Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
You think? He just said that Africans form hordes, only want welfare and somehow are also the reason why Germanies gun laws won't be working anymore soon.... It doesn't make sense on any Level, unless your a racist asshole that is scared of the brown/black man.
On November 09 2017 18:22 mortyFromRickAndMort wrote: But most murders are committed with small hand guns, not automatic or semi-automatic rifles.
So while I agree that banning these war weapons is a good first step, that takes care of maybe 5% of the murders.
And yeah, the German system works as long as you have an intact police system and a mostly homogenous populace as well as a low GINI-coefficient. Introduce a horde of African welfare migrants into that system and it falls apart rather quickly.
Or are we talking about pure hypotheticals? Imagine a world where Germany would be overrun by 'hordes of african welfare migrants', then they would have a shooting every day too.
'Luckily', that's not a hypothetical. The open borders policy has already let in a million illegitimate so called 'refugees' (not talking about Syrians and Afghans here) who are stuck in permanent limbo because they're neiher being deported, nor are they allowed to legally work, so they have incentive for integration.
And I didn't say there would be a mass shooting every day. I don't think there's many, if any, cases of African migrants going on shooting sprees in Germany. I'm saying that the police is so overworked and overwhelmed by the insane influx in crime since Germany opened the floodgates that there will come a point in the near future where people can't reasonably expect the police to keep them safe any more.
On November 09 2017 19:52 Velr wrote: You think? He just said that Africans forme hordes, only want welfare and somehow are also the reason why Germanies gun laws won't be working anymore soon.... It doesn't make sense on any Level, unless your a racist asshole that is scared of the brown/black man.
I'm not saying they 'only want welfare'. I'm sure there's a lot of them that come to find work.
Look, if you moved into a country whose language you don't speak, whose bureaucracy doesn't recognise whatever degree you have, whose education system is so much more stable and efficient at preparing young people for the labour force, how would you ever catch up? My respect to anyone who does manage to find work here, but to think that that's the norm is delusional beyond belief.
There's nothing racist about postulating that making up a decade or two of education and learning 1.5 new languages is extraordinarily difficult and most migrants will be stuck in a permanent state of receiving welfare and never integrating.
And yes, a horde is a large group of people. If a million white people poured into Europe, I'd call that a horde as well. Nothing racial / racist about that.
When you say something, you don't get to decide if it's insulting or not. That is up to the people who hear it to decide if it was insulting. The intent doesn't matter either.
It work the same way with saying racist shit. The person saying the racist shit opinion on if it's racist or not doesn't matter.
On November 09 2017 17:55 mortyFromRickAndMort wrote: And what about the millions of Americans who like their weapons?
For every insane mass shooter you have a woman somewhere defending herself from a home invasion. Until there's non-lethal alternatives to guns, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to give up their guns, even if it's a statistical illusion that they increase your personal safety.
Why? They are something that makes you less save, and makes everyone else less save if you own it. And that ignores the gross murders that they are being used for. The "good guy with a gun"theory is complete bullshit.
And an important thing to notice is that i don't think anyone wants to completely get rid of guns. I think most people advocate european-style gun laws. Which means:
-A limit to the type of weapons you can own (Nothing military-style, even if the gun-nuts will now crucify me for not using their proper terms) -Background checks -Gun registry: You are responsible if a crime is commited with a gun that you bought, unless you declare it stolen. -Possibly justification for gun ownership (Hunting, sport,...) -Strict laws regarding gun safety -Possibly different laws for owning vs carrying. In Germany f.e. you can own a lot of guns, but you can basically never carry them in public unless you are a bodyguard or something like that.
