PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: President-Elect Bob Noel on September 18, 2019, 02:03:52 PM
-
anti-gun fanatics keep pushing Gun Free Zones.
Can someone articulate, in a clear rational manner, how a Gun Free Zone helps anything?
And can that someone articulate why a Gun Free Zone wouldn't be a clear violation of our Constitutional rights?
-
No.
-
No.
I got nothin'.....
-
-
anti-gun fanatics keep pushing Gun Free Zones.
Can someone articulate, in a clear rational manner, how a Gun Free Zone helps anything?
And can that someone articulate why a Gun Free Zone wouldn't be a clear violation of our Constitutional rights?
I'm not sure you can equate a right to bear arms with gun free zones. Does your right to own a gun supplant my right as a business owner to tell you not to bring it to my establishment?
-
I'm not sure you can equate a right to bear arms with gun free zones. Does your right to own a gun supplant my right as a business owner to tell you not to bring it to my establishment?
When balancing rights, there needs to be actual justification for restricting someone's right, yes?
Why do you think your right to tell anyone not bring it to your establishment supercedes their right to defend themselves?
And what benefit do you think you achieve by creating a Gun Free Zone? In your wildest imagination, do you think a bad guy is going to see a Gun Free Zone sign and turn away from your establishment?
-
When balancing rights, there needs to be actual justification for restricting someone's right, yes?
Why do you think your right to tell anyone not bring it to your establishment supercedes their right to defend themselves?
And what benefit do you think you achieve by creating a Gun Free Zone? In your wildest imagination, do you think a bad guy is going to see a Gun Free Zone sign and turn away from your establishment?
Hey, liberals, leftist and progressive's are convinced gun laws will cause criminals to either give up their guns or at least register them.
-
All the gun laws being pushed by the Democrats and their anti legal gun Fascists are purely to disarm the law abiding. They know it won't reduce violence and murder because criminals don't care about laws. Also, they forget we already have 22,000 gun laws on the books at the Fed, State, and Local levels and they get violated by thugs and crazies DAILY.
-
It makes leftists feel good like they’re doing something to keep those scary gun things away from them. In their minds, if people aren’t legally allowed to carry guns, there will be fewer guns around and therefore they will be better off.
It’s a completely idiotic line of thinking, but it helps their feelings.
-
When balancing rights, there needs to be actual justification for restricting someone's right, yes?
Why do you think your right to tell anyone not bring it to your establishment supercedes their right to defend themselves?
And what benefit do you think you achieve by creating a Gun Free Zone? In your wildest imagination, do you think a bad guy is going to see a Gun Free Zone sign and turn away from your establishment?
A gun free zone will never deter a shooter, more likely it will just encourage them. Apparently in today's world a business has the right to chase republicans from their establishment.
-
When balancing rights, there needs to be actual justification for restricting someone's right, yes?
Why do you think your right to tell anyone not bring it to your establishment supercedes their right to defend themselves?
And what benefit do you think you achieve by creating a Gun Free Zone? In your wildest imagination, do you think a bad guy is going to see a Gun Free Zone sign and turn away from your establishment?
Eppy has a point. When it comes to MY property, I have every right to say you can’t bring in a gun, an ugly chick, or a unicorn. That doesn’t mean you can’t defend yourself. It means you don’t have to come to my property if you don’t want.
My firm says employees are not allowed to bring weapons into any of our offices. They get to make the rules. It’s up to me to decide whether I wish to comply, quit, or violate them.
However, I typically think of gun free zones as something in public places, like schools, government buildings, the street, etc. I DO think that those laws violate the Second Amendment.
-
Why do you think your right to tell anyone not bring it to your establishment supercedes their right to defend themselves?
There are no refusal-of-service laws that make it illegal for a private owner of a public accommodation to bar anyone entering with a gun. They can certainly legally post and enforce “no shoes, no shirt: no service” signs in most jurisdictions, so they can do the same with regard to guns (probably even to requiring rather than banning - e.g. “Suit and tie and gun required of gentlemen.”)
Now if the “gun free zones” of the OP are about public spaces and places, then they would IMHO violate the constitution.
Lastly, one possible justification for a private establishment to bar guns has nothing to do with deterring bad guys, but protecting everyone else from inept or clumsy good guys. They may judge the probability of a gun accident is higher than guests or patrons becoming defenseless crime victims. Look at all the traffic and aircraft accidents and fatalities caused by people who have actually received training and certification. And those are machines with safety features and not designed to kill.
(I see nddons posted a similar argument while I was still composing this post, but I’ll post it anyway.)
-
We required any young man who wanted to court our daughters to carry a gun. I can’t imagine why any parent wouldn’t.
-
We required any young man who wanted to court our daughters to carry a gun. I can’t imagine why any parent wouldn’t.
With the pussification of many young men these days (since you had a daughter you must have noticed they young men don’t court any more, they’re too cowardly to call girls, etc.) how did you find ANY they carried a gun?
-
With the pussification of many young men these days (since you had a daughter you must have noticed they young men don’t court any more, they’re too cowardly to call girls, etc.) how did you find ANY they carried a gun?
They were in our circle, except the one our youngest ended up marrying and we had raised her with the right outlook so I guess she attracted like minded friends.
-
Try to tell to declare a no-gays zone and see what happens.
Compare and contrast that with gun-free zone
-
There are more honest, law abiding people than there are crazy mass murderers. So a gun free zone will keep those hundreds of millions of honest, law abiding people from shooting defenseless people in those gun free zones.
Only problem is; those honest, law abiding people aren't the ones doing the shooting.
