Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Should students be allowed to walk out of school to support pro gun rights?


KCitons

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Matthias said:

I'm sorry, but this is the result of being in your own echo chamber. And a truly hyperbolic one at that.

There are multiple people here, and who are still here, who were vehemently against Hillary this past election. Vehemently. And do you know what happened? We got the facts and the reality of the Trump Administration. And this is one of, if not the, worst presidential administrations in history. Blatantly corrupt. Obviously unqualified. And acts without forethought or consultation. If somebody was to come and say, "I realize that Trump is enriching himself by spending 1 day out of 3 at his own properties, at the taxpayer expense. And I realize that shortly after Trump took office, the Chinese government granted him copyrights which he had spent 10 years fighting over. And I realize that Mueller's investigation has already brought down a number of Trump's closer advisors and it's an open question to whether or not he himself had any involvement. But you know what? I don't care. I just don't care if he enriches himself at the taxpayer expense. It doesn't bother me." Because you know what? Those last 3 sentences are an opinion. And it may be an opinion which someone might not be proud to have, but I'm fairly sure people would actually accept that. There would be the usual hypocrisy recriminations after people have spent years alleging and demonizing alleged corruption on behalf of the Clintons, but at least it's valid. But you also know what? That's not what happens. People come in here and deny the facts of reality. They say none of this has happened or is happening. And when confronted with facts and substantiation, they either flat-out deny the facts, they try to say, "Yeah, but what about Hillary?!?!", or simply move onto another point altogether. And that's what people here are sick of. 

Just yesterday, in the Lamb thread, someone said they liked him as a reasonable guy. And that if he was a Republican, they'd still like him. And you know what? At least based on his words and promises, so would I. Because contrary to this victimization mentality, and I daresay projection of one's own mentality, people aren't demonizing Republicans right now. At least not their voters. Congress has proved completely spineless and have completely failed to take up their obvious separate power duties. And there are some on the right who are outright racists. Publicly. With public statements. And I see no reason why any reasonable person should countenance a spineless Congress in the face of a corrupt Presidency. But that doesn't extend to simple party identification, provided that someone who identified as Republican accepted actual facts.

You came in here and started this thread, why? There was a movement that sprung up by children. Who are doing what they want. And who did as much, if not more, a remembrance service to the latest school attack, and asking the adults, "Why aren't you doing anything while we are dying?" And that is a completely reasonable question. And so administrations across the country allowed them to interrupt 1 school day for 17 minutes to call attention to it. Instead of letting that lie, you come in here and say, "Yeah, but what pro-gun demonstrations?!!juan!!" And you know what? People took your question more seriously than it deserved. They said, we don't have a problem with students protesting. Why would we? They're free to skip class. They're free to express themselves. And instead of saying, "Oh, ok." you acted, and are still acting, as if some bias against conservative opinions have completely shut you down. Do you know what should be shut down? Stupid whataboutisms. 

Current conservatives, especially here, aren't scorned because they have a different point of view. They're engaged in debate as long as they keep it above board. For the first few weeks StealthyCat was here, people actually went out of their way to praise him. His political views and perspectives haven't changed since. His willingness to accept facts has. And people (unwarrantedly, imo) still try to engage him. But he's fallen in general esteem because he only engaged in the level of chicanery and specious arguments.

In a place of debate and discussion, different perspective and opinions are fine. Inability or refusal to accept actual facts which form the basis of legitimate conversation really don't. And it's well past time that all posters here recognize that.

Fixed. There are 4 lines of your post worth noting. The rest is Blah, Blah, Blah, Trump, Blah, Blah, Blah, conservatives, Blah, Blah, Blah, stupid, Blah, Blah, Blah.

My own echo chamber? Really? Every post in this forum is spun into a reason why our lives are miserable because of Trump. Then the posse comes in and it turns into a circle jerk of posters that wallow in the sorrow that is the state of this country. Soon after, someone posts a differing opinion and all hell breaks loose as if the devil himself has been revealed and must be driven out. 

