2 presidential candidates, and voiced that opinion by not voting for them.

fb360 said:

You said, "any democrat", so I took it as all individuals who can be classified as "democrat".


Yes I do, but only to an extent. I believe background checks would be a good start, as well as education on gun safety, gun use, and gun storage. I do not believe in gun bans, many gun restrictions and controls, or gun free zones


I do not classify myself as a righty. I do not endorse their social beliefs, nor do/did I have any faith in their last 2 presidential candidates, and voiced that opinion by not voting for them.

Click to expand...

Half admission to support for Bush?

sync0s said:

Half admission to support for Bush?

Click to expand...

Because I said "last 2"?

What does that have to do with this thread at all? Trying to be a fucktard? Think so.

PS: I said last 2 because I was unable to vote in either of Bush's terms. Didn't think of that, huh

fb360 said:

You said, "any democrat", so I took it as all individuals who can be classified as "democrat".

Click to expand...

i am not (D-UncleBuck), i am unclebuck. big difference.

fb360 said:

I do not classify myself as a righty. I do not endorse their social beliefs, nor do/did I have any faith in their last 2 presidential candidates, and voiced that opinion by not voting for them.

Click to expand...

i didn't ask if you were a righty, i asked whether you supported a living constitution or constitutional gun control.

you can't believe in neither.

sync0s said:

Half admission to support for Bush?

Click to expand...

fb360 said:

Because I said "last 2"?

What does that have to do with this thread at all? Trying to be a fucktard? Think so.

Click to expand...

the "last 2" republican candidates were romney or mccain (see: ew).

he trolled you good and you clearly bit, which i why i love/troll you. you're easy bait.

UncleBuck said:

i didn't ask if you were a righty, i asked whether you supported a living constitution or constitutional gun control.

you can't believe in neither.

Click to expand...

I don't understand exactly what you mean. I already stated I'm for some gun control, which obviously could only be if it was written into law. Moreover, I don't get what you mean by living constitution. Do you mean that the literal meaning of the constitution can change, or that the physical constitution can change?

UncleBuck said:

the "last 2" republican candidates were romney or mccain (see: ew).

he trolled you good and you clearly bit, which i why i love/troll you. you're easy bait.

Click to expand...

Nope.

He, much like you, doesn't understand how to read or use the english language, and literally made a dumbass assertion as a result.

Much like when you say "any democrat", and then immediately restrict it to "democrats in washington"

You guys are halfwits lol. Think you troll me... Only thing being trolled is your knowledge of the english language

Oh and PS: It's highly comical that you started using the words "halfwit" and "buffoon" on others in this subforum after I used them on you. Keep it up dude, you are totally trolling me with your continued insisting of being like me!

fb360 said:

I don't get what you mean by living constitution.

Click to expand...

then you're out of your element here.

fb360 said:

You guys are halfwits lol.

Click to expand...

and you're utterly confused by the meaning of a living versus a dead constitution.

go back to your toy robots and such, you are outmatched and too easily trolled for the politics section.

UncleBuck said:

then you're out of your element here.



and you're utterly confused by the meaning of a living versus a dead constitution.

go back to your toy robots and such, you are outmatched and too easily trolled for the politics section.

Click to expand...

I'm not the one arguing or asking anything concerning a "living constitution".

Seeing as how you can change "any democrat" into "do our members act in washington", I asked you to specify EXACTLY what you meant so you couldn't backpedal after I verbally merk you into oblivion.

Much like you're doing now. Keep that backpedal stroke form real tight

Good job buddy, you really got me again with that amazing troll!

I LOVE GUN CONTROLS!





Every Gun Should Have One!

Our logic is just fine. By the end of this post you'll understand why.

I propose meat eating controls. Children who torture animals are likely to kill people too. Once you kill, it desensitizes you. Eating meat can desensitize to the point of torturing animals. I don't propose banning. But there must be measures in place which identify these crazy people. So before I issue you a meat eating license, you must first have background checks. This so we don't have people like Jeffrey Dahmer again. See, all you meat eaters are selfish. Just because of your meat eating hobby, you'll risk another Dahmer who eats people!

So what's the harm in what I propose? Does the fact I'm a vegan give you doubts of my motives? If you think it does, then it's the same what I think your motives are who want gun control.

It really doesn't matter if you ban 'assault weapons', there will still be 4 million of them that are legally owned and operated in civilian hands. You won't be able to make those illegal to own, so any kind of "common sense" banning of so called assault weapons is doomed to complete failure.