So if you are sane, have a reason to own a gun, and are capable of filling out a few forms, you can still own guns. You just can't walk around in public with an AK-47 fully loaded.
that's a lie, plenty of people want total disarmament of the populace. it's the end goal and always has been. every time something happens, there are calls for more "common sense" gun control. gun control advocates realise that they won't be able to take everything in one fell swoop, so they chip away bits at a time. often under the guise of making a compromise. they will propose banning all modern sporting rifles (eg. AR-15s). then they will offer a "compromise" by saying, actually we just want 10 round magazine limits instead. compromise implies each side makes concessions, yet is always gun owners that lose something and never gain anything. this is part of the reason why there is such fanatical resistance to even small gun control measures. gun owners know that even if they give ground, the next time something happens, the usual suspects will be back for more.
take the UK right now. we have some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, short of outright prohibition. yet the government wants to ban .50cal rifles (they are already very difficult to get and i believe only 50-60 exist in private owners' hands in the country). their reason? they're worried that they might fall into the hands of criminals.
Modern Sporting rifles? What exactly is that sport? Sometimes there can't be a compromise. If i propose that my hobby, recreational mustard gas spraying should be possible and you say, that i can't have that, can we agree on a compromise that i can spray mustard gas, but only on Saturdays in rural areas?
On November 09 2017 18:22 mortyFromRickAndMort wrote: But most murders are committed with small hand guns, not automatic or semi-automatic rifles.
So while I agree that banning these war weapons is a good first step, that takes care of maybe 5% of the murders.
And yeah, the German system works as long as you have an intact police system and a mostly homogenous populace as well as a low GINI-coefficient. Introduce a horde of African welfare migrants into that system and it falls apart rather quickly.
Or are we talking about pure hypotheticals? Imagine a world where Germany would be overrun by 'hordes of african welfare migrants', then they would have a shooting every day too.
'Luckily', that's not a hypothetical. The open borders policy has already let in a million illegitimate so called 'refugees' (not talking about Syrians and Afghans here) who are stuck in permanent limbo because they're neiher being deported, nor are they allowed to legally work, so they have incentive for integration.
And I didn't say there would be a mass shooting every day. I don't think there's many, if any, cases of African migrants going on shooting sprees in Germany. I'm saying that the police is so overworked and overwhelmed by the insane influx in crime since Germany opened the floodgates that there will come a point in the near future where people can't reasonably expect the police to keep them safe any more.
On November 09 2017 19:52 Velr wrote: You think? He just said that Africans forme hordes, only want welfare and somehow are also the reason why Germanies gun laws won't be working anymore soon.... It doesn't make sense on any Level, unless your a racist asshole that is scared of the brown/black man.
I'm not saying they 'only want welfare'. I'm sure there's a lot of them that come to find work.
Look, if you moved into a country whose language you don't speak, whose bureaucracy doesn't recognise whatever degree you have, whose education system is so much more stable and efficient at preparing young people for the labour force, how would you ever catch up? My respect to anyone who does manage to find work here, but to think that that's the norm is delusional beyond belief.
There's nothing racist about postulating that making up a decade or two of education and learning 1.5 new languages is extraordinarily difficult and most migrants will be stuck in a permanent state of receiving welfare and never integrating.
And yes, a horde is a large group of people. If a million white people poured into Europe, I'd call that a horde as well. Nothing racial / racist about that.
There hasn't been an "insane flux of crime" in Germany since the refugee crisis started. That's a total myth.
In fact, the only crime that has increased in Germany are crimes against immigrants.
On November 09 2017 17:55 mortyFromRickAndMort wrote: And what about the millions of Americans who like their weapons?
For every insane mass shooter you have a woman somewhere defending herself from a home invasion. Until there's non-lethal alternatives to guns, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to give up their guns, even if it's a statistical illusion that they increase your personal safety.
Why? They are something that makes you less save, and makes everyone else less save if you own it. And that ignores the gross murders that they are being used for. The "good guy with a gun"theory is complete bullshit.
And an important thing to notice is that i don't think anyone wants to completely get rid of guns. I think most people advocate european-style gun laws. Which means:
-A limit to the type of weapons you can own (Nothing military-style, even if the gun-nuts will now crucify me for not using their proper terms) -Background checks -Gun registry: You are responsible if a crime is commited with a gun that you bought, unless you declare it stolen. -Possibly justification for gun ownership (Hunting, sport,...) -Strict laws regarding gun safety -Possibly different laws for owning vs carrying. In Germany f.e. you can own a lot of guns, but you can basically never carry them in public unless you are a bodyguard or something like that.
