Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

User information for RollinThundr

Real Name RollinThundr   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname None given.
Email Concealed by request
ICQ None given.
Description Banned
Homepage None given.
Signed On May 5, 2009, 08:31
Total Comments 2460 (Senior)
User ID 54946
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 ] Older >


News Comments > Op Ed
130. Re: Op Ed Mar 21, 2013, 16:08 RollinThundr
 
Quboid wrote on Mar 21, 2013, 15:42:
Why do lawmakers on the left want to reduce the availability of high power weapons? Gee, I don't know, maybe because people are being killed by them, in elementary schools, cimenas, amongst other places. What threat to them in the long run? Not much. Do you have a problem with politicians not acting out of self interest?

You're getting off topic there, but it's interesting that you consider being against requiring picture ID to be totalitarian. I'm sure the voter fraud (weasel wording again, not just his 2 wins but every election ever) made a big difference. Hilariously, that guy's almost definitely a Republican and certainly anti-gun control.

I don't, just that there's a lot of bills and efforts being made by this administration heading that way.

Having ID to vote should have been a law a long time ago. I wonder how many more people than that woman in Ohio who voted for Obama about 5 times, twice for herself and for other people. Why is the left against it? If you take voting seriously, and everyone should, than it shouldn't be so tough to get a picture id, most things we do in life need one anyway.

What else would you call it by the way with the term "weasel wording" wtf does that even mean? It's called being fucking accountable and following the law. What's bad about that?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
128. Re: Op Ed Mar 21, 2013, 13:45 RollinThundr
 
Quboid wrote on Mar 21, 2013, 13:03:
I wasn't joking about the rape, I was joking about your inconsistencies and endless logical fallacies.

Also, I don't see what's hypocritical about someone who owns a handgun wanting to ban automatic rifles, if that's what that hearing was about. Even if she wanted to ban handguns, it would only be hypocritical if the bill was worded so she could keep hers.

The woman essentially gave herself a conceal carry permit in a district that one is very difficult to obtain. Yes she is a hypocrite. Especially saying that if she could have gotten the votes to pass it, it would have been all guns. Now why do lawmakers on the left want to get rid of guns so terribly? What threat does it pose to them in the long run if Americans are armed? Why did it take weeks and a 13 hour filibuster to get an answer from the president on if he had the right to use drone strikes on US soil on Americans without a trial? Keep in mind he already killed an American citizen overseas with a drone strike without a trial.

Add it all up, the czars, being against requiring picture ID to vote (essentially welcoming voter fraud which we've had both times he's been elected)The proposed gun control over and over, today it's assault riffles, tomorrow it might be handguns or all guns period. Proposals like Julia, cradle to grave government involvement in everyone's lives. Amnesty for illegal immigrants in exchange for votes, hell Obama's had 2 family members living in the US illegally one of which was on the tax payer's dime. etc etc the list goes on and on of bills and ideas that push us closer and closer to totalitarian control and we're just letting it happen.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
124. Re: Op Ed Mar 21, 2013, 12:41 RollinThundr
 
yuastnav wrote on Mar 21, 2013, 12:18:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 21, 2013, 08:29:
[...] You democrats should be ashamed at yourselves.

Random member of arbitrary group thinks in a certain way. Clearly this means that all the members of that arbitrary group think exactly the same.


Furthermore all statistics are open to interpretation and have a different meaning depending on the context they are being used in or they are being the taken out of.

No different than the republicans are all racist rhetoric we get all the time.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
122. Re: Op Ed Mar 21, 2013, 12:16 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 21, 2013, 11:24:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 21, 2013, 08:29:
Funny how statistics don't matter unless it's to back your agenda. http://tinyurl.com/cmg4872 You democrats should be ashamed at yourselves.

Who is this to and why does it matter?

Who here is a card carrying liberal?

And shut up with weasel words. "Agenda." Jesus. You have, like, 10 words in your vocabulary. "You libtards have an agenda!" That's half of them.

