The Conservative Case For Gun Control

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    Blaming Democrats exclusively is about as silly as focusing only on Democrats in analyzing the passage of DOMA.

    The fact that some Democrats have a wrong idea doesn't immunize the Republicans who have the same wrong idea. Especially in this case where it's a handful of Dems opposing the ban and virtually all Republicans opposing it.



    No one said it did...carry on

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    The fact that some Democrats have a wrong idea doesn't immunize the Republicans who have the same wrong idea.


    No one said it did...carry on

     



    Well I wouldn't expect you to admit it, but note the way you and Greg are usingthe fact that a minority of Democrats oppose an assault weapon ban.... 

     

    ...in response to Reuben saying it's mostly Republicans who are "against this type of gun control."



    Um....WHOOSH

    My point...AGAIN...is that it's disingenuous of the Left to say it ONLY Repubs who are against it...which is clearly not the case. That is all I'm saying. Carry on!

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     that still doesn't change the fact that those within his own party aren't going to vote for this bill.

    [v.]

    We've been told it's the Repubs that are against it...apparently not...

     



    I see. So it's not true that "Repubs ... are against it" because some "within [Reid's] party aren't going to vote for this bill."

     

    And that isn't using a handful of dems position to immunize Republicans with the same position from criticism. Gotcha.

     

    Carry on.



    Again...read what I write and not what you THINK I'm writing. It will help you tremendously.

    Show me where I actually stated Repubs are immunized. I'lll be waiting.

    Again...my point is that it's not JUST Repubs who are against it...which is what the Left has been saying. It's a lie...stop it

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

      it's disingenuous of the Left to say it ONLY Repubs who are against it...which is clearly not the case.

     

     




     

    Well then woosh back at 'ya, 'cause neither Rueben nor I said "ONLY Repubs" against it. Rather, that most Democrats are in favor (and 'most' leaves some against, no?), while Republicans are more or less unified against it.

    "all" =/= "only"



    I never said YOU guys did. I said many Lefties have said it. And it's plain wrong

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    I never said YOU guys did. I said many Lefties have said it. And it's plain wrong



    Well, ok. It was just a non-sequiter then.

     

    I haven't seen anyone saying "only Republicans oppose the assault weapons ban", but with 300 million people over here I'm sure someone probably said it.



    facepalm....

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    Show me where I actually stated Repubs are immunized. I'lll be waiting.

     

    Can you read?

    The point is that you are using the fact that some Dems oppose the ban to tell people not to criticize Republicans for opposing the ban.

    HAHAHAHAHAHA....really? Is that what I'm doing? Because that's news to me. The Left can criticize the Repubs being against it all they want as long as they ALSO criticize the Dems that are against it. So far I haven't seen that

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    Again...my point is that it's not JUST Repubs who are against it...which is what the Left has been saying. It's a lie...stop it.

     

    Oh. I see. You don't have anyone in particular in mind, so you make something up - put the words in the amorphous "the Left"'s mouth and ....what....slam Reuben and I with what this "the Left" supposedly said?

    I slammed you? Oh aren't you a precious little flower. Facepalm....




     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    I never said YOU guys did.




    The problem, sir, is that when you use the term "the Left," you necessarily include everyone you have identified as being on "the Left." Which, at least on the majority of issues, seems to describe Reuben and myself.

     

    So unless you specify which lefties you are referring to, or specific that you are only speaking of some lefties whose names you do not recall....       you are saying that we did whatever you accuse "the Left" of.

    This is simply the way English works.

     

     

     

     

     



    And I rectified that by saying some on the Left. You're right it's not 100% all. 

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    The Left can criticize the Repubs being against it all they want as long as they ALSO criticize the Dems that are against it. So far I haven't seen that

     


    Facepalm.

    The Dems and Reps who oppose the ban were criticized directly in this thread, and indirectly in every last post arguing for an assault weapons ban.

    But go on..... get out your widest brush and ignore the actual conversation. Tell us about all the stupid things this intangible "the Left" says instead.



    Who criticized the Dems for not voting on it? 

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    some Democrats have a wrong idea



    I have repeatedly criticized everyonewho opposes the ban regardless of their ideology because I think that opposing the ban is the wrong position.

     

    This isn't complicated.



    Which you said AFTER my post.

    This isn't complicated

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    some Democrats have a wrong idea



    I have repeatedly criticized everyonewho opposes the ban regardless of their ideology because I think that opposing the ban is the wrong position.

     

    This isn't complicated.



