Implying that's a bad thing.
Advertisement
by Telconi » Sat May 19, 2018 5:33 pm
by Fartsniffage » Sat May 19, 2018 5:34 pm
by Kernen » Sat May 19, 2018 5:37 pm
by Fartsniffage » Sat May 19, 2018 5:41 pm
The East Marches II wrote:Fartsniffage wrote:
I don't think I can answer it. Certainly not without a lot more thought. It's such a weird question. I'm pretty sure I know how you would define freedom but in the UK we have far fewer eagles and guns.
I'll come back to you on that one.
It's not a redirect when it's completely tied to my initial point. Or have you forgotten what that was with all your flailing?
A mealy-mouthed reply regarding your real views, nothing unusual about that. It is fair to say your thoughts on the matter shouldn't be taken seriously.
Your point was to dodge to question and put forth an absurdity to cover the bankruptcy of your initial point. Alas my fellow countrymen are foolish and biting on to the dodge! A pity.
by The East Marches II » Sat May 19, 2018 5:44 pm
Fartsniffage wrote:The East Marches II wrote:
A mealy-mouthed reply regarding your real views, nothing unusual about that. It is fair to say your thoughts on the matter shouldn't be taken seriously.
Your point was to dodge to question and put forth an absurdity to cover the bankruptcy of your initial point. Alas my fellow countrymen are foolish and biting on to the dodge! A pity.
Why so angry TEM? Do you need a hug?
by Fartsniffage » Sat May 19, 2018 6:06 pm
by The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp » Sat May 19, 2018 6:38 pm
by Telconi » Sat May 19, 2018 7:05 pm
by The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp » Sat May 19, 2018 7:07 pm
by Fartsniffage » Sat May 19, 2018 7:07 pm
by Telconi » Sat May 19, 2018 7:12 pm
by The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp » Sat May 19, 2018 7:20 pm
Telconi wrote:The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:
Not my fault that your being illogical about this and can't see that Enough at the very least imply's a cap of some sort.
And are using an excuse to pick up your ball and go home.
It does not imply a cap. For example "There is not enough money in the world to buy my firstborn child" nothing about that statement implies that there is enough elsewhere, or that there is a theoretical amount that would be suitable.Fartsniffage wrote:
Do you need a hug too?
Screw off.
by The East Marches II » Sat May 19, 2018 7:25 pm
by The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp » Sat May 19, 2018 7:28 pm
by Dylar » Sat May 19, 2018 7:30 pm
St. Albert the Great wrote:"Natural science does not consist in ratifying what others have said, but in seeking the causes of phenomena."
Franko Tildon wrote:Fire washes the skin off the bone and the sin off the soul. It cleans away the dirt. And my momma didn't raise herself no dirty boy.
by Tobleste » Sat May 19, 2018 7:36 pm
Ors Might wrote:I appreciate the response. First off, I take issue with you using the “slippery slope” argument because there is evidence for there being a real slippery slope. We have examples of nations banning the vast majority of guns to the public and certain states have done everything they can to make gun ownership unnecessarily difficult. I’m open to compromise but that requires something being given in exchange. And no, mass shootings in and of themselves are not a reason for me to accept restrictions upon my rights. The keyword there is rights. It should be obvious that I hold the 2A in high regard, in a similar way to the 1A. I respect and admire the underlying principles behind them. I won’t accept restrictions placed on either without a damn good amount of evidence that it would do a sufficient amount of good. And even then, I will be hesitant. They’re simply things that I value. Not to be callous but mass shootings are too few in number for me to consider the type of restrictions Democrats have been proposing to be reasonable, especially given the doubts I have about the effectiveness of such laws. Make no mistake, there are measures that I and likely more than a few other gun rights advocates would be happy to support. They just aren’t the ones you’re pushing for. At least, not at the moment.
by Washington Resistance Army » Sat May 19, 2018 7:38 pm
Tobleste wrote:Well at least you're honest. Unfortunately, evidence isn't the priority for gun control opponents
by The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp » Sat May 19, 2018 7:38 pm
Tobleste wrote:Ors Might wrote:I appreciate the response. First off, I take issue with you using the “slippery slope” argument because there is evidence for there being a real slippery slope. We have examples of nations banning the vast majority of guns to the public and certain states have done everything they can to make gun ownership unnecessarily difficult. I’m open to compromise but that requires something being given in exchange. And no, mass shootings in and of themselves are not a reason for me to accept restrictions upon my rights. The keyword there is rights. It should be obvious that I hold the 2A in high regard, in a similar way to the 1A. I respect and admire the underlying principles behind them. I won’t accept restrictions placed on either without a damn good amount of evidence that it would do a sufficient amount of good. And even then, I will be hesitant. They’re simply things that I value. Not to be callous but mass shootings are too few in number for me to consider the type of restrictions Democrats have been proposing to be reasonable, especially given the doubts I have about the effectiveness of such laws. Make no mistake, there are measures that I and likely more than a few other gun rights advocates would be happy to support. They just aren’t the ones you’re pushing for. At least, not at the moment.
