Gun laws do they work

[Frothingslosh]

Your definition of my being a far-right winger?

The real def here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Far-right_politics or

"The far right or extreme right is a political label used to identify parties and movements based on fascist, racist and/or extremely reactionary ideologies. Officially those on the far right embrace the concept of the "inequality of outcome", meaning that one group is naturally better than another."

I'll answer this after you answer my original question.

Also, I find it telling that your provided quote appears nowhere in the linked article. Yet more intellectual dishonestly from you; how utterly unsurprising.

Edit: Also, in the atheism thread, just ignore Collin. He's just a troll.

 

[Alc]

In the cities, because of the liberal tendencies, gangs have become the norm, the family unit is all but gone.

Really? In all US cities, (a) gangs are the norm? (b) they all originated during periods when liberals were in power? and (c) families hardly exist?
Be interesting to read something supporting that statement. Excluding extremist propoganda (white supremacist, etc.)

I am against Abortion, Why? because we now know (did not know this in the 60's) that the baby is alive at conception.

It's nice that you've decided that, but I think it's still highly debated by many other people.

According to most liberals, my biggest vise' IS THAT I OWN A GUN'. I thus, am a far right wing punk that wants to start a civil war, wear swastikaS, become a skin head, bike gang member and simply a person that believes that if you don't agree with me, you are little more than a worm.

So judging someone's characterto be criminal - personal profiling, for want of a better term - based on the one thing you know for sure about them is wrong? Okay, agreed.

the other day my wife and I were walking around a local Mall. It was a good sized mall and being the season, was crowded with people. Every now and then you would see security people and even less, full-blown policemen. They were grossly outnumbered by those that I deemed/suspected possible criminals. Now, before someone goes off the cliff, I know it is profiling but it was a personal profiling. That means I just watched them more than the others for the tell-tell signs of criminal intent while in my general area. While nothing happened, I was very uncomfortable that day or was glad when I got outside.

So judging someone's character to be criminal based on knowing nothing about them for sure is okay? Hmmm not so sure about that one

 

[Dick7Access]

I honestly haven't seen enough. I've seen your stance on gun control, which seems to tend moderately liberal (require background checks for 3rd party sales in gun shows and flea markets) as opposed to full liberal (we don't need guns any more) or conservative (any gun regulation is the same as taking our guns away). I know you're a conservative Christian, although your posting on the athiest thread ended before I started.

All I can say regarding you is that you're definitely conservative. I don't know that I'd say the one slightly liberal stance I've seen out of an incredibly limited recordset would be enough to say you have liberal tendencies, but you have at least one.


Would you say you have more liberal than conservative leanings on any of the following?

• Abortion
• Marriage Equality
• Gay Rights in general (ie - is it okay to terminate or refuse service to someone because they're gay?)
• Immigration (amnesty vs deportation, increase or decrease immigration quotas, what to do with refugees)
• The Drug War (Legalize marijuana, legalize and tax all of them, crack down even more)
• Trickle-down vs ground-up economics
• Single-payer vs universal health care (in concept and as implemented)
• Death penalty
• US involvement in world politics (isolation vs world involvement)
• Israel vs Palestine
• Socialism vs Unrestricted Free Market vs Restricted Free Market (if the latter, what limitations?)
• Separation of Church and State
• Corporate donations - should corporations be able to donate to political campaigns? If so, should there be a maximum?
• Campaign donations in general - should everyone be free to donate as much as they want, or should everyone be limited to the same amount?
• Role of government in helping those who need it - Government obligation or should be handled privately?
• Islam - Are there so many Muslim terrorists because Islam is evil, or for other reasons such as economic, social, or geopolitical issues? (And it's really odd that I can legitimately list this as a political question.)

My apologies if any of the above are listed with a bias - I tried very hard to make the items as neutral as possible in description.

Anyway, the above list is so long partially to make a point - Liberal vs Conservative is really just a label. I call myself a liberal mainly because I tend to take a liberal stance on the above, but I don't in all cases, and even in the majority where I do, I usually am far from the far-left position. In fact, until just a few years ago, I called myself a moderate. In that time, my stances haven't changed, but somehow they moved from the moderate to the liberal spectrums.

