Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

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


KCitons

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Sure it is. But we don't necessarily have goals when it comes to drunk drivers. People keep saying we need to follow Australia's path when it comes to gun regulation, and they point out that Australia hasn't had a mass shooting in decades. If that's something we want to emulate, then the goal is zero mass shootings. People don't want to discuss that because they know the result won't be the same. They don't want to put a number of acceptable mass shootings, because then it's easy to determine if new laws failed. My comparison is that we could ban alcohol and see if alcohol related deaths go to zero. Do I believe it will? No. People will distill their own booze and it will still happen. 

I think our goal for drunk drivers was to have less and it worked. So my goal for mass shootings is to have less. In both cases zero would be the ideal number but the majority of people are not willing to make the sacrifices it would take to get to zero. Cars are convenient, alcohol is fun, guns are a popular hobby, concerns over a total police state, etc. That is ultimately what the law in this country is, finding the right balance between individual freedom and the safety of society. How much freedom will we sacrifice for the greater good? 

You say people want to follow the Aussie path. Sure some people do but not the majority. However, I do believe the majority support other reforms that we believe could reduce gun deaths and mass shootings. There is no need for you to force anyone to put an exact number on it IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

I think our goal for drunk drivers was to have less and it worked. So my goal for mass shootings is to have less. In both cases zero would be the ideal number but the majority of people are not willing to make the sacrifices it would take to get to zero. Cars are convenient, alcohol is fun, guns are a popular hobby, concerns over a total police state, etc. That is ultimately what the law in this country is, finding the right balance between individual freedom and the safety of society. How much freedom will we sacrifice for the greater good? 

You say people want to follow the Aussie path. Sure some people do but not the majority. However, I do believe the majority support other reforms that we believe could reduce gun deaths and mass shootings. There is no need for you to force anyone to put an exact number on it IMO.

Right. So, when it comes to alcohol and driving, we established rules that pertain to an illegal event. We didn't reduce the alcohol level in beer or limit the number of bottles of booze a person can buy. In contrast, we are looking to make changes to legal use of guns, people want to reduce the types and number of firearms that people can own. Even those that are not committing any type of crime. 

What steps did we take with drunk driving? We educated, increased punishments, and increased awareness. Have we done any of those things when it comes to guns? Why is it assumed that we need to skip step one and move right to step four, without knowing the end goal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Right. So, when it comes to alcohol and driving, we established rules that pertain to an illegal event. We didn't reduce the alcohol level in beer or limit the number of bottles of booze a person can buy. In contrast, we are looking to make changes to legal use of guns, people want to reduce the types and number of firearms that people can own. Even those that are not committing any type of crime. 

What steps did we take with drunk driving? We educated, increased punishments, and increased awareness. Have we done any of those things when it comes to guns? Why is it assumed that we need to skip step one and move right to step four, without knowing the end goal?

We made the age 21 to drink, most States have mandatory registration and insurance on cars, car companies have been forced by regulation to consistently meet new safety standards, we track all auto fatalities and alcohol related fatalities, we deeply study those issues,  we set speed limits, have traffic lights, pollution standards, requirements for rear view mirrors, headlights, etc.

I don't think most people want to take away every gun from every gun owner.  Sure there are some people with that view, but most just want to treat guns more like we treat cars/alcohol.  One of the reasons these changes in gun regulation don't happen is because lobbying groups like the NRA sell the issue as "liberals want to take away all the guns" instead of "people of varying political affiliations want to study gun deaths, make safer guns, increase the age limit for guns, etc." Some are playing right into the devil here by framing an argument that gun reformers only want to do the one most extreme thing and since that one extreme thing isn't a good idea, then they have to fight gun reform at every front. Over and over and over on here people of differing issues on guns have agreed to several "common sense" reforms. Of course some will always want the total ban of guns like others think any form of gun regulation is anti-American. We need be a reasonable middle and pass reasonable gun reform just like we did with drinking and driving. 

Also you are factually wrong because many State and local governments do have laws limiting the size of alcoholic beverages sold, the % of alcohol in a legal drink, times alcohol can be sold, how it is sold, where it is sold, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Ilov80s said:

We made the age 21 to drink, most States have mandatory registration and insurance on cars, car companies have been forced by regulation to consistently meet new safety standards, we track all auto fatalities and alcohol related fatalities, we deeply study those issues,  we set speed limits, have traffic lights, pollution standards, requirements for rear view mirrors, headlights, etc.

I don't think most people want to take away every gun from every gun owner.  Sure there are some people with that view, but most just want to treat guns more like we treat cars/alcohol.  One of the reasons these changes in gun regulation don't happen is because lobbying groups like the NRA sell the issue as "liberals want to take away all the guns" instead of "people of varying political affiliations want to study gun deaths, make safer guns, increase the age limit for guns, etc." Some are playing right into the devil here by framing an argument that gun reformers only want to do the one most extreme thing and since that one extreme thing isn't a good idea, then they have to fight gun reform at every front. Over and over and over on here people of differing issues on guns have agreed to several "common sense" reforms. Of course some will always want the total ban of guns like others think any form of gun regulation is anti-American. We need be a reasonable middle and pass reasonable gun reform just like we did with drinking and driving. 

