OOTB's Political Thread . ..

[Heelicious]

Taking guns away from people will stop violence in America. Man, I thought I had heard them all.

1) I don't think the government could ever confiscate a significant portion of guns from US citizens. Nearly impossible to pass legislatively, even harder to execute.

2) the attempt to ban or confiscate certain models of guns would only make it harder for law-abiding individuals to get the guns, with virtually zero impact on already law-breaking criminal kooks hell-bent on killing others? They are already cool with killing dozens if possible, do they care if they break another gun law?

3) on a spectrum with a free representative republic on one end and a socialist, communist govt on the other, what direction on the spectrum would you say the confiscation or banning of guns moves the needle? toward more or less freedom?

4) I am all for a discussion on banning certain models of guns deemed "assault rifles" or "automatic rifles". The fact is weapons defined under both of these terms have been banned for many years, with no positive effect on shootings. There is no definition, or the definition is so ambiguous and vague from person to person, that almost every handgun and rifle could fall under the definition of an "assault rifle" or "(semi) automatic weapon"

 

[uncboy10]

1) I don't think the government could ever confiscate a significant portion of guns from US citizens. Nearly impossible to pass legislatively, even harder to execute.

2) the attempt to ban or confiscate certain models of guns would only make it harder for law-abiding individuals to get the guns, with virtually zero impact on already law-breaking criminal kooks hell-bent on killing others? They are already cool with killing dozens if possible, do they care if they break another gun law?

3) on a spectrum with a free representative republic on one end and a socialist, communist govt on the other, what direction on the spectrum would you say the confiscation or banning of guns moves the needle? toward more or less freedom?

4) I am all for a discussion on banning certain models of guns deemed "assault rifles" or "automatic rifles". The fact is weapons defined under both of these terms have been banned for many years, with no positive effect on shootings. There is no definition, or the definition is so ambiguous and vague from person to person, that almost every handgun and rifle could fall under the definition of an "assault rifle" or "(semi) automatic weapon"

1. Buyback programs have worked all around the world. But most people are only suggesting a buyback for “assault weapons” which basically means AR-15’s. Most guns owned by Americans are not AR-15’s.

2. If assault style rifles are banned then manufacturers can no longer make them, except for contracts with the military. That means no more supply, which combined with a buyback program would clearly make it harder for criminals to get AR-15’s since there would be fewer of them. The ones that are taken off the street by police cannot just be replaced if manufacturers aren’t allowed to make those weapons.

3. Banning citizens from owning heavy machine guns and artillery also technically restricts freedom, but it’s just common sense that you don’t need those things. Mass shooters are taking away the freedom of Americans by murdering them. This discussion has nothing to do with socialism or communism so I’m not sure how your red scare logic has anything to do with this discussion.

4. The assault weapons ban of 1994 expired in 2004. That’s why AR-15’s are now legal. The current restrictions on assault weapons only covers fully automatic or burst fire weapons which can still be owned with a class 3 permit.

This discussion is pointless. Republicans, and even some democrats will never vote for any kind of legislation that regulates firearms because they are owned by the gun lobby. Firearm companies are protected from liability in ways that almost no other corporations are. We will continue to see obstructionism and illogical nonsense every time this discussion comes up. Nothing is going to change. Welcome to American politics.

 

[UNC71-00]

The walking shit stain still has a way to go to even do what Obama did for the market and please forgive me for not taking anything you have to say about the stock market seriously....lol

Speaking of shit stains, the diaper changing table in the ladies room needs attention. Looks like some kid ate too many of the free dried beet samples.

Oh yeah- Obama’s 8 year increase (supplemented by lowest interest rates ever) was 12K. Trumps 2.5 year increase is 6k (with higher rates).

Why are you so bad at this? Maybe you should stick to sorting lentils from edamame.

 

[tarheel0910]

Speaking of shit stains, the diaper changing table in the ladies room needs attention. Looks like some kid ate too many of the free dried beet samples.

Oh yeah- Obama’s 8 year increase (supplemented by lowest interest rates ever) was 12K. Trumps 2.5 year increase is 6k (with higher rates).

Why are you so bad at this? Maybe you should stick to sorting lentils from edamame.

I had to give your post a like because dried beet samples.

 

[UNC71-00]

1. Buyback programs have worked all around the world. But most people are only suggesting a buyback for “assault weapons” which basically means AR-15’s. Most guns owned by Americans are not AR-15’s.

2. If assault style rifles are banned then manufacturers can no longer make them, except for contracts with the military. That means no more supply, which combined with a buyback program would clearly make it harder for criminals to get AR-15’s since there would be fewer of them. The ones that are taken off the street by police cannot just be replaced if manufacturers aren’t allowed to make those weapons.

3. Banning citizens from owning heavy machine guns and artillery also technically restricts freedom, but it’s just common sense that you don’t need those things. Mass shooters are taking away the freedom of Americans by murdering them. This discussion has nothing to do with socialism or communism so I’m not sure how your red scare logic has anything to do with this discussion.

4. The assault weapons ban of 1994 expired in 2004. That’s why AR-15’s are now legal. The current restrictions on assault weapons only covers fully automatic or burst fire weapons which can still be owned with a class 3 permit.

This discussion is pointless. Republicans, and even some democrats will never vote for any kind of legislation that regulates firearms because they are owned by the gun lobby. Firearm companies are protected from liability in ways that almost no other corporations are. We will continue to see obstructionism and illogical nonsense every time this discussion comes up. Nothing is going to change. Welcome to American politics.

1- why is an AR15 more of an assault weapon than other semi-automatics?
2- you need to answer previous question first
3- people don’t need tobacco, candy bars, sodas, red meat, wine, beer etc. and those things are proven to kill. Should we ban them too?
4-you need to answer question 1 first.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Except where it does. Like London. Why can't America be great again?

Maybe you missed the 4 or 5 times I've mentioned it in this thread, or maybe you missed the article I posted, but London has a higher murder per capita rate than NYC.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

you, as well as others, probably poasted this numerous times after each shooting...each time we wait for people to “calm down”, which is idiotic, we forget and move on...

until the next shooting.

you calm down and stay calm...your angle is clear.

That's probably because there are no real arguments for more gun control. It's emotional people, and I don't blame them, who aren't thinking rationally.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

Right. So my assertion (and @bleeduncblue 's and @tarheel0910 's) is that it's evident that all these people claiming this is such a big deal to them are full of shit. Because where were they for the last, oh I don't know...50 years when poor blacks were gunning down other poor blacks? Not a peep. But now that it's white men doing the killing (with an increase in white victims), it's a gun issue that needs immediate attention. So again, it's a racist behavior from those trying their hardest to be woke. Because to me, it's clear they didn't care when blacks were killing blacks. They didn't want to shine a light on the gun problem then because it would have shined a light on the black culture. But now they see that it's white men doing these mass shootings and (1) that gives them the opportunity to attack the gun issue without attacking the black culture and (2) now they're legitimately scared because these woke white people are now getting shot.

Basically this - for every 100 people that say the gun issue is important to them, I believe it's important to 1 of them. The other 99 are using tragedy to further an agenda and to be perceived a certain way.

 

[strummingram]

t
3- people don’t need tobacco, candy bars, sodas, red meat, wine, beer etc. and those things are proven to kill. Should we ban them too?

Well... that's not really a parallel is it?

Choosing to put something into YOUR body, and knowing the potentially harmful effects they have, is not the same as taking a firearm- that has no practical purpose other than to kill something- and willfully putting bullets into another person's body to kill them or disable them for life.

 

[UNC71-00]

Well... that's not really a parallel is it?

Choosing to put something into YOUR body, and knowing the potentially harmful effects they have, is not the same as taking a firearm- that has no practical purpose other than to kill something- and willfully putting bullets into another person's body to kill them or disable them for life.

The choices made to put these harmful substances into your digestive system costs me money which could have otherwise been spent prolonging my life.

So yeah, it’s similar enough.

 

[strummingram]

The choices made to put these harmful substances into your digestive system costs me money which could have otherwise been spent prolonging my life.

So yeah, it’s similar enough.

I'm sure it is... to you.

 

[tarheel0910]

that has no practical purpose other than to kill something-

Wrong. There are plenty of purposes. Example one

 

[UNC71-00]

I'm sure it is... to you.

Here’s a deal for you:

You respect my values and I will respect yours. Isn’t that fair?

 

[strummingram]

Here’s a deal for you:

You respect my values and I will respect yours. Isn’t that fair?

Respect your values? I guess it depends on the values. I'll respect your right to have opinions, even if I disagree with them.

 

[UNC71-00]

Respect your values? I guess it depends on the values. I'll respect your right to have opinions, even if I disagree with them.

Ok sure.

 

[UNC71-00]

I'm sure it is... to you.

I disagree with your opinion.