Stupid? Whataboutisms? You must not read many posts. This place is full of them. Don't act like I'm unique in this way. I'm not. 

Facts. People don't want to look at facts. Unless that fact is that people die every day from things that have nothing to do with guns. The fact that since the last school shooting dozens of people have died because of alcohol related driving. Yet, the fact remains, there is no more use for alcohol in society than their are guns. This appears to me that the people who die from a bullet are valued more than people who die from the cause of a drunk driver. Sure, numbers may have gone down, but why is the new number acceptable? Nobody can give us a number of shootings, instead it's a vague goal we hope to achieve through removing as many of them from society as we can. And before you go all off the deep end with your response, I posted years ago that I would be happy to give up my guns if it guaranteed there would be no more gun violence. But, the fact is, nobody can guarantee anything. That is a giant whataboutism, to use your own vernacular. I'm also in agreement with universal background checks and possibly raising age limits. We can't fix the drug problem in this country, what makes us think we can fix the gun problem. When you think about it, most law abiding citizens don't do drugs, yet they're illegal. Most law abiding gun owners don't shoot people, so why make them illegal. 

Lastly, why did I start this thread? Because the conversation began in another thread. And I figured I would get complaints that I was hijacking that one, so I started this one. So, I learned from past mistakes, yet people still aren't happy. I also wanted to know how people felt about the opposite side when it comes to these protests. There are so many posters that are lost in an emotional battle with this issue, I wanted to see if they are willing to withhold other peoples rights to be heard. Even if the message wasn't what they liked.

Now a question for you. Why did you post in this thread? Obviously, the easy solution would have been to let the original post sit there with zero responses. Within an hour it would have been on page 2. Within a day, gone and forgotten. But, in the end, most of the posters here can't help themselves. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Fixed. There are 4 lines of your post worth noting. The rest is Blah, Blah, Blah, Trump, Blah, Blah, Blah, conservatives, Blah, Blah, Blah, stupid, Blah, Blah, Blah.

My own echo chamber? Really? Every post in this forum is spun into a reason why our lives are miserable because of Trump. Then the posse comes in and it turns into a circle jerk of posters that wallow in the sorrow that is the state of this country. Soon after, someone posts a differing opinion and all hell breaks loose as if the devil himself has been revealed and must be driven out. 

Stupid? Whataboutisms? You must not read many posts. This place is full of them. Don't act like I'm unique in this way. I'm not. 

Facts. People don't want to look at facts. Unless that fact is that people die every day from things that have nothing to do with guns. The fact that since the last school shooting dozens of people have died because of alcohol related driving. Yet, the fact remains, there is no more use for alcohol in society than their are guns. This appears to me that the people who die from a bullet are valued more than people who die from the cause of a drunk driver. Sure, numbers may have gone down, but why is the new number acceptable? Nobody can give us a number of shootings, instead it's a vague goal we hope to achieve through removing as many of them from society as we can. And before you go all off the deep end with your response, I posted years ago that I would be happy to give up my guns if it guaranteed there would be no more gun violence. But, the fact is, nobody can guarantee anything. That is a giant whataboutism, to use your own vernacular. I'm also in agreement with universal background checks and possibly raising age limits. We can't fix the drug problem in this country, what makes us think we can fix the gun problem. When you think about it, most law abiding citizens don't do drugs, yet they're illegal. Most law abiding gun owners don't shoot people, so why make them illegal. 

Lastly, why did I start this thread? Because the conversation began in another thread. And I figured I would get complaints that I was hijacking that one, so I started this one. So, I learned from past mistakes, yet people still aren't happy. I also wanted to know how people felt about the opposite side when it comes to these protests. There are so many posters that are lost in an emotional battle with this issue, I wanted to see if they are willing to withhold other peoples rights to be heard. Even if the message wasn't what they liked.

Now a question for you. Why did you post in this thread? Obviously, the easy solution would have been to let the original post sit there with zero responses. Within an hour it would have been on page 2. Within a day, gone and forgotten. But, in the end, most of the posters here can't help themselves. 

:golfclap:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, KCitons said:

My own echo chamber? Really?

Yes.....see below:

2 hours ago, KCitons said:

Fixed. There are 4 lines of your post worth noting. The rest is Blah, Blah, Blah, Trump, Blah, Blah, Blah, conservatives, Blah, Blah, Blah, stupid, Blah, Blah, Blah.

About all I can say is be the change you want to see :shrug: 

I still have zero clue what the goal of your first post was and several have asked to clarify and you have yet to do so.  Not sure what you're expecting when you approach "discussion" that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, -fish- said:

Can't really tell why the teacher was actually suspended.   “A Rocklin High School teacher has been placed on paid administrative leave due to several complaints from parents and students involving the teacher’s communications regarding today’s student-led civic engagement activities.”  She apparently turned the discussion of the walkout into a debate about abortion.   There is no other information about the reasons she was suspended other than her opinion. 

The student was suspended because he refused to leave the classroom.   Students had the option of participating in the walkout or going to study hall.   They did not have the option of remaining unattended in the building.   He chose to refuse to follow the school's rules.  

Neither of these is an example of not being able to counterprotest.  Both seem to be violations of school policies.

I am not entirely in agreement on the student.  The student remaining in the classroom could, in my mind, be a symbolic protest of the protests.  That student could be seen as holding the position that teaching is the mission of schools and that he was entitled to be taught the curriculum, not to accommodate the protesting of others by cooperating and heading to the study hall. 

 

Interesting.  If the walkout was school sanctioned the school may have changed the curriculum, and who knows what that takes or whether that was done correctly.  If so the walkout was not a protest but his actions were.  But wasn't the walkout originally to be a protest, a show of solidarity? If the school was teaching the value of protest, of civil disobedience, he may have embodied the principle, and then been punished.

 

Others smarter than I can hash all of this out.  Me, I do not believe I would have suspended the student for remaining in a classroom.

Edited by Ditkaless Wonders
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, TobiasFunke said:

Did you read the "student suspended" story? 

Sure sounds like they gave him a non-participation option and he refused it.  Why?  Who knows.  Maybe because he wanted to give far right websites with dubious journalistic chops material they could use to fuel the conservative persecution complex.  But it doesn't look like he was suspended for simply refusing to take sides and protest to me.

Or maybe he found a third option during sanctioned protest time.  This one could have, in my mind, been handled better by the school.  I imagine that it will be handled without a suspension going on his record after they think about it some more.  Either way I am not charged up about this, but I find it an intellectual curiosity.  Issues always seem to get entangled when we politicize school activities in the least, and yet doing so seems to be an national obsession, or perhaps it is more accurate to say that being perceived as doing so is a bit of a national obsession since both sides of the political debate seem to focus on the proper indoctrination of the next generation.  Given the tools to think and to be free thinkers seems, sometimes. to come second to us recruiting the future. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, The Commish said:

I still have zero clue what the goal of your first post was and several have asked to clarify and you have yet to do so.  Not sure what you're expecting when you approach "discussion" that way.

Maybe you just didn't want to listen to the answer. Or maybe it wasn't the answer you wanted to accept. But, the underlined is false. 

13 hours ago, KCitons said:

Lastly, why did I start this thread? Because the conversation began in another thread. And I figured I would get complaints that I was hijacking that one, so I started this one. So, I learned from past mistakes, yet people still aren't happy. I also wanted to know how people felt about the opposite side when it comes to these protests. There are so many posters that are lost in an emotional battle with this issue, I wanted to see if they are willing to withhold other peoples rights to be heard. Even if the message wasn't what they liked.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

You made the claim it was a fact.  Please back up your claim.  I'm calling BS on this one.  If you can back up your so-called facts then I will admit you are right.  Until then I will call you out on it.