Also you are factually wrong because many State and local governments do have laws limiting the size of alcoholic beverages sold, the % of alcohol in a legal drink, times alcohol can be sold, how it is sold, where it is sold, etc.

There are lobbyist that work for alcohol companies and and auto companies as well. I'm guessing they have an outcome on the laws the are implemented. Without them, things would probably look different. 

Auto registration and insurance have been around for a long time. Speed limits and street lights have been around since the early 1900's. Those things weren't put in place to prevent drunk driving, but some do help offset losses when it happens. When you look at the changes that have dropped the numbers in the last 20 years it was education and increased penalties that may have had the overall effect. I'm not opposed to raising the minimum age to 21 for firearms. I'm not opposed to registration of firearms. Because these have no impact on legal gun owners. 

They may limit the size of alcohol to 16 or 40 oz, but they don't limit the number of those that you can buy. I can purchase a keg of beer or a case of Wild Turkey and nobody will stop me. By comparison, we limit where firearms can be used. You can't just set up a target in your front yard and start shooting. So unless you are a land owner, you are constrained by the hours of a gun range. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Slapdash said:

Not just this thread.  He did this with a thread about having the government kill drug dealers too.

I don't think my stance on death penalty for drug dealers is a fishing trip. And I believe there are others in this country that share my sentiment. 

Too many posters think a strong opinion is a fishing trip. It's too bad you are blinded by the hatred of one party to want to fix the difficult issues that are facing this country. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to admit, what drew me to this thread was misreading the title.  I thought KCitons was asking if students should be allowed to support pro gun fights.  I thought "that's ####### cool!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dedfin said:

I have to admit, what drew me to this thread was misreading the title.  I thought KCitons was asking if students should be allowed to support pro gun fights.  I thought "that's ####### cool!"

Don't lie. What drew you to this thread is that I started it. That you had an original thought is highly unlikely. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KCitons said:

I don't think my stance on death penalty for drug dealers is a fishing trip. And I believe there are others in this country that share my sentiment. 

Too many posters think a strong opinion is a fishing trip. It's too bad you are blinded by the hatred of one party to want to fix the difficult issues that are facing this country. 

I don’t think you are fishing but when you make kind of absurd claims like people care about banning guns but not preventing drunk driving then it’s hard to take you serious.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Is that neighborly?  That's not neighborly, is it? 

Respect begets respect. He only ventures into threads to take jabs at me and then leaves. No substance, no original thoughts. I think he likes me, but won't admit it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

I don’t think you are fishing but when you make kind of absurd claims like people care about banning guns but not preventing drunk driving then it’s hard to take you serious.

I think it speaks for itself. If people felt the same way, why are there no threads discussing drunk driving laws, sans the one I started that had mixed results and the one started by Gopher State. (Which if you note, turned into people injecting the gun rights argument without any assistance from me) Nobody is protesting, nobody is changing their political party votes to align with those politicians that want stricter dui laws? IMO it's because they think that we have reached an acceptable number of deaths via drunk drivers. If they can make that decision, why can't others make their own decision as it relates to the number of deaths when it comes to firearms? 

Discussion about drunk driving laws always ends with "self driving cars will take care of the problem eventually". Does that mean five years? Ten years? Fifty years? To take a quote from any number of gun threads, "how many _____ have to die before we do something?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Respect begets respect. He only ventures into threads to take jabs at me and then leaves. No substance, no original thoughts. I think he likes me, but won't admit it. 

And I can appreciate that behavior such as you describe is irritating, provoking even, who could not.  I just thought you could take the opportunity to show your quality, to rise above, to be the better man.  That said I have not followed the history of you two and it is conceivable, I suppose, that the trials he puts you to surpass all restraint.  I should have restrained myself from commenting.  I apologize.  Really its none of my damn business and who could blame you if you had given me a harsh rebuff to remind me of that, instead of your restrained suggestion.  Much appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

And I can appreciate that behavior such as you describe is irritating, provoking even, who could not.  I just thought you could take the opportunity to show your quality, to rise above, to be the better man.  That said I have not followed the history of you two and it is conceivable, I suppose, that the trials he puts you to surpass all restraint.  I should have restrained myself from commenting.  I apologize.  Really its none of my damn business and who could blame you if you had given me a harsh rebuff to remind me of that, instead of your restrained suggestion.  Much appreciated.

I have no ill will towards you DW. I respect your opinions and enjoy your posts. While I may not agree with everything you post, I appreciate the thought you put into it. 

