Well, didn’t you say this? Doesn’t it strike you as rather odd to be calling for civility and restraint in debate from the Brady Bunch when you accuse people of deliberately lying in order to foster an evil agenda?
That’s some pretty strong shit, no? Not claiming that someone is wrong, not claiming that they misunderstood some data point or another, but that they are lying and conspiring to lie! What, they have a secret newsletter they pass around covertly, advising what talking points to lie about?
Have you any proof of this? Outside of a malicious failing to agree with you, what have you got?
Your straw men are usually somewhat less transparent than this. I did not call for “civility and restraint”, I characterized them as dishonest. If anything, I was calling for honesty. I would prefer them to be quite rude and honest to polite liars.
Ah, but then, if you say I’m calling for “civility”, then you can make up ‘you call for civility and then call them liars! hypocrite!’ out of thin air.
Do you seriously contend that the gun control lobby deliberately mischaracterizes the guns they intend to label “assault weapons”? This is so patently obvious that you’d damage your credibility to deny it if you had any.
The very term “assault weapon” is manipulative and deceptive. It’s intended to sound like “assault rifle”, but since that term actually has a definition that has little to do with what they intend to do, they had to make up a similar term. But they want the public to think that weapons covered under the assault weapons ban are “machine guns” because it evokes a much stronger reaction.
There’s constantly talk from politicians and gun controllers about how “the weapons of military battlefields shouldn’t be on our streets”, when news shows report on anything relating to the assault weapons bans they typically show video clips of actual assault rifles that wouldn’t be covered under the ban. You can see from threads on these boards that even among relatively well educated people there’s the notion of “why would you oppose the assault weapons ban? what do you need a machine gun for?”
Here’s a difference between you and I. When I see a deceptive or manipulative tactic used to support a position I hold, I’m dissapointed by it. I don’t support it. I don’t think it’s good or necesary. My positions are those of introspection and reason to the best of my abilities, so they should not require deception to support. As such, I won’t defend someone on here who happens to share the same outlook as me if I view their arguments as manipulative or if they lie. The facts and logic are on my side - and that’s why I’ve come to support my position - so why would I need to deceive to support my agenda?
You, on the other hand, seem to accept deception and manipulation as valid means so long as you’re convinced that the ends they persue are worthwhile. You’ll defend another poster whose arguments are full of shit if he shares the same ideology. I think this is probably an example of that. I also think on some level you know the gun control lobby deliberately attempts to confuse “assault weapon” and “assault rifle” and “machine gun”, but you think that if the bans were passed it would ultimately be for the better so you support the underhanded tactics.
I know the difference between two, to and too. It is just XT going outside the subject ,to make a irrelevant remark and being stupid enough to think he has buttressed his argument. Insults offer no info about me at all. They just show who and what XT is.
Try to keep up Gonz. Your behavior offers vast amounts of information about you… from which we get the insults which accurately describe your behavior.
Someone who does not tolerate smarmy, condescending idiots well.
Shocking.
Please submit your Certificate of Telepathy for examination.
I’m pretty sure this is what you contend. Read it again, you zigged when you meant to zag.
But you are hoist on your own retard. You (reasonably enough) contend that most Americans are ignorant of the technical differences between various weapons. But you don’t explain why we should care, if a weapon is “automatic” in the commonly understood sense, if it is to some degree very much like a “machine gun”, then the minor technical parsing is of interest only to a specialist, a hobbyist, or aficianado. Why in the world should I care if the weapon is, at the finest point, an “assault weapon” or merely an exceptionally dangerous weapon?
Not all ignorance is the result of malice or disinformation. Some of it has to do more with not giving a rat’s patoot about a subject that you are passionately devoted to.
Well, yes, of course, you are an honest and straight forward person, and I disagree with you. Case closed. Is this the integrity you wish us to bring, the lack of which you find so disappointing?
Thus far, you have only offered your telepathic powers to support this accusation.
This is honesty in your book? A bald statement of “fact”, based entirely on your LaMont Cranston Secret Telepathy Ring.
You are clearly not a stupid man, but this is a very poor argument. Unless, of course, you actually have a Certificate of Telepathy to offer?
You mischaracterized what I said entirely. In the post I responded to, I did not say that I was calling for the gun control lobby to display civility and restraint, yet that is the straw man you created and attributed to me. You then tried to say that because I was calling for civility and restraint, then I’m being a hypocrite since I’m accusing them of lying. Even that does not follow - if someone’s lying, they’re lying. You can call them on it without being uncivil. So not only was the whole thing a straw man, but it wasn’t even a logical tear down of the straw man you created.
I just meant that it’s plainly obvious that they deliberately mischaracterize the things they wish to ban. We both know it. Why do we have to play the game of proving something we both know?
You advocate laws banning something, and yet admit that you don’t actually know or care about why that thing should be banned? It’s not a minor technical detail. We’re not talking about "the chamber is actually 2 3/8th inches deep, not 2 1/2. We’re talking about whether the guns fire fully automatically when you pull the trigger. That is a very basic issue about function, not technical minutia.
Your whole notion here seems to be ‘these things feel like they’re bad, why sweat the details?’ which is pretty much the agenda at work here.
The people I spoke of, who are deliberately spreading disinformation, are lawmakers who write or push these laws and organizations dedicated to restricting gun ownership. They certainly care and understand what they’re trying to do.
My point was not merely that you disagreed, but that you were willing to support dishonest tactics if you were convinced the end result was worthwhile. I was speculating on our differences in ideology, not making a case that I should automatically win the argument.
