Anything goes thread

[jeremyc74]

So you completely ignore everything I posted and go straight for name calling. Classic.

Why not debate?

.

Because you're too damn whacked out to debate. You're NOT reasonable, and it's a waste of time. I could go through your rambling posts point by point, but you're not going to change your position and I have better things to do with my time. Also you have no ****ing room to call ANYONE out for name calling.

As I said earlier, you can take a reasonable position on the issue, or be ignored completely. It's your choice. The notion that there's nothing to be done other than put a gun in everyone's pocket just proves you're not interested in the real world. In a democracy the majority eventually rules, and your positions make it MORE likely that we'll lose our gun rights, not less.

The voting public has had its fill of mass shootings, and politicians taking moments of silence and doing nothing. If you're not willing to be part of the solution, sit back and STFU.

 

[jeremyc74]

Jermey did I miss you replying to my post number 677. It's has an alternative to background checks as well as mass shooting information that often get over looked in relation to gun control.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, I didn't miss it, I'm ignoring it because it's a waste of time. Your alternative to background checks is completely irrelevant, and there's really no new information there on mass shootings. You've proven yourself incapable of answering simple questions, and there's only a limited amount of time I'm willing to spend on your ideas for background checks when you've clearly stated you don't think they work anyway.

 

[Thefishguy77]

No, I didn't miss it, I'm ignoring it because it's a waste of time. Your alternative to background checks is completely irrelevant, and there's really no new information there on mass shootings. You've proven yourself incapable of answering simple questions, and there's only a limited amount of time I'm willing to spend on your ideas for background checks when you've clearly stated you don't think they work anyway.

Ok well you asked for alternatives and I have one. Calling it irrelevant with out explanation is just plain lazy. It fit you need for BGC and the "tinfoil hats" for no registration.
Both the recent mass shootings had legal originally purchased firearms and the rifles in the bernardino shooting could have been legally purchased as well by the shooters. So no BGC would have stopped that shooting.

If you think they would have stopped the Orlando or bernardino shooting even though they both passed BGC. Then please explain how the BGC failed. And what needs to be done. Don't be lazy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[-JD-]

Jeremy summarized it well. This debate has been had several times already on this forum let alone all the other places on the internet where its, i'm sure, being debated right now.

Anything other than a well articulated and thoroughly researched response backed by sources you can't dismiss as 'biased' will be immediately dismissed as non credible. The time it would take me to do that isn't worth it when I know that it wouldn't change your mind anyway.

There's an intentional lack of research in the US on this issue thanks to 'gun nuts' getting legislation passed to prevent such things. The examples I could point to around the world are generally dismissed because they are 'different than america'.

 

[-JD-]

Reposting because its both funny and theres a lot of truth in there

 

[Thefishguy77]

Coming from the king of BS. That's rich

To Jeremy. You asked for a alternative. I presented one and how it would have the best chance as I saw fit to appease both sides. The fact that you dismissed it as irrelevant with no explanation is lazy and disrespectful. If you ask a question and get a legitimate response. To not reply to it shows both laziness and disrespect. It also makes you appear as if you are not willing to listen. But nearly just waiting for your next ten to speak. I have family that are marines and disrespect and laziness are not anywhere in their vocabulary. If that's who you want to be fine.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[-JD-]

Government Hackers Caught Using Unprecedented iPhone Spy Tool

“We realized that we were looking at something that no one had ever seen in the wild before. Literally a click on a link to jailbreak an iPhone in one step,” Murray told Motherboard. “One of the most sophisticated pieces of cyberespionage software we’ve ever seen.”

Yikes.

Apples already patched this though.

Update your iPhones people!!

 

[nevada]

Because you're too damn whacked out to debate. You're NOT reasonable, and it's a waste of time. I could go through your rambling posts point by point, but you're not going to change your position and I have better things to do with my time. Also you have no ****ing room to call ANYONE out for name calling.

As I said earlier, you can take a reasonable position on the issue, or be ignored completely. It's your choice. The notion that there's nothing to be done other than put a gun in everyone's pocket just proves you're not interested in the real world. In a democracy the majority eventually rules, and your positions make it MORE likely that we'll lose our gun rights, not less.

The voting public has had its fill of mass shootings, and politicians taking moments of silence and doing nothing. If you're not willing to be part of the solution, sit back and STFU.

how is he being unreasonable?

as this current election is proving, the majority of the "voting public" are uninformed and ignorant.

how would ANY gun laws, prevent any of the mass shootings?
nothing that has been suggested would have helped.
as was said earlier, "assault rifles" are used such a very small percentage, that they shouldn't even be on the list. yet they are THE hot button item when it comes to GUNS.
facts don't seem to matter to your "voting public", but it should matter in regards to laws, and OUR CONSTITUTION.

 

[-JD-]

"My dog understand several human words. I don’t understand any dog barks. He may be smarter than me."

:laugh:

 

[1engineer]

"My dog understand several human words. I don’t understand any dog barks. He may be smarter than me."