There are a few posters that feel it necessary to pop in to a thread and take jabs at me while posting nothing pertaining to the topic at hand. I may take a hard stance with others, but I still respect their opinions. There are just a few that don't deserve that respect. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, KCitons said:

I have no ill will towards you DW. I respect your opinions and enjoy your posts. While I may not agree with everything you post, I appreciate the thought you put into it. 

There are a few posters that feel it necessary to pop in to a thread and take jabs at me while posting nothing pertaining to the topic at hand. I may take a hard stance with others, but I still respect their opinions. There are just a few that don't deserve that respect. 

As I said, I stuck my nose where it did not belong.  You are a good fellow, in my estimation, for not slapping my nose with a rolled up paper.  By the way, I agree with some of your points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

Is that neighborly?  That's not neighborly, is it? 

It's hard to predict how reacts to any post.  Obvious case is the one he quoted.  I try to avoid him when he lashes out.  Sometimes he's in a good mood, and I'm thankful for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, KCitons said:

I have no ill will towards you DW. I respect your opinions and enjoy your posts. While I may not agree with everything you post, I appreciate the thought you put into it. 

There are a few posters that feel it necessary to pop in to a thread and take jabs at me while posting nothing pertaining to the topic at hand. I may take a hard stance with others, but I still respect their opinions. There are just a few that don't deserve that respect. 

I know the feeling...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, KCitons said:
8 hours ago, The Commish said:

They are tied together only in the fact that people die in both scenarios.  That's it.  The circumstances are completely different as well as most of the environment variable that go into them.  Oh, and none of this is 100% preventable.  #### happens.  I acknowledge that.  Laws don't stop bad people from doing bad things.  That's not what they are here for.  Laws are here in hopes that we can bend behavior in a way that will benefit society.  You won't get a serious answer from me on "acceptable level of gun deaths by school shooting" because I don't take that as a serious question.  It's not the right question at all IMO.

Then how do you pass laws if you don't know the end goal?

I don't know what you're talking about at this point.  You put laws in place in hopes that they curb gun deaths.  It's foolish to quantify that "hope" with a number because it's just a hope.  It's still largely dependent on us as individuals :shrug: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, KCitons said:

I think it speaks for itself. If people felt the same way, why are there no threads discussing drunk driving laws, sans the one I started that had mixed results and the one started by Gopher State. (Which if you note, turned into people injecting the gun rights argument without any assistance from me) Nobody is protesting, nobody is changing their political party votes to align with those politicians that want stricter dui laws? IMO it's because they think that we have reached an acceptable number of deaths via drunk drivers. If they can make that decision, why can't others make their own decision as it relates to the number of deaths when it comes to firearms? 

Discussion about drunk driving laws always ends with "self driving cars will take care of the problem eventually". Does that mean five years? Ten years? Fifty years? To take a quote from any number of gun threads, "how many _____ have to die before we do something?"

I wouldn't recommend using a fantasy football message board filled with middle aged white guys with too much time on their hands as a gauge for "people" in general....my :2cents: Have you ever googled organizations created to fight against drunk drivers?  If you have kids have you never seen all the flyers that come home on the topic?  My kids are in kindergarten and fourth grade and we get a couple each semester.  I'm curious what it ramps up to once they are in high school.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Commish said:

I don't know what you're talking about at this point.  You put laws in place in hopes that they curb gun deaths.  It's foolish to quantify that "hope" with a number because it's just a hope.  It's still largely dependent on us as individuals :shrug: 

And this is why there are two sides to gun law issues. Your side (if it's ok to call it that) just wants to pass laws without any concern for the effect. The other side wants to know that the freedoms they are giving up are not going to go towards a worthless effort. An example of this is when people suggest we ban AR15's without having any knowledge of what an AR15 is? I posted pictures of a few different rifles in the other thread to show how little those that want more regulation have very little understanding of what should or should not be banned. They see a gun that looks scary and want that banned. The truth is, handguns cause more deaths than assault rifles, yet the assault rifle is the focus of attention. We can ban things that look scary, but the deaths are going to remain. So the question I keep asking is how do those people value lost lives. Handgun = ok, Alcohol related = ok, assault rifle = not ok. 

With the number of times I or my posts have been called stupid or ignorant, the stance of most of anti-gun people is the definition of ignorant. 

ig·no·rant

ˈiɡnərənt/

adjective

lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.

"he was told constantly that he was ignorant and stupid"

synonyms:uneducated, unknowledgeable, untaught, unschooled, untutored, untrained, illiterate, unlettered, unlearned, unread, uninformed, unenlightened, benighted; More

lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular.

"they were ignorant of astronomy"

synonyms:without knowledge of, unaware of, unconscious of, oblivious to, incognizant of, unfamiliar with, unacquainted with, uninformed about, ill-informed about, unenlightened about, unconversant with, inexperienced in/with, naive about, green about; More

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, The Commish said:

I wouldn't recommend using a fantasy football message board filled with middle aged white guys with too much time on their hands as a gauge for "people" in general....my :2cents: Have you ever googled organizations created to fight against drunk drivers?  If you have kids have you never seen all the flyers that come home on the topic?  My kids are in kindergarten and fourth grade and we get a couple each semester.  I'm curious what it ramps up to once they are in high school.  