Even as a liberal, however, and despite Bladerunner's incoherent rantings about my inclusion in some grand conspiracy out to tear down America and hand it over to ISIS, I do tend conservative in a number of areas. One of those is gun control - while I do agree we need to close the background check 'loophole', I am utterly opposed to disarming the population. I also tend to support the death penalty in cases where it's warranted and there is quite literally zero chance of the wrong person being executed (as you can't un-execute someone). I'm also a BIG fan of fiscal responsibility and personal rights,

which is why I was screaming at people to pay attention during the entire Bush II era and am not 100% happy with the current administration.

Economically, I tend talismo favor free market capit with restrictions to prevent monopolies and assorted economic abuses (although don't tell Bladerunner that - he's convinced I'm one of those evil Trotskyists).

Note I didn't mention religion in general on the list - while there is a certain correlation for the religious (at least, for the three Abrahamic religions) to lean to the right, it is by no means a requirement. Up until a very few years ago, I was a liberal Christian, and even today I see myself as a liberal Christian agnostic. As to my inclusion of Islam, that's because what Islam is or is not has become a topic of debate in America since 2001.

So, seeing as you were the first one here to accuse me of treason and intent to destroy the US - in this very thread, even - does the above fit your preconception of me?

I don't think you are treasonous, or that you are trying to destroy the US but do think some of of your view are helping to destroy America but I don't think your goal is to destroy. Your list is too numerous to address each one right now but maybe I will later. I have chosen just this one as it jumped right out at me.

which is why I was screaming at people to pay attention during the entire Bush II era and am not 100% happy with the current administration.

I was not 100% happy with either Bush, but this administration the amount is 0%, 0%, 0%. not one think he has done can I agree with.

opposed to disarming the population

Thats what the Big O's final goal is!!!

I tend talismo favor free market capitol

Thats what the Big O's final goal is!!!
go down the list Thats what the Big O's final goal is!!!

 

[Frothingslosh]

According to most liberals, my biggest vise' IS THAT I OWN A GUN'. I thus, am a far right wing punk that wants to start a civil war, wear swastikaS, become a skin head, bike gang member and simply a person that believes that if you don't agree with me, you are little more than a worm.

So judging someone's characterto be criminal - personal profiling, for want of a better term - based on the one thing you know for sure about them is wrong? Okay, agreed.

<SNIP MALL COMMENTARY>

So judging someone's character to be criminal based on knowing nothing about them for sure is okay? Hmmm not so sure about that one

These two were especially ironic as a couple pages back, Blade posted this (note - I stripped off the first sentence of the paragraph, which was about Russia helping Syria):

The malcontents here in the USA are the liberals. They will do what is necessary to destroy anyone who is against them. I have seen this characteristic in liberals since the 1960's. They would destroy the country and themselves in order to have their way.

What he edited out was that it originally read (emphasis mine):

The malcontents here in the USA like Froth are the liberals. They will do what is necessary to destroy anyone who is against them. I have seen this characteristic in liberals since the 1960's. They would destroy the country and themselves in order to have their way

So apparently, it's actually perfectly to judge liberals as criminals, just not, you know, right-thinking conservatives.

 

[Frothingslosh]

I don't think you are treasonous, or that you are trying to destroy the US but do think some of of your view are helping to destroy America but I don't think your goal is to destroy. Your list is too numerous to address each one right now but maybe I will later. I have chosen just this one as it jumped right out at me.

I was not 100% happy with either Bush, but this administration the amount is 0%, 0%, 0%. not one think he has done can I agree with.
Thats what the Big O's final goal is!!!
Thats what the Big O's final goal is!!!
go down the list Thats what the Big O's final goal is!!!

Well, you straight up accused me of it a few months back. I don't feel like searching 117 pages, but it was in this thread.

Please, show me one single solitary confirmed reference that Obama has said he plans on disarming the population. Not just the usual conspiracy sites and Fox News fear-mongering, but actual, honest-to-goodness PROOF.

It doesn't exist, because that's not his goal. Hell, HERE is a list of what he's attempting to do. While I do see a proposed ban on assault weapons and large magazines (which I oppose as being both idiotic and using a sledgehammer to push in a thumbtack), there's nothing there that can even be IMPLIED that he wants to disarm the population.