    Just to be clear I think that anyone (regardless of party) against an assault weapons ban is making the wrong choice. But it also clear that the opposition is largely based in the G.O.P.  The same goes for any number of other situations.  There are Democrats who oppose gay marriage and abortion rights (to name a couple of hot button issues), but it is equally apparent that the opposition is rooted in the G.O.P.  It should come as no real surprise therefore that any attack on the opposition of these liberal policies focuses on the primary (conservative) political party leading that opposition.  

    Now why do some conservatives have a need to bring up the minority of Democrats who are "not liberal enough" on some of these issues when their party of choice is so consistently against the issues in the first place?  

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    Now why do some conservatives have a need to bring up the minority of Democrats who are "not liberal enough" on some of these issues when their party of choice is so consistently against the issues in the first place?  



    I only do it when I see people say that Repubs are against, while also not acknowledging that there are plenty of Dems against it.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    I only do it when I see people say that Repubs are against, while also not acknowledging that there are plenty of Dems against it.



    Which doesn't make sense unless the person is saying that only Republicans are against the thing in question. But no one I'm aware of said it. It just ended up being a silly distraction.

     


    In the absense of a claim that "Only group A opposes X": If 99% of group A oppose X, and 5% of group B oppose X.....     it's not natural for someone arguing in support of X to specifically name the respective 1% and 5%.



    You're either lying or just haven't been paying attention. You're fired

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    I only do it when I see people say that Repubs are against, while also not acknowledging that there are plenty of Dems against it.



    Which doesn't make sense unless the person is saying that only Republicans are against the thing in question. But no one I'm aware of said it. It just ended up being a silly distraction.

     


    In the absense of a claim that "Only group A opposes X": If 99% of group A oppose X, and 5% of group B oppose X.....     it's not natural for someone arguing in support of X to specifically name the respective 1% and 5%.

     



     

    You're either lying or just haven't been paying attention. You're fired



    Why aren't you paying attention to the conservatives, the vast majority of which are against these policies?  Why focus on whether the Democrats have 5%, 10% or 20% against the "liberal agenda"?  Does the G.O.P. have those kinds of numbers favoring liberal causes?  Maybe 5%... 

    I think you live in a glass house.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    I only do it when I see people say that Repubs are against, while also not acknowledging that there are plenty of Dems against it.



    Which doesn't make sense unless the person is saying that only Republicans are against the thing in question. But no one I'm aware of said it. It just ended up being a silly distraction.

     


    In the absense of a claim that "Only group A opposes X": If 99% of group A oppose X, and 5% of group B oppose X.....     it's not natural for someone arguing in support of X to specifically name the respective 1% and 5%.

     



     

    You're either lying or just haven't been paying attention. You're fired

     



    Why aren't you paying attention to the conservatives, the vast majority of which are against these policies?  Why focus on whether the Democrats have 5%, 10% or 20% against the "liberal agenda"?  Does the G.O.P. have those kinds of numbers favoring liberal causes?  Maybe 5%... 

     

    I think you live in a glass house.



    Um...I am....and you're STILL missing the point. I'm NOT focusing on the Dems who are against it. I'm focusing on those who have been crowing that only the Repubs are against gun ban....which is clearly wrong. Not sure why you're still struggling with this.

    Just like how I've called out how BOTH sides haven't done much for gay marriage at the federal level. Whereas, similar to gun issue. many on the Left seem to only complain about the Repubs on the gay marriage issue when the reality is BOTH sides have sucked donkey dick in this issue. 

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to macnh1's comment:

    gun registration in the hands of the government is far more dangerous than no registration at all....i trust americans first.....history is on my side...just ask 3 million murdered Jews and 100,000 recently murdered Syrians...

    you cant take something away from someone unless you know where to look...common sense...Bloomberg is taking away donuts, Coca Cola,.... Concord took away water and it goes on and on.....to think a gun registration wouldn't lead to confiscation is naive.

     



    While this isn't damning evidence it does make one wonder...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BVz2lHODQvs

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    The kids were killed in Newtown in five minutes.  The killer reloaded four times with his thirty round clips. A lesser gun with smaller clips could have saved some lives that day.  Other countries don't accept these guns and they don't have these kinds of massacres.  And you can't punish the killer in Newtown: he is dead.  Passively accepting massacres of this nature is immoral.  Pretending that there is no connection between this killing and the weapon is dishonest.

    [QUOITE]

    Other countries do not matter; we are our own and independent and while we have faults we should NOT strive to be like these "other countries" since none are better.

    Of course there is a connection just as there is a connection between traffic fatalities and cars!