It’s neither wrong nor right - the way he phrased it means it’s just an opinion.  I’m not even saying his opinion is wrong but it’s not a fact.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AAABatteries said:

It’s neither wrong nor right - the way he phrased it means it’s just an opinion.  I’m not even saying his opinion is wrong but it’s not a fact.  

He may have phrased it that way originally but then followed up but saying it was indeed fact.  I'd like to see him prove it.  I gave him the opportunity to admit is was his opinion, he chose to stick with it as being fact.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Maybe you just didn't want to listen to the answer. Or maybe it wasn't the answer you wanted to accept. 

You asked a question to start the thread, and within the first handful of posts you got the answer, it's just not the one you wanted.  You were presumably hoping to spring some "gotcha!" on those hypocritical libs who support gun control protests but obviously wouldn't support a pro-gun protest, right?  I'm sorry it didn't work out for you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

You made the claim it was a fact.  Please back up your claim.  I'm calling BS on this one.  If you can back up your so-called facts then I will admit you are right.  Until then I will call you out on it.

Fact - people die from guns and from alcohol related deaths every day. While alcohol can have small health benefits, that's only if the taken in moderation. (the one end of the spectrum) The same way that a gun can bring stress relief through doing something you enjoy. This can range from sport shooting to hunting. (also the one end of the spectrum). When used the wrong way, a gun can be used to harm people, the same way that alcohol (when used the wrong way) can be used to hurt people. (the other end of the spectrum).

If you take away guns, would there be benefits that outweigh the negatives? Sure. If you banned alcohol, would the benefits outweigh the negatives? I believe they would. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KCitons said:

Fact - people die from guns and from alcohol related deaths every day. While alcohol can have small health benefits, that's only if the taken in moderation. (the one end of the spectrum) The same way that a gun can bring stress relief through doing something you enjoy. This can range from sport shooting to hunting. (also the one end of the spectrum). When used the wrong way, a gun can be used to harm people, the same way that alcohol (when used the wrong way) can be used to hurt people. (the other end of the spectrum).

If you take away guns, would there be benefits that outweigh the negatives? Sure. If you banned alcohol, would the benefits outweigh the negatives? I believe they would. 

The points you made are just fine and I won't argue them but I don't see any facts stating one is more beneficial than the other.  Both have positives and negatives.  Both probably end up having more negatives than positives though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ignoratio Elenchi said:

You asked a question to start the thread, and within the first handful of posts you got the answer, it's just not the one you wanted.  You were presumably hoping to spring some "gotcha!" on those hypocritical libs who support gun control protests but obviously wouldn't support a pro-gun protest, right?  I'm sorry it didn't work out for you. 

You should read further than 2 posts. It sounds like you got the answer you were looking for and that 2 people speak for everyone else. 

Some of the other comments were backhanded agreement to counter protesters. How about "People already have a right to own guns. What would the kids be protesting for?"  Isn't this a statement that says people shouldn't counter protest? Are the protests not in an effort to make a change and take something away from lawful gun owners? Should those people sit around in silence and wait for the laws to change, then they should protest?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Hawkeye21 said:

The points you made are just fine and I won't argue them but I don't see any facts stating one is more beneficial than the other.  Both have positives and negatives.  Both probably end up having more negatives than positives though.

Thank you. The bolded is more accurate statement of what I should have posted. 

Yet, when we talk about the deaths related to alcohol, there is no urgency. Just referral to the laws that are already in place and the education around drinking and driving. But, when it comes to guns, there are those (here and in society in general) that want to stop at nothing less than an outright ban through removing the 2nd Amendment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, KCitons said:

Thank you. The bolded is more accurate statement of what I should have posted. 

Yet, when we talk about the deaths related to alcohol, there is no urgency. Just referral to the laws that are already in place and the education around drinking and driving. But, when it comes to guns, there are those (here and in society in general) that want to stop at nothing less than an outright ban through removing the 2nd Amendment. 

