|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 19 2018 10:31 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2018 09:33 Slaughter wrote:
White identity is such a vague and broad term that saying guns are part of it is pretty silly. You ever been to a shooting range? I went many times when I thought guns were a cool hobby. If you want to play dumb, sure man, go for it. I can't talk you out of playing stupid. But if you spent some time with gun guys the whiteness would overwhelm you.
To bridge the gap I'd just say gun culture is an integral part of many white communities, rural and otherwise. Though rich white liberal communities are among the most anti-gun.
|
On February 19 2018 10:31 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2018 09:33 Slaughter wrote:
White identity is such a vague and broad term that saying guns are part of it is pretty silly. You ever been to a shooting range? I went many times when I thought guns were a cool hobby. If you want to play dumb, sure man, go for it. I can't talk you out of playing stupid. But if you spent some time with gun guys the whiteness would overwhelm you.
Playing dumb at what? I am well aware of what some groups of whites do. Doesn't mean that guns are important to all whites, which is what you implied with an overly broad term.
|
|
|
I don't understand how that's hypocritical anyways, when the president is somewhere then the venue is already secure.
|
What does "secure" mean, in that context? That there are no threats to the president? Would the venue no longer be secure if civilians have guns there?
|
On February 19 2018 14:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
What does "secure" mean, in that context? That there are no threats to the president? Would the venue no longer be secure if civilians have guns there?
Yes. Clearly, allowing a civilian with a gun into a venue makes protecting the president more difficult. I see no contradiction between saying "we have armed security, no other guns please" and supporting CC or open carry in general.
|
On February 19 2018 14:22 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2018 14:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
What does "secure" mean, in that context? That there are no threats to the president? Would the venue no longer be secure if civilians have guns there? Yes? Clearly, allowing a civilian with a gun into a venue makes protecting the president more difficult. I see no contradiction between saying "we have armed security, no other guns please" and supporting CC or open carry in general.
Because either you trust the general public with guns or you don't? He says he does and supports them, as long as they don't bring their guns anywhere near him? If he's got armed security and just has them check to make sure the gun owners have permits, then nothing should go wrong, right? What better way for him to put his money where his mouth is regarding guns than to permit them at his speeches?
|
On February 19 2018 14:22 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2018 14:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
What does "secure" mean, in that context? That there are no threats to the president? Would the venue no longer be secure if civilians have guns there? Yes. Clearly, allowing a civilian with a gun into a venue makes protecting the president more difficult. I see no contradiction between saying "we have armed security, no other guns please" and supporting CC or open carry in general.
so he's fine with guns in schools and basically any place that he's not, but not with guns around him? I thought the general population could be trusted with guns?
|
On February 19 2018 14:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2018 14:22 Introvert wrote:On February 19 2018 14:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
What does "secure" mean, in that context? That there are no threats to the president? Would the venue no longer be secure if civilians have guns there? Yes? Clearly, allowing a civilian with a gun into a venue makes protecting the president more difficult. I see no contradiction between saying "we have armed security, no other guns please" and supporting CC or open carry in general. Because either you trust the general public with guns or you don't? He says he does and supports them, as long as they don't bring their guns anywhere near him? If he's got armed security and just has them check to make sure the gun owners have permits, then nothing should go wrong, right? What better way for him to put his money where his mouth is regarding guns than to permit them at his speeches?
He's the president, you wouldnt let any yahoo
with a gun inside when there is a situation like that. I have never understood the left's bafflement with this. In certain situations you obviously have to have your own security and strictly control the premesis. When you are out and about on the street the entire dynamic is different. This is such a crystal clear example of the left's shallow understanding of second amendment advocates.
|
On February 19 2018 14:46 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2018 14:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2018 14:22 Introvert wrote:On February 19 2018 14:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
What does "secure" mean, in that context? That there are no threats to the president? Would the venue no longer be secure if civilians have guns there? Yes? Clearly, allowing a civilian with a gun into a venue makes protecting the president more difficult. I see no contradiction between saying "we have armed security, no other guns please" and supporting CC or open carry in general. Because either you trust the general public with guns or you don't? He says he does and supports them, as long as they don't bring their guns anywhere near him? If he's got armed security and just has them check to make sure the gun owners have permits, then nothing should go wrong, right? What better way for him to put his money where his mouth is regarding guns than to permit them at his speeches? He's the president, you wouldnt let any yahoo with a gun inside when there is a situation like that. I have never understood the left's bafflement with this. In certain situations you obviously have to have your own security and strictly control the premesis. When you are out and about on the street the entire dynamic is different. This is such a crystal clear example of the left's shallow understanding of second amendment advocates.