So if you are sane, have a reason to own a gun, and are capable of filling out a few forms, you can still own guns. You just can't walk around in public with an AK-47 fully loaded.
that's a lie, plenty of people want total disarmament of the populace. it's the end goal and always has been. every time something happens, there are calls for more "common sense" gun control. gun control advocates realise that they won't be able to take everything in one fell swoop, so they chip away bits at a time. often under the guise of making a compromise. they will propose banning all modern sporting rifles (eg. AR-15s). then they will offer a "compromise" by saying, actually we just want 10 round magazine limits instead. compromise implies each side makes concessions, yet is always gun owners that lose something and never gain anything. this is part of the reason why there is such fanatical resistance to even small gun control measures. gun owners know that even if they give ground, the next time something happens, the usual suspects will be back for more.
take the UK right now. we have some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, short of outright prohibition. yet the government wants to ban .50cal rifles (they are already very difficult to get and i believe only 50-60 exist in private owners' hands in the country). their reason? they're worried that they might fall into the hands of criminals.
Modern Sporting rifles? What exactly is that sport? Sometimes there can't be a compromise. If i propose that my hobby, recreational mustard gas spraying should be possible and you say, that i can't have that, can we agree on a compromise that i can spray mustard gas, but only on Saturdays in rural areas?
well, the term "assault rifle" is incorrect. the term "assault weapon" is a term invented by the clinton administration as a name for "scary black rifles". therefore, we prefer the term "modern sporting rifle" as it is a good description. it's modern. it's used for sport shooting. and it's a rifle.
Yeah right.. All These AR-15 at the Olympic shooting competitions, in biathlon and all that stuff... Calling an AR15 a sporting rifle is truely a new one for me...
Your argument is also really good: This is a Tank, it's modern, its used for driving around and its a car. Its a modern sports car.
Ahswtini constantly returns to the “assault rifle is a made up term” in any discussion about properly policing gun sales in the US. It is like the movie Ground Hogs Day, but instead of killing ourselves with a toaster, we get to have the same discussion about the AR-15 every mass shooting in the US.
On November 09 2017 21:14 Plansix wrote: When you say something, you don't get to decide if it's insulting or not. That is up to the people who hear it to decide if it was insulting. The intent doesn't matter either.
It work the same way with saying racist shit. The person saying the racist shit opinion on if it's racist or not doesn't matter.
You're one of those whiny college kids who get offended by everything and want to police free speech aren't you? Do you belong to a victim class? Do you like playing victim with everything?
Grow up because in the real world nobody gives a shit about these silly problems you have. There's a lot bigger and more important stuff out there to worry about.
On November 09 2017 21:14 Plansix wrote: When you say something, you don't get to decide if it's insulting or not. That is up to the people who hear it to decide if it was insulting. The intent doesn't matter either.
It work the same way with saying racist shit. The person saying the racist shit opinion on if it's racist or not doesn't matter.
You're one of those whiny college kids who get offended by everything and want to police free speech aren't you? Do you belong to a victim class? Do you like playing victim with everything?
Grow up because in the real world nobody gives a shit about these silly problems you have. There's a lot bigger and more important stuff out there to worry about.
On November 09 2017 21:14 Plansix wrote: When you say something, you don't get to decide if it's insulting or not. That is up to the people who hear it to decide if it was insulting. The intent doesn't matter either.
It work the same way with saying racist shit. The person saying the racist shit opinion on if it's racist or not doesn't matter.
You're one of those whiny college kids who get offended by everything and want to police free speech aren't you? Do you belong to a victim class? Do you like playing victim with everything?
Grow up because in the real world nobody gives a shit about these silly problems you have. There's a lot bigger and more important stuff out there to worry about.
On November 09 2017 17:55 mortyFromRickAndMort wrote: And what about the millions of Americans who like their weapons?
For every insane mass shooter you have a woman somewhere defending herself from a home invasion. Until there's non-lethal alternatives to guns, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to give up their guns, even if it's a statistical illusion that they increase your personal safety.