So, they are worried about your fourth grader throwing down a six pack and driving home from Cub Scouts?  Maybe a couple flyers on gun violence would help curb the problem in that category as well? This was the point I made earlier today. There is no middle ground with anti-gun people, it's take something away in hopes that things improve, yet when it comes to drinking and driving education, awareness and incremental adjustments to laws and punishment is the answer, not let's take away alcohol and then work backwards from there. 

The bolded part couldn't be more true. But, as it is, this is the forum I spend time on. It's not the Liberal fan forum, or we hate Conservatives forum. At least then one would know to avoid it from day one. As some have pointed out, they didn't have the same political opinion that they had a few years ago. I think it comes down to the fact that people are so riled up about the current administration that they see someone that is not a bleeding heart liberal as a Trump supporter. They can't take the blinders off for two seconds to evaluate things if there is a remote chance that Trump could be right. That would be the worst thing in the world. I'm not a fan of Trump, I didn't vote for him. But, I can do little at this very moment to change that. I may not be able to do enough living in this state to change it by 2020. But, I'm not going to let my disdain for one person cause me to change my opinions on what I believe is right or wrong. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, IvanKaramazov said:

Serious answer.  Most people like me have a visceral dislike of protests.  Whenever I see a photo of people marching in the streets with sign and giant puppets and what-have-you, I have an immediate, negative reaction.  This is true regardless of what the protest is even about.  I'm pro-life, but I would not be caught dead a pro-life march, for example.  (The DACA-related protests would be another good example, and one where my views are more closely aligned with most people posting here). 

I'm not sure entirely sure why this is.  I'm inclined to say that people who are conservative by temperament really don't like the disorder of crowds, but who really knows.  

Reasonable answer, with which I'll respectfully disagree. Street protests are mostly about bringing attention to injustice, if I may use that word. All too often things that are unfair get buried by other events, maybe bigger events, true, but that makes the injustice no more right to those who are bearing the brunt of it. I think conservatives are a little too comfortable with the status quo and would rather see changes made in an orderly fashion. Besides, what causes do conservatives really have to champion, if the reality is that they are by definition part of the cultural and political norms? Lobbying for change is almost what defines a progressive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, KCitons said:

And this is why there are two sides to gun law issues. Your side (if it's ok to call it that) just wants to pass laws without any concern for the effect. The other side wants to know that the freedoms they are giving up are not going to go towards a worthless effort. An example of this is when people suggest we ban AR15's without having any knowledge of what an AR15 is? I posted pictures of a few different rifles in the other thread to show how little those that want more regulation have very little understanding of what should or should not be banned. They see a gun that looks scary and want that banned. The truth is, handguns cause more deaths than assault rifles, yet the assault rifle is the focus of attention. We can ban things that look scary, but the deaths are going to remain. So the question I keep asking is how do those people value lost lives. Handgun = ok, Alcohol related = ok, assault rifle = not ok. 

With the number of times I or my posts have been called stupid or ignorant, the stance of most of anti-gun people is the definition of ignorant. 

ig·no·rant

ˈiɡnərənt/

adjective

lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated.

"he was told constantly that he was ignorant and stupid"

synonyms:uneducated, unknowledgeable, untaught, unschooled, untutored, untrained, illiterate, unlettered, unlearned, unread, uninformed, unenlightened, benighted; More

lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular.

"they were ignorant of astronomy"

synonyms:without knowledge of, unaware of, unconscious of, oblivious to, incognizant of, unfamiliar with, unacquainted with, uninformed about, ill-informed about, unenlightened about, unconversant with, inexperienced in/with, naive about, green about; More

 

No, it's not ok to call it that for many reasons, but the primary one being that it's not close to my position on guns.  What you bolded in my quote is reality, not opinion.  I have never called for a banning of any weapon as part of my solution.  This is a pretty good illustration of the problem IMO.  There's more than two sides to this thing but the extremes on both sides want to pretend that's not the case.  None of this post applies to me or my position, exactly zero.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, KCitons said:

So, they are worried about your fourth grader throwing down a six pack and driving home from Cub Scouts?

Drugs and alcohol are real issues with today's youth.  It sucks, but it's reality and isn't a joke.  Starting to talk about it early and often is a smart thing for a parent to do IMO.

12 hours ago, KCitons said:

Maybe a couple flyers on gun violence would help curb the problem in that category as well?

I have zero problem with educating children about the real affects of guns at an early age and teaching them how dangerous they can be could go a long way in helping with accidental deaths etc.