-
All the gun laws being pushed by the Democrats and their anti legal gun Fascists are purely to disarm the law abiding.
This is the real agenda, an unarmed population is a powerless population. Once guns are gone, the jackboots will follow.
-
The other day Mrs. Steingar sent me an article where researchers had shown those who drink diet sodas (guilty as charged) suffer infarctions and stroke. I pointed out how their arguments were similar to your inane arguments about gun control. She got the point quite quickly.
-
The other day Mrs. Steingar sent me an article where researchers had shown those who drink diet sodas (guilty as charged) suffer infarctions and stroke. I pointed out how their arguments were similar to your inane arguments about gun control. She got the point quite quickly.
Did you ever hear the saying, "It's like shooting fish in a barrel"? That's a gun free zone. Criminals will not follow the rules, EVER.
-
ONLY an idiot would try to pretend that an armed good guy is preferable to ONLY armed bad guys, but that is the position of low (no) information progressive assholes.
mikey's argument is as stupid as all the ones he makes about the fake mmgw scams.
Next he'll be calling us all names and threatening to run off and cry about it.
-
The other day Mrs. Steingar sent me an article where researchers had shown those who drink diet sodas (guilty as charged) suffer infarctions and stroke. I pointed out how their arguments were similar to your inane arguments about gun control. She got the point quite quickly.
So instead of your usual "drive by" commentary, can you elaborate?
The OP has posted interesting questions. From your perspective, can you tell us why arguments here are inane, and why you would support such gun control laws?
Can you actually engage in a constructive conversation?
-
So instead of your usual "drive by" commentary, can you elaborate?
The OP has posted interesting questions. From your perspective, can you tell us why arguments here are inane, and why you would support such gun control laws?
Can you actually engage in a constructive conversation?
Yes, Michael ... do enlighten us. Although it is highly questionable whether I should listen to the cogitations of someone who is unenlightened enough to drink the poison of artificial sweeteners ... ;D
-
Communities suffer rising levels of violence. Their leaders are pressed for solution. The only one that they have the power to enact are local suppression firearm ownership or use. There really isn't a lot else they can do, since eliminating the causes of the violence, poverty and deterioration of familial relationships, is far beyond anyone's ability to rectify.
Pass all the gun laws you like, they still come in from other localities. The violence continues, and people like you all get to go on about how useless gun laws are. Now, if similar regulations were passed in a wider area, they might actually reduce violence in those communities that suffer it. But heaven forbid any loose even one iota of their freedom.
The good news is the last year I could check the vast majority of firearm victims were known to their assailants. Half were suicides. This despite the rampant massacres that set to be happening nearly weekly. So long as this is the case I think your firearms are quite safe. But if this tree of massacres continues I could see some changes. Constitutional amendments can be repealed.
By the way, the kicker for the diet soda thing is most folks who drink the stuff are a) older and b) obese to start with. Hence they are already at a greater risk of heart attack and stroke. If they can show me a bunch of skinny people who drink the stuff and drop dead, I'll listen. There just was a story about vegetarians dropping dead from stroke, so I guess you guys have got your revenge.
You have my apologies for disrupting your echo chamber. I should of course know better. I was just reminded of the conversation i had with Mrs. Steingar.
-
Steingar,
It might be true that we could reduce gun deaths by confiscating all guns. But would it be worth it?
People use guns because they are easy. But sans guns, they would find another way to kill themselves or others.
And as far as I am concerned, "losing a little bit of freedom" is like being "a little bit pregnant". Once the government has disarmed the populace, they won't stop there. Ben Franklin was right (or whoever said it).
-
You have my apologies for disrupting your echo chamber. I should of course know better. I was just reminded of the conversation i had with Mrs. Steingar.
Bravo! And you say your not good enough to be a refugee from a Woody Allen movie!
-
There really isn't a lot else they can do, since eliminating the causes of the violence, poverty and deterioration of familial relationships, is far beyond anyone's ability to rectify.
A breathtaking reveal of the liberal’s broken and completely ineffectual path toward human flourishing. Exactly what I expected of you.
The left continually wages war on the rules and values and choices that lead to human flourishing, then cries that the resulting brokenness is beyond repair. All they can think of to do is give government more power to continue the destruction, and claim that those who want to stop it are stupid, and foolishly clinging to the vital kernel of human freedom they see being wrenched from them at every turn.
“For real people, if something works in theory, but not in practice, it doesn’t work. For academics, if something works in practice, but not in theory, it doesn’t exist.” — Nassim Nicholas Taleb
-
Communities suffer rising levels of violence.
Except that's a myth. But you are forgiven for believing it, almost everyone does (even Trump said it). In reality, the crime rate has been declining since the mid 90s and is continuing to do so:
https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/americas-faulty-perception-crime-rates
https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/crime-2018-final-analysis
There's no agreement on exactly why this is the case, but it coincides with several factors: loosening of conceal carry laws, greater investment in police forces, and RvW in 1973, the unwanted babies that would have aged up don't exist so to the extent there is a correlation between unwanted babies and those babies being more likely to be criminal, it's plausible. I don't know the reason.
-
Communities suffer rising levels of violence. Their leaders are pressed for solution. The only one that they have the power to enact are local suppression firearm ownership or use. There really isn't a lot else they can do, since eliminating the causes of the violence, poverty and deterioration of familial relationships, is far beyond anyone's ability to rectify.
So if they can't do anything effective, they will be happy just to "do something", whether it is effective or not. I guess they align with Billy Crystal: "It's better to look marvelous than to be marvelous".
