Gun Control

[One Brow]

When I am threatened my general reaction is anger not fear. Also your question indicated that it has to be one or the other. That is a false assertion.

It's the fear that leads to anger. I'm presuming that when a toddler says they'll spank you, you get amused, not angry. T%hat's because the toddler poses no threat, so there is no fear to convert to anger.

As for the yelling at an NRA rally it depends on what they are yelling and why but you know all this. Is that crowd singling out someone present? Are they shouting slurs? Are they holding their weapons in an aggressive manner?

Only one of those three (slurs) applied to the Philadelphia incident, if you were trying to draw a parallel. So, if you go to an NRA rally, and you see people with guns yelling about "Communists" trying to take your guns, do you get fearful (sorry, angry)? I'd wager not.

Stop trying to play political games.

I haven't mentioned politics.

I care that they are members of a hate group, in full gear yelling racial slurs and brandishing weapons.

Is it important that the slurs be racial? Because outside of that, you're describing an NRA meeting.

You can argue semantics all you want ...

No semantics involved. Just perception.

 

[One Brow]

Does this change anyone's stance on the proposed gun control regulations, assuming it's true?

Unless you limit the number of guns a person can own (and no one is proposing that), I agree there is nothing that could be done to stop a situation exactly like Newtown. However, since future situations will not be exactly like Newtown, I think we can make a few changes to reduce the damage that can be done.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Unless you limit the number of guns a person can own (and no one is proposing that), I agree there is nothing that could be done to stop a situation exactly like Newtown. However, since future situations will not be exactly like Newtown, I think we can make a few changes to reduce the damage that can be done.

Well since it was Newtown that prompted these changes, if the changes wouldn't have prevented it then there is no reason to consider them.

 

[Stoked]

It's the fear that leads to anger. I'm presuming that when a toddler says they'll spank you, you get amused, not angry. T%hat's because the toddler poses no threat, so there is no fear to convert to anger.



Only one of those three (slurs) applied to the Philadelphia incident, if you were trying to draw a parallel. So, if you go to an NRA rally, and you see people with guns yelling about "Communists" trying to take your guns, do you get fearful (sorry, angry)? I'd wager not.



I haven't mentioned politics.



Is it important that the slurs be racial? Because outside of that, you're describing an NRA meeting.



No semantics involved. Just perception.

I can see that you are in one of your moods and truly have no desire to debate. Your goal at this point is simply to twist words to suit your purpose. For that you must find another poster.

Good day.

 

[Hartsock]

So are we for or against guns?

 

[One Brow]

Your goal at this point is simply to twist words to suit your purpose.

Good flounce. Very impressive.

My goals are/were:
1) Expose the double standard in your statements, possibly even one day getting you to see them yourself, and
2) Amuse myself in the process

It's only natural that you would see 1) as "twisting words". That's the only way you can see it while holding that double standard.

 

[One Brow]

Well since it was Newtown that prompted these changes, if the changes wouldn't have prevented it then there is no reason to consider them.

So, the emotional impetus for a change must be immediately addressed by the change, or else the change has no value? I disagree. Changes can have a value independent of their emotional impetus. If you change your eating habits after a heart attack, you can improve your health, regardless of whether you would ever have had a second heart attack.

 

[SaltyDawg]

So, the emotional impetus for a change must be immediately addressed by the change, or else the change has no value? I disagree. Changes can have a value independent of their emotional impetus. If you change your eating habits after a heart attack, you can improve your health, regardless of whether you would ever have had a second heart attack.

Well if that change is going to strip American citizens of our rights and personal freedoms, causing a huge divide among the people in this country, then it had better address the actual problem if it's going to be considered.

If I have a heart attack and then change my eating habits, chances are I would have never had the heart attack if I had changed my diet sooner. In this case, the proposed gun control laws would not have done a damn thing to prevent the Newtown shooting, no matter how early they were enacted. Further, we now know that the existing laws did their job and denied the shooter the opportunity to buy his own gun shortly before the shooting. And we also know that he, as criminals often do, found a way to get them anyway (illegally).

This gun control crap has now been exposed to be an over reaction. It's time to move on and forget about it.

 

[One Brow]

Well if that change is going to strip American citizens of our rights and personal freedoms, causing a huge divide among the people in this country, then it had better address the actual problem if it's going to be considered.

Not every past shooting has been identical to Newtown (in fact, none have). Not every future shooting will be identical to Newtown (in fact, none will). Therefore, there is a difference between saying "would not have addressed Newtown" and "will not address the problem".

I do agree we should not strip people of their rights. Which of the proposed measures do you see as stripping people of their rights?

 

[SaltyDawg]

Not every past shooting has been identical to Newtown (in fact, none have). Not every future shooting will be identical to Newtown (in fact, none will). Therefore, there is a difference between saying "would not have addressed Newtown" and "will not address the problem".

I do agree we should not strip people of their rights. Which of the proposed measures do you see as stripping people of their rights?

Well since it was the Newtown shooting that was so terrible it got the nation taking about gun control, if the measures wouldn't have helped prevent the Newtown shooting then we should not be considering them.

The proposals I am most concerned with are the limits on magazine sizes and the assault weapons ban. Both of those are putting restrictions on our constitutional rights.

As I have said earlier in this thread, if you want to make them illegal for everyone (police, military, etc) then we can talk about it. But if you're just talking about taking them away from me, wine letting a few elites keep them, then you're ignoring/revoking my 2nd amendment rights.

The 2nd amendment isn't guaranteeing me the right to hunt deer, it's guaranteeing me the right to defend myself against the government. So if you're saying I'm not allowed to have the weapons that their agents carry around every minute of every day, then you're stripping me of that right.

I'm also concerned with the proposed new background checks. What exactly is going to cause a denial? That needs to be very clearly spelled out before we just give a blanket approval to a new system that is designed to deny certain people of their rights. Who will be denied and why will they be denied?

 

[candrew]

When I saw pictures of those imbeciles walking around Malls and Wal-Marts with their AR-15's strapped to their back it reminded me of something I read about how Black Panthers in the 60's and 70's did the same thing - "patrol" their neighborhood brandishing shot guns and "observing" Police activity while openly brandishing firearms. Then I found this article. Not sure I agree with it 100%; but I found this rather amusing.

https://www.theroot.com/views/fear-black-gun-owner?wpisrc=root_lightbox

Then Gov. Ronald Reagan, now lauded as the patron saint of modern conservatism, told reporters in California that he saw "no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons." Reagan claimed that the Mulford Act, as it became known, "would work no hardship on the honest citizen." The NRA actually helped craft similar legislation in states across the country

 

[Stoked]

When I saw pictures of those imbeciles walking around Malls and Wal-Marts with their AR-15's strapped to their back it reminded me of something I read about how Black Panthers in the 60's and 70's did the same thing - "patrol" their neighborhood brandishing shot guns and "observing" Police activity while openly brandishing firearms. Then I found this article. Not sure I agree with it 100%; but I found this rather amusing.

https://www.theroot.com/views/fear-black-gun-owner?wpisrc=root_lightbox

As much as Reagan is lauded by conservatives he is still just a man. Here I think he is wrong. As for the Black Panthers you mention. If they were not making threatening gestures or acting in some other agressive manner then good for them.