Why? They are something that makes you less save, and makes everyone else less save if you own it. And that ignores the gross murders that they are being used for. The "good guy with a gun"theory is complete bullshit.
And an important thing to notice is that i don't think anyone wants to completely get rid of guns. I think most people advocate european-style gun laws. Which means:
-A limit to the type of weapons you can own (Nothing military-style, even if the gun-nuts will now crucify me for not using their proper terms) -Background checks -Gun registry: You are responsible if a crime is commited with a gun that you bought, unless you declare it stolen. -Possibly justification for gun ownership (Hunting, sport,...) -Strict laws regarding gun safety -Possibly different laws for owning vs carrying. In Germany f.e. you can own a lot of guns, but you can basically never carry them in public unless you are a bodyguard or something like that.
So if you are sane, have a reason to own a gun, and are capable of filling out a few forms, you can still own guns. You just can't walk around in public with an AK-47 fully loaded.
that's a lie, plenty of people want total disarmament of the populace. it's the end goal and always has been. every time something happens, there are calls for more "common sense" gun control. gun control advocates realise that they won't be able to take everything in one fell swoop, so they chip away bits at a time. often under the guise of making a compromise. they will propose banning all modern sporting rifles (eg. AR-15s). then they will offer a "compromise" by saying, actually we just want 10 round magazine limits instead. compromise implies each side makes concessions, yet is always gun owners that lose something and never gain anything. this is part of the reason why there is such fanatical resistance to even small gun control measures. gun owners know that even if they give ground, the next time something happens, the usual suspects will be back for more.
take the UK right now. we have some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, short of outright prohibition. yet the government wants to ban .50cal rifles (they are already very difficult to get and i believe only 50-60 exist in private owners' hands in the country). their reason? they're worried that they might fall into the hands of criminals.
Modern Sporting rifles? What exactly is that sport? Sometimes there can't be a compromise. If i propose that my hobby, recreational mustard gas spraying should be possible and you say, that i can't have that, can we agree on a compromise that i can spray mustard gas, but only on Saturdays in rural areas?
well, the term "assault rifle" is incorrect. the term "assault weapon" is a term invented by the clinton administration as a name for "scary black rifles". therefore, we prefer the term "modern sporting rifle" as it is a good description. it's modern. it's used for sport shooting. and it's a rifle.
How about the term "fun mass shooting rifles" then. They are fun to shoot and are used for mass shootings. It's a compromise. I have no problem with responsible gun usage, you don't need to own a gun to have fun with it on the shooting range. You don't have to own a AR-15 to go deer hunting. You don't need to own more then 10 rounds for your hunting gun. You are allowed to own pistols for protection in areas with extremely dangerous wildlife like alaska. That is the position i would want to reach, and i would be willing to compromise. So, where is your compromise? What are you willing to give up?
On November 09 2017 21:14 Plansix wrote: When you say something, you don't get to decide if it's insulting or not. That is up to the people who hear it to decide if it was insulting. The intent doesn't matter either.
It work the same way with saying racist shit. The person saying the racist shit opinion on if it's racist or not doesn't matter.
You're one of those whiny college kids who get offended by everything and want to police free speech aren't you? Do you belong to a victim class? Do you like playing victim with everything?
Grow up because in the real world nobody gives a shit about these silly problems you have. There's a lot bigger and more important stuff out there to worry about.
Its fine, let him argue with the fictional person in his head by posting youtube videos.
I'm just saying you can try and regulate free speech all you want but only laws matter. If offensive speech offends you, then don't leave your "safe space" and here is the video I meant to link but copied/pasted the wrong one....
Yale Students Whine and Moan About a Lack of Safe Space
On November 09 2017 17:55 mortyFromRickAndMort wrote: And what about the millions of Americans who like their weapons?
For every insane mass shooter you have a woman somewhere defending herself from a home invasion. Until there's non-lethal alternatives to guns, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to give up their guns, even if it's a statistical illusion that they increase your personal safety.
Why? They are something that makes you less save, and makes everyone else less save if you own it. And that ignores the gross murders that they are being used for. The "good guy with a gun"theory is complete bullshit.