The fact is that gun rights activists have been accusing gun control activists of wanting to take away everyone's guns since shortly after the 2nd Amendment was ratified. No president would EVER attempt to implement such a plan, however, as it would certainly cost him re-election, and almost certainly get his entire party removed for a long, long time as well. That's the kind of scandal that ruined the Federalists and the Whigs.

Seriously, "Obama wants to take your guns" is right up there with "Obama is suspending the constitution", "Bush will declare himself President-For-Life", and "I smoked but I never inhaled".

 

[Dick7Access]

Well, you straight up accused me of it a few months back. I don't feel like searching 117 pages, but it was in this thread.

Please, show me one single solitary confirmed reference that Obama has said he plans on disarming the population. Not just the usual conspiracy sites and Fox News fear-mongering, but actual, honest-to-goodness PROOF.

It doesn't exist, because that's not his goal. Hell, HERE is a list of what he's attempting to do. While I do see a proposed ban on assault weapons and large magazines (which I oppose as being both idiotic and using a sledgehammer to push in a thumbtack), there's nothing there that can even be IMPLIED that he wants to disarm the population.

The fact is that gun rights activists have been accusing gun control activists of wanting to take away everyone's guns since shortly after the 2nd Amendment was ratified. No president would EVER attempt to implement such a plan, however, as it would certainly cost him re-election, and almost certainly get his entire party removed for a long, long time as well. That's the kind of scandal that ruined the Federalists and the Whigs.

Seriously, "Obama wants to take your guns" is right up there with "Obama is suspending the constitution", "Bush will declare himself President-For-Life", and "I smoked but I never inhaled".

You got the wrong guy. I never accuse you or anybody else of anything.

 

[Dick7Access]

.

question: In your opinion is there any difference from banning guns, and taking guns away?

 

[Frothingslosh]

To me, yes. Banning is passive, while taking away is active. If someone bans something, they're just saying 'you can't possess that' - it's entirely legislative. If someone then goes around confiscating things, then that's active or executive. Bans can be fought in court before they ever get enforced, while fighting against having something taken away can result in a nightstick or even bullet to the face.

Many times, things have been banned, but the bans have never been 100% fully enforced. For example, automatic weapons are banned to civilians in the US, yet I've never had the police just show up at my house to do an automatic weapons inspection. However, if I were seen carrying around an Uzi, I guarantee it would confiscated unless I could prove that it had been converted to a semi-automatic. (And I actually think it would still get confiscated due to being a submachine gun, single-shot or not.)

My understanding of the proposed assault weapons ban is that it would work similarly to the automatic weapons ban - you would be unable to purchase one, and if police saw you with one, they would likely be obligated to confiscate it. I even see the logic behind it - the weapons are made for killing people, and unlike pistols (which have the same express purpose), are designed to be used offensively, not defensively. I don't AGREE with it, but I see it.

I honestly don't expect it to go through, but it's a logical consequence over the paranoia over the various school shootings in the news. (More shootings are still done with handguns, but you'd never know that from the media.) The liberals who feel Something Must Be Done want rid of assault weapons, while the conservatives who feel Something Must Be Done want to put armed guards in the schools to patrol. (Which has been done and hasn't done squat so far other than occasionally get the guard shot.) Hell, I've seen people suggesting full-on machine gun emplacements outside the schools, as if that would stop someone who didn't start shooting until they were inside.

As I've said before, the problem here isn't the gun - it's not causing the shooting, and if someone wants to shoot someone and an AR-15 isn't available, a shotgun or pistol works just as well. The problem is US - in this case, we need to catch and stop the kid beforehand, preferably while he or she can still be salvaged.

 

[Bladerunner]

Originally Posted by Frothingslosh
It doesn't help that you also have to deal with folks like Blade. Just look at his posts from today - he makes it patently obvious that that be believes that if you don't agree with him, you obviously are an athiest criminal anarchist trying to tear down society just so you can watch the world burn.

They will do what is necessary to destroy anyone who is against them. Does this sound personal to you?

Originally Posted by Frothingslosh
You also have it conflated with socialism as applied to social sciences, with Trotskyism, with Marxism, and in general, with everything you don't like. You routinely refer to socio-economic programs as socialist, even when they do not meet the definition you provided above, because to you, socialism is the unknown demon that in some way is out to destroy everything you hold dear.

The definition is the standard definition of Socialism. I cannot help it if you want to change definition so it is more palatable with John Q public. Much like the big LIE of Obamacare. You can keep your Doctor plus others. Again , a personal attack!

Originally Posted by Frothingslosh
Actually, the auto industry moved mostly out of the country due to labor costs.

However, the underlying cause was the taxes they had to pay the city. you see the city made deals with their workforce promising things they could not possibly deliver. The only thing left to do was raise taxes, rent, etc. Look it up. I was there in its heyday and for a period of time afterwards.

Originally Posted by Frothingslosh
Yeah, conservatives would never launch wars they couldn't pay for to invade Iraq for something it didn't do, now would they?

Just like a good liberal,,, blame Bush from 8 years ago or maybe even Reagan from the 80's. What about Johnson from the 60's. I don't hear you hollering about that. His micro-management of the war got 50,000+ killed in Vietnamn

Originally Posted by Frothingslosh
Even the most cursory review of American reporting and journalism will show this ridiculous claim to be false.

If you are relying on the ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, internet, etc to give you the skinny on anything, well ............

Originally Posted by Bladerunner
So, when you come to America, you are more than likely speaking to a gun toting conservative who would give you the shirt off his/her back if it would help you.

Posted by Frothingslosh reply to the above:
(Not 99% of the conservatives I've ever met. These days, it's considered far more trendy to blame you for not having a shirt, lecture you about the need to make your own shirt, punish you for going barechested in the freezing weather, and then enact laws requiring you to own a shirt before you can purchase one.)

Yeah, that's right. When you come into my store with sandals and no shirt, you are not going to get served. We have decent people (like Brian and others from abroad) in here that deserve better than that. Save the no shirt for the beach and those businesses that serve that clientele. You see, we can come to an agreement???????lol

p.s. there is a club named the "Polar Bear Club" who jump into an icy river at least once per year. Now they do this for a real good charity. However, I personally think it is dumb. Not the people, just the act.

Posted by Frothingslosh
In addition, when I am proven wrong, I acknowledge it, rather than doubling down and screaming even more loudly.

This whole article is you trying to destroy what?conservatism, no... ME.................You lose.

Posted by Frothingslosh
Considering your tendency (shown on this very page) to demonize liberals and how you have said repeatedly that liberals are involved in an active campaign to destroy the USA, how can you POSSIBLY say you have liberal tendencies? On every socio-economic topic I've seen you respond to, you have taken the far-right position. Be it gun control, abortion, free market vs planned production vs controlled market, religion, you name it. No matter what the topic was, your position was as hardcore right-wing as it could get.

In other words, Socialism. Don't think anybody on the right side of Moderate wants that. By the way, the middle of the road has a mixture of liberal and conservative values. It all depends on how far you are away from center of either side which is why I stated I am a conservative with some liberal tendencies.

Posted by Frothingslosh
I'll answer this after you answer my original question.

Also, I find it telling that your provided quote appears nowhere in the linked article. Yet more intellectual dishonestly from you; how utterly unsurprising.

Edit: Also, in the atheism thread, just ignore Collin. He's just a troll.

Excuse me, I have never been that mean to anybody on here. That was when I was copying what someone else wrote and did not put their name on it. Guess you could say it came back to bite me but it makes you look,.........

Posted by Frothingslosh
These two were especially ironic as a couple pages back, Blade posted this (note - I stripped off the first sentence of the paragraph, which was about Russia helping Syria):

Originally Posted by Bladerunner View Post
The malcontents here in the USA are the liberals. They will do what is necessary to destroy anyone who is against them. I have seen this characteristic in liberals since the 1960's. They would destroy the country and themselves in order to have their way.
*********
Posted by Frothingslosh
What he edited out was that it originally read (emphasis mine):

Quote:
The malcontents here in the USA like Froth are the liberals. They will do what is necessary to destroy anyone who is against them. I have seen this characteristic in liberals since the 1960's. They would destroy the country and themselves in order to have their way

Posted by Frothingslosh
So apparently, it's actually perfectly to judge liberals as criminals, just not, you know, right-thinking conservatives.

Again another personal attack. Mighty good of you Mr. Froth to rewrite my post for me, including the "Like Froth" that I considered not to be appropriate for this forum or thread. I thus edited it and threw it away. So, I guess we can no longer edit something that we have written and then edited on line without it being thrown back at us at some point in the future. Neither-the-less I forgive you Froth, you know not what you did.