Any lunatic can carry a gun around me, just not around important people. Am I understanding that right?
You might find that leftists don’t worship rich people like some righties seem to. I’m usually more centrist, but I don’t worship rich people either. I don’t think they deserve more protection than I do.
And really, shouldn’t the president be safer by arming all the good people in the crowd with guns? Or are you suggesting that only trained security personnel can be trusted with guns around important people? And if that’s true, then why not around me?
|
On February 19 2018 14:46 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2018 14:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2018 14:22 Introvert wrote:On February 19 2018 14:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
What does "secure" mean, in that context? That there are no threats to the president? Would the venue no longer be secure if civilians have guns there? Yes? Clearly, allowing a civilian with a gun into a venue makes protecting the president more difficult. I see no contradiction between saying "we have armed security, no other guns please" and supporting CC or open carry in general. Because either you trust the general public with guns or you don't? He says he does and supports them, as long as they don't bring their guns anywhere near him? If he's got armed security and just has them check to make sure the gun owners have permits, then nothing should go wrong, right? What better way for him to put his money where his mouth is regarding guns than to permit them at his speeches? He's the president, you wouldnt let any yahoo with a gun inside when there is a situation like that. I have never understood the left's bafflement with this. In certain situations you obviously have to have your own security and strictly control the premesis. When you are out and about on the street the entire dynamic is different. This is such a crystal clear example of the left's shallow understanding of second amendment advocates.
Well a very common argument I hear from the conservatives I know is, "well if people had more guns they could've stopped the gunman!" Why is this not the situation for Donald Trump?
Reasonably, we all know that letting loons have guns around important (and controversial) figures is an asinine idea, but the dissonance is that its fine to just let loons have guns around us poor plebs because our lives are really just expendable in the grand scheme of things.
|
On February 19 2018 15:01 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2018 14:46 Introvert wrote:On February 19 2018 14:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2018 14:22 Introvert wrote:On February 19 2018 14:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
What does "secure" mean, in that context? That there are no threats to the president? Would the venue no longer be secure if civilians have guns there? Yes? Clearly, allowing a civilian with a gun into a venue makes protecting the president more difficult. I see no contradiction between saying "we have armed security, no other guns please" and supporting CC or open carry in general. Because either you trust the general public with guns or you don't? He says he does and supports them, as long as they don't bring their guns anywhere near him? If he's got armed security and just has them check to make sure the gun owners have permits, then nothing should go wrong, right? What better way for him to put his money where his mouth is regarding guns than to permit them at his speeches? He's the president, you wouldnt let any yahoo with a gun inside when there is a situation like that. I have never understood the left's bafflement with this. In certain situations you obviously have to have your own security and strictly control the premesis. When you are out and about on the street the entire dynamic is different. This is such a crystal clear example of the left's shallow understanding of second amendment advocates. Well a very common argument I hear from the conservatives I know is, "well if people had more guns they could've stopped the gunman!" Why is this not the situation for Donald Trump? Reasonably, we all know that letting loons have guns around important (and controversial) figures is an asinine idea, but the dissonance is that its fine to just let loons have guns around us poor plebs because our lives are really just expendable in the grand scheme of things.
I'm kind of amazed that I have to spell out the difference between day to day life and being in a room with the president. As to your first conjecture, it certainly is important that he has guns around him. and he does, the secret service. it already exists. the two situations don't have good overlap.
|
On February 19 2018 15:27 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2018 15:01 Zambrah wrote:On February 19 2018 14:46 Introvert wrote:On February 19 2018 14:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2018 14:22 Introvert wrote:On February 19 2018 14:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
What does "secure" mean, in that context? That there are no threats to the president? Would the venue no longer be secure if civilians have guns there? Yes? Clearly, allowing a civilian with a gun into a venue makes protecting the president more difficult. I see no contradiction between saying "we have armed security, no other guns please" and supporting CC or open carry in general. Because either you trust the general public with guns or you don't? He says he does and supports them, as long as they don't bring their guns anywhere near him? If he's got armed security and just has them check to make sure the gun owners have permits, then nothing should go wrong, right? What better way for him to put his money where his mouth is regarding guns than to permit them at his speeches? He's the president, you wouldnt let any yahoo with a gun inside when there is a situation like that. I have never understood the left's bafflement with this. In certain situations you obviously have to have your own security and strictly control the premesis. When you are out and about on the street the entire dynamic is different. This is such a crystal clear example of the left's shallow understanding of second amendment advocates. Well a very common argument I hear from the conservatives I know is, "well if people had more guns they could've stopped the gunman!" Why is this not the situation for Donald Trump? Reasonably, we all know that letting loons have guns around important (and controversial) figures is an asinine idea, but the dissonance is that its fine to just let loons have guns around us poor plebs because our lives are really just expendable in the grand scheme of things. I'm kind of amazed that I have to spell out the difference between day to day life and being in a room with the president. As to your first conjecture, it certainly is important that he has guns around him. and he does, the secret service. it already exists. the two situations don't have good overlap.