And an important thing to notice is that i don't think anyone wants to completely get rid of guns. I think most people advocate european-style gun laws. Which means:
-A limit to the type of weapons you can own (Nothing military-style, even if the gun-nuts will now crucify me for not using their proper terms) -Background checks -Gun registry: You are responsible if a crime is commited with a gun that you bought, unless you declare it stolen. -Possibly justification for gun ownership (Hunting, sport,...) -Strict laws regarding gun safety -Possibly different laws for owning vs carrying. In Germany f.e. you can own a lot of guns, but you can basically never carry them in public unless you are a bodyguard or something like that.
So if you are sane, have a reason to own a gun, and are capable of filling out a few forms, you can still own guns. You just can't walk around in public with an AK-47 fully loaded.
that's a lie, plenty of people want total disarmament of the populace. it's the end goal and always has been. every time something happens, there are calls for more "common sense" gun control. gun control advocates realise that they won't be able to take everything in one fell swoop, so they chip away bits at a time. often under the guise of making a compromise. they will propose banning all modern sporting rifles (eg. AR-15s). then they will offer a "compromise" by saying, actually we just want 10 round magazine limits instead. compromise implies each side makes concessions, yet is always gun owners that lose something and never gain anything. this is part of the reason why there is such fanatical resistance to even small gun control measures. gun owners know that even if they give ground, the next time something happens, the usual suspects will be back for more.
take the UK right now. we have some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, short of outright prohibition. yet the government wants to ban .50cal rifles (they are already very difficult to get and i believe only 50-60 exist in private owners' hands in the country). their reason? they're worried that they might fall into the hands of criminals.
Modern Sporting rifles? What exactly is that sport? Sometimes there can't be a compromise. If i propose that my hobby, recreational mustard gas spraying should be possible and you say, that i can't have that, can we agree on a compromise that i can spray mustard gas, but only on Saturdays in rural areas?
well, the term "assault rifle" is incorrect. the term "assault weapon" is a term invented by the clinton administration as a name for "scary black rifles". therefore, we prefer the term "modern sporting rifle" as it is a good description. it's modern. it's used for sport shooting. and it's a rifle.
How about the term "fun mass shooting rifles" then. They are fun to shoot and are used for mass shootings. It's a compromise. I have no problem with responsible gun usage, you don't need to own a gun to have fun with it on the shooting range. You don't have to own a AR-15 to go deer hunting. You don't need to own more then 10 rounds for your hunting gun. You are allowed to own pistols for protection in areas with extremely dangerous wildlife like alaska. That is the position i would want to reach, and i would be willing to compromise. So, where is your compromise? What are you willing to give up?
You need AR 15 to defend against "flash mobs" trying to rob your store or defend your property in case of hurricane when lawlessness breaks out (to prevent looting & rioting)
On November 09 2017 21:14 Plansix wrote: When you say something, you don't get to decide if it's insulting or not. That is up to the people who hear it to decide if it was insulting. The intent doesn't matter either.
It work the same way with saying racist shit. The person saying the racist shit opinion on if it's racist or not doesn't matter.
You're one of those whiny college kids who get offended by everything and want to police free speech aren't you? Do you belong to a victim class? Do you like playing victim with everything?
Grow up because in the real world nobody gives a shit about these silly problems you have. There's a lot bigger and more important stuff out there to worry about.
On November 09 2017 21:14 Plansix wrote: When you say something, you don't get to decide if it's insulting or not. That is up to the people who hear it to decide if it was insulting. The intent doesn't matter either.
It work the same way with saying racist shit. The person saying the racist shit opinion on if it's racist or not doesn't matter.
You're one of those whiny college kids who get offended by everything and want to police free speech aren't you? Do you belong to a victim class? Do you like playing victim with everything?
Grow up because in the real world nobody gives a shit about these silly problems you have. There's a lot bigger and more important stuff out there to worry about.
Its fine, let him argue with the fictional person in his head by posting youtube videos.
Even the person in his head is right
Not sure what your point is, lol.