This is where I think most people disagree with you.  Lots of changes have been made over the years and continue.  There isn't an "NRA" type group fighting against drinking regulations, as far as I know.  Most people are in favor of sensible drinking laws and driving laws as well.  Most people are in favor of being safer on the roads and drinking responsibly.  Even the beer companies are on board with it and advertise it.  They tell their customers to drink responsibly and make sure to have a sober driver.  Very, very, very different from the gun debate.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hawkeye21 said:

This is where I think most people disagree with you.  Lots of changes have been made over the years and continue.  There isn't an "NRA" type group fighting against drinking regulations, as far as I know.  Most people are in favor of sensible drinking laws and driving laws as well.  Most people are in favor of being safer on the roads and drinking responsibly.  Even the beer companies are on board with it and advertise it.  They tell their customers to drink responsibly and make sure to have a sober driver.  Very, very, very different from the gun debate.

Right, so the only solution is to ban guns in order to save lives? There is no in between? No educational approach to try to fix the problem before banning? I have no solution for the NRA, but I also know that there are a lot of gun owners that feel the same way I do, but don't support the NRA. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Matthias said:

You seem to lack basic reading comprehension skills. Which is a bad thing when you're trying to talk politics through a medium which is only reading with people whose IQs are over 130. We seem to have found your problem.

Then maybe someone smarter should dumb it down for me. That statement reads that gun owners have no reason to defend their rights. 

Edited by KCitons
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, KCitons said:

Right, so the only solution is to ban guns in order to save lives? There is no in between? No educational approach to try to fix the problem before banning? I have no solution for the NRA, but I also know that there are a lot of gun owners that feel the same way I do, but don't support the NRA. 

I don't think banning is the only option and I have yet to see anyone ever say that is the only option.  I've seen people say that they would be fine with it happening but certainly not saying it is the only option.  I do think it is one option but it's not going to be the only option and probably not the best.  Banning specific guns is another option but not the only one.  I would like to see more research done.  I would like to see some new regulations.  There are more than one option but not a single one have I seen gun supporters even consider entertaining.  That's the biggest issue I see, the one side is not interested in working together at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Matthias said:

That's not the same thing as opposing their right to do so, if they like. You're free to stage a protest to have access to the Internet. People here are saying whatever, go ahead and do it. But it's a pretty pointless thing to do.

I don't think this response applies to the statement on the first page. "People already have a right to own guns. What would the kids be protesting for?"  This statement doesn't say go ahead and protest, it asks what do the kids (and any lawful gun owner) need to protest for?

If they believe that the proposed bans are too much, why shouldn't they protest against those bans. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Matthias said:

It doesn't in any way deny their right to protest. It's asking, "Why would you protest for your right to have a car or indoor plumbing?"

And we are back to the point of the thread. There are people that see gun owners as having no reason to defend their right to own a gun. Of course everyone has a right to protest whatever they want. I was looking for the opinions of the people here. I think I found it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Matthias said:

If this is obvious, then this is a pretty stupid question. "Should students be allowed to walk out of school to support pro gun rights?"

And you're back to the insults. Do you think calling it stupid adds any benefit to the conversation? Perhaps it could have been worded as "would you support students protesting to support gun rights?"

But, since the title is what it is, why is it that every single person didn't just say "yes" and move on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am probably in the top 1% of firearm owners (own more than 10) but I've never felt my right to own them has been in peril, or even close.  I find this conversation super weird.  People usually don't protest to keep the status quo, but go for it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dedfin said:

I am probably in the top 1% of firearm owners (own more than 10) but I've never felt my right to own them has been in peril, or even close.  I find this conversation super weird.  People usually don't protest to keep the status quo, but go for it.

Do you think gun laws will be changing in the next year? Do you think certain things (bump stocks, magazine size, or specific models) will be banned in the next year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Matthias said:

It's insulting a question.

The reason people just didn't say, "Yes" and move on is because you wouldn't let them.

