Unlimited "Guns, Fuck Yeah!" Thread

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Never said it was.

What I'm saying is, you're using PD as your punching bag with respect to your personal issues.

That being the case, I think we probably ought to bill you.

[AFK]

Uh, no, I'm trying to discuss a topic, and per usual, certain people who disagree with my opinions can't seem to debate the issue without being asshats about it.  Like you wanting to label me and put me in a neat little box in a way that is clearly meant to cast me in a negative light.  So, if that's how you want to debate, I'm going to play along.  Or, you know, you could buck up and just argue your point of view without feeling you need to stereotype the other side.  I can go either way.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Uh, no, I'm trying to discuss a topic, and per usual, certain people who disagree with my opinions can't seem to debate the issue without being asshats about it.  Like you wanting to label me and put me in a neat little box in a way that is clearly meant to cast me in a negative light.  So, if that's how you want to debate, I'm going to play along.  Or, you know, you could buck up and just argue your point of view without feeling you need to stereotype the other side.  I can go either way.

Nope.  You've been an absolute assbite to everyone.

And I did argue my point.  You kept responding with irrelevant op-eds, trying to argue that common custom trumps the consitution (SORRY, GAYS, CAN'T GET MARRIED!).  My argument hasn been made and not refuted.  The ball is in your court...Not that it matters.  This isn't a debate thread, it's a punching bag for you to use to take out your bitterness concerning your wife on everyone else.

[AFK]

That and complaining about threads is also incredibly assinine, which is where that sarcasm came from.  There's all kinds of threads started on pd.com that I think are boring, stupid, pointless, but you know what, I just don't read them.  It's so incredibly easy to avoid threads you don't like.  Bitching about threads you don't like is just fucking lame man. 


Of course, I think that comes from the fact that certain "correct" threads aren't getting as much attention or posts.  Which yeah, that sucks.  But that's not my fault.  I dunno, either start threads that are more interesting to the current membership or recruit new people who have an interest in that subject matter.

[AFK]

Uh, no, I'm trying to discuss a topic, and per usual, certain people who disagree with my opinions can't seem to debate the issue without being asshats about it.  Like you wanting to label me and put me in a neat little box in a way that is clearly meant to cast me in a negative light.  So, if that's how you want to debate, I'm going to play along.  Or, you know, you could buck up and just argue your point of view without feeling you need to stereotype the other side.  I can go either way.

Nope.  You've been an absolute assbite to everyone.

And I did argue my point.  You kept responding with irrelevant op-eds, trying to argue that common custom trumps the consitution (SORRY, GAYS, CAN'T GET MARRIED!).  My argument hasn been made and not refuted.  The ball is in your court...Not that it matters.  This isn't a debate thread, it's a punching bag for you to use to take out your bitterness concerning your wife on everyone else.

Well, it has, but you seem to at least have a toe, if not a foot, dipped into the Guns Religion, so I don't think you are particularly open to considering that your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is incorrect, with respect to gun control.  Especially since gun control has already been around, and was quite Constitutional.

[Cain]

That and complaining about threads is also incredibly assinine, which is where that sarcasm came from.  There's all kinds of threads started on pd.com that I think are boring, stupid, pointless, but you know what, I just don't read them.  It's so incredibly easy to avoid threads you don't like.  Bitching about threads you don't like is just fucking lame man. 


Of course, I think that comes from the fact that certain "correct" threads aren't getting as much attention or posts.  Which yeah, that sucks.  But that's not my fault.  I dunno, either start threads that are more interesting to the current membership or recruit new people who have an interest in that subject matter.

Yes, not everyone has the talent to start a thread where they take an inflammatory subject, show they don't know what they are talking about, refuse to listen to others and then make an asshat of themselves.

Fortunately, we have you to pick up the slack for everyone else who does research.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Well, it has,

No, it hasn't.  I have shown legality; you have shown opinion and op-eds.

but you seem to at least have a toe, if not a foot, dipped into the Guns Religion,

It would be more accurate to say the "constitution religion".  I view all of the constitution as it stands as equally important.  That includes amendment II.  You can't cherry pick it.

so I don't think you are particularly open to considering that your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is incorrect, with respect to gun control.  Especially since gun control has already been around, and was quite Constitutional.

Show me where, in the constitution, the government is empowered to control guns.  Please.  Because the only place they are referenced states that there is to be no infringement.  I know you don't like that word, but it's there.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Of course, I think that comes from the fact that certain "correct" threads aren't getting as much attention or posts. 

Example?

[AFK]

That and complaining about threads is also incredibly assinine, which is where that sarcasm came from.  There's all kinds of threads started on pd.com that I think are boring, stupid, pointless, but you know what, I just don't read them.  It's so incredibly easy to avoid threads you don't like.  Bitching about threads you don't like is just fucking lame man. 


Of course, I think that comes from the fact that certain "correct" threads aren't getting as much attention or posts.  Which yeah, that sucks.  But that's not my fault.  I dunno, either start threads that are more interesting to the current membership or recruit new people who have an interest in that subject matter.

Yes, not everyone has the talent to start a thread where they take an inflammatory subject, show they don't know what they are talking about, refuse to listen to others and then make an asshat of themselves.

Fortunately, we have you to pick up the slack for everyone else who does research.

Sorry, I don't have the time to be a bookworm like yourself.  I have two kids.  I have a job that doesn't end at 5pm.  I've already put out there that I'm not a gun expert.  As someone who is supposedly an expert on policy you should know that you have at least two different types of people involved in any policy movement.  Someone to look at and talk avout the big picture, the big idea.  And someone to work out the details.


In this particular topic, I'm the former.  It doesn't take an in depth, by the book, knowledge of guns to understand that we have a problem with guns.  There is a dangerous culture here that feeds into the gun violence.  And gun control isn't THE answer but it is a sensible part of the overall solution.  That is the level I'm discussong tjis topic. 


The actual nuts and bolts of a gun control policy I would leave to someone with more gun expertise, to figure out precisely what types of guns should be part of a ban. 


Now, when it comes to drug policy, I would play both of those roles because I have the status to talk about and push the big picture (on a state level), and I have the in depth knowledge to actually help craft a policy.

[AFK]

Well, it has,

No, it hasn't.  I have shown legality; you have shown opinion and op-eds.

Yes, CITED op-eds with links to source material. Dude, just because something is called an op-ed, doesn't always mean it's someone at a computer just pulling shit out of the air.  Seriously, that's just a weaksauce cop-out.

[East Coast Hustle]

Uh, no, I'm trying to discuss a topic, and per usual, certain people who disagree with my opinions can't seem to debate the issue without being asshats about it.  Like you wanting to label me and put me in a neat little box in a way that is clearly meant to cast me in a negative light.  So, if that's how you want to debate, I'm going to play along.  Or, you know, you could buck up and just argue your point of view without feeling you need to stereotype the other side.  I can go either way.

problem is, Rev, you aren't any good at that style of debating.

Regardless of which style we're talking about, that is. You're not good at any of them.

[Elder Iptuous]

An issue that i just thought of that i haven't heard people discuss is the possible unintended consequence of banning commonly held guns (such as the 'assault weapons') whereby people that view their ownership as an unalienable right and are unwilling to hand them over now figure that, since they are now criminals, they might as well take some tin snips and a soda can to make a lightning link for their recently banned AR15. 
For anyone that is unaware, this is a super cheap, and simple (with a bit of finagling) way to turn a standard semi-auto AR15 into a fully automatic gun.  There are also relatively simple ways to convert numerous other commonly owned semi auto guns into fully automatic versions. 
This knowledge is widely known in the horrible gun culture, so you can be sure that there would be some percentage that wouldn't dream of doing it currently, but would do so in a heartbeat if a draconian ban were put in place.

[AFK]

Well, that's why I think, as a compromise, consideration would have to be given to grandfathering people who already own the guns that are to be banned.  Which I think is reasonable coupled with a system where they are registered every year.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Uh, no, I'm trying to discuss a topic, and per usual, certain people who disagree with my opinions can't seem to debate the issue without being asshats about it.  Like you wanting to label me and put me in a neat little box in a way that is clearly meant to cast me in a negative light.  So, if that's how you want to debate, I'm going to play along.  Or, you know, you could buck up and just argue your point of view without feeling you need to stereotype the other side.  I can go either way.

problem is, Rev, you aren't any good at that style of debating.

Regardless of which style we're talking about, that is. You're not good at any of them.

What's more, by basically his own admission, he started this thread as a honey pot, so that no other threads would get traffic.  That being said, I'm out of this thread.  I'm not being paid to listen to a grown man throw a 2 year tantrum. 

RWHN:  Done that myself (2004/2005).   It's not exactly rewarding.

[AFK]

Uh, no, I'm trying to discuss a topic, and per usual, certain people who disagree with my opinions can't seem to debate the issue without being asshats about it.  Like you wanting to label me and put me in a neat little box in a way that is clearly meant to cast me in a negative light.  So, if that's how you want to debate, I'm going to play along.  Or, you know, you could buck up and just argue your point of view without feeling you need to stereotype the other side.  I can go either way.

problem is, Rev, you aren't any good at that style of debating.

Regardless of which style we're talking about, that is. You're not good at any of them.

What's more, by basically his own admission, he started this thread as a honey pot, so that no other threads would get traffic.

Where did I say that?