Posted by Frothingslosh
To me, yes. Banning is passive, while taking away is active. If someone bans something, they're just saying 'you can't possess that' - it's entirely legislative. If someone then goes around confiscating things, then that's active or executive

Then once it is banned and they know you have one, they can confiscate it. AHHHHHHHHHHHHH I get it now!!

While this post may seem like it is politics, I believe that between the personal attacks on me by Mr. Froth and his re-defining Socialism; the fact remains that the liberals of this country want some form of Socialism. Therefore I say; 'That For (any type of ) Socialism or any other form of Government (Fascism, Communism) anywhere in the world to have a chance at success, THE GUNS HAVE TO GO!'. I do believe we are in the right thread! Don't you?

 

[Dick7Access]

Blade, I am honored for my name to be listed with yours. If you come to FL look me up. However stand by the mail box and wave a little white flag, or a US flag, in fact I won't even shoot if it's a confederate flag. he, he he, ha Bob Larson is on our side but he has got more brains than you and me, and knows it useless with some people.

 

[Bladerunner]

Blade, I am honored for my name to be listed with yours. If you come to FL look me up. However stand by the mail box and wave a little white flag, or a US flag, in fact I won't even shoot if it's a confederate flag. he, he he, ha Bob Larson is on our side but he has got more brains than you and me, and knows it useless with some people.

LOL......Believe it or not, I have never owned a Confederate flag. I do however have a white flag or two, the type used in construction.

My Brother travels down in FL. just about everyday of the week. He drives a big truck and makes deliveries from TN. I may come down there with him sometime and look you up.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Edit: I see you edited in a couple additional comments since I started this monster of a post. I'll address them later, once I again have spare time.
***

It doesn't help that you also have to deal with folks like Blade. Just look at his posts from today - he makes it patently obvious that that be believes that if you don't agree with him, you obviously are an athiest criminal anarchist trying to tear down society just so you can watch the world burn.

They will do what is necessary to destroy anyone who is against them. Does this sound personal to you?

Statements of fact are not personal attacks. Your response quite clearly proves my point: that you are quite literally incapable of seeing disagreement without ascribing evil motive. Unlike D7A, you make obvious again and again that you feel that anyone who disagrees with you does so because they hate America and freedom - the very concept that I (and liberals in general) may love my country and want to make it the best it can be is apparently beyond your grasp.

You also have it conflated with socialism as applied to social sciences, with Trotskyism, with Marxism, and in general, with everything you don't like. You routinely refer to socio-economic programs as socialist, even when they do not meet the definition you provided above, because to you, socialism is the unknown demon that in some way is out to destroy everything you hold dear.

The definition is the standard definition of Socialism. I cannot help it if you want to change definition so it is more palatable with John Q public. Much like the big LIE of Obamacare. You can keep your Doctor plus others. Again , a personal attack!

You really should work on your reading comprehension. I never mentioned or contested the textbook definition of socialism, even though your definition is both outdated and rudimentary. A better definition would be:

Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.

What I said was that you associate EVERYTHING you disagree (or, based on your response to the question regarding the Social Contract, don't know the first thing about) with with socialism, even when the idea in question is neither industrial nor economic. I then pointed out that, based on your posts here, you conflate (means 'treats two ore more distinct entities as one') Socialism, Marxism, Communism, and Trotskyism, even though they are actually different things.

You should also look up 'personal attack'. It does not mean 'disagreed with me on an internet site', nor does it mean 'posted in a blunt, impolite manner'. Personal attacks are more along the line of

The malcontents here in the USA like Froth are the liberals. They will do what is necessary to destroy anyone who is against them. I have seen this characteristic in liberals since the 1960's. They would destroy the country and themselves in order to have their way

However, the underlying cause was the taxes they had to pay the city. you see the city made deals with their workforce promising things they could not possibly deliver. The only thing left to do was raise taxes, rent, etc. Look it up. I was there in its heyday and for a period of time afterwards.

Before you embarass yourself futher, I recommend you read the following:

• How Detroit leaders ignored causes of bankruptcy for 65 years
• Decline of Detroit
• Anatomy of Detroit's Decline
• Automotive History in the United States

You may have spent a few years here, but I grew up here, and half my relatives WORKED for them. My family has been in the Detroit area since right around the American Revolution.