12 hours ago, KCitons said:

There is no middle ground with anti-gun people, it's take something away in hopes that things improve, yet when it comes to drinking and driving education, awareness and incremental adjustments to laws and punishment is the answer, not let's take away alcohol and then work backwards from there. 

For the fourth time in our conversation, I am a living illustration of this being demonstrably false.  I'm not a fan of guns, but I don't begrudge people having as many guns as they want.  

 

12 hours ago, KCitons said:

The bolded part couldn't be more true. But, as it is, this is the forum I spend time on. It's not the Liberal fan forum, or we hate Conservatives forum. At least then one would know to avoid it from day one. As some have pointed out, they didn't have the same political opinion that they had a few years ago. I think it comes down to the fact that people are so riled up about the current administration that they see someone that is not a bleeding heart liberal as a Trump supporter. They can't take the blinders off for two seconds to evaluate things if there is a remote chance that Trump could be right. That would be the worst thing in the world. I'm not a fan of Trump, I didn't vote for him. But, I can do little at this very moment to change that. I may not be able to do enough living in this state to change it by 2020. But, I'm not going to let my disdain for one person cause me to change my opinions on what I believe is right or wrong. 

I don't know what this has to do with the topic of the thread so I'm just going to leave it be aside from saying I am unaware of a single poster here who is not ok with the gun situation in this country simply because Trump is the President.  Though I will say the bold clearly cuts both ways.  There are lots of lazy people out there who want to reduce us all to one of two sides.  That's not wise.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, roadkill1292 said:

Reasonable answer, with which I'll respectfully disagree. Street protests are mostly about bringing attention to injustice, if I may use that word. All too often things that are unfair get buried by other events, maybe bigger events, true, but that makes the injustice no more right to those who are bearing the brunt of it. I think conservatives are a little too comfortable with the status quo and would rather see changes made in an orderly fashion. Besides, what causes do conservatives really have to champion, if the reality is that they are by definition part of the cultural and political norms? Lobbying for change is almost what defines a progressive. 

This is definitely true.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Drugs and alcohol are real issues with today's youth.  It sucks, but it's reality and isn't a joke.  Starting to talk about it early and often is a smart thing for a parent to do IMO.

I have zero problem with educating children about the real affects of guns at an early age and teaching them how dangerous they can be could go a long way in helping with accidental deaths etc.

For the fourth time in our conversation, I am a living illustration of this being demonstrably false.  I'm not a fan of guns, but I don't begrudge people having as many guns as they want.  

I don't know what this has to do with the topic of the thread so I'm just going to leave it be aside from saying I am unaware of a single poster here who is not ok with the gun situation in this country simply because Trump is the President.  Though I will say the bold clearly cuts both ways.  There are lots of lazy people out there who want to reduce us all to one of two sides.  That's not wise.

Great. The comments above show that you are not the typical anti-gun person. The same way Stealthy Cat is not the typical pro-gun person. At this point, you don't want me generalizing the anti-gun population and you don't want me singling out any anti-gun people. I will just point out that their are multiple threads on gun control and the comments of both sides are documented as proof. There are people that want to begrudge people of rights, whether it's age, number, size, looks of particular firearms. 

Do you think those that want change would be happy if we started with educating 4th graders about the dangers of guns? Maybe having gun companies pay for gun safety advertising on Nickelodeon or Disney channel. I'm sure most of us remember the "this is your brain, this is your brain on drugs" commercials growing up. Today we have commercial that show the effects of smoking, from smokers that can't live a normal life. 

As to the bolded (and it's not necessarily directed at you) I'm going to assume that you don't spend much time here. It feels like every topic takes a turn that blames the current administration. It's as if people get up in the morning and say, what can I blame Trump for today. It consumes peoples lives. And it has everything to do with the thread and others. I asked if posters would dodge the draft. Some said, not if Trump was President. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, roadkill1292 said:

Reasonable answer, with which I'll respectfully disagree. Street protests are mostly about bringing attention to injustice, if I may use that word. All too often things that are unfair get buried by other events, maybe bigger events, true, but that makes the injustice no more right to those who are bearing the brunt of it. I think conservatives are a little too comfortable with the status quo and would rather see changes made in an orderly fashion. Besides, what causes do conservatives really have to champion, if the reality is that they are by definition part of the cultural and political norms? Lobbying for change is almost what defines a progressive. 

This is more in response to previous posts in this thread in regards to pro-gun protests. Some stated that they have nothing to protest for, they already have the rights. I would then ask, why were there DACA protests before any decision had been made? They had rights that were on the verge of being lost. Protesting after probably won't do any good. Effect change while decisions are still being made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/15/2018 at 8:11 AM, Matthias said:

God.

Do conservatives have anything left other than a victim mentality and the creativity of a kumquat? If there's anything that happens, "whatabout..." Sure. Students are allowed to protest whatever they like. But the truth of the matter is they don't want to protest for the right to make their lives more dangerous. With the White House, Senate, House, and SCOTUS, Republicans still act like they're some oppressed victims. Get over yourselves.