There is an agenda against the 2nd amendment, it's clear as day, anyone with half a brain cell who looks at what dem lawmakers say can see it, the bills they introduce. Do your homework, pay attention to it. Don't just be a blind sheep. That goes for republicans as well, because it's on both sides Beamer, most of these career politicians be they democrats or republicans don't have our best interest in mind, just their own.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
119. Re: Op Ed Mar 21, 2013, 11:06 RollinThundr
 
Quboid wrote on Mar 21, 2013, 10:35:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 21, 2013, 08:29:
Funny how statistics don't matter unless it's to back your agenda. http://tinyurl.com/cmg4872 You democrats should be ashamed at yourselves.

Is that Beamer? I thought you said he was a black man, now he's a white woman? He must be Michael Jackson.

Had that girl been allowed to defend herself with her 2nd amendment right, she may not have been raped. And here you are joking about it. Yet I'm supposed to believe democrats always have people's best interest in mind, and they care OH so much about women's rights and those of special interest groups?

Isn't that what you guys always say? Republicans hate minorities? Hate women? Hate gays? etc?

Diane Feinstein (D) who introduced the bill in the first place, was and is more than likely still is a gun owner. trained in firearms
Sen. Feinstein knows how to handle a gun

In 1995 a hearing on terrorism after the Oklahoma City bombing, Feinstein recounted how, in the 1970s, she was the target of the New World Liberation Front which first attempted to blow up her home. After the bomb failed to detonate, Feinstein explained, she decided to arm herself.

“Later the same group shot out all the windows of my home and I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself, because that’s what I did. I was trained in firearms,” Feinstein said in the 1995 hearing.
“When I walked to the hospital when my husband was sick, I carried a concealed weapon,” she said. “I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out I was going to take them with me."

So it's alright for senator Feinstein to protect herself, but we're supposed to be victims right? That's ok? And yes I realize she owned/owns a handgun which isn't covered by her assault ban bill, but seriously how hypocritical can you be?


"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them - Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in. I would have done it."
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
117. Re: Op Ed Mar 21, 2013, 08:29 RollinThundr
 
Funny how statistics don't matter unless it's to back your agenda. http://tinyurl.com/cmg4872 You democrats should be ashamed at yourselves.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
116. Re: Op Ed Mar 21, 2013, 08:18 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 23:40:
Prez wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 22:52:
Sarcasm and pointless stat-posting aside, I view it as strictly a public good vs. individual liberties thing. Numbers and stats in issues like this can be made to dance a jig, and the same set of data can be deftly skewed to support either side with a little clever spinning. Thus, I tend to ignore numbers. Personally, I honestly don't care if banning guns in a city would seem to have the effect of lowering crime overall in that city. What concerns me most is if such a move would make me and my family safer. Call me self-centered, but lower overall crime rates is no consolation if the removal of my ability to defend myself cause myself or my family to be made victims when one of the criminals who happily ignore such rules crosses paths with me. As a side note, driving a nice car and working nights by myself in a high crime area of a high crime city makes me a prime target for violent crime, so it's not like I'm just sitting in fear in my nice house in suburbia fearing a random home invasion.

With that in mind, while the answer to Chicago's extremely high violent crime rate is obviously not so easily solved as allowing unrestricted ownership, I am more concerned that, regardless of what is fueling it or what long-term solutions may ultimately bring it under control, in the short term the high violent crime rate, extreme level of illegal gun ownership, and the lack of the ability to defend oneself from an armed attacker/attackers makes for a very dangerous mix and renders Chicago a scary, dangerous place to be avoided at all costs to my mind.

Another reason numbers aren't useful is because of what they don't show. For example, it's very easy to find numbers showing how many accidental shootings and suicides happen in the US because gun ownership is so prevalent since something bad actually happened. Meanwhile, the American Rifle Association estimates that in around 95% of cases where a firearm was used to protect oneself or others, the weapon was never fired. How can something of that nature, where a crisis situation was defused peacefully, be even close to accurately tracked? I myself witnessed this exact occurrence in a Memphis, TN Schnucks parking lot in 2006, where a crazed knife-wielding assailant chased a woman out of the store but was subdued before he could stab her by an arm citizen pointing his gun at him an ordering him to drop the knife and get on the ground (Incidentally this was the catalyst for me getting my permit to carry and I've done so ever since). Aside from a brief story on the news, the case was forgotten. I've read countless similar accounts from around the US. It's hard for me to consider numbers that leave out at least half of the story when trying to make heads or tales of an issue.

In the end, while it won't endear me to any of the extreme anti-gun control lobbies in America (or my ultra-conservative wife and father-in-law for that matter), I have to say that this proud gun owner and carrier was on board with almost all of the initiatives concerning new gun regulation highlighted by VP Biden following the Newton CT shootings. Regardless of who you are, who in their right minds could be against universal background checks to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of spouse abusers, felons, and the mentally ill? Who could honestly be against closing the obvious loopholes such people routinely use at the many gun shows around the country every year, or stiffer penalties for people who acquire weapons for those who fail the checks for whatever reason? The 'slippery slope' argument doesn't apply here - these are obvious and overdue regualtions that may end up preventing another mentally unstable monster like Holmes or Adam Lanza getting a hold of weapons that they have no business touching. I think the term "pick your battles" applies well here - this particular war is one conservatives shouldn't wage.

Nice post. I tried to post the numbers to pretty much prove they aren't useful.
Except it revealed Hawaii. I imagine it's very difficult to get guns in Hawaii. Makes sense, I mean, it's difficult to get anything not made in Hawaii in Hawaii. I should see if I could find per capita gun ownership there. Of course, it's not wholly meaningful, numbers may not "lie" but they don't tell the whole story. Maybe surfing makes people less likely to shoot. Who knows?

But the rabid anti-gun-control people constantly ignore that we've been down this road. We made automatic rifles very hard to get and tracked them. And, as a result, automatic rifle crime dropped dramatically. We then flat-out banned any automatic rifles not grandfathered in. Automatic rifle crime dropped again.

No one wants to take all the guns. People want to take the most deadly guns. No one thinks this will magically stop gun crime. But there's hope it will reduce gun fetishes, of which our society is certainly fond of, and make the leap from "I want to inflict damage" to "hey, the smart way to do that is with a gun!" less common.

And after you take assault rifles, which are miniscule when you look at the actual data of crimes/murder with assault riffles, what's next after that when that doesn't do anything to drop gun crime rates?

After the feel good wears off, is it going to be handguns next?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
106. Re: Op Ed Mar 20, 2013, 13:00 RollinThundr
 
Quboid wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 12:58:
Beamer, we're libtards and MSNBC are libtards. All libtards are the same, therefore we are indistinguishable from MSNBC. You're such a retard for not understanding this.

Q, Actually you actually try and debate, the libtard comment was more for Cutter and Beamer who only seem able to recite the DNCplaybook rather than have any actual discussion without resorting to racist, tin foil hat, or similar terms to try and deflect discussion.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
105. Re: Op Ed Mar 20, 2013, 12:58 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 12:55:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 12:51:

The data for gun crimes is out there, google is your friend. If you want to ignore that data however and still call for tougher gun laws, then I'm sorry if I disagree. The data is also out there for how opinionated MSNBC is 85% opinion, 15% actual news, I linked to it yesterday.

You're really no better than I beamer, with your constant name calling and pot shots. You're like the perfect example of Hello pot meet kettle.

Jesus, dude. This is your problem. Who fucking mentioned MSNBC? I've never once watched it, I couldn't tell you who's on it, and I don't care.

What the fuck does MSNBC have to do with this?