For fun how far does this go?
Senators, Congress people, state level, council members, Milo's, notably jerky ceo's, you, me?
It's easy to say "well duh it's the president" but then what?
|
On February 19 2018 15:27 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2018 15:01 Zambrah wrote:On February 19 2018 14:46 Introvert wrote:On February 19 2018 14:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2018 14:22 Introvert wrote:On February 19 2018 14:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
What does "secure" mean, in that context? That there are no threats to the president? Would the venue no longer be secure if civilians have guns there? Yes? Clearly, allowing a civilian with a gun into a venue makes protecting the president more difficult. I see no contradiction between saying "we have armed security, no other guns please" and supporting CC or open carry in general. Because either you trust the general public with guns or you don't? He says he does and supports them, as long as they don't bring their guns anywhere near him? If he's got armed security and just has them check to make sure the gun owners have permits, then nothing should go wrong, right? What better way for him to put his money where his mouth is regarding guns than to permit them at his speeches? He's the president, you wouldnt let any yahoo with a gun inside when there is a situation like that. I have never understood the left's bafflement with this. In certain situations you obviously have to have your own security and strictly control the premesis. When you are out and about on the street the entire dynamic is different. This is such a crystal clear example of the left's shallow understanding of second amendment advocates. Well a very common argument I hear from the conservatives I know is, "well if people had more guns they could've stopped the gunman!" Why is this not the situation for Donald Trump? Reasonably, we all know that letting loons have guns around important (and controversial) figures is an asinine idea, but the dissonance is that its fine to just let loons have guns around us poor plebs because our lives are really just expendable in the grand scheme of things. I'm kind of amazed that I have to spell out the difference between day to day life and being in a room with the president. As to your first conjecture, it certainly is important that he has guns around him. and he does, the secret service. it already exists. the two situations don't have good overlap.
I guess my point boils down to just how valuable do you consider the average American's life? Obviously the president's life is valuable enough to forbid everyone from being allowed to have their guns around them, but how valuable do you feel the lives of the average American citizens are?
|
Gun control in a venue where the president is going to be will not stop every bad guy from bringing guns into the venue. Therefore the more people at the venue with guns, the safer the venue will be.
|
On February 19 2018 15:39 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2018 15:27 Introvert wrote:On February 19 2018 15:01 Zambrah wrote:On February 19 2018 14:46 Introvert wrote:On February 19 2018 14:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2018 14:22 Introvert wrote:On February 19 2018 14:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
What does "secure" mean, in that context? That there are no threats to the president? Would the venue no longer be secure if civilians have guns there? Yes? Clearly, allowing a civilian with a gun into a venue makes protecting the president more difficult. I see no contradiction between saying "we have armed security, no other guns please" and supporting CC or open carry in general. Because either you trust the general public with guns or you don't? He says he does and supports them, as long as they don't bring their guns anywhere near him? If he's got armed security and just has them check to make sure the gun owners have permits, then nothing should go wrong, right? What better way for him to put his money where his mouth is regarding guns than to permit them at his speeches? He's the president, you wouldnt let any yahoo with a gun inside when there is a situation like that. I have never understood the left's bafflement with this. In certain situations you obviously have to have your own security and strictly control the premesis. When you are out and about on the street the entire dynamic is different. This is such a crystal clear example of the left's shallow understanding of second amendment advocates. Well a very common argument I hear from the conservatives I know is, "well if people had more guns they could've stopped the gunman!" Why is this not the situation for Donald Trump? Reasonably, we all know that letting loons have guns around important (and controversial) figures is an asinine idea, but the dissonance is that its fine to just let loons have guns around us poor plebs because our lives are really just expendable in the grand scheme of things. I'm kind of amazed that I have to spell out the difference between day to day life and being in a room with the president. As to your first conjecture, it certainly is important that he has guns around him. and he does, the secret service. it already exists. the two situations don't have good overlap. I guess my point boils down to just how valuable do you consider the average American's life? Obviously the president's life is valuable enough to forbid everyone from being allowed to have their guns around them, but how valuable do you feel the lives of the average American citizens are?
that's not the correct frame. that question applies more to the 2a in general. but perhaps in the case of the president having your own security makes sense but a normal citizen could be well served by cc?
