The original meaning of hot and bothered is angry.
This poster said I was pulling something out of my ass, what 3 times?
We can accuse people here of pulling things out of their asses?
But when you do that over and over, isn’t that a bigger deal than saying hot and bothered in response.
OK lumpy. I’ll see you in debate class tomorrow,
Wally
Can we just say this. The anal sadism in this thread doesn’t come from me.
Personally I’m okay with putting all the insults behind us. I decided a while ago that when a Mod warns me about something (or not-warns me, since I don’t think I’ve actually gotten a full warning), there is no point whatsoever in debating about the merits of their claim. They are the tital wave and I am the leaky canoe; all I can do is try to avoid being in the path of their stern attentions in the future.
Oh, and I can also calm the fuck down. I have never been chided while I’m calm.
I don’t.
No. Let’s not. If you’d like to discuss moderation further, feel free to start a thread in ATMB. No more here please.
[/moderating]
When someone thinks someone is fucking with them, sometimes they are, but sometimes someone is just being paranoid, bellicose, and entitled. Basically like affluenza for grownups.
This is what I think of when I see gun owners pleas for specialness in the world.
If you are nearly falling out of chairs over a progressive idea, like what kind of political dialogue do you think you are going to be able to have in the broader world?
What compromise? Where has the gun lobby compromised yet on guns even with popular and widely supported gun control measures?
And it is not a “ploy” of anyone on this board to grab the guns because I think it is pretty explicit and up front that we want to regulate guns which will probably include grabbing some guns.
Also, gun registration is not a “ploy” to get the guns because gun registration does not get the guns. Changing Supreme Court case law and the US legislature is where you go to “get the guns”. All opposition to gun registration means is gun owners want to be able to flout any law that makes their guns illegal to possess.
That’s not the only reason to oppose registration. In this age of hacks and leaks, I don’t trust the government to adequately protect the personal information of gun owners.
What kind of information?
But those two things are usually the best part of my day!
That was not a hack nor a leak. Since the info was obtained with a freedom of information request the fault lies with the government congress critters that did not bother to legislate to protect that information.
I don’t think I’m conservative anymore. It’s not that my beliefs have changed it’s that the meaning of the term has. I find little in common with the conservatives of the day, especially the sobial conservatives.
The reason for the seemingly odd choice of being in favor of banning semi-automatic rifles but not handguns is as follows:
My criteria is lethality. A semi-automatic handgun, has a limited useful range. It can’t reach out like a rifle. It also has a more limited practical magazine size. A spree killer is going to be very dangerous to those immediately around him with a handgun or handguns. Pretty quickly thought people would be able to either close with him and attack him, or run outside of effective range. With a semi rifle a person could be at considerable standoff range and be capable of putting a lot more bullets downrange very accurately. Running or closing with the shooter would be much more difficult. Because of this, it is potentially much more lethal.
whether or not you agree, I hope you see the reasoning behind my stance.
Exactly the issue. You’ve hit it right on the head. There is no compromise. There is no compromise on the pro-gun side, none on the anti-gun side. None.
Who is ‘we’? I’m all for regulation, though you couldn’t tell that from how the anti-gun side are acting (not all of them, admittedly). But you aren’t all of the ‘we’ in this thread on…well, whatever side you are on. There have been several (refreshingly honest) posters on the anti-gun side who have made it clear they are playing a longer game, and one that will end in either outright bans or guns so heavily regulated that the vast majority of current guns will be banned.
Several things here. First off, the pro-gun side THINK it COULD lead to lists that will allow the government to hone in on their guns and come for them if there is such a change in the SC or if someone manages to get the 2nd overturned…which is definitely on the table in this thread and has been advocated. Are they right? No, I don’t think so…but then, I don’t think the 2nd will be overturned or there will be a substantial change in the SC and their current stance, not any time soon. Which is why I put that in my OP as something I think should be looked at.
The issue, however, is trust. Just like you automatically thought ‘oh, these pro-gun folks don’t want the list so they can hide their guns if there is a changes’ (which is basically what you said earlier), the pro-gun folks think ‘shit, if they register my guns then if there is a change they will be able to come for them’. I’m just spelling it out here…this is how both of the militant sides think, and what prevents any sort of compromise. As you pointed out, the pro-gun side isn’t compromising (although, I’ll point out that there is a bi-partisan bill introduced about bump stocks, though no idea where that will go)…they feel that they can’t compromise as they feel threatened by folks just like in this thread who pretty obviously want more than regulation. The anti-gun side feel they can’t compromise either…they feel guns are evil, that the US is out of step with the rest of The World™, that the body count is too high and that nothing short of a full ban will do. And they will keep pushing for that ban in any way they can.
Then there is everyone in the middle somewhere. Perhaps you are one of these…I consider myself one. I think we should compromise (on more than just this one issue btw), but it seems vanishingly unlikely. There is zero trust between the two extremes, and the extremes are driving the entire discussion.
Like I said earlier, I am honestly puzzled. Hand guns cause a lot more death in the US on a year in and year out basis. The vast majority of deaths. I understand what you are saying, and I respect your viewpoint, but it’s just kind of odd to want to ban something that is so little used in gun violence, while allowing something that is the cause of most of the day to day violence and death. It’s kind of like the automatic weapons restrictions from the '30’s…it makes sense, kind of, as they are weapons COULD be very lethal. But the reality is they were never involved in many actual incidents either before or after those restrictions were passed.
names, addresses, makes and models of guns owned, etc.
Then I’m back to you simply don’t get it. Either way, I think we are done with our discussion at this point don’t you? I personally don’t feel like getting a warning. YMMV.
The same logic should apply to a bump stock ban. They’ve contributed to some minuscule fraction of “gun violence”.
I’m not trying to solve all problems at once. There are lots of ways a maniac can kill a small to moderate number of people. Handguns are one. When you talk about self-defense and sporting uses, handguns have a lot of utility that is not easily replaced.
The easiest problem to work on is to stop maniacs from killing lots and lots of people at ago, or, at least to make it a lot harder for them to do it. Semi-auto rifles do not have the same kind of utility that handguns do. Giving them up is easier. You can do everything with a bolt action that you can do with a semi, except that it’s a lot harder to send hundreds of bullets into a crowd in a minute with a bolt.
Banning the semi auto rifles gets you the most for the least.