:laugh:

My dog remembers people's names better than me. In a room full of people, you can say a name and tell the dog to go to them and she will. I have to ask my wife who that is before going over to speak to them. Yes my dog is smarter,

 

[ndcent]

Poor guy.

 

[Thefishguy77]

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[-JD-]

 

[-JD-]

Saw this on my facebook news feed this morning. Kinda rubbed me the wrong way. Aside from the fact that the figures dont seem to be inline with what I found doing a few minutes of googling, the timing just seemed disrespectful.

Thoughts?

 

[Jernik]

We don't see eye to eye on many things (thankfully:whoo: ), but I agree with you here 100% as I believe strongly in not having the rights of ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS limited in any way.

As a Canadian, any licensing to be able to own a restricted or prohibited firearm (which has to be registered) & the vetting for a license to own either is done by the RCMP, it's a privilege not a right here. Much different in the USA where it is a right. However, we do have significantly less gun type violence which I am actually quite happy with.

In RE your last sentence; Why do you suppose that is? Cultural differences / thought processes?

I mention it because I'm one that, as an American, has grown up with "The War On Drugs", yet they're more easily attainable than ever. The way I see it, TWOD has failed. Prohibition failed. We do not have a good track record stopping people from doing illegal things, so why would I expect guns to be different?

To me, TWOD doesn't impact me directly, as I don't use drugs. Prohibition, well I'm glad that failed before I got here, but the "Over 21" law didn't stop me from drinking in high school. I have some old squirrel guns and shot guns, and don't plan to drop a grand for an AR, but I do get concerned with gun laws because of the failures I mentioned above. It may be warrantless and paranoid, but I do fear what America would become if only criminals had guns. It has to deter at least some crime knowing victims may be armed vs knowing for sure they won't be.

We've already proven ourselves unable to systemically stop the black market from operating within our borders. While people can be stupid/reckless with their guns, I can't help but think that, overall, we're better off having armed citizens . I can't wrap my head around how restricting gun ownership by law abiding citizens will make things better for us, or any worse/harder for criminals.

 

[Victor_inox]

Saw this on my facebook news feed this morning. Kinda rubbed me the wrong way. Aside from the fact that the figures dont seem to be inline with what I found doing a few minutes of googling, the timing just seemed disrespectful.

Thoughts?

one group of people always against another group of people. History of native Americans for example. They will always find a reason to justify their war.
Get the hell out of other countries business and all "terrorism" will stop right away.

 

[ThorInc]

In RE your last sentence; Why do you suppose that is? Cultural differences / thought processes?

I mention it because I'm one that, as an American, has grown up with "The War On Drugs", yet they're more easily attainable than ever. The way I see it, TWOD has failed. Prohibition failed. We do not have a good track record stopping people from doing illegal things, so why would I expect guns to be different?

To me, TWOD doesn't impact me directly, as I don't use drugs. Prohibition, well I'm glad that failed before I got here, but the "Over 21" law didn't stop me from drinking in high school. I have some old squirrel guns and shot guns, and don't plan to drop a grand for an AR, but I do get concerned with gun laws because of the failures I mentioned above. It may be warrantless and paranoid, but I do fear what America would become if only criminals had guns. It has to deter at least some crime knowing victims may be armed vs knowing for sure they won't be.

We've already proven ourselves unable to systemically stop the black market from operating within our borders. While people can be stupid/reckless with their guns, I can't help but think that, overall, we're better off having armed citizens . I can't wrap my head around how restricting gun ownership by law abiding citizens will make things better for us, or any worse/harder for criminals.

I don't really know why as I personally would want to have the right to bare arms but on the same token, we seem to actually have less need for it here than in the US. We do have crime and violence but it could be your national culture or the news media cycle that seems to make it more sensational in the USA than in Canada, again, I don't know. For example, I never feel the need to let anyone know that I own/have firearms......and I guess my neighbours are the same. And, I would add some influence of money into the speculation mix as well.

 

[-JD-]

IMO its the restrictions that make the difference. When we say we, as Canadians, own guns, generally we mean rifles. Handguns are 'restricted' here requiring an extra license, and even once you have that you can ONLY have them in your home or at a shooting range and its big trouble if you're caught with one outside of those two locations.

I think the lack of handguns in Canada is a big factor in limiting gun violence here.

 

[nevada]

IMO its the restrictions that make the difference. When we say we, as Canadians, own guns, generally we mean rifles. Handguns are 'restricted' here requiring an extra license, and even once you have that you can ONLY have them in your home or at a shooting range and its big trouble if you're caught with one outside of those two locations.

I think the lack of handguns in Canada is a big factor in limiting gun violence here.

you may very well be correct. or at least part of it.

that begs the question then, why are their attempts at gun control here, mostly based on the AR, and semi-auto rifles?

 

[Thefishguy77]

you may very well be correct. or at least part of it.

that begs the question then, why are their attempts at gun control here, mostly based on the AR, and semi-auto rifles?

Maybe because handguns are used in crime but rifles are used in revolutions?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk