Anti universal background check Oklahoma Senator sounding stupid

[Vector]

Not at all.
Low Road would be to ban a member for voicing opinions that fail to toe the ideological line or conform to the majority stance.
High Road is summoning fact and reasoned argument to oppose those opinions.

That's what makes this The High Road.

Tinpig

I agree as well.

I agree with you.
Read some his other posts I feel you will find a serious lack of "reasoned argument" which is the key to any argument, that is the problem. Even in this thread he has made no argument, other than the crazy no black market guns statement, he has 3 short, pointless post in a 4 page thread the HE started.

I encourage debate, but not engaugeing in pointless bickering with someone that is trying to stir up...........fecal matter.


Sorry, but that's how I see it.

We can disagree, it doesn't really matter anyway. I'm not a Mod, lol

You cannot agree with him on the one hand then still make a case to do the opposite of what he said.

Education and the civil exchange of ideas is what it is all about. If you feel he is a troll, so be it, and just ignore his posts. You can even make a counter point without quoting him or mentioning his ID. Sooner or later the light bulb will go off, and he will likely moderate his views based on the steady stream of informed, fact based information.

`

 

[Steel Horse Rider]

People like the OP prevent this place from becoming an echo chamber similar to the one in Washington DC from whence the stupidity now radiates. We need to understand what he other side believes so that we may not be blindsided by friends, neighbors, or the education system. His points of reference are also educational in the fact that they illustrate that he is not very interested in exposing himself to factual data that will not support the agenda he has hitched his wagon to. Blinders can generate a false sense of comfort.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

... argumentative low roaders.

Chorus: "Who, me? I resemble that remark!"







Curly Joe in Three Stooges' "Idle Roomers" (1943).

 

[DeepSouth]

Never mind, apparently I am not communicating my point well enough, as most of you don't seem to understand what I'm trying to say.

Sorry

 

[Thermactor]

allowing wild cat mccane, a known agent provocateur and known espouser of vitriolic anti freedom sentiment to continue posting his 'gun owning' 'commonsense' viewpoints on here is nothing less than welcoming the AHSA as a legitimate spokesman for all gun owning, law abiding American citizens. this cannot be tolerated.

 

[Sam1911]

allowing wild cat mccane, a known agent provocateur and known espouser of vitriolic anti freedom sentiment to continue posting his 'gun owning' 'commonsense' viewpoints on here is nothing less than welcoming the AHSA as a legitimate spokesman for all gun owning, law abiding American citizens.

Bull-pucky.

As I already explained, if someone wants to debate a point they disagree on, we have NO problem with that. WE WELCOME THE CHANCE TO AIR OUT OUR VIEWS.

If we cannot present logical counters to their points (and we CLEARLY can) then what is the point of sitting around the circle patting each other on the back? If we don't have the ability to meet another person's theories and opinions with fact and sound rebuttal, we're all wasting our time here.

Having one less-resolute member stand up and say he doesn't stand quite so firm on one of our pet issues harms no one and provides a useful sparring drone for some of us to exercise our best arguments upon, and allows many spectators to read all our strongest arguments on a topic in one concise place.

Heck, if folks like this didn't occasionally give us a little workout, we'd have to do this ourselves just to keep each other in fighting trim!

this cannot be tolerated.

Oh really? If such things are intolerable, to you, you're free not to click on the thread or get your back patted elsewhere.

 

[Bruno2]

When I don't like what is being displayed on TV I just change the channel. Calling the station and protesting that they change their programming probably wouldn't work so well.

 

[beatledog7]

Allowing these views to see the light of day is the only way to refute them. An unaired point of view is an unchallenged point of view.

 

[HOOfan_1]

Not at all.
Low Road would be to ban a member for voicing opinions that fail to toe the ideological line or conform to the majority stance.
High Road is summoning fact and reasoned argument to oppose those opinions.

That's what makes this The High Road.

Tinpig

Plus that is what the amazing "ignore list" feature is for.

 

[Texshooter]

PEOPLE, PEOPLE, PEOPLE

Forest for the trees, please.

OP "wild cat mccane"

mccane, mccane, mccane ............

McCain

 

[goon]

I'd love a system where I could run a check on a private buyer before selling a gun to him, and I'd gladly allow a seller to run one on me if it were possible.
But it isn't. Not without providing a system that could be abused for identity theft or violations of privacy and that will eventually require a registry.

And we have to be careful to not place blame on the huge majority of people who have varying degrees of mental illness and who HARM NO ONE, EVER.

Last, why all the calls for banning this guy?
So you don't agree with him? Put your big kid pants on and deal with it. I live in a country full of people I don't agree with... and that's just how it is. The guy has the right to his opinion. No one is forcing anyone to participate in any discussion here or anywhere else.

 

[VVelox]

This is embarrassing.

I am a gun owner and I support universal checks. It costs $7. Using dumb arguments like this boggles the mind in their logic.

Worth listening to. If you don't catch it, it's circular logic.

http://www.npr.org/2013/04/18/177825289/coburn-proposal-would-make-buyer-prove-ability-to-buy-guns

Interesting. Would you also be oppose to that $7 fee being applied to all your other rights as well?

This is nothing less than a poll tax.

 

[316SS]

And we have to be careful to not place blame on the huge majority of people who have varying degrees of mental illness and who HARM NO ONE, EVER.

I also have a real problem with abridging the rights of the mentally ill as a class. Socio-demographic and economic factors and substance abuse are far greater indicators of violent tendencies than mental illness. In fact I have read that the mentally ill, in the absence of those other factors, are no more likely to commit violent crimes than "sane" people (I have yet to meet one of them "sane" people).

Certainly, some (very few) mentally ill people do terrible things, and some (again, very few) have issues that make responsible gun ownership impossible. But I think it is unfortunate that they are far more often unfairly scapegoated.

 

[Arkansas Paul]

Interesting. Would you also be oppose to that $7 fee being applied to all your other rights as well?

I was thinking the same thing. How about a $7 fee every time you want to exercise your 1st Amendment rights?

 

[Bruno2]

How about it doesn't cost me anything to buy or sell a gun in a private transaction now. Why would I want to start paying $7?