Just like a good liberal,,, blame Bush from 8 years ago or maybe even Reagan from the 80's. What about Johnson from the 60's. I don't hear you hollering about that. His micro-management of the war got 50,000+ killed in Vietnamn

Reagan and Johnson didn't launch a trillion dollar war and then preside over the largest expansion of government and government power in American history without bothering to actually PAY for it. Neither, for that matter, has Obama. At least steps were taken to ensure the Obamacare subsidies were paid for, despite what the spin doctors over at the GOP and Fox News would have you believe.

This might also be the time to point out that the 2009 budget deficit (the last one under Bush) was $1.4 trillion, while the 2013 deficit (the most recent full year) was $680 billion. Let's also point out that the only president to have a positive budget balance since WWII was Clinton, of all people.

If you were to merely say we need to stop deficit spending, I'd agree with you, but any and all attempts to paint Obama as the Antichrist of budgetary planning will be met by pointing out how much better he has performed fiscally than did any recent Republican president. The GOP claims to be devoted to controlling spending, but reality shows otherwise.

While they are only 17% of the population, they speak the loudest.

Even the most cursory review of American reporting and journalism will show this ridiculous claim to be false.

If you are relying on the ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, internet, etc to give you the skinny on anything, well ............

Fox News has the largest viewership of any major news source in the US, more Americans identify as conservative than as liberal, and yet you whine that conservative disinformation is drowned out. *sigh* Only in America.

If you would, I dunno, actually tune your TV to something other than Fox rather than regurgitating talking points from O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coultier, and Beck, you would realize that ABC and CBS have noticable conservative slants to their reporting, while CNN has mixed results (last weekend's interview with Bernie Sanders included the reporter doing his best to stick to Republican attacks and talking points), and NBC has a slight liberal slant. MSNBC operates independently, and I'll grant that it is slanted nearly as far to the left as Fox is to the right.

As to the internet, considering that you use white surpremecist websites as links for arguments, I'm not surprised that you see the entire rest of the internet as hopelessly literal.

Edit: Er...."liberal". I blame that one on a caffeine-withdrawal-induced fugue.

Not 99% of the conservatives I've ever met. These days, it's considered far more trendy to blame you for not having a shirt, lecture you about the need to make your own shirt, punish you for going barechested in the freezing weather, and then enact laws requiring you to own a shirt before you can purchase one.

Yeah, that's right. When you come into my store with sandals and no shirt, you are not going to get served. We have decent people (like Brian and others from abroad) in here that deserve better than that. Save the no shirt for the beach and those businesses that serve that clientele. You see, we can come to an agreement???????lol

I note you only responded to the last part, not the rest, and even there completely and totally missed the point of my comment.

p.s. there is a club named the "Polar Bear Club" who jump into an icy river at least once per year. Now they do this for a real good charity. However, I personally think it is dumb. Not the people, just the act.

I think they're insane, and I live in Michigan.

This whole article is you trying to destroy what?conservatism, no... ME.................You lose.

Hardly. The entire post was me destroying your talking points because you are a) wrong and b) so out of touch with reality it's almost funny.

In other words, Socialism. Don't think anybody on the right side of Moderate wants that. By the way, the middle of the road has a mixture of liberal and conservative values. It all depends on how far you are away from center of either side which is why I stated I am a conservative with some liberal tendencies.

Yeah, but the thing is, socialism doesn't mean what you think it means. You, like your teachers over at Fox News, have used 'socialism' to attack every attempt at helping our fellow man, every attept to rein in blatant abuse and manipulation of the markets by modern robber barons, every attempt to stop discrimination. They've turned it into the modern boogie man, and you have long ago drunk the Kool-Aid.

(And yes, Collin, I know it was Flavor Aid.)

I'll answer this after you answer my original question.

Also, I find it telling that your provided quote appears nowhere in the linked article. Yet more intellectual dishonestly from you; how utterly unsurprising.

Edit: Also, in the atheism thread, just ignore Collin. He's just a troll.

Excuse me, I have never been that mean to anybody on here. That was when I was copying what someone else wrote and did not put their name on it. Guess you could say it came back to bite me but it makes you look,.........