You’re trying to give me busywork, to make me search to prove something that we, and most of the people reading this post, know are true. Do you seriously believe that gun control advocates (the people pushing these bans) don’t deliberately attempt to blur the line between the weapons affected under an assault weapon ban and the weapons used by militaries or action movies?
Oh no! I am undone by yet another brilliant factual refutation from Clowny!
The Big Red Nose of Justice has foiled my nefarious agenda.
My vicious nature has been thoroughly stomped upon by the Oversize Shoes of Righteousness.
Good job, Clowny.
In before “Oh snap! Wilde?” yet a fucking gain.
Obviously, when the facts show that you have gone on record as explicitly condoning lying in service of your politics (and thus showing that you don’t even have a pretense to personal credibility, as a man who’ll support others who lie for his position will provide his own lies sooner or later)… there’s totally something wrong with me for having a brain that works and a long term memory that’s accessible.
Good show Clowny, if you respond to a factual assertion with a moronic dodge of an ad hominem, maybe people will forget the original fact itself.
Ya know, the fact that you really do support liars if they’re lying for your “side”.
Speaking of convenient forgetting, wasn’t there someone in the thread who referred to another poster as “vicious” and “twit”? Surely that, however, couldn’t have been you as it clearly evinces grudge holding. Why, probably done as a hobby.
Now you, you’re full of a milk of human kindness, you let things just flow past you. Right? So it wasn’t you who said that. And, I’m sure there was someone in the thread who trolled the “usual suspects”, suggesting a grudge that was carried out against a whole class of posters on this message board for their “usual” conduct over time. But again, surely you’re serious in your aversion to “grudges” and not just inventing rhetoric that not even you agree with so you can be an asshole.
I mean, if you had a sliding scale that allowed you to make shit up whenever you simply wanted to torque someone off, that’d be… gee, that’d be trolling.
And if there’s one thing you certainly aren’t, is a troll.
Certainly.
Well, that’s great! I’m truly happy for you gonzo! It’s something you can certainly be proud of.
You never actually read or follow the various posts in a thread…do you? If you did you’d know that it was Hentor that brought up this charming little grammar nazi subtext…not I. It’s not your writing style I have a problem with, or that clearly indicates you are stupid…it’s your posting style and debating style.
You offer all of the info needed by the way you post, the way you debate and the comments you make. As do we all of course.
Actually, no, I don’t, and have said so many times. Perhaps not these exact words, but the sentiment is: “Just keep the goddam things, muzzle tov, much good may they do you!” I think the approach of legal banning is futile and counterproductive, especially given the fanatical response such an effort would provoke. Plus, there are already millions and millions of the damn things, they won’t rot, they won’t go away, and they won’t go “poof!” when we pass a law.
We’ll have to go the long, slow, hard way, we’ll have to change people’s minds (and their hearts, to some degree). It will take at least a generation, and may not be possible, even then.
Do you pay any attention at all to what I say, or do you only respond to the words you put in my mouth? How can you criticize my “honesty” when you don’t even know what I said?
Show me where I said that I support laws to ban guns. Double dog dare you. I’ll wait right here, take your time. The doctor says I got a good twenty-thirty years yet, so I can afford to be patient. You let me know.
FWIW, I recall you saying much the same thing in another thread.
And that is the proper way to do it IMHO. The problem has been with the banning types trying to do an end run around the system and basically re-interpret the right out of existence…instead of doing it the way you suggest and then using the system as it was designed to amend the Amendment.
It isn’t a matter of being a “grammar nazi,” it’s Gaudere’s Law.
That is of course until you just came right out and said that the distinction between the two doesn’t even matter to you. Then it became neither what you seem to think is nazism, nor Gaudere’s Law, but just plain willful ignorance.
Gaudere’s Law states that if you point out flaws in someone else’s spelling/grammar, you’ll probably make at least one yourself in that post. How is that relevant? Did XT criticize The Gonz’ grammar? Or was it his behavior?
And are you again letting your rhetoric get away with you? “Grammar Nazi” is as much a comparison with National Socialism as “man she’s smoking hot” is a comment about a woman’s flammable properties.
P.S. he never said that the distinction between the two didn’t matter (and I doubt you honestly missed that fact). He said that he was focusing on The Gonz’ behavior and habit of messing up threads with his smarmy idiocy and not their spelling abilities. Why misrepresent XT’s position to make your claims?
Nope, not even that. Don’t propose to do anything at all about the 2nd Amendment, except perhaps to enshrine it for future generations as an example of the perils of ambiguity.
Don’t change the guns, don’t change the laws, change the people. The Amish can buy just as many assault rifles as anyone, they simply don’t. And amazingly, they are yet to be murdered in their beds.
Yes, thank you, I’m aware of it…shocking I know in someone you think can barely tie his shoes in the morning.
Well, you’d perhaps have a point if I actually had criticized gonzo in this OP about his grammar, spelling, syntax or whatever. Unfortunately for you I didn’t do that. In fact, in generally I NEVER do that…except in a teasing and ironic sort of way, seeing as how my own is so bad.
Sort of like the willful ignorance you are displaying in continuing to beat this dead horse? Yeah…I see that Hentor. My guess is that nearly everyone (gonzomax excepted) sees that at this point.
Then I disagree with you. The right thing to do, assuming it’s what the people want, would be to amend or strike down the Amendment…not to ignore it or go around it. What use a Constitution if parts of it are simply ignored?
If the people change then their laws and government should change. When slavery became unacceptable we didn’t just leave all the laws and usages on the books but ignore them…we changed them. This would be much the same IMHO.