-
Except that's a myth. But you are forgiven for believing it, almost everyone does (even Trump said it). In reality, the crime rate has been declining since the mid 90s and is continuing to do so:
https://www.brennancenter.org/blog/americas-faulty-perception-crime-rates
https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/crime-2018-final-analysis
There's no agreement on exactly why this is the case, but it coincides with several factors: loosening of conceal carry laws, greater investment in police forces, and RvW in 1973, the unwanted babies that would have aged up don't exist so to the extent there is a correlation between unwanted babies and those babies being more likely to be criminal, it's plausible. I don't know the reason.
I know I'm an outlier here, and I have been called a RINO over this, but I am all for RvW. The reason you posted is one reason. The other reason is that most people getting abortions are liberals (speculation on my part), and the more aborted liberals the better. Besides, the planet already has way too many people. I think most of our foreign aid should be in the form of free birth control.
-
No one wants to call out one of the main reasons for violence for fear of being called a racist. Black culture in America is a main reason of violence. They don't respect family, each other, people in authority positions, and think that only sports stars, drug dealers, and rappers are a lifestyle to emulate.
-
No one wants to call out one of the main reasons for violence for fear of being called a racist. Black culture in America is a main reason of violence. They don't respect family, each other, people in authority positions, and think that only sports stars, drug dealers, and rappers are a lifestyle to emulate.
I have a few big city cop friends, one is Black. I asked them what they feared the most. They told me the propensity for AGRESSION and VIOLENCE in the inner city Black community. Mostly among Men, but Women also, but the Men are usually the murderers.
-
Communities suffer rising levels of violence. Their leaders are pressed for solution. The only one that they have the power to enact are local suppression firearm ownership or use. There really isn't a lot else they can do, since eliminating the causes of the violence, poverty and deterioration of familial relationships, is far beyond anyone's ability to rectify.
Pass all the gun laws you like, they still come in from other localities. The violence continues, and people like you all get to go on about how useless gun laws are. Now, if similar regulations were passed in a wider area, they might actually reduce violence in those communities that suffer it. But heaven forbid any loose even one iota of their freedom.
The good news is the last year I could check the vast majority of firearm victims were known to their assailants. Half were suicides. This despite the rampant massacres that set to be happening nearly weekly. So long as this is the case I think your firearms are quite safe. But if this tree of massacres continues I could see some changes. Constitutional amendments can be repealed.
By the way, the kicker for the diet soda thing is most folks who drink the stuff are a) older and b) obese to start with. Hence they are already at a greater risk of heart attack and stroke. If they can show me a bunch of skinny people who drink the stuff and drop dead, I'll listen. There just was a story about vegetarians dropping dead from stroke, so I guess you guys have got your revenge.
You have my apologies for disrupting your echo chamber. I should of course know better. I was just reminded of the conversation i had with Mrs. Steingar.
Ok, so to understand, you feel national gun laws to highly restrict gun ownership will reduce gun violence? In other words, once the second amendment is effectively gutted, and guns are confiscated, then we will see a reduction in gun violence. Please correct me if that’s not your point.
-
A breathtaking reveal of the liberal’s broken and completely ineffectual path toward human flourishing. Exactly what I expected of you.
The left continually wages war on the rules and values and choices that lead to human flourishing, then cries that the resulting brokenness is beyond repair. All they can think of to do is give government more power to continue the destruction, and claim that those who want to stop it are stupid, and foolishly clinging to the vital kernel of human freedom they see being wrenched from them at every turn.
“For real people, if something works in theory, but not in practice, it doesn’t work. For academics, if something works in practice, but not in theory, it doesn’t exist.” — Nassim Nicholas Taleb
This.
Gun violence is a violence problem. Removing the gun merely reduces the magnitude of the violence, it does not solve the core problem. In fact, it may prod some toward methods that are much more destructive. For example, I can imagine someone intent on destruction locking door closed and then setting a fire. The death toll would be horrendous.
Throwing your hands and saying “it can’t be fixed” is defeatist.
-
This.
Gun violence is a violence problem. Removing the gun merely reduces the magnitude of the violence, it does not solve the core problem. In fact, it may prod some toward methods that are much more destructive. For example, I can imagine someone intent on destruction locking door closed and then setting a fire. The death toll would be horrendous.
This.
https://thecrimereport.org/2017/11/16/is-mass-murder-exceptionally-american/
-
.....heaven forbid any loose even one iota of their freedom.
Michael Steingar
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin
I vote for Benjamin Franklin’s view of Liberty.
-
Once again I do apologize for disrupting your echo chamber. I will do my best to refrain from doing so in the future.
-
Once again I do apologize for disrupting your echo chamber. I will do my best to refrain from doing so in the future.
Translation: "I repeated a Democrat talking point and when asked to defend it, I couldn't so I will now call everyone here a 'racist' and go home."
-
Once again I do apologize for disrupting your echo chamber. I will do my best to refrain from doing so in the future.
What’s with the constant victim routine?
Can you not hold a reasonable conversation? Whenever your ideas get challenged, you resort to playing the victim.
Guess you’re happier in your classroom where no one dares to challenge you.
-
Translation: "I repeated a Democrat talking point and when asked to defend it, I couldn't so I will now call everyone here a 'racist' and go home."
It was too much to hope for synthesis and actual dialogue from this calcified and lemming-like person. For Steingar to maintain his delusional bubble of self esteem, he has to reaffirm “once again” that we’re not willing to discuss the subject so why should he bother. This in spite of actual discussion taking place and new information presented.
Feelz v. Realz.
-
Once again I do apologize for disrupting your echo chamber. I will do my best to refrain from doing so in the future.
Drama queen.
-
Drama queen.