Seeing as your comment has not the slightest bearing on the quote it follows, I really have no idea what you were trying to say here. If you're saying my suggesting you not pay attention to Collin trolling you is meaner than you could ever be, might I point you to your ragequit in the athiesm thread and your repeated posts that you would never again respond to a single thing I posted? Not responding to someone is kind of what 'ignore' MEANS.

<Me pointing out a personal attack Blade made and then edited out after I saw it>

Again another personal attack. Mighty good of you Mr. Froth to rewrite my post for me, including the "Like Froth" that I considered not to be appropriate for this forum or thread. I thus edited it and threw it away. So, I guess we can no longer edit something that we have written and then edited on line without it being thrown back at us at some point in the future. Neither-the-less I forgive you Froth, you know not what you did.

Ah, here we have the 'I know I said you were a traitor, but I took it back so don't be angry!' defense.

What I posted wasn't a personal attack - it was statement of fact (me showing how you originally wrote the post), followed by using that as proof of you being a hypocrite. Hell, you have repeatedly accused me of dishonesty, treason, and personal attacks. You have, at every step of every conversation with me, distorted facts until they have no relation to reality, lied about what your links said, made both personal and mass attacks against my integrity and character with no evidence or justification, condemned anyone who disagrees with you as evil and a traitor to America, and shown not the slightest inclination of acceptance that any belief other than your own can possibly be valid. You link us to white supremecist websites, use (whether you know it or not) white supremecist arguments in your discussions about Islam and immigrants, accuse all liberals of being part of some grand conspiracy out to intentionally, willfully, and maliciously destroy America, and then you get all bent out of shape because I call you a hypocrite for saying no one should judge you without knowing you?

Boo-Effing-Hoo.

To me, yes. Banning is passive, while taking away is active. If someone bans something, they're just saying 'you can't possess that' - it's entirely legislative. If someone then goes around confiscating things, then that's active or executive

Then once it is banned and they know you have one, they can confiscate it. AHHHHHHHHHHHHH I get it now!!

Wow, did you ever miss the point of that one.

While this post may seem like it is politics, I believe that between the personal attacks on me by Mr. Froth and his re-defining Socialism; the fact remains that the liberals of this country want some form of Socialism. Therefore I say; 'That For (any type of ) Socialism or any other form of Government (Fascism, Communism) anywhere in the world to have a chance at success, THE GUNS HAVE TO GO!'. I do believe we are in the right thread! Don't you?

Nice strawman. Zero grounding in reality, but it's cute.

 

[Brianwarnock]

I've just caught up with the thread, I've got a headache.
I think I know now why Americans want guns and why I think they shouldn't have them.

Brian

 

[Frothingslosh]

I've just caught up with the thread, I've got a headache.
I think I know now why Americans want guns and why I think they shouldn't have them.

Brian

LOL

Yeah, we tend to get...intense...in our politics. I think my favorite incident was when a former treasury secretary killed a sitting vice-president in a duel.

Still, we have yet to fight 32 years' worth of wars to determine the succession.

Seriously, though, I'm tempted to just drop the current discussion anyway - we have once again gone rather far afield from gun control.

 

[Brianwarnock]

You've actually added up how many years of wars we've had deciding who should be monarch? And after all that we ended up with a German !!

Brian

 

[Frothingslosh]

You've actually added up how many years of wars we've had deciding who should be monarch? And after all that we ended up with a German !!

Brian

Actually, I just looked up the Wars of the Roses.

Even I don't want to go to the effort to count up how many years England has been at war over that damned throne in total! Between the wars and the intrigue, I'm amazed you've had a monarch live past 30.

Also, why not a German? You've had a bloody Dane, after all. And I do mean 'bloody' quite literally.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Back on topic it is regarding large magazines and automatic weapons that you and I appear to part company, should go back and find the quote but on iPad and that's not easy.

I feel that the prevention of nut jobs running riot in schools etc and shooting the innocent is worth the effort, I don't buy into the gun lobby idea of armed guards, it might cut the number killed in an incident down but unless they are going to shoot a person carrying a gun on sight I think they will merely be added to the number shot.

I think that might be my last 2 cents worth as you earlier post illustrated just how confused the whole issue of gun control is.

Brian

 

[Bladerunner]

feel free to read his comments on post # 1395387 but I rest my case.

 

[Bladerunner]

feel free to read his comments on post # 1395387 but I rest my case.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Is that a link? If so it doesn't.

Brian