Guns, Guns Guns

Odium wrote:Tenshinai, do you really need to throw so many insults into your posts?

It very much detracts from the forums when you insult the person you disagree with rather than their arguments.

It makes it feel like you join the discussion simply to Troll and not to add anything to the topic

Part of what I like about these forums is the fact that people with wildly differing viewpoints actually discuss topics here with intelligence instead of insults, insulting other posters does more to convince me that your arguments lack the merit to stand on their own than it does to discredit the insultees argument

HB of CJ wrote:Tenshinai: I think you need to go back on your meds? It is pretty obvious you have gone over the top and perhaps a little bit inside out.

HB of CJ wrote:Have you received my private E Mail from me to you? You are still salvageable as a good friend. I have a gift for you from SW OR USA.

HB of CJ wrote:Fifty to one? Really. No way I am going to take that bet. We all know a M16 does not have the range of a good Calvary Saber or even a Rapier.

Tenshinai wrote:

Odium wrote:Tenshinai, do you really need to throw so many insults into your posts?

Seriously? I throw around less insults than HB, and i ONLY do so because for one of two reasons, either because i´m replying to someone throwing insults around like candy, like HB does, or when "arguments" are so insane or stupid that just saying "you´re wrong" simply isnt enough.

It very much detracts from the forums when you insult the person you disagree with rather than their arguments.

Oh i certainly strike at the arguments, normally. But when replying to an open ended, ignorant and amazingly idiotic personal attack aimed at 95% of the world´s population, i don´t really care about being nice.

It makes it feel like you join the discussion simply to Troll and not to add anything to the topic

Riiight...

I´m one of those throwing around the most facts, but obviously that and not employing dishonest rethorics makes me a troll, riiight.

Part of what I like about these forums is the fact that people with wildly differing viewpoints actually discuss topics here with intelligence instead of insults, insulting other posters does more to convince me that your arguments lack the merit to stand on their own than it does to discredit the insultees argument

If that was actually true, you wouldn´t enjoy HBs posts, considering how he´s probably in the top 5 for the forum´s biggest peddler of mass insults.

I insult people for saying something stupid, he indiscriminately insults people for existing, without even trying to limit his aim towards what he´s actually targeting.

I´m verbally sniping, he´s randomly throwing nukes over his shoulder and hoping it hits something(essentially the very core of trolling), very rarely with any kind of factual support. And yet you talk about trolling in regards to ME?

Annachie wrote:Personally Poker, I think any violent felony conviction should potentially, hell probably, involve a lengthy fire arms ban after release from prison.

It's a fair indication that you might not be a 'responsible' gun owner.



Of course registering and restricting transfers is a great first step to preventing guns getting into the hands of criminals and terrorists so I can't understand the opposition to it.
Breaching those rules means you're a criminal or terrorist who shouldn't be allowed to own a gun so of course it should involve a ban for them too.

Really that meme says that you want to give guns to criminals and terrorists, which is kind of a worry. The only people who want to give guns to criminals or terrorists are those themselves who are criminals or terrorists.
So which are you Poker? After all you seem to want to give guns to criminals and terrorists?



(This post needs a shit stiring emoji )

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

'If Patriotic Americans Would Simply Let Us Ban Their Firearms, Then Radical Islamic Terrorists Will Stop Slaughtering Innocent Americans.'

Is that not what Barack Obama and his liberal cronies are actually saying? If it were not so serious, it would be laughable. But if you're wondering why Barack Obama is trying to sell the American people on the insane idea that the solution to radical Islamic terrorism is to ban firearms for law-abiding Americans... here's the back story.

eyai wrote:Handgun ownership in Israel is a lot more limited than you seem to imagine. It's actually restricted in ways most US gun control advocates would find excessive. It's not military training which counts so much (not all handgun owners were combat troops, and even most of those won't have any prior experience with handguns); rather, a condition of a gun license (which generally allows you to own a single handgun and requires the police and a psychologist to sign off on it) is undergoing mandatory training.

eyai wrote:Unless order has completely broken down (in which case your rights - inluding the 2nd Amendment - aren't worth much - the proper recourse for this would be the courts (unless you're facing a situation which is bothinstantly lethal and the government agent in question is in the wrong, e.g. a policeman trying to murder you). A government - almost by definition - can always bring more force to bear and eventually you will go down if you escalate to lethal force (or at best, spend the rest of your life in prison).

odium wrote:Gun control comes down to where you draw the line between the rights and needs of individuals for firearms and the protection of other individuals and society from those who abuse or misuse those rights. There is no one size fits all solution as those needs vary from place to place even within a country. A sensible policy for Tokyo of no private firearms for example makes no sense for someone in rural Alaska who might open his front door to find a Grizzly sitting there.

Culture plays a large role too, as an outsider looking in, Personal freedoms, rights, liberties and responsibilities are a large part of American culture, distrust of the government also seems to be part of American culture. When you combine that with the Second amendment it makes sense that many Americans draw the line and say "No! The government does NOT have the right to regulate my gun ownership". When you combine that with the fact that basically every government in history, when given an inch, will try to take a mile, the reason many Americans refuse to consider any gun control quite honestly makes sense because sure today the government just wants to ban automatic weapons, but tomorrow they can say, well that was effective, let's ban semi auto, and the next day, let's ban all but single shot, followed by let's ban all guns.

pokermind wrote:Interesting Facebook MEME on the gun debate,

Poker