No, I just don't find much conversation. Mostly I find insults. Since my opinions are not in any way welcome here I try and refrain from posting. Every so often I get drawn in, in this case because of a conversation I had with my spouse just the other evening. Because I don't do this often everything I post comes complete with "the drive by professor" and the ilk. Very little actual conversation. That's why this board is so dead, by the way.
A good contrast would be the old Spin Zone at POA. When it was active it constituted a third of all posts on POA. POA is easily the most active of the aviation boards, so that was a lot of message traffic. You guys might not have liked the actions of the horrible liberal moderators, but they were wildly successful compared to the lack of moderation here.
You all probably think this is more successful since its a nice echo chamber. And that's fine. What have opinions and assholes in common? Everyone has one, and is certainly entitled to it.
-
No, I just don't find much conversation. Mostly I find insults. Since my opinions are not in any way welcome here I try and refrain from posting. Every so often I get drawn in, in this case because of a conversation I had with my spouse just the other evening. Because I don't do this often everything I post comes complete with "the drive by professor" and the ilk. Very little actual conversation. That's why this board is so dead, by the way.
A good contrast would be the old Spin Zone at POA. When it was active it constituted a third of all posts on POA. POA is easily the most active of the aviation boards, so that was a lot of message traffic. You guys might not have liked the actions of the horrible liberal moderators, but they were wildly successful compared to the lack of moderation here.
You all probably think this is more successful since its a nice echo chamber. And that's fine. What have opinions and assholes in common? Everyone has one, and is certainly entitled to it.
I’ve tried several times to have an open dialogue with you. When discussing cars, that seemed to happen.
When you are in a position that you can’t defend your side or your assertions, you resort to either throwing a tantrum or play the victim. Sorry, the truth is what it is.
You bemoan this forum because others won’t agree with you. You call it an echo chamber when in fact, you would like to have it be a liberal echo chamber. Face it Michael, you simply can’t tolerate the views of others. You’ve made that clear time and time again.
And reading your postings on other forums, your behavior is not unique to this forum.
-
We already have 22,000 gun laws on the books at the Fed, State, and Local levels. None of them are followed when criminals and the mentally ill want to get a gun and commit violence and murder. However, the violent crime and murder rates have been trending down for the last 25 years according to the FBI, but since the Media and Dems want to disarm the law abiding only, they never mention that FACT.
So what does the Media and Democrats do? Sensationalize the few mass shootings where a comparatively small number of people are killed, but hardly mention the inner city Black on Black murder and suicides which account for 90% or more of deaths committed by PEOPLE using guns.
Guns don't commit violence on their own. It is a people problem. Semi automatic rifles and pistols have been around since the late 1800's and became widely used during and after World War I. So we've had access to these firearms for over 100 years, and now all of a sudden they are a problem?
-
It’s true y’all pile on Michael. I do too but try to avoid personal insults. If it were me alone on a forum of liberals I wouldn’t stick it out as long as he has.
-
It’s true y’all pile on Michael. I do too but try to avoid personal insults. If it were me alone on a forum of liberals I wouldn’t stick it out as long as he has.
I agree that there are too many personal insults, but I don't agree with the piling on part. The fact is that very few people agree with him and he usually does a poor job of justifying his positions. I'm not going to refrain from expressing my disagreement just because a bunch of other people have already done that.
I also agree with you that if the roles were reversed and I was one of the few that everyone disagreed with, I probably wouldn't stick around as long as Michael has.
I do wish the juvenile, personal insults were curtailed, but I don't want to resort to a moderated forum with someone else deciding what is allowable. On the other hand, I don't know if even a moderated forum full of polite people could keep thin skinned liberals from getting their feelings hurt and going away to a safe space. At least Michael hasn't done that completely yet, even though he keeps threatening.
-
It’s true y’all pile on Michael. I do too but try to avoid personal insults. If it were me alone on a forum of liberals I wouldn’t stick it out as long as he has.
I only try to respond in kind, and Michael does bring it on himself and has said some horrendous things to people here, and on POA. He admittedly likes to stir up trouble, then skat. He gets some kind of weird satisfaction out of it. Maybe it is just the attention. I have some Freudian theories which I will keep to myself. :)
In fact I am sure he's getting his jollies by all the attention right now. In person, he and his wife are very nice, and I've had very nice times with them at Fly Ins.
-
It’s true y’all pile on Michael. I do too but try to avoid personal insults. If it were me alone on a forum of liberals I wouldn’t stick it out as long as he has.
I agree, and I commend him for having a thick skin and jumping in the deep end. Yes, he does get piled on, but I rarely see insults. It's a mostly conservative group looking for him to defend his argument. I would LOVE to have more like him in this forum. I think having more support, additional data for arguments, and less of a "lone liberal" in what he sees as an echo chamber would be good for us all. I would really like to hear a well argued, well supported argument from the other side. I'm not sure that's possible from my visits to liberal forums. They go straight to insults and personal attacks and rarely actually debate the issue on merits. But being mostly conservative maybe I am immune to this behavior on our side. I hope not, and I truly believe that we do try to avoid personal insults.
-
It’s true y’all pile on Michael. I do too but try to avoid personal insults. If it were me alone on a forum of liberals I wouldn’t stick it out as long as he has.
Some of us have actually tried to have discussions. They always end the same, either in a tantrum or him playing the victim.
Let’s be real honest here: The only reason he comes here is to troll.
-
It’s true y’all pile on Michael. I do too but try to avoid personal insults. If it were me alone on a forum of liberals I wouldn’t stick it out as long as he has.
Point taken, but I also agree with Anthony. His responses are usually is self-inflicted.
I will say that threatening to take his ball and run home is nothing but being a drama queen.