Not true. People think I'm looking for a fight with this post. Truth is, I knew the answer before I created this thread. The train has started rolling down the track and anyone that get's in the way will be run over. It's not about understanding, educating, or listening to the other side (this has been proved over and over again in the gun threads), its about getting to some type of ban as soon as possible. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, KCitons said:

Do you think gun laws will be changing in the next year? Do you think certain things (bump stocks, magazine size, or specific models) will be banned in the next year?

No and no.  But I would support bump stocks being banned.  I would support some high capacity magazines being banned.  I do not own AR/AK style weapons and have no interest.  I'm generally not in favor of civilian guns mimicking military grade weapons.  My mind is open to change on this subject though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Dedfin said:

I am probably in the top 1% of firearm owners (own more than 10) but I've never felt my right to own them has been in peril, or even close.  I find this conversation super weird.  People usually don't protest to keep the status quo, but go for it.

I own 6 guns and I feel the same as you.  I think the others are a bit extreme with their paranoia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dedfin said:

No and no.  But I would support bump stocks being banned.  I would support some high capacity magazines being banned.  I do not own AR/AK style weapons and have no interest.  I'm generally not in favor of civilian guns mimicking military grade weapons.  My mind is open to change on this subject though.

Is there anything we can do from an education or awareness standpoint that would have acceptable results when it comes to gun laws. I'm comparing this to the way drunk driving accidents were reduced?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Matthias said:

Am I allowed to make a loud protest about there being too many conservative posters on this board?

Why are you concerned with conservative posters? 

But, sure. Be as loud as you want. Those that want to engage will, those that don't will ignore you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Matthias said:

Am I allowed to make a loud protest about there being too many conservative posters on this board?

With all due respect, there aren't that many of us left. Because no one who supports this administration and party in any way gets to call themselves conservative.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, KCitons said:

Is there anything we can do from an education or awareness standpoint that would have acceptable results when it comes to gun laws. I'm comparing this to the way drunk driving accidents were reduced?

I wish I knew.  In other threads, I said we need to either a)  accept that these are statistically insignificant numbers of people dying from this technology and roll with it or b)  get rid of this dangerous technology so it doesn't happen.  I recognize that both are terrible options.  I like to hunt.  I like to shoot.  It's really fun to me.  However I think this technology is running out of its utility.  I also think the human condition changes so that a technology we could responsibly use in our past (say in the 1800s) we fail to responsibly use in our present and we as a society should address that.  Sorry for the thought salad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Yankee23Fan said:

With all due respect, there aren't that many of us left. Because no one who supports this administration and party in any way gets to call themselves conservative.

Yeah, even as a progressive that's depressing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Matthias said:

This is both why you fail and why people accused you of just that.

You decided you, "knew" the answer and wouldn't accept when people told you something different. And you did it because you thought you knew it, not because you were genuinely interested in the question. Basically, in the last 5 posts you've admitted what people have been accusing you of.

Yes. The same way Henry Ford said that anyone that owns more than 30 of anything useless is an idiot. I started a post in the FFA and found there are 3 pages of people that Henry would call idiots. I didn't need to have a discussion, that thread did it for me. 

Same with the dodging the draft thread. There are people that showed that belief in administration is the reason they would dodge a draft. Yet, the same posters want to hold the POTUS accountable for dodging the draft, regardless of his belief in the administration at that time. 

People can accuse me of whatever they want. I hold no value in the opinions of what online personas think of me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KCitons said:

Yes. The same way Henry Ford said that anyone that owns more than 30 of anything useless is an idiot. I started a post in the FFA and found there are 3 pages of people that Henry would call idiots. I didn't need to have a discussion, that thread did it for me. 

Same with the dodging the draft thread. There are people that showed that belief in administration is the reason they would dodge a draft. Yet, the same posters want to hold the POTUS accountable for dodging the draft, regardless of his belief in the administration at that time. 

People can accuse me of whatever they want. I hold no value in the opinions of what online personas think of me. 