    If this guy would not have had a relatively small caliber AR-15 that looks really scarey and all military and stuff; he easily could have used another weapon or device (available and as lethal or potentially more lethal)

    You did raise a good question though?

    Why do we have so many people wanting to commit mass murder?

    They are NOT doing it because we have guns and it's so easy!!

    If we did not have guns these people would still exist and there would still be mass murders of the same numbers just with different weapons or methods!!

    Remove politics and address the issue

     

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    If we did not have guns these people would still exist and there would still be mass murders of the same numbers just with different weapons or methods!!

    Remove politics and address the issue

    OK.

    Let's address that outlandish statement and hear your argument to back it up...

    As the man said, "Guns don't kill people...but the gun helps."

     

    Suppose Jared Loughner had brandished, say, a baseball bat embedded with spikes (a la Escape From New York).  Could he have killed as many people in Tucson before he was eventually disarmed?

    Can we save some money by equipping our law enforcement, military, border patrol, etc. with machetes or crossbows...?

     

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

    If we did not have guns these people would still exist and there would still be mass murders of the same numbers just with different weapons or methods!!

    Remove politics and address the issue

     

     

    OK.

    Let's address that outlandish statement and hear your argument to back it up...

    As the man said, "Guns don't kill people...but the gun helps."

     

    Suppose Jared Loughner had brandished, say, a baseball bat embedded with spikes (a la Escape From New York).  Could he have killed as many people in Tucson before he was eventually disarmed?

    Can we save some money by equipping our law enforcement, military, border patrol, etc. with machetes or crossbows...?

     

     



    So if the issue is guns then why no call for banning ALL guns? Why only ask to ban "assault weapons"? The banning of assault weapons, which I'm not against, is in reality a joke. The reason is because there will still be MILLIONS out there.

    The other is because of the criteria. Take a stock AR-15 and it's legal. Add two of the following and suddenly it becomes illegal: collaspable stock, flash suppressor, pistol grip, bayonet mount.

    So none of the above changes the firepower of an AR-15, yet having any two of those makes the perfectly legal AR-15 now illegal. That is fcuking absurd. It's a fri99in joke.

     

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

    If we did not have guns these people would still exist and there would still be mass murders of the same numbers just with different weapons or methods!!

    Remove politics and address the issue

     

     

    OK.

    Let's address that outlandish statement and hear your argument to back it up...

    As the man said, "Guns don't kill people...but the gun helps."

     

    Suppose Jared Loughner had brandished, say, a baseball bat embedded with spikes (a la Escape From New York).  Could he have killed as many people in Tucson before he was eventually disarmed?

    Can we save some money by equipping our law enforcement, military, border patrol, etc. with machetes or crossbows...?

     

     

     



    So if the issue is guns then why no call for banning ALL guns? Why only ask to ban "assault weapons"? The banning of assault weapons, which I'm not against, is in reality a joke. The reason is because there will still be MILLIONS out there.

     

    The other is because of the criteria. Take a stock AR-15 and it's legal. Add two of the following and suddenly it becomes illegal: collaspable stock, flash suppressor, pistol grip, bayonet mount.

    So none of the above changes the firepower of an AR-15, yet having any two of those makes the perfectly legal AR-15 now illegal. That is fcuking absurd. It's a fri99in joke.

     

     

     



    Simple answer: you cannot ban all guns.  The 2nd Amendment and Heller say you can't.  That's the law.  So it is a nonstarter in terms of the political debate.  But it is a fri99in joke and simply immoral to not recognize the problem guns present and not attempt to address the problem within the law.  Lanza killed 20 odd kids in five minutes.  The nature of the weapon he used greatly facilitated that massacre.  Any thinking individual should be able to make that causal connection and realize that the cost of such weapons far exceeds the benefit they have for any individual.  But that assumes there is real thinking going on...

     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    The kids were killed in Newtown in five minutes.  The killer reloaded four times with his thirty round clips. A lesser gun with smaller clips could have saved some lives that day.  Other countries don't accept these guns and they don't have these kinds of massacres.  And you can't punish the killer in Newtown: he is dead.  Passively accepting massacres of this nature is immoral.  Pretending that there is no connection between this killing and the weapon is dishonest.

    [QUOITE]

    Other countries do not matter; we are our own and independent and while we have faults we should NOT strive to be like these "other countries" since none are better.

    Of course there is a connection just as there is a connection between traffic fatalities and cars!

    If this guy would not have had a relatively small caliber AR-15 that looks really scarey and all military and stuff; he easily could have used another weapon or device (available and as lethal or potentially more lethal)

    You did raise a good question though?

    Why do we have so many people wanting to commit mass murder?