[
QUOTE]On February 19 2018 15:30 GreenHorizons wrote:
On February 19 2018 15:27 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2018 15:01 Zambrah wrote:On February 19 2018 14:46 Introvert wrote:On February 19 2018 14:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On February 19 2018 14:22 Introvert wrote:On February 19 2018 14:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
What does "secure" mean, in that context? That there are no threats to the president? Would the venue no longer be secure if civilians have guns there? Yes? Clearly, allowing a civilian with a gun into a venue makes protecting the president more difficult. I see no contradiction between saying "we have armed security, no other guns please" and supporting CC or open carry in general. Because either you trust the general public with guns or you don't? He says he does and supports them, as long as they don't bring their guns anywhere near him? If he's got armed security and just has them check to make sure the gun owners have permits, then nothing should go wrong, right? What better way for him to put his money where his mouth is regarding guns than to permit them at his speeches? He's the president, you wouldnt let any yahoo with a gun inside when there is a situation like that. I have never understood the left's bafflement with this. In certain situations you obviously have to have your own security and strictly control the premesis. When you are out and about on the street the entire dynamic is different. This is such a crystal clear example of the left's shallow understanding of second amendment advocates. Well a very common argument I hear from the conservatives I know is, "well if people had more guns they could've stopped the gunman!" Why is this not the situation for Donald Trump? Reasonably, we all know that letting loons have guns around important (and controversial) figures is an asinine idea, but the dissonance is that its fine to just let loons have guns around us poor plebs because our lives are really just expendable in the grand scheme of things. I'm kind of amazed that I have to spell out the difference between day to day life and being in a room with the president. As to your first conjecture, it certainly is important that he has guns around him. and he does, the secret service. it already exists. the two situations don't have good overlap.
For fun how far does this go?
Senators, Congress people, state level, council members, Milo's, notably jerky ceo's, you, me?
It's easy to say "well duh it's the president" but then what?[/QUOTE]
that obviously wasn't part of it but at least acknowledging that it's different is a start.
|
On February 19 2018 15:41 Doodsmack wrote:
Gun control in a venue where the president is going to be will not stop every bad guy from bringing guns into the venue. Therefore the more people at the venue with guns, the safer the venue will be.
the breathtaking falsity of that statement is a great example of your dishonest, ridiculous posting, thanks.
edit: maybe falsity is not quite the right word but the point remains
|
On February 19 2018 16:19 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2018 15:41 Doodsmack wrote:
Gun control in a venue where the president is going to be will not stop every bad guy from bringing guns into the venue. Therefore the more people at the venue with guns, the safer the venue will be. the breathtaking falsity of that statement is a great example of your dishonest, ridiculous posting, thanks. edit: maybe falsity is not quite the right word but the point remains
Given his previous comments, I am 99.9% sure that Doodsmack meant that as hyperbole to illustrate his view on the absurdity of the idea that more guns makes people safer in other venues such as theaters or schools. I, and probably most of the people who agree with him, read it and chuckled a little at the usage of the common right wing talking point that puts it in a context where it is clearly wrong. There's nothing dishonest about making that sort of joke.
|
On February 19 2018 16:19 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 19 2018 15:41 Doodsmack wrote:
Gun control in a venue where the president is going to be will not stop every bad guy from bringing guns into the venue. Therefore the more people at the venue with guns, the safer the venue will be. the breathtaking falsity of that statement is a great example of your dishonest, ridiculous posting, thanks. edit: maybe falsity is not quite the right word but the point remains
guns aren't allowed on school campuses either but that doesn't seem to matter with how easy they are to get. Your people are arguing that to solve this problem, everyone on campus should have a gun to make people safer. Therefore the president will be safer if everyone at the venue has a gun, just like everyone in school will be safer if everyone has a gun.
|
that obviously wasn't part of it but at least acknowledging that it's different is a start.
Dunno if you saw the gun thread but I'm pretty reasonable on this.
Another way of thinking about it would be how about everyone in the thread was all in the same room. You think giving us guns makes us safer or less safe?
How about just you, danglars, xdaunt, RiK and me. Giving us all guns make us more or less safe?
How about just you, gun make you safer?
Thinking guns make people safer is a wrongheaded idea. Gun's are tools, they can be used in a wide variety of ways and a wide variety of contexts. It's a small and simple concession to admit that the logic around "more guns=more safe" is comparably stupid to everyone at an NRA rally with the president having the guns they carry everywhere else.
To drive this home, if we had 1,000,000 (add as many 0's as it takes for this not to be the focus) yous, and put them all in a room with a gun for a year, some of them would kill themselves with the gun if for no other reason than by accident. Take away the guns and we save some yous. sure we'll lose some yous to a lot of different causes, but no guns will mean significantly fewer dead yous. Same thing if we put the yous in a city or a country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