Well at least you're honest. Unfortunately, evidence isn't the priority for gun control opponents so the issue will never progress from the current situation. What's happening at 'the moment' is just going to continue for the next few decades at least and I don't think there'll be any change. It's like what that British journalist said, Sandy Hook was the end of the gun debate. Once dead kids was accepted, everything was.
by Telconi » Sat May 19, 2018 7:39 pm
Tobleste wrote:Ors Might wrote:I appreciate the response. First off, I take issue with you using the “slippery slope” argument because there is evidence for there being a real slippery slope. We have examples of nations banning the vast majority of guns to the public and certain states have done everything they can to make gun ownership unnecessarily difficult. I’m open to compromise but that requires something being given in exchange. And no, mass shootings in and of themselves are not a reason for me to accept restrictions upon my rights. The keyword there is rights. It should be obvious that I hold the 2A in high regard, in a similar way to the 1A. I respect and admire the underlying principles behind them. I won’t accept restrictions placed on either without a damn good amount of evidence that it would do a sufficient amount of good. And even then, I will be hesitant. They’re simply things that I value. Not to be callous but mass shootings are too few in number for me to consider the type of restrictions Democrats have been proposing to be reasonable, especially given the doubts I have about the effectiveness of such laws. Make no mistake, there are measures that I and likely more than a few other gun rights advocates would be happy to support. They just aren’t the ones you’re pushing for. At least, not at the moment.
Well at least you're honest. Unfortunately, evidence isn't the priority for gun control opponents so the issue will never progress from the current situation. What's happening at 'the moment' is just going to continue for the next few decades at least and I don't think there'll be any change. It's like what that British journalist said, Sandy Hook was the end of the gun debate. Once dead kids was accepted, everything was.
by Tobleste » Sat May 19, 2018 7:49 pm
Tobleste wrote:Ors Might wrote:I appreciate the response. First off, I take issue with you using the “slippery slope” argument because there is evidence for there being a real slippery slope. We have examples of nations banning the vast majority of guns to the public and certain states have done everything they can to make gun ownership unnecessarily difficult. I’m open to compromise but that requires something being given in exchange. And no, mass shootings in and of themselves are not a reason for me to accept restrictions upon my rights. The keyword there is rights. It should be obvious that I hold the 2A in high regard, in a similar way to the 1A. I respect and admire the underlying principles behind them. I won’t accept restrictions placed on either without a damn good amount of evidence that it would do a sufficient amount of good. And even then, I will be hesitant. They’re simply things that I value. Not to be callous but mass shootings are too few in number for me to consider the type of restrictions Democrats have been proposing to be reasonable, especially given the doubts I have about the effectiveness of such laws. Make no mistake, there are measures that I and likely more than a few other gun rights advocates would be happy to support. They just aren’t the ones you’re pushing for. At least, not at the moment.
Well at least you're honest. Unfortunately, evidence isn't the priority for gun control opponents so the issue will never progress from the current situation. What's happening at 'the moment' is just going to continue for the next few decades at least and I don't think there'll be any change. It's like what that British journalist said, Sandy Hook was the end of the gun debate. Once dead kids was accepted, everything was.
by Fartsniffage » Sat May 19, 2018 7:51 pm
Tobleste wrote:Tobleste wrote:
Well at least you're honest. Unfortunately, evidence isn't the priority for gun control opponents so the issue will never progress from the current situation. What's happening at 'the moment' is just going to continue for the next few decades at least and I don't think there'll be any change. It's like what that British journalist said, Sandy Hook was the end of the gun debate. Once dead kids was accepted, everything was.
Sadly we have dead kids in this attack too.
by Fartsniffage » Sat May 19, 2018 7:55 pm
by Cekoviu » Sat May 19, 2018 7:58 pm
Telconi wrote:Tobleste wrote:
Well at least you're honest. Unfortunately, evidence isn't the priority for gun control opponents so the issue will never progress from the current situation. What's happening at 'the moment' is just going to continue for the next few decades at least and I don't think there'll be any change. It's like what that British journalist said, Sandy Hook was the end of the gun debate. Once dead kids was accepted, everything was.
Evidence that your opinions are superior? I don't think we'll ever find any.
by Goldwater » Sat May 19, 2018 8:00 pm
Cekoviu wrote:Telconi wrote:
Evidence that your opinions are superior? I don't think we'll ever find any.
There is evidence that mass shootings are heavily decreased when gun control measures are enacted, as with Australia. I don't know exactly what measures Tobleste is in favor of, though, and regardless, it would be unconstitutional to ban guns or certain types of guns in the United States.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Godular, Pasong Tirad, Sky Reavers, Statesburg, The Vooperian Union, Zetaopalatopia
Advertisement