 

On 3/15/2018 at 8:12 AM, Matthias said:

Why are all the Tough Guys who Love Guns such big babies?

 

On 3/15/2018 at 8:23 AM, Matthias said:

To protest you need an issue which you really believe in. The only thing which animates them is being against whatever the left is for and snarky comments. Oh, and Klan rallies. They do that. Which isn't just snark. Can you remember a right-wing protest since the white supremacist rally?

 

On 3/15/2018 at 8:34 AM, Matthias said:

That question is, "If students coordinate and cut out of school for .5 - 4 hours, should the schools do something severe?" They won't no matter what.

 

On 3/15/2018 at 8:35 AM, Matthias said:

If they want to do it on school property and grounds, then I'd say the threshold should be sufficient interest and support. Otherwise you could have students throwing protests every day to protest that they don't want ham at lunch.

 

On 3/15/2018 at 8:42 AM, Matthias said:

I don't think he's actually interested in that question, though. He's just interested in muddying the waters on something which someone else organized and got wide support. It's just the, "All Lives Matter" shtick. Pretend that there's equivocation on positions. The larger question he doesn't actually care about.

 

On 3/15/2018 at 9:55 AM, Matthias said:

Do you think there's actually this massive amount of kids who want to protest pro-guns?

 

On 3/15/2018 at 11:37 AM, Matthias said:

Take your stinky bait elsewhere, guy.

The above posts started less than an hour into the thread. What was your goal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Great. The comments above show that you are not the typical anti-gun person. The same way Stealthy Cat is not the typical pro-gun person. At this point, you don't want me generalizing the anti-gun population and you don't want me singling out any anti-gun people. I will just point out that their are multiple threads on gun control and the comments of both sides are documented as proof. There are people that want to begrudge people of rights, whether it's age, number, size, looks of particular firearms.

I don't know what a "typical" anti-gun person is.  I know there are many like me who don't like them and a lot of them have common sense reforms that they'd be ok with.  I also know there are extremes on that spectrum and in my experience, people like to :hophead: with the extremes rather than discuss meaningful changes with those of us in the middle.

18 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Do you think those that want change would be happy if we started with educating 4th graders about the dangers of guns? Maybe having gun companies pay for gun safety advertising on Nickelodeon or Disney channel. I'm sure most of us remember the "this is your brain, this is your brain on drugs" commercials growing up. Today we have commercial that show the effects of smoking, from smokers that can't live a normal life.

I don't have a problem with doing this at all.  Will it be enough to appease people like me enough to forgo other things we'd like to see?  Speaking personally, no.  It's not enough, but it's a start.

21 minutes ago, KCitons said:

As to the bolded (and it's not necessarily directed at you) I'm going to assume that you don't spend much time here. It feels like every topic takes a turn that blames the current administration. It's as if people get up in the morning and say, what can I blame Trump for today. It consumes peoples lives. And it has everything to do with the thread and others. I asked if posters would dodge the draft. Some said, not if Trump was President. 

I spend way too much time here :bag:  

I have been in and out over the last week so I haven't followed this thread as closely as I normally would, but has this happened in this thread?  Has someone blamed Trump for this gun issue or are you just venting over board issues in general?  Personally, in this gun debate, the only thing I would attach to the current administration would be this absurd notion that it's a good idea to arm teachers.  That is ####### moronic IMO.  The rest I predicted correctly.  That Trump would :hophead: about all he was going to "do" around guns and then ultimately do nothing of significance.  Stealthycat owes me a 6 pack for that.  :thumbup: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Matthias said:

About half of those are addressing the question which you said you cared about in starting the thread. Most of the rest are guessing at your motivation for starting it. And the last one is responding to your ridiculous mischaracterization of what I said. It's too bad you don't bother reading or processing what people actually say.

And you addressed those issues in a condescending, name calling manner. Why do you expect respect when you post that way. But, when I do it, it's not wrong. 

Again, just a double standard that you like to impose. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Commish said:

I don't know what a "typical" anti-gun person is.  I know there are many like me who don't like them and a lot of them have common sense reforms that they'd be ok with.  I also know there are extremes on that spectrum and in my experience, people like to :hophead: with the extremes rather than discuss meaningful changes with those of us in the middle.

I don't have a problem with doing this at all.  Will it be enough to appease people like me enough to forgo other things we'd like to see?  Speaking personally, no.  It's not enough, but it's a start.

I spend way too much time here :bag:  

I have been in and out over the last week so I haven't followed this thread as closely as I normally would, but has this happened in this thread?  Has someone blamed Trump for this gun issue or are you just venting over board issues in general?  Personally, in this gun debate, the only thing I would attach to the current administration would be this absurd notion that it's a good idea to arm teachers.  That is ####### moronic IMO.  The rest I predicted correctly.  That Trump would :hophead: about all he was going to "do" around guns and then ultimately do nothing of significance.  Stealthycat owes me a 6 pack for that.  :thumbup: 

Right, and yet when I say what we have done to control dui deaths is not enough, I'm told how wrong I am in my stance. Again, it just shows the hypocrisy of this board. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Right, and yet when I say what we have done to control dui deaths is not enough, I'm told how wrong I am in my stance. Again, it just shows the hypocrisy of this board. 