-
The irony is unbelievable. While a number decry piling on and personal insults, in the same breath I get called a troll for occasionally expressing my opinion.
-
The irony is unbelievable. While a number decry piling on and personal insults, in the same breath I get called a troll for occasionally expressing my opinion.
No, you get called a troll because you exhibit troll behavior.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/troll
: to antagonize (others) online by deliberately posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content
to harass, criticize, or antagonize (someone) especially by provocatively disparaging or mocking public statements, postings, or acts
-
Mikey likes it one sided. All the time, and the only side he thinks should have their say is his.
Whenever that fails, he loves to pretend to be a victim and whine like a teen girl and run away to lick his make believe wounds.
He run back and shout carefully scripted talking points without substance, facts, or truth on his side, then get butt hurt because we don’t fall at his feet and proclaim him a prophet.
It’s what drama queens do.
-
-
(https://i2.wp.com/hardnoxandfriends.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/a-white15-1.jpg?w=519)
-
(https://i1.wp.com/hardnoxandfriends.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/b4-1.jpg?w=617)
-
(https://i1.wp.com/hardnoxandfriends.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/b25.jpg?w=800)
-
Mike is correct.
-
The irony is unbelievable. While a number decry piling on and personal insults, in the same breath I get called a troll for occasionally expressing my opinion.
How many decried the piling on and/or the insults, and how many, in the same breath, called you a troll?
I didn't, but that was partly out of politeness. (that does still exist in places). That said, I do think you enjoy trolling us.
Not that there is anything wrong with that. It livens the discussion, but still, you will be called out on it.
-
Suppose he is a troll. Suppose he is playing victim and being a drama queen. Suppose it's true he does a poor job justifying his positions. Suppose he deliberately practices hit and run. And most of all, suppose dumping personal insults on him is not a problem on this site, because we don't disallow personal insults - a policy with which I am in full agreement. Nevertheless, if fewer insults kept him around more, then we would have more opportunity to destroy his positions with logic and facts. I don't like it when he leaves.
-
Suppose he is a troll. Suppose he is playing victim and being a drama queen. Suppose it's true he does a poor job justifying his positions. Suppose he deliberately practices hit and run. And most of all, suppose dumping personal insults on him is not a problem on this site, because we don't disallow personal insults - a policy with which I am in full agreement. Nevertheless, if fewer insults kept him around more, then we would have more opportunity to destroy his positions with logic and facts. I don't like it when he leaves.
Let's have a reality check. The perfesser is continuing to do what he has always done. The typical drive by's, insults and of course the trolling. He's never interested in engaging a conversation, especially if he's challenged.
Then we get the threats of leaving. Yet, he always comes back. He did the same thing at PoA.
In this thread I tried to engage the conversation. You see the results. No insults were thrown, I asked him to simply clarify his position, nothing more.
Perfesser brings it upon himself, then plays the victim.
-
But if the perfessor left, half the conversations around here would dry up,
And the other half would be boring repetition of all the same ideas and complaints.
-
But if the perfessor left, half the conversations around here would dry up,
And the other half would be boring repetition of all the same ideas and complaints.
I don't care if he stays or leaves. He always levies the threat of leaving if we don't capitulate to him.
It's become like a little kid threatening to hold his breath and die if you don't give him what he wants.
If he wants to join the conversations he's more than welcome, just like anyone else.
-
Suppose he is a troll. Suppose he is playing victim and being a drama queen. Suppose it's true he does a poor job justifying his positions. Suppose he deliberately practices hit and run. And most of all, suppose dumping personal insults on him is not a problem on this site, because we don't disallow personal insults - a policy with which I am in full agreement. Nevertheless, if fewer insults kept him around more, then we would have more opportunity to destroy his positions with logic and facts. I don't like it when he leaves.
He's a NARCISSIST. This is exactly what he wants. ATTENTION, like a spoiled child.
The reason we don't have Liberal/Progressives here is that they don't have LEFT leaning MODERATION to back them up. PERIOD.
They can't defend their positions, and without the TOOTH FAIRY stepping in, they can't deal with it.
-
He's a NARCISSIST. This is exactly what he wants. ATTENTION, like a spoiled child.
The reason we don't have Liberal/Progressives here is that they don't have LEFT leaning MODERATION to back them up. PERIOD.
They can't defend their positions, and without the TOOTH FAIRY stepping in, they can't deal with it.
Narcissist? That’s a little harsh. He doesn’t strike me that way at all, other than in the sense small children are narcissistic in the way their feelings are paramount and they’re incapable of dispassionate critical analysis. But that applies to ALL liberals, and you can’t say half the U.S. is clinically positive for narcissistic personality disorder, adult version.
I don’t think he’s particularly attention seeking either. But it collects to him like lightning because he’s virtually the only liberal here anymore. That’s not his fault. Maybe it’s the fault of there being no left leaning mods here, or maybe it’s the combination of personal attacks and cogent logical smack downs liberals get whenever they express an opinion. The smack downs are well deserved. The personal insults I’ve already weighed in: IF that keeps them away, I would rather they ease up so they’d stay, but of course that only applies if Michael is telling the truth that it’s the insults making him want to leave, not the logical destruction of his positions.
Your tooth fairy analogy fits perfectly here. Mike’s own statement: (I’m paraphrasing) Given a community suffering from gun violence, passing gun control laws is pretty much all the authorities can do about it. And it would work, if only all the other communities did the same. That’s the bottom line logic of pro-gun control positions: “Well it would work if everyone did it.” And that is the tooth fairy fantasy. That fantasy cannot happen without destroying one of our Constitutional rights, and Mike knows this, but addresses it sarcastically, “heaven forbid we lose one iota of our freedom”.