Furthermore, fuck. There are so many factors that go into gun crime than, you know, just how strict the laws are. One state having very strict laws won't help much if the state immediately next to it doesn't. And you can't really look across states. I'm sure that IL has much more gun crime than Idaho. Idaho is a barren wasteland. IL has Chicago, a major city with some serious poverty.

Only a moron looks at a number and goes "well, nothing else could influence that."

You said I don't back up what I say, and I often try to link to actual articles and studies. So you're wrong there.

Of course there's more to it than laws, but the fact remains that areas of the US with the toughest gun laws already also tend to have the most crime. That's fact. As much as you hate it for whatever reason.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
101. Re: Op Ed Mar 20, 2013, 12:51 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 12:45:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 12:36:
Beamer wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 12:33:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 12:12:
Beamer wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:54:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:50:
Sepharo wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:40:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:36:
[...] why areas in the US with the toughest gun laws already, tend to have the most crime in regards to guns.

Same reason that states with bans on fireworks still have people launching huge illegal fireworks every 4th of July.

So because it's "tougher" to get guns in those areas, people want to kill more with them? Yeah sorry not buying it.

I would imagine it has alot more to do with criminals in those areas have far less fear that someone they assault will have a concealed carry permit and be able to fight back. Criminals tend to think a bit harder in areas where they're not sure someone is going to shoot back or not.

Or are the gun laws tougher because people want to kill each other more, and maybe without those laws there would be more death?

Interesting.

Not sure how looking state-by-state really matters more than country-by-country, given that culture doesn't change much by state, but hey, whatever helps prove your points in your mind and helps you read between whatever lines manage to get through your tin foil hat.

Culture certainly does change in some degrees, perhaps not extremely however. The FBI data does alot to back up the notion that tough gun laws don't really work, which is prolly a tough pill for liberals to swallow. Numbers don't lie, as much as you kick and scream and twist.

By all means continue the cheap comments though.

"Numbers don't lie" is the kind of thing that gives us insight into the simple workings of your mind.

More ad hom. Par for the course with you however.

Because you never back anything up, never respond to things that could defeat your argument (again, please address the automatic rifle ban of 1986), and you CONSTANTLY call anyone that disagrees with you a liberal or a libtard. You start those things.

And beecause you throw out ridiculous stuff. "Numbers don't lie." That's something a child would say. What's the other thing about numbers, that 99% of them are made up?

Yeah, even if you're 100% sure the numbers are right, the story they tell is very much dependent upon who is telling it. The way they're used matters.

Reminds me of the old Homer Simpson tiger-repelling rock. I am holding this rock. There are 0 tigers around me. The numbers don't lie, clearly that rock repels tigers.

The data for gun crimes is out there, google is your friend. If you want to ignore that data however and still call for tougher gun laws, then I'm sorry if I disagree. The data is also out there for how opinionated MSNBC is 85% opinion, 15% actual news, I linked to it yesterday.

You're really no better than I beamer, with your constant name calling and pot shots. You're like the perfect example of Hello pot meet kettle.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
98. Re: Op Ed Mar 20, 2013, 12:42 RollinThundr
 
Quboid wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 12:38:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 12:36:
More ad hom. Par for the course with you however.

RollinThundr wrote on Mar 6, 2013, 17:38:
lol keep telling yourself that libtard.

Dude every one of his posts are an ad hom. Come the fuck on.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
95. Re: Op Ed Mar 20, 2013, 12:36 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 12:33:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 12:12:
Beamer wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:54:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:50:
Sepharo wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:40:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:36:
[...] why areas in the US with the toughest gun laws already, tend to have the most crime in regards to guns.

Same reason that states with bans on fireworks still have people launching huge illegal fireworks every 4th of July.

So because it's "tougher" to get guns in those areas, people want to kill more with them? Yeah sorry not buying it.