Is there a DUI thread somewhere around here I've been missing out on?  I don't know what it is about DUIs and guns and why they are always brought up in comparison of each other, but when I see it, I usually gloss over it because, well, I think it's dumb.  They aren't comparable in any meaningful way....at all.  So do you get pushback because you are comparing them as if they are similar enough to make valid comparisons or do you get pushback because you are advocating for stricter laws around DUI and people think you've gone too far?  

I don't know your position on DUIs and what more you think should be done, so maybe start there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, timschochet said:

KCItons, do you support any new regulations or restrictions, on a federal basis, regarding firearms? Or are you suggesting we should reject all such proposals? 

Change gun laws to match alcohol laws. That would be the logical start, because when we discuss alcohol related deaths, people want to point to the fact that we made changes. We didn't ban alcohol or any type/size of alcohol. And we saw a drop in alcohol related deaths over the last 2 decades. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, The Commish said:

Is there a DUI thread somewhere around here I've been missing out on?  I don't know what it is about DUIs and guns and why they are always brought up in comparison of each other, but when I see it, I usually gloss over it because, well, I think it's dumb.  They aren't comparable in any meaningful way....at all.  So do you get pushback because you are comparing them as if they are similar enough to make valid comparisons or do you get pushback because you are advocating for stricter laws around DUI and people think you've gone too far?  

I don't know your position on DUIs and what more you think should be done, so maybe start there?

There have been two that I know of. They don't like it when I compare ban alcohol when someone says ban guns. IMO, if guns serve no purpose in society, neither does alcohol. At which point someone chimes in about the use in cooking or medicine, instead of the degenerate that drinks a fifth of whiskey and drives over to pick up their kid from soccer practice. 

Please tell me (and the families of the 10k people that die each year) why they are not comparable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, KCitons said:

There have been two that I know of. They don't like it when I compare ban alcohol when someone says ban guns. IMO, if guns serve no purpose in society, neither does alcohol. At which point someone chimes in about the use in cooking or medicine, instead of the degenerate that drinks a fifth of whiskey and drives over to pick up their kid from soccer practice. 

Please tell me (and the families of the 10k people that die each year) why they are not comparable?

I'm trying to follow this, but I'm not understanding what you're saying here at all.  You want me to tell you why shooting someone with a gun is different than someone hitting someone else with a car?  I will not get into a "if you want to ban guns then why not ban cars" debate since I don't want to ban guns.  You're barking up the wrong tree.  

ETA:  ####, I'd LOVE it if we could get guns treated like cars in this country.  Reigster them, insurance required, chain of ownership....all this would be awesome IMO.

Edited by The Commish
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Change gun laws to match alcohol laws. That would be the logical start, because when we discuss alcohol related deaths, people want to point to the fact that we made changes. We didn't ban alcohol or any type/size of alcohol. And we saw a drop in alcohol related deaths over the last 2 decades. 

You’re not exactly accurate. There are certain alcohols that are banned. And of course lots of narcotics are illegal, which amount to the same thing. 

I don’t like your analogy at all, and I can’t make use of it because there’s just too many differences. But rather than disparage you further, let’s be more specific in my questions. Here’s what I propose for gun control: 

1. Universal background checks for all sales and transfers: no exceptions for private sales. 

2. A federal- based background check, with proper money put into it, that is immediate in computer based results. 

3. Proper funding for the ATF. 

4. Universal registration for all privately owned firearms in the USA. 

5. A ban on AR-15s (new sales only). A ban on many or most similar semi-automatic rifles. 

6. Severe limitation of concealed carry laws, restricted to those who receive a special liscense which involves passing a test (as per a driving test.) 

7. Ban on bump stocks and large gun magazines. 

Which if any of these ideas do you support? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, timschochet said:

You’re not exactly accurate. There are certain alcohols that are banned. And of course lots of narcotics are illegal, which amount to the same thing. 

I don’t like your analogy at all, and I can’t make use of it because there’s just too many differences. But rather than disparage you further, let’s be more specific in my questions. Here’s what I propose for gun control: 

1. Universal background checks for all sales and transfers: no exceptions for private sales. 

2. A federal- based background check, with proper money put into it, that is immediate in computer based results

3. Proper funding for the ATF. 

4. Universal registration for all privately owned firearms in the USA. 

5. A ban on AR-15s (new sales only). A ban on many or most similar semi-automatic rifles. 

6. Severe limitation of concealed carry laws, restricted to those who receive a special liscense which involves passing a test (as per a driving test.) 