But paradoxically Michael does believe in the Second Amendment iirc, it’s just that he believes the “regulation” of it should be much more strict than some others of us. Let’s begin by agreeing with him in principle: we do need some limitations on gun rights. All of us will agree you don’t hand a loaded gun to a toddler. Most of us will agree the average citizen shouldn’t own a nuclear bomb. Most of us agree that someone clearly suffering from paranoid delusions shouldn’t be allowed to have a gun.
But as that line inches ever more closely to the average person is where disagreements begin. On what evidence do we take someone’s 2nd A right? The current “red flag” laws propose moving that line so liberally that innocent harmless people may have their guns taken on the word of a bitter ex girlfriend, or because they have a remote history of having taken an antidepressant or an ADHD med as a child, or because they hold a prescription for pain meds, or because they made some offhand joking comment on social media, or: living in a bad neighborhood is sufficient reason to curtail your gun rights, according to Michael, because the authorities can’t come up with any better ideas.
There is a good podcast I’ll link to if anyone is interested, talking about how the newest reason to deny gun permits is someone has a medical marijuana card. Even if it’s for the kind of CBD oil with no THC that cannot get you high at all, people are being denied purchase or carry permits because of this.
The truth is, the nervous nellies who think “other people” cannot be trusted with firearms for ever more numerous reasons, are not basing their opinions on real evidence. They’re just moving the bar ever closer til virtually no one except the rich and powerful will be allowed to have firearms - and of course the criminals.
Michael doesn’t really mean we would lose “one iota” of our freedom, if he is typically liberal, he wants us to lose a fuck ton of our freedom.
-
One small correction: the political leanings of the mods on this board have no bearing on participation by anyone. This board does not, and has never been moderated depending on political views. The only purpose of the moderators is to keep spam and spammers from over running the board.
Anyone is free to post in the discussions without fear of moderation.
-
One small correction: the political leanings of the mods on this board have no bearing on participation by anyone. This board does not, and has never been moderated depending on political views. The only purpose of the moderators is to keep spam and spammers from over running the board.
Anyone is free to post in the discussions without fear of moderation.
Agree completely, Anthony and I are saying there are no left leaning mods, but that doesn't mean we are saying there are right leaning mods. There's no political moderation whatsoever, no moderation of any kind (other than robotic virus laden nonsense spam) and I love it; I love that I can say "fuck ton" and nobody bats an eye. ;D
-
Agree completely, Anthony and I are saying there are no left leaning mods, but that doesn't mean we are saying there are right leaning mods. There's no political moderation whatsoever, no moderation of any kind (other than robotic virus laden nonsense spam) and I love it; I love that I can say "fuck ton" and nobody bats an eye. ;D
I differ. We do have right leaning mods. We just don't have right leaning moderation. I doubt left leaning mods would have such restraint.
-
I differ. We do have right leaning mods. We just don't have right leaning moderation. I doubt left leaning mods would have such restraint.
Now that's a good point.
-
Yes, we have right leaning Mods, but they don't moderate, unlike POA which moderated based on Leftist beliefs. I don't know if the owner of POA is the same, but the guy who started it was a Far Left Progressive from Maryland.
-
I love that I can say "fuck ton" and nobody bats an eye. ;D
Any mother-fucker can come into this forum and say any fuckin' thing he wants, stir the shit up and he/she won't be goddamned moderated for it.
We love our bitches and sons of bitches here. Fuckin' "A" right!
-
(https://i2.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2019/09/Screen-Shot-2019-09-16-at-7.39.13-PM.png?resize=600%2C433&ssl=1)
-
(https://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2019/09/Screen-Shot-2019-09-19-at-10.36.47-AM.png?resize=600%2C537&ssl=1)
-
(https://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2019/09/IMG_2063.jpg?resize=422%2C600&ssl=1)
-
(https://i1.wp.com/www.powerlineblog.com/ed-assets/2019/09/IMG_2063.jpg?resize=422%2C600&ssl=1)
Wow it’s true:
https://triggerreset.net/2018/05/07/scotland-man-arrested-and-facing-prison-for-carrying-a-potato-peeler-without-a-reasonable-excuse/
I am interested in Michael’s thoughts on how gun bans lead to this sort of nonsense.
And also, kilts rock. Soooo sexy.
-
Communities suffer rising levels of violence. Their leaders are pressed for solution. The only one that they have the power to enact are local suppression firearm ownership or use. There really isn't a lot else they can do, since eliminating the causes of the violence, poverty and deterioration of familial relationships, is far beyond anyone's ability to rectify.
Claiming local suppression of firearm ownership as a "solution" is a fallacy.
Pass all the gun laws you like, they still come in from other localities. The violence continues, and people like you all get to go on about how useless gun laws are. Now, if similar regulations were passed in a wider area, they might actually reduce violence in those communities that suffer it. But heaven forbid any loose even one iota of their freedom.
see above.
And you are ignoring the right to defend yourself and your family. (remember that firearms are used for self-defense far more often than firearms are used to kill someone).
The good news is the last year I could check the vast majority of firearm victims were known to their assailants. Half were suicides.
Yes. You've said the same things in the past.
Have you ever looked at the number of victims that are known to their assailants? Or were you only fixacted on "firearm" victims?
And since you mentioned suicides, I'm assuming you think that eliminating firearms would reduce suicides. It is my understanding that Japan has very few firearms in the hands of civilians, but actually has a much higher suicide rate than we have in the USA.
