So to you guns = muslims?
No. Obviously babies=bowling balls. Geez, you seem to have a really hard time following along.
This is nothing. I said the orange baboon was compromised in his problem with russia and he said it was “retarded” because donald trump cannot be blackmailed. There’s a problem there.
So if the 2nd amendment and laws get changed such that gun owners cannot own a certain number or type (or any) guns the gun owners want to be able to break the law and not get caught.
Gotcha.
I followed when you said gun ownership and muslim immigration are a somehow analogous, but it seemed ridiculous so I wanted to let you clarify.
And here we see the distrust the other way. Which is why compromise seems unlikely on this issue.
I think he was more saying that some anti-gun types’ reaction to guns remind him of The Orange Menace’s reaction to muslims - one gun is bad, two guns is worse, and twenty guns will force you to wear a burka.
No, quite obviously you didn’t follow and have no idea what I was saying…or you did and you are having a piss, as my British friends would say. I’m trying to figure out if you really don’t get this stuff or are trying to be a shiny lure in the water…or, really, what your deal is. I keep going back and forth on this and haven’t arrived at a conclusion. Clearly, more study is needed.
If you take out ‘some anti-gun types’ and substitute that with ‘drad dog’s arbitrary limit that somehow people who own 20 guns or more are a threat and we should fix this threat by imposing said limit’, then pretty much. I actually didn’t think this was that hard to follow. It’s the same logic. Have a fear. Create an arbitrary limit or ban based on that fear with very little or no data as to why you want to create that limit or ban except your own fear. Circle around.
Regardless, jumping to the conclusion that ‘guns = muslims’ from what I said is kind of ridiculous, no?
Because they’re wrong 
What distrust?
Why else would they oppose registration?
Oh, I don’t know. They both have the letter ‘U’ in them; that’s basically equality right there, isn’t it?
I’m not particularly impressed by the whole “one guy with more guns = bad!” argument, obviously. Which is not to say I’d go within twenty feet of his gun wall, mind you - I still am averse to firearms. But there have got to be better ways to identify threats than simply counting the triggers - especially since, and pardon my infamous ignorance, but a dude with one gun and fifty clips is precisely as dangerous as a dude with fifty guns with one clip each.
If anybody points out that the one gun may jam I’m slapping them.
It may have been when you intimated that “gun owners want to be able to break the law and not get caught”. That isn’t verbiage that screams that you trust the gun owners’ moral fortitude.
The gun owners think we want to take all their guns away; why else would we protest our society being saturated in deadly weapons?
We think that the gun owners are just waiting for the chance to murder, like, everyone; why else would they want to own deadly weapons?
That didn’t bother you when you voted for the baboon.
I think my gut feelings are at least as good as yours.
You said they were analogous. Do you want to make more paragraphage to hide it?
I step away for a meeting and the thread goes off the rails.
Do not say or imply that your fellow posters achieve sexual gratification or soil themselves.
Not sure how you are using ‘having a piss’, but to the extent it’s similar to trolling, don’t do that.
Again I will caution folks to be civil.
[/moderating]
Because they don’t trust your side and think it’s a ploy to grab their guns. And, frankly, based on some of the posts in this thread, their fear is justified. Some posters in this thread pretty clearly DO want to use whatever pretext they can to grab the guns, and such a list would help them do so very efficiently.
Like I said, there is distrust on both sides…and both sides think their distrust is justified. You obviously do, and so do they. Can we get past that? Can we get past the decades of distrust and bad blood, can we compromise? Based on this thread, I’d say no…we can’t. The middle ground is simply a place to be sniped at from both sides, though I have to say it’s your side that’s attacked me the most…and has most ignored the actual OP.
Fair enough, though I honestly think I’m being provoked in all of this. That could just be my frustration, however. This thread has been an incredibly frustrating experience from my perspective.
Look up the word analogous next as part of your continued experience from this thread. Once you do, think about what the definition is telling you, then compare and contrast that to using an = sign between two things. Perhaps you will see the disconnect…perhaps not. Apparently it was harder to understand than I thought, since you don’t seem to be the only one at a loss over it.
That’s a very common mode of attack on SMDB.
Poster X: Presents an analogy for A by giving an example of B.
Poster Y: How dare you equate A to B!
Happens all the time.
I was referring to the posters own words about me. I wasn’t imagining his or her sexuality.
“Hot and bothered” doesn’t mean “annoyed about the temperature in the room being too high”. Incidentally.