If you take the guns away from law abiding citizens then they suffer, no criminal who would do harm would care to listen to laws, it's easy to get guns if you know where and who to go to, but if U.S. people don't have guns then it will just hurt them. Look at Chicago, the gun law is so strict but for some reason the murder is up ten-fold, i wonder why.
On November 09 2017 17:55 mortyFromRickAndMort wrote: And what about the millions of Americans who like their weapons?
For every insane mass shooter you have a woman somewhere defending herself from a home invasion. Until there's non-lethal alternatives to guns, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to give up their guns, even if it's a statistical illusion that they increase your personal safety.
Why? They are something that makes you less save, and makes everyone else less save if you own it. And that ignores the gross murders that they are being used for. The "good guy with a gun"theory is complete bullshit.
And an important thing to notice is that i don't think anyone wants to completely get rid of guns. I think most people advocate european-style gun laws. Which means:
-A limit to the type of weapons you can own (Nothing military-style, even if the gun-nuts will now crucify me for not using their proper terms) -Background checks -Gun registry: You are responsible if a crime is commited with a gun that you bought, unless you declare it stolen. -Possibly justification for gun ownership (Hunting, sport,...) -Strict laws regarding gun safety -Possibly different laws for owning vs carrying. In Germany f.e. you can own a lot of guns, but you can basically never carry them in public unless you are a bodyguard or something like that.
So if you are sane, have a reason to own a gun, and are capable of filling out a few forms, you can still own guns. You just can't walk around in public with an AK-47 fully loaded.
that's a lie, plenty of people want total disarmament of the populace. it's the end goal and always has been. every time something happens, there are calls for more "common sense" gun control. gun control advocates realise that they won't be able to take everything in one fell swoop, so they chip away bits at a time. often under the guise of making a compromise. they will propose banning all modern sporting rifles (eg. AR-15s). then they will offer a "compromise" by saying, actually we just want 10 round magazine limits instead. compromise implies each side makes concessions, yet is always gun owners that lose something and never gain anything. this is part of the reason why there is such fanatical resistance to even small gun control measures. gun owners know that even if they give ground, the next time something happens, the usual suspects will be back for more.
take the UK right now. we have some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, short of outright prohibition. yet the government wants to ban .50cal rifles (they are already very difficult to get and i believe only 50-60 exist in private owners' hands in the country). their reason? they're worried that they might fall into the hands of criminals.
Modern Sporting rifles? What exactly is that sport? Sometimes there can't be a compromise. If i propose that my hobby, recreational mustard gas spraying should be possible and you say, that i can't have that, can we agree on a compromise that i can spray mustard gas, but only on Saturdays in rural areas?
well, the term "assault rifle" is incorrect. the term "assault weapon" is a term invented by the clinton administration as a name for "scary black rifles". therefore, we prefer the term "modern sporting rifle" as it is a good description. it's modern. it's used for sport shooting. and it's a rifle.
How about the term "fun mass shooting rifles" then. They are fun to shoot and are used for mass shootings. It's a compromise. I have no problem with responsible gun usage, you don't need to own a gun to have fun with it on the shooting range. You don't have to own a AR-15 to go deer hunting. You don't need to own more then 10 rounds for your hunting gun. You are allowed to own pistols for protection in areas with extremely dangerous wildlife like alaska. That is the position i would want to reach, and i would be willing to compromise. So, where is your compromise? What are you willing to give up?
You need AR 15 to defend against "flash mobs" trying to rob your store or defend your property in case of hurricane when lawlessness breaks out (to prevent looting & rioting)
On November 09 2017 17:55 mortyFromRickAndMort wrote: And what about the millions of Americans who like their weapons?
For every insane mass shooter you have a woman somewhere defending herself from a home invasion. Until there's non-lethal alternatives to guns, I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to give up their guns, even if it's a statistical illusion that they increase your personal safety.
Why? They are something that makes you less save, and makes everyone else less save if you own it. And that ignores the gross murders that they are being used for. The "good guy with a gun"theory is complete bullshit.