You have my apologies for disrupting your echo chamber. I should of course know better. I was just reminded of the conversation i had with Mrs. Steingar.
Are you not interested in providing justification for your position?
-
... But heaven forbid any loose[sic] even one iota of their freedom.
I'm wondering why anyone would support taking someone's freedom because of the actions of a third party.
That is, why should you lose a right because of something I did?
-
I'm wondering why anyone would support taking someone's freedom because of the actions of a third party.
That is, why should you lose a right because of something I did?
As usual Steingar's premise is WRONG. Violent crime and murder have been declining according to FBI stats for the last 25 years, including what the Progressives (Democrats), and MEDIA like to call "GUN VIOLENCE". Of course they have to blame the inanimate object and not the person.
They want to take away people's Natural Right of self defense. They believe in some type of unattainable UTOPIA. Well, the criminals, often more than one that kick in people's doors don't care about their Utopia. They want to fuel their drug habits, or steal for whatever reason.
-
As usual Steingar's premise is WRONG. Violent crime and murder have been declining according to FBI stats for the last 25 years, including what the Progressives (Democrats), and MEDIA like to call "GUN VIOLENCE". Of course they have to blame the inanimate object and not the person.
They want to take away people's Natural Right of self defense. They believe in some type of unattainable UTOPIA. Well, the criminals, often more than one that kick in people's doors don't care about their Utopia. They want to fuel their drug habits, or steal for whatever reason.
What never shows up in the statistics is how often guns prevent crime. My brother was approached in the lonely end of a parking lot by three men, who got out of a car, which they left running. One started asking directions as he moved toward my brother, while the other two moved to flank him. As it happened the wind started blowing his jacket aside and my brother simply moved his arm to keep the jacket open, revealing his sidearm. They stopped in their tracks, backed off, got back on their car and left. My brother never even had to draw.
Directions... riiiiight. It would have been plausible if they’d been female...
-
What never shows up in the statistics is how often guns prevent crime. My brother was approached in the lonely end of a parking lot by three men, who got out of a car, which they left running. One started asking directions as he moved toward my brother, while the other two moved to flank him. As it happened the wind started blowing his jacket aside and my brother simply moved his arm to keep the jacket open, revealing his sidearm. They stopped in their tracks, backed off, got back on their car and left. My brother never even had to draw.
Directions... riiiiight. It would have been plausible if they’d been female...
Every month the NRA magazine, American Rifleman (I think), lists examples of defensive uses of a firearm. Not all the examples include shots fired.
But, you are correct that it is difficult to get a solid number on the number of times a firearm is used defensively. Some "researchers" exclude times when no shots are fired (dismissing your brother's experience). And of course, there is no requirement to report all defensive uses of firearms (nor should there be such a requirement). It's almost like trying to find the number of times a twin-engine aircraft has an engine failure.
-
Thankfully many criminals, even in superior numbers are COWARDS, and flee at the sight of a gun. They expect most people to be unarmed victims and are shocked when they see a gun. Whether it be a home break in, a car jacking, or attempted mugging on the street. Often, no shots are fired, which is the absolute BEST outcome, but then nobody knows that the self defense with a firearm was successful. These mostly do not get reported.
Still the science is settled, and the debate is over. Law abiding citizens are safer with guns than not.
-
Every month the NRA magazine, American Rifleman (I think), lists examples of defensive uses of a firearm. Not all the examples include shots fired.
But, you are correct that it is difficult to get a solid number on the number of times a firearm is used defensively. Some "researchers" exclude times when no shots are fired (dismissing your brother's experience). And of course, there is no requirement to report all defensive uses of firearms (nor should there be such a requirement). It's almost like trying to find the number of times a twin-engine aircraft has an engine failure.
That’s right. Pretty sure my brother didn’t report it. What would the police have done? No crime was committed.
-
I take a simpler view of the devotion of lefties to the disarming of ONLY law abiding Americans.
They are fanatical about it only because they were told to be.
Look around. How many true blue progressives do you know than can articulate their reasons for throwing fits about something President did, or said, while aggressively ignoring the exact same behavior of own of their own?
Liberals are really and truly incapable of thinking for themselves.
If you doubt that think about the sound bite hysteria of steingar. He is a perfect example of someone programmed to do whatever he is told, believe whatever bullshit he is told to believe and proud of his ability to act like a robot.
-
Thankfully many criminals, even in superior numbers are COWARDS, and flee at the sight of a gun. They expect most people to be unarmed victims and are shocked when the see a gun. Whether it be a home break in, a car jacking, or attempted mugging on the street. Often, no shots are fired, which is the absolute BEST outcome, but then nobody knows that the self defense with a firearm was successful. These mostly do not get reported.
Still the science is settled, and the debate is over. Law abiding citizens are safer with guns than not.
And beyond that, just knowing that random citizens might be armed reduces crime. Criminals love “gun free zones” or as I call them “target rich environments”.
Like schools.
-
The push by the Democrats to add yet more gun laws to the already 22,000 on the books is to disarm the law abiding only. Why? It is our last means of SELF SUFFICIENCY, and self defense. Government wants us dependent, and thus more easily controlled. That is the nexus of more gun control.
The Democrats are now OPENLY saying they want gun bans and confiscation. Starting with AR-15's which comprise a very, very small number of murders and shootings in the U.S. They've also said they want ALL semi-auto firearms to be banned and confiscated. Pistols, rifles, shotguns. ALL OF THEM. These comprise the vast majority of firearms legally owned in the U.S.
-
The push by the Democrats to add yet more gun laws to the already 22,000 on the books is to disarm the law abiding only. Why? It is our last means of SELF SUFFICIENCY, and self defense. Government wants us dependent, and thus more easily controlled. That is the nexus of more gun control.