I would imagine it has alot more to do with criminals in those areas have far less fear that someone they assault will have a concealed carry permit and be able to fight back. Criminals tend to think a bit harder in areas where they're not sure someone is going to shoot back or not.

Or are the gun laws tougher because people want to kill each other more, and maybe without those laws there would be more death?

Interesting.

Not sure how looking state-by-state really matters more than country-by-country, given that culture doesn't change much by state, but hey, whatever helps prove your points in your mind and helps you read between whatever lines manage to get through your tin foil hat.

Culture certainly does change in some degrees, perhaps not extremely however. The FBI data does alot to back up the notion that tough gun laws don't really work, which is prolly a tough pill for liberals to swallow. Numbers don't lie, as much as you kick and scream and twist.

By all means continue the cheap comments though.

"Numbers don't lie" is the kind of thing that gives us insight into the simple workings of your mind.

More ad hom. Par for the course with you however.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
93. Re: Op Ed Mar 20, 2013, 12:31 RollinThundr
 
Quboid wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 12:23:
I did not do it to suit my agenda, I did it because it would be fucking stupid to compare gun crime in the USA with gun crime in Haiti, and you well know it. You are being dishonest and you and everyone else knows it. Yet again, I was criticise for NOT DOING THIS, and neither of you have actually addressed the issue. Instead, you personally attack people and twist everything they say to suit your agenda.

Spare me your fear mongering nonsense, both political parties do that, the only difference is that the Republicans are better at tricking people into backing bad decisions based on it (Iraq).

"Ever notice how it's always democrats going on and on about racism and fairness?" ... how the hell is that a bad thing? Again, when people didn't talk about racism, we had slavery. I consider that a bad thing, but given how you strongly implied that you think black people are gangsta criminals, maybe you long for those days.

Have you ever had a scab and picked at it and it got worse or infected? That's what you folks on the left do with racism you pick at it, pick at it, and it never goes away, you're in this perpetual state of bringing it to the forefront and trumping it up to make it appear worse than it actually is.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
90. Re: Op Ed Mar 20, 2013, 12:18 RollinThundr
 
Sepharo wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 12:04:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:50:
Sepharo wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:40:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:36:
[...] why areas in the US with the toughest gun laws already, tend to have the most crime in regards to guns.

Same reason that states with bans on fireworks still have people launching huge illegal fireworks every 4th of July.

So because it's "tougher" to get guns in those areas, people want to kill more with them? Yeah sorry not buying it.

Areas with gun crime problems pass strict gun laws. People from those areas go to areas without strict gun laws buy the guns and bring them back. Like fireworks.

Sorry I forget that I need to spell it all out for you.

Oh yeah the gangbangers in the wonderful liberal uptopia of Chicago just drive to the next state. Yep.

It couldn't at all be because liberal policies tend to make places a shithole to live and thus people get desperate, like a Chicago or a Detroit for example. No those evil guns, it's all their fault.

Logically if I'm a gun toting criminal in an area where I know everyone else is most likely packing, I'm more than likely going to go somewhere where I know I have the upper hand.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
89. Re: Op Ed Mar 20, 2013, 12:12 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:54:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:50:
Sepharo wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:40:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:36:
[...] why areas in the US with the toughest gun laws already, tend to have the most crime in regards to guns.

Same reason that states with bans on fireworks still have people launching huge illegal fireworks every 4th of July.

So because it's "tougher" to get guns in those areas, people want to kill more with them? Yeah sorry not buying it.

I would imagine it has alot more to do with criminals in those areas have far less fear that someone they assault will have a concealed carry permit and be able to fight back. Criminals tend to think a bit harder in areas where they're not sure someone is going to shoot back or not.

Or are the gun laws tougher because people want to kill each other more, and maybe without those laws there would be more death?

Interesting.

Not sure how looking state-by-state really matters more than country-by-country, given that culture doesn't change much by state, but hey, whatever helps prove your points in your mind and helps you read between whatever lines manage to get through your tin foil hat.