And an important thing to notice is that i don't think anyone wants to completely get rid of guns. I think most people advocate european-style gun laws. Which means:
-A limit to the type of weapons you can own (Nothing military-style, even if the gun-nuts will now crucify me for not using their proper terms) -Background checks -Gun registry: You are responsible if a crime is commited with a gun that you bought, unless you declare it stolen. -Possibly justification for gun ownership (Hunting, sport,...) -Strict laws regarding gun safety -Possibly different laws for owning vs carrying. In Germany f.e. you can own a lot of guns, but you can basically never carry them in public unless you are a bodyguard or something like that.
So if you are sane, have a reason to own a gun, and are capable of filling out a few forms, you can still own guns. You just can't walk around in public with an AK-47 fully loaded.
that's a lie, plenty of people want total disarmament of the populace. it's the end goal and always has been. every time something happens, there are calls for more "common sense" gun control. gun control advocates realise that they won't be able to take everything in one fell swoop, so they chip away bits at a time. often under the guise of making a compromise. they will propose banning all modern sporting rifles (eg. AR-15s). then they will offer a "compromise" by saying, actually we just want 10 round magazine limits instead. compromise implies each side makes concessions, yet is always gun owners that lose something and never gain anything. this is part of the reason why there is such fanatical resistance to even small gun control measures. gun owners know that even if they give ground, the next time something happens, the usual suspects will be back for more.
take the UK right now. we have some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, short of outright prohibition. yet the government wants to ban .50cal rifles (they are already very difficult to get and i believe only 50-60 exist in private owners' hands in the country). their reason? they're worried that they might fall into the hands of criminals.
Modern Sporting rifles? What exactly is that sport? Sometimes there can't be a compromise. If i propose that my hobby, recreational mustard gas spraying should be possible and you say, that i can't have that, can we agree on a compromise that i can spray mustard gas, but only on Saturdays in rural areas?
well, the term "assault rifle" is incorrect. the term "assault weapon" is a term invented by the clinton administration as a name for "scary black rifles". therefore, we prefer the term "modern sporting rifle" as it is a good description. it's modern. it's used for sport shooting. and it's a rifle.
How about the term "fun mass shooting rifles" then. They are fun to shoot and are used for mass shootings. It's a compromise. I have no problem with responsible gun usage, you don't need to own a gun to have fun with it on the shooting range. You don't have to own a AR-15 to go deer hunting. You don't need to own more then 10 rounds for your hunting gun. You are allowed to own pistols for protection in areas with extremely dangerous wildlife like alaska. That is the position i would want to reach, and i would be willing to compromise. So, where is your compromise? What are you willing to give up?
You need AR 15 to defend against "flash mobs" trying to rob your store or defend your property in case of hurricane when lawlessness breaks out (to prevent looting & rioting)
Or you don't, let them loot your stuff and phone your insurance company. Congratulation, you now lost close to or in fact nothing, didn't even have to kill someone for it and lowered the risk of dieing in a gun "accident" or getting shot by the burglar yourself.
On November 09 2017 21:14 Plansix wrote: When you say something, you don't get to decide if it's insulting or not. That is up to the people who hear it to decide if it was insulting. The intent doesn't matter either.
It work the same way with saying racist shit. The person saying the racist shit opinion on if it's racist or not doesn't matter.
You're one of those whiny college kids who get offended by everything and want to police free speech aren't you? Do you belong to a victim class? Do you like playing victim with everything?
Grow up because in the real world nobody gives a shit about these silly problems you have. There's a lot bigger and more important stuff out there to worry about.
Its fine, let him argue with the fictional person in his head by posting youtube videos.
Even the person in his head is right
Not sure what your point is, lol.
If you take the guns away from law abiding citizens then they suffer, no criminal who would do harm would care to listen to laws, it's easy to get guns if you know where and who to go to, but if U.S. people don't have guns then it will just hurt them. Look at Chicago, the gun law is so strict but for some reason the murder is up ten-fold, i wonder why.
He's saying we should ignore you because you're making arguments against nobody and using a strawman to make it look like you have a better case than you do. He's right, of course, but I just find it funny because even the strawman that you're attacking is correct.
EPT