    They are NOT doing it because we have guns and it's so easy!!

    If we did not have guns these people would still exist and there would still be mass murders of the same numbers just with different weapons or methods!!

    Remove politics and address the issue

     

     

     



    Other countries don't matter?  So you want to be ignorant of factual evidence that is contrary to your viewpoint.  That is so very conservative of you...

     

    Remove politics and address the issue?  It is a political debate about the extent of gun rights.  Man are you dim...  It is all about politics.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to tvoter's comment:

     

    If we did not have guns these people would still exist and there would still be mass murders of the same numbers just with different weapons or methods!!

    Remove politics and address the issue

     

     

    OK.

    Let's address that outlandish statement and hear your argument to back it up...

    As the man said, "Guns don't kill people...but the gun helps."

     

    Suppose Jared Loughner had brandished, say, a baseball bat embedded with spikes (a la Escape From New York).  Could he have killed as many people in Tucson before he was eventually disarmed?

    Can we save some money by equipping our law enforcement, military, border patrol, etc. with machetes or crossbows...?

     

     

     



    So if the issue is guns then why no call for banning ALL guns? Why only ask to ban "assault weapons"? The banning of assault weapons, which I'm not against, is in reality a joke. The reason is because there will still be MILLIONS out there.

     

    The other is because of the criteria. Take a stock AR-15 and it's legal. Add two of the following and suddenly it becomes illegal: collaspable stock, flash suppressor, pistol grip, bayonet mount.

    So none of the above changes the firepower of an AR-15, yet having any two of those makes the perfectly legal AR-15 now illegal. That is fcuking absurd. It's a fri99in joke.

     

     

     



    Simple answer: you cannot ban all guns.  The 2nd Amendment and Heller say you can't.  That's the law.  So it is a nonstarter in terms of the political debate.  But it is a fri99in joke and simply immoral to not recognize the problem guns present and not attempt to address the problem within the law.  Lanza killed 20 odd kids in five minutes.  The nature of the weapon he used greatly facilitated that massacre.  Any thinking individual should be able to make that causal connection and realize that the cost of such weapons far exceeds the benefit it has for any individual.  But that assumes there is real thinking going on...

     



    And real thinking would make you realize that even if the assault weapons ban had stayed in place he STILL would have had the AR-15 at his disposal because AR-15's were legal under the ban so long as it didn't have a folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount or flash suppressor. 

    And why can't all guns be banned? If you can ban one type, then why can't another type be banned? And then another, and another, and...wel...you get the idea.

    And can't decisions like Heller get overturned? Can't amendments get overturned? 

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    And real thinking would make you realize that even if the assault weapons ban had stayed in place he STILL would have had the AR-15 at his disposal because AR-15's were legal under the ban so long as it didn't have a folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet mount or flash suppressor.



    And real thinking should make you realize that we are not necessarily arguing for a duplicate of the last assault weapons ban with the same flaws.

     

     



    A) I haven't seen what bill has in it...have you?

    B) The ban still won't get rid of the millions of "assault" weapons that are already out there

    It's a joke to think banning these guns will have any affect on gun violence. Especially when you consider that HANDGUNS are used in most cases of gun violence. Ban the "assault" weapons but don't treat us like morons and tell us it's going to have an affect on gun violence. It's pure bullsh!t.

     

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: The Conservative Case For Gun Control

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    some Democrats have a wrong idea



    I have repeatedly criticized everyonewho opposes the ban regardless of their ideology because I think that opposing the ban is the wrong position.

     

    This isn't complicated.

     



    Just to be clear I think that anyone (regardless of party) against an assault weapons ban is making the wrong choice. But it also clear that the opposition is largely based in the G.O.P.  The same goes for any number of other situations.  There are Democrats who oppose gay marriage and abortion rights (to name a couple of hot button issues), but it is equally apparent that the opposition is rooted in the G.O.P.  It should come as no real surprise therefore that any attack on the opposition of these liberal policies focuses on the primary (conservative) political party leading that opposition.  

     

    Now why do some conservatives have a need to bring up the minority of Democrats who are "not liberal enough" on some of these issues when their party of choice is so consistently against the issues in the first place?  




    "anyone (regardless of party) against an assault weapons ban is making the wrong choice."

    How can you say that? Do you know every defensive situation the in the country?  I think you are myoptically viewing it through the lense of a Harvard Square Cantabridgian.  there, I would say having an assault rife( what ever that is) doesn't make sesne.  I would not say the same if I lived on the south side of Chicago, where the cops are unable to provide any level of safety. 

    Get out of your bubble and think this through.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share