The Democrats are now OPENLY saying they want gun bans and confiscation. Starting with AR-15's which comprise a very, very small number of murders and shootings in the U.S. They've also said they want ALL semi-auto firearms to be banned and confiscated. Pistols, rifles, shotguns. ALL OF THEM. These comprise the vast majority of firearms legally owned in the U.S.
Look at it this way: What would this country look like right now if all guns had already been confiscated and gun ownership was banned?
-
The push by the Democrats to add yet more gun laws to the already 22,000 on the books is to disarm the law abiding only. Why? It is our last means of SELF SUFFICIENCY, and self defense. Government wants us dependent, and thus more easily controlled. That is the nexus of more gun control.
The Democrats are now OPENLY saying they want gun bans and confiscation. Starting with AR-15's which comprise a very, very small number of murders and shootings in the U.S. They've also said they want ALL semi-auto firearms to be banned and confiscated. Pistols, rifles, shotguns. ALL OF THEM. These comprise the vast majority of firearms legally owned in the U.S.
I was listening to some deranged liberal on a radio call-in show the other day. He was so happy that Colt announced they would discontinue production of the AR15. "Who needs these automatic weapons" he said. "There are many types of semi-automatic hunting rifles out there".
Well, he was right. There are many types of semi-automatic hunting rifles out there. INCLUDING the AR15. I so wanted to ask him what he thought AR stood for.
-
I was listening to some deranged liberal on a radio call-in show the other day. He was so happy that Colt announced they would discontinue production of the AR15. "Who needs these automatic weapons" he said. "There are many types of semi-automatic hunting rifles out there".
Well, he was right. There are many types of semi-automatic hunting rifles out there. INCLUDING the AR15. I so wanted to ask him what he thought AR stood for.
"Armalite Rifle"
-
"Armalite Rifle"
If memory serves Armalite was a subsidiary or division of Republic Aviation, (P-47, F-105, etc) hence the use of aluminum in the rifle to make it lighter. They either sold the patent or licensed the manufacturing to Colt. I want to say the sold it outright to Colt.
-
I was listening to some deranged liberal on a radio call-in show the other day. He was so happy that Colt announced they would discontinue production of the AR15. "Who needs these automatic weapons" he said. "There are many types of semi-automatic hunting rifles out there".
Well, he was right. There are many types of semi-automatic hunting rifles out there. INCLUDING the AR15. I so wanted to ask him what he thought AR stood for.
How is a manufacturer discontinuing production going to reduce the numbers “out there” anyway? Beto’s idiot proclamation alone is responsible for many new orders of unmarked lowers. Once you machine it out and etch your own serial number, you have a perfectly legal weapon, but one that’s not listed anywhere. All they’ve done by threatening to take away assault rifles is increase their numbers and make them “ghost”. There is no way the government can ever enforce confiscation without doing away with the 4th amendment completely. When that happens we will be equal to Red China.
-
Compared to the total civilian market, Colt is a relatively small player. There are many, many quality AR-15 manufacturers in the U.S. I have a Colt, but I'd be just as happy with a plethora of others. BCM, Daniel Defense, LMT, PSA, etc.
Also Colt has a habit of saying one thing and doing the other, or changing their minds down the road. Year ago, they stopped all revolver production except for their Single Action Army variants. Now they are producing some updated versions of their double action "snake" revolvers. Go figure.
-
Response to market demand maybe?
-
How is a manufacturer discontinuing production going to reduce the numbers “out there” anyway?
Obviously, it is not. Besides, Colt didn't discontinue them out of righteousness and good will. The did it because there are so many in circulation now that new sales numbers were slacking.
-
Response to market demand maybe?
Yes, purely an economic move. But Colt has been mismanaged for decades with huge union problems. They still produce for the DOD, so a few changes and they could sell to civilians again. The lower receiver are designed differently in the AR-15 from the M-4 and M-16 as to not ALLOW full auto parts to be installed. That's it.
-
Yes, purely an economic move. But Colt has been mismanaged for decades with huge union problems. They still produce for the DOD, so a few changes and they could sell to civilians again. The lower receiver are designed differently in the AR-15 from the M-4 and M-16 as to not ALLOW full auto parts to be installed. That's it.
One complaint I heard from an anti-gun nut was that the aluminum barrel guard allowed the shooter to hold the barrel without getting burned and thus gives him greater accuracy, so he can hit more people. I kept thinking, isn't accuracy the definition of "gun control"?
-
One complaint I heard from an anti-gun nut was that the aluminum barrel guard allowed the shooter to hold the barrel without getting burned and thus gives him greater accuracy, so he can hit more people. I kept thinking, isn't accuracy the definition of "gun control"?
I don't know ANY firearms that are designed to allow the hands of the user to be burned. That's just nuts. These people are just nuts, and very few of them know anything about guns.
-
One complaint I heard from an anti-gun nut was that the aluminum barrel guard allowed the shooter to hold the barrel without getting burned and thus gives him greater accuracy, so he can hit more people. I kept thinking, isn't accuracy the definition of "gun control"?
well, the fact of the matter is that the aluminum barrel guard has nothing to do with holding the barrel.
In fact, trying to hold a barrel is counterproductive wrt accuracy
-
One complaint I heard from an anti-gun nut was that the aluminum barrel guard allowed the shooter to hold the barrel without getting burned and thus gives him greater accuracy, so he can hit more people. I kept thinking, isn't accuracy the definition of "gun control"?
That’s one of the stupidest, craziest things I have ever heard. These people have no business opening their mouths on subjects they know nothing about.