 

[strummingram]

I disagree with your opinion.

Soooo... it's not similar enough?

 

[UNC71-00]

Soooo... it's not similar enough?

What’s not similar enough?

 

[strummingram]

What’s not similar enough?

You said you disagreed with my opinion that, to YOU, they're similar.

 

[UNC71-00]

You said you disagreed with my opinion that, to YOU, they're similar.

Oh no I agree with that

 

[NoleSoup4U]

An accused "Nazi" black person, talking to an accused "racist" Jewish person on how they've been intentionally separated by a certain class of people. I'll always remember Ron Paul's quote of, "By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so called 'diversity' actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist." It's very simple, collectivism breeds racism.

 

[NoleSoup4U]

An accused "Nazi" black person, talking to an accused "racist" Jewish person on how they've been intentionally separated by a certain class of people. I'll always remember Ron Paul's quote of, "By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so called 'diversity' actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist." It's very simple, collectivism breeds racism.

 

[prlyles]

Speaking of shit stains, the diaper changing table in the ladies room needs attention. Looks like some kid ate too many of the free dried beet samples.

Oh yeah- Obama’s 8 year increase (supplemented by lowest interest rates ever) was 12K. Trumps 2.5 year increase is 6k (with higher rates).

Why are you so bad at this? Maybe you should stick to sorting lentils from edamame.

I’m suppose to listen to someone like you with your track record in the stock market? You and shit stain are a lot alike in how much you know about business.

 

[dadika13]

Well... that's not really a parallel is it?

Choosing to put something into YOUR body, and knowing the potentially harmful effects they have, is not the same as taking a firearm- that has no practical purpose other than to kill something- and willfully putting bullets into another person's body to kill them or disable them for life.

Yep.

And I’d argue that the government has already stepped in when those harmful things effect others by banning smoking indoors (to help combat second hand smoke) and drunk driving (so you don’t kill someone).

Why weren’t people up in arms then saying their liberties, rights, etc etc etc being destroyed?

Seems like the same kind of selective anger that I’m being accused of having. Hmm.

 

[UNC71-00]

I’m suppose to listen to someone like you with your track record in the stock market? You and shit stain are a lot alike in how much you know about business.

We are all definitely better off taking advice from an assistant manager of a convenience store. Glad you’re here.

 

[CanuckChuck]

You could say the reverse is true for other countries. The amount of guns isn't really the root cause.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/gun-homicides-ownership/table/

Well yeah, in sh!th0le countries.

 

[strummingram]

Yep.

And I’d argue that the government has already stepped in when those harmful things effect others by banning smoking indoors (to help combat second hand smoke) and drunk driving (so you don’t kill someone).

Why weren’t people up in arms then saying their liberties, rights, etc etc etc being destroyed?

Seems like the same kind of selective anger that I’m being accused of having. Hmm.

I believe there was SOME disgruntlement when smoking indoors was made illegal. But, it didn't matter.

People battling diabetes, alcoholism, or obesity, or emphysema are apparently making my life shorter because of my money going toward their health care and not my own. I wasn't aware of that before.

 

[CanuckChuck]

Maybe you missed the 4 or 5 times I've mentioned it in this thread, or maybe you missed the article I posted, but London has a higher murder per capita rate than NYC.

OMG this is worse than high school.

Strict guns laws reduce the # of people killed by guns. Your London example supports that statement.

 

[tarheel0910]

Well yeah, in sh!th0le countries.

Not just shit hole countries. You should look at the chart.

 

[dadika13]

I believe there was SOME disgruntlement when smoking indoors was made illegal. But, it didn't matter.

People battling diabetes, alcoholism, or obesity, or emphysema are apparently making my life shorter because of my money going toward their health care and not my own. I wasn't aware of that before.

So I also remember some people complaining but I think if you polled the country on if the smoking indoors ban is a good thing you'd get a resounding yes, even smokers I know don't want people smoking inside.

And yeah - the amount that any semblance of universal healthcare that we have here in the states costs us taxpayers is minimal. Again, seems like very selective anger over what costs the average person $20 a year.

 

[tarheel0910]

OMG this is worse than high school.

Strict guns laws reduce the # of people killed by guns. Your London example supports that statement.

I think the point he's trying to make is that people just started killing people in different ways, which offsets any benefit of getting rid of guns. If the ultimate goal is to lower the homicide rate, then it didn't work. If your sole purpose is just to make sure people are killed through other methods, then it worked. That's what I got from it. I might be completely misunderstanding his point though.

 

[dadika13]

I think the point he's trying to make is that people just started killing people in different ways, which offsets any benefit of getting rid of guns. If the ultimate goal is to lower the homicide rate, then it didn't work. If your sole purpose is just to make sure people are killed through other methods, then it worked. That's what I got from it. I might be completely misunderstanding his point though.

He seems super focused (and you have done the same with Chicago) with just inner cities. London stats vs. NYC stats vs. Chicago stats.

I get that's where most murders occur, but I think we're almost arguing 2 different problems at that point. To me, solving crime in the inner city requires a different solution than solving the problem of mass murder in public places like we saw in the Orlando club, Vegas concert, Sandy Hook, etc. etc.

 

[tarheel0910]

He seems super focused (and you have done the same with Chicago) with just inner cities. London stats vs. NYC stats vs. Chicago stats.

I get that's where most murders occur, but I think we're almost arguing 2 different problems at that point. To me, solving crime in the inner city requires a different solution than solving the problem of mass murder in public places like we saw in the Orlando club, Vegas concert, Sandy Hook, etc. etc.

I started talking about Chicago because the conversation branched off somewhat, but it was still relevant to the conversation. Not sure why you would think it would require different solutions if your idea is gun control. Gun control is the great equalizer. You did display some interesting mental gymnastics on the Chicago issue though.

 

[dadika13]

I started talking about Chicago because the conversation branched off somewhat, but it was still relevant to the conversation. Not sure why you would think it would require different solutions if your idea is gun control. Gun control is the great equalizer. You did display some interesting mental gymnastics on the Chicago issue though.

To me...a pistol is a different weapon than an assault rifle. They are used for completely different purposes. Reasons, motives, circumstances, weapons used for mass murders are completely different than 99.9% of gun violence in cities. Different problems require different solutions in my opinion.

It's not mental gymnastics. It's annoying when someone says "oh you only care cuz it's white people killing people". I'm against these mass murders, no matter what color/nationality the shooter is.

 

[strummingram]

I think the point he's trying to make is that people just started killing people in different ways, which offsets any benefit of getting rid of guns. If the ultimate goal is to lower the homicide rate, then it didn't work. If your sole purpose is just to make sure people are killed through other methods, then it worked. That's what I got from it. I might be completely misunderstanding his point though.

I think it's also about lowering the body counts. If a person is using a knife to carry out a mass killing, then the likelihood of killing 20 and injuring 20 more is not very high.

 

[strummingram]

So I also remember some people complaining but I think if you polled the country on if the smoking indoors ban is a good thing you'd get a resounding yes, even smokers I know don't want people smoking inside.

And yeah - the amount that any semblance of universal healthcare that we have here in the states costs us taxpayers is minimal. Again, seems like very selective anger over what costs the average person $20 a year.

I was personally thrilled with smoking being banned from all indoor locations. However, I don't have a problem with any owner/proprietor allowing it in their bar or restaurant if they want. I'll gladly take my business elsewhere.

 

[tarheel0910]

I think it's also about lowering the body counts. If a person is using a knife to carry out a mass killing, then the likelihood of killing 20 and injuring 20 more is not very high.

I'm sure it is. I didn't look at his links, but if I understood him correctly the overall body count hasn't gone down.

 

[tarheel0910]

To me...a pistol is a different weapon than an assault rifle. They are used for completely different purposes. Reasons, motives, circumstances, weapons used for mass murders are completely different than 99.9% of gun violence in cities. Different problems require different solutions in my opinion.

It's not mental gymnastics. It's annoying when someone says "oh you only care cuz it's white people killing people". I'm against these mass murders, no matter what color/nationality the shooter is.

You said one group of people were more important than another group when it comes to being killed. It wasn't me who originally connected your answer to race, but your follow up reply to someone else was a little discriminatory. That could have been a subconscious thing though.

 

[strummingram]

I'm sure it is. I didn't look at his links, but if I understood him correctly the overall body count hasn't gone down.

So, they're murdering the same number of people with knives as people using assault weapons, in these single instances? Damn... they're like super ninjas or something.

 

[dadika13]

You said one group of people were more important than another group when it comes to being killed. It wasn't me who originally connected your answer to race, but your follow up reply to someone else was a little discriminatory. That could have been a subconscious thing though.

When did I say race? I was actually the one who said stop making it about race because gang members and those who murder each other in cities are of all races. Please show me where I said this is about race.