7. Ban on bump stocks and large gun magazines. 

Which if any of these ideas do you support? 

That some President doesn't remove 500k people off of :whistle:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, The Commish said:

I'm trying to follow this, but I'm not understanding what you're saying here at all.  You want me to tell you why shooting someone with a gun is different than someone hitting someone else with a car?  I will not get into a "if you want to ban guns then why not ban cars" debate since I don't want to ban guns.  You're barking up the wrong tree.  

ETA:  ####, I'd LOVE it if we could get guns treated like cars in this country.  Reigster them, insurance required, chain of ownership....all this would be awesome IMO.

And again, the discussion gets moved. I never said to ban cars. Take that statement and replace it with guns vs alcohol. Tell me how killing someone with a gun, which some deem to be an unnecessary item and killing someone while under the influence of alcohol which some can also deem as an unnecessary item, are different? Should there be more regulation on alcohol purchases. Should someone that buys more than X number of ounces in a week or month be tracked in a database? Should insurance rates be determined based on that database? The point is, cars have a useful purpose in society. Some may say that alcohol has a useful purpose in society. And I contest that firearms have a useful purpose in society. Yet, when I suggest that guns and alcohol be treated the same when it comes to regulations, tracking and banning, then it's a ridiculous argument. 

Why do you want stricter gun laws? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the answer I understand is to save lives. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Matthias said:

Don't bother. I put up an exhaustive post on why his, "concern" was flawed. And instead of addressing anything substantive, he latched onto being persecuted. Then, once that was sufficiently past that people don't have it directly in mind, he comes right back to it. He's all attack. No engagement.

Or maybe you don't like the engagement. It's all one side with you as well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, timschochet said:

You’re not exactly accurate. There are certain alcohols that are banned. Link?  And of course lots of narcotics are illegal, which amount to the same thing. Not the same thing. Those are banned. We are talking about alcohol only. Coming off St Patricks day weekend, do a google search on the number of drunk driving arrests. 

I don’t like your analogy at all, and I can’t make use of it because there’s just too many differences. But rather than disparage you further, let’s be more specific in my questions. Here’s what I propose for gun control: 

1. Universal background checks for all sales and transfers: no exceptions for private sales. Sure, it's the same as someone distributing home brewed beer or wine at one of their parties. This also limits the ability to sell personal property. What other items do we treat this way? I can buy a car with cash without a background check. I can by alcohol too, as long as I'm over the legal age. 

2. A federal- based background check, with proper money put into it, that is immediate in computer based results. Why federal? Do you not trust the states to do a good job with this? If so, then why do you think the feds will do any better? 

3. Proper funding for the ATF. Sure.

4. Universal registration for all privately owned firearms in the USA. To what end? Do we know where all alcohol is. Even though people like to point out the registration and licensing of cars, that's not a guarantee. I my city, I can buy a car with cash and drive it as long as I want. I don't have to do anything beforehand to own or drive it. I must have proof of insurance within 30 days in order to obtain proper registration and plates.

5. A ban on AR-15s (new sales only). A ban on many or most similar semi-automatic rifles. This one I am on the fence with. Banning a specific brand only creates new opportunities. Why ban only new sales? Does this guarantee that the ones in circulation will not be used to commit crimes. Banning semi auto rifles cuts a large swath through the current inventory of legal gun owners. And is the reason why I don't believe it will ever happen.

6. Severe limitation of concealed carry laws, restricted to those who receive a special liscense which involves passing a test (as per a driving test.) Sure, let's make sure it mirrors the requirements of drivers license. A written test, followed by a 30 minute hands on test and then it's good for 5 years. Can it be renewed by mail if I haven't committed any infractions during that time? Or do I need to go through the testing again?

7. Ban on bump stocks and large gun magazines. I can make concessions on this. Bump stocks should be outlawed, as well as magazines that hold over 6 rounds. 

Which if any of these ideas do you support? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, KCitons said:

And again, the discussion gets moved. I never said to ban cars. Take that statement and replace it with guns vs alcohol. Tell me how killing someone with a gun, which some deem to be an unnecessary item and killing someone while under the influence of alcohol which some can also deem as an unnecessary item, are different? Should there be more regulation on alcohol purchases. Should someone that buys more than X number of ounces in a week or month be tracked in a database? Should insurance rates be determined based on that database? The point is, cars have a useful purpose in society. Some may say that alcohol has a useful purpose in society. And I contest that firearms have a useful purpose in society. Yet, when I suggest that guns and alcohol be treated the same when it comes to regulations, tracking and banning, then it's a ridiculous argument. 

Why do you want stricter gun laws? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the answer I understand is to save lives. 

Sorry.....cars/alcohol.  My point remains.  I don't want to ban guns, nor do I want to ban cars/alcohol.  Again, you're barking up the wrong tree so the insistence on comparisons here rings hollow to me :shrug: 

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...