Do we know what his belief was at that time?  Regardless of that, Trump gets called out on that because he's such a hypocrite and that's basically it.  Don't forget that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dedfin said:

I wish I knew.  In other threads, I said we need to either a)  accept that these are statistically insignificant numbers of people dying from this technology and roll with it or b)  get rid of this dangerous technology so it doesn't happen.  I recognize that both are terrible options.  I like to hunt.  I like to shoot.  It's really fun to me.  However I think this technology is running out of its utility.  I also think the human condition changes so that a technology we could responsibly use in our past (say in the 1800s) we fail to responsibly use in our present and we as a society should address that.  Sorry for the thought salad.

I agree with this. What can we do to reach a compromise for both sides. The issue I have is that one side is hell bent on banning things because that may be the easiest solution and one that fits their agenda. I also think that regardless of the NRA, there are lawful gun owners that want to find a compromise that everyone will be happy with. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hawkeye21 said:

Do we know what his belief was at that time?  Regardless of that, Trump gets called out on that because he's such a hypocrite and that's basically it.  Don't forget that.

Yes, do we know what it was at that time. It was a long time ago. A lot of things have changed. But, based on what we know there were a lot of people that were against the Vietnam War. Others get the benefit of the doubt, just not Trump. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, KCitons said:

Yes, do we know what it was at that time. It was a long time ago. A lot of things have changed. But, based on what we know there were a lot of people that were against the Vietnam War. Others get the benefit of the doubt, just not Trump. 

I told you, Trump doesn't because he's a hypocrite.  He calls out others for things he's guilty of all the time.  We're just returning the favor.  If he'd shut his fat trap maybe he'd be treated better but he hasn't earned that respect from anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hawkeye21 said:

I told you, Trump doesn't because he's a hypocrite.  He calls out others for things he's guilty of all the time.  We're just returning the favor.  If he'd shut his fat trap maybe he'd be treated better but he hasn't earned that respect from anyone.

Ah, an eye for an eye. So there's an acceptable level of hypocrisy?

And we are back to the topic of this thread. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KCitons said:
12 hours ago, The Commish said:

I still have zero clue what the goal of your first post was and several have asked to clarify and you have yet to do so.  Not sure what you're expecting when you approach "discussion" that way.

Maybe you just didn't want to listen to the answer. Or maybe it wasn't the answer you wanted to accept. But, the underlined is false. 

15 hours ago, KCitons said:

Lastly, why did I start this thread? Because the conversation began in another thread. And I figured I would get complaints that I was hijacking that one, so I started this one. So, I learned from past mistakes, yet people still aren't happy. I also wanted to know how people felt about the opposite side when it comes to these protests. There are so many posters that are lost in an emotional battle with this issue, I wanted to see if they are willing to withhold other peoples rights to be heard. Even if the message wasn't what they liked.

 

If I am being completely honest, I didn't read that whole post because of the way it started so I missed this...apologies.  It's still not clear what you believe is being "protested" on the "other side" though.  That part makes no sense to me, but it seems that people here are fine with pro gun "protests".  Does that surprise you?  Where do we go from here?

Something that is striking to me about this "battle" (an you elude to it above) is the emotional element.  More specifically, a lot seem to miss that this whole battle is build on emotion.  Emotion is the foundation of this whole thing.  If we stripped away the emotion and looked at this from a pure logic perspective, there wouldn't be a battle.  It's crystal clear from a logical perspective what should be done.  I am all in favor of removing the emotion part.  It would sure cut down on the drama :thumbup: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, KCitons said:

I agree with this. What can we do to reach a compromise for both sides. The issue I have is that one side is hell bent on banning things because that may be the easiest solution and one that fits their agenda. I also think that regardless of the NRA, there are lawful gun owners that want to find a compromise that everyone will be happy with. 

Like I said in other threads, I'd trade my right to own firearms if it meant kids and innocent stop dying by firearms.  Maybe Ben Franklin would be annoyed at me with that sentiment, I don't know.  I would be curious to see what the Founders would think about our society now, because it is a hell of a lot more complex than it was in the late 1700s.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...