Culture certainly does change in some degrees, perhaps not extremely however. The FBI data does alot to back up the notion that tough gun laws don't really work, which is prolly a tough pill for liberals to swallow. Numbers don't lie, as much as you kick and scream and twist.

By all means continue the cheap comments though.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
85. Re: Op Ed Mar 20, 2013, 11:50 RollinThundr
 
Sepharo wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:40:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 11:36:
[...] why areas in the US with the toughest gun laws already, tend to have the most crime in regards to guns.

Same reason that states with bans on fireworks still have people launching huge illegal fireworks every 4th of July.

So because it's "tougher" to get guns in those areas, people want to kill more with them? Yeah sorry not buying it.

I would imagine it has alot more to do with criminals in those areas have far less fear that someone they assault will have a concealed carry permit and be able to fight back. Criminals tend to think a bit harder in areas where they're not sure someone is going to shoot back or not.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
84. Re: Op Ed Mar 20, 2013, 11:46 RollinThundr
 
Quboid wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 21:32:
The whole idea that weapons are needed to keep the federal government honest is a nutter's fantasy, a century out of date. You think some militia is going to topple the tyrannical reign of noted socialist Comrade Obama? That's just sad.

I didn't remove half the world to suit my argument, I estimated where is comparable in terms of poverty, law enforcement and such like and came up with western Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand. I haven't performed scientific research for obvious reasons, but I think that's a fair comparison and there's correlation alright. Russia? It has tight gun laws, but it also has notoriously slack policing. I thought Canada had tighter gun laws and certainly has lower gun ownership. Plus, they're too polite to shot someone.

You can't criticise me for not accounting for these variables and then criticise me because I did account for them. The reason they help my argument is because I'm right.

As for mental health, it seems everyone's talking about it (as SMA says). Certainly I'm all in favour of making healthcare more widely available but I gather large segments of the US population aren't and I think they may overlap with those who don't want gun control. But the big problem is ... what exactly is supposed to be done? Unless crazy people line up to be registered as unfit to own a gun, it's not going to do a whole lot. Certainly if someone has a history of violent conduct then the checks and limits should be stricter but 99.99% of the population aren't checked to see if they're crazy or not.

As a liberal, I'd actually quite like guns to be available. However, the principal of "that's why we can't have nice things" means that it's trouble and having anything more deadly than shotguns and such like will, and all too regularly has, caused nothing but tears.

You did though, you removed half the world from your equation to suit your agenda, which isn't very honest.

You really need to look at the FBI data in regards to crimes involving automatic weapons to know how very miniscule it is. And gun murders over all are the lowest they have been since 1981. Yet possession of guns has gone up since about 2007.

But according to you liberals it's an epidemic and we have to pass laws RIGHT NOW!!!! to address it. It's dishonest, it's fear mongering and it's what the left does on a regular basis. We as Americans are more divided today than we have have been. I'm not sure if it's the same sentiment over there but I wouldn't be surprised if it was close.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
82. Re: Op Ed Mar 20, 2013, 11:36 RollinThundr
 
Prez wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 22:46:
I think part of the problem with the issue of gun control is that both sides tend to make arguments that are extreme (almost certainly more extreme than they otherwise would if everyone viewed the issue objectively) resulting in a polarizing and pointless debate. Sure, there are frighteningly-obsessed gun nuts who believe they should be able to own absolutely anything without restriction, just as on the opposite side there are gun-banning obsessed kooks who actually believe life in America would be a bowl of cherries if only we disarmed everyone but the military. But do these views really make up the majority of those of either side? I'd say an emphatic "no" myself. Yet both sides enter the debate as if the other is made up of the extreme view exclusively.

I fall on the pro-ownership side of the debate, but when someone makes a compelling argument for new sensible restrictions that could have a positive effect on keeping firearms out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them I listen. As it stands, I could go either way on the "assault" weapons ban (in quotes because they are not really assault weapons by definition) as I personally don't feel the need to own anything larger than the sidearms I currently own, but the argument needs to be a little more substantive than "well, who really NEEDS an AR-15?" for me.

The biggest negative to the ban debate for me is that in reality the lion's share of mass shootings in America's history that were done with something other than pistols easily could have been carried out almost exactly the same way and have been just has horrific with nothing but pistols (the two major exceptions off the top of my head being the Texas Bell Tower Sniper of 1966 and the DC/Beltway Sniper of 2002). I shoot at a range where on certain days long semi-auto rifles are allowed on the range as well as pistols. From this experience I learned that someone with minimal training can put just as many rounds down range with a pistol in roughly the same time frame. In other words, what people are hoping will be the result of any long semi-auto rifle ban (lower body counts in mass shootings) will most certainly NOT happen. Which I fear could take us inexorably closer to the mass ban/super strict regulation of every firearm to which I am adamantly opposed. I am in no way a "gun nut", and I believe it is governement's right and responisbility to regulate firearm ownership sensibly and lawfully to protect the public at large, but I am certainly in favor of keeping my right to defend myself and others from the huge number of morally defunt and insane cretins roaming the streets of every city.

Certainly some good points here Prez, I think my question is really, and this has been my question the whole time during the whole gun debate. We know criminals and gangbangers and the like aren't going to follow laws to begin with. So honestly how many gun laws can we pass to the many we already have on the books that they're not going to follow anyway? Makes it somewhat a moot point.

I'd also really love a straight answer from a Beamer, or someone of his ilk as to why areas in the US with the toughest gun laws already, tend to have the most crime in regards to guns.

There has to be a smarter more effective way to address it without walking all over the 2nd amendment.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
81. Re: Op Ed Mar 20, 2013, 11:28 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 20, 2013, 06:56:
RollinThundr wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 22:23:
Beamer wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 21:35:
I'm fairly certain RollinThundr has blamed Islam for terrorism.

So, the gun isn't to blame, the person is. But the religion IS to blame over the person?

Extremist aren't the same thing. I never equated the two. Enjoy your strawman though. Personally I think the world would be better off without religion but people have the right to believe in what they want as long as it doesn't interfere with someone elses beliefs imo anyway.


It isn't a strawman. A strawman is you constantly saying that someone wants to ban all guns when literally no rational human being has said this, nor has anyone in politics (not that most are rational), nor has Obama.

A strawman isn't "Islam is evil, all it does is kill people!" being ok but "guns don't kill, people that want to kill kill!"



How have we strayed so far from RollinThundr saying racist things in a thread that began with him whining that he's not racist?

If you can't read between the lines and see what type of a guy Obama and his cronies are, than that's your own fault, though really you kinda seem the same type, very pushy, your opinion is always right and you make sure to tell people so over and over. Please by all means continue to call me names and personally attack me however.

You guys don't debate, you personally attack people and twist everything they say to suit your agenda.

You've argued how bad racism is and how much blacks are kept down, yet you yourself I believe said you were black, have degrees, and make six figures or whatever it was you've said. You made it right beamer? Man didn't keep you down too much I gather.

Ever notice how it's always democrats going on and on about racism and fairness? How the world is so unfair to make you earn a life. Poor widdle liberals wahh.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Op Ed
74. Re: Op Ed Mar 19, 2013, 22:23 RollinThundr
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 19, 2013, 21:35:
I'm fairly certain RollinThundr has blamed Islam for terrorism.

So, the gun isn't to blame, the person is. But the religion IS to blame over the person?

Extremist aren't the same thing. I never equated the two. Enjoy your strawman though. Personally I think the world would be better off without religion but people have the right to believe in what they want as long as it doesn't interfere with someone elses beliefs imo anyway.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
2460 Comments. 123 pages. Viewing page 50.
< Newer [ 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo