Omaha Doctor calls for assault weapons ban

[Liko81]

That in and of itself is laudable. I disagree with their focus. Ban guns and criminals use knives. However, the opposite holds true as well; give everyone guns and criminals use bombs.

Patently absurd. Simple speculation.

Really? It happened in Israel; civilians started carrying weapons to protect against Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah gunmen, and so those groups started employing suicide bombers. If a guy wants to kill a bunch of people and doesn't care what happens afterward, a gun is only one tool. That was my point; neither disarming NOR arming everyone will solve the problem of mass-murdering gunmen; they will either be mass-murdering gunmen shooting fish in a barrel with an illegal weapon, or they will be mass-murdering suicide bombers. That is not speculation; it has happened and is happening.

 

[FourTeeFive]

Many of the comments left by the general public in response to the article are more disturbing than the article!

 

[Deanimator]

That was my point; neither disarming NOR arming everyone will solve the problem of mass-murdering gunmen;

Then what WILL provide a ***100%*** effective solution?

While you ponder THAT, what's likely to provide a higher percentage of success in the meantime, total helplessness or the means to defend oneself. Of course there are plenty of people who seem to prefer KNOWING they'll be MURDERED if nobody can fight back, to the nebulous POSSIBILITY of them being WOUNDED if somebody can...

 

[Sage of Seattle]

As I mentioned before I am a general/vascular/trauma surgeon.

Hey, Lone Gunman, how does it feel like to be vastly smarter than 99% of THR members? Oh, and please, if you could possibly do so, phrase your response with words that have as few syllables as possible, so the unintelligent members such as myself who are not trauma surgeons can understand.

(j/k)

Oh, and as for Liko81, I was going to do a point-by-point rebuttal, but I see that Arfin already did a superb job, as has Robert and the rest of you. I, like many others, read Liko81's posts carefully and (dare I say) intelligently giving the benefit of the doubt.

I do not believe that he will respond in ways other than those meant to obfuscate.

The interesting thing that I gleaned from his posts can be summed up as follows: "We have logic, history, and rationality on our side, but people in general are too stupid to understand so we're forced to argue from a purely emotional standpoint to sway as many people as possible to our way of thinking. You see, if we argue exactly like those who have NO history, logic, or rationality, then we can win! Yay us!"

As has already been pointed out -- umm.... no. I guess that the unintelligent members of society and THR tend to think that arguing from emotion is dishonest, intending only to convince based on how a thing is perceived and not what it really is.

My belief is that if one can take emotion OUT of certain events that happen in life, it makes it far, far easier to deal with.

 

[grampster]

"I do know that the AMA declared guns a public safety problem. The AMA is a bunch of doctors who don't know what they don't know, and don't care either. It's not unusual." (Robert Hairless, highlite mine)

Powerful truth there. A college professor of history I had back during the Jurassic Period once exclaimed that "Knowledge is when you know that you don't know." Wish more edumacated folks would have taken his class.

 

[Liko81]

Given this assessment, and without using a (verbose) structure of "I support RKBA, but [opposing viewpoint] and [discussion & exposition] and therefore [reasons why we're doing it wrong]" I would be interested in seeing, as two completely separate (brief) statements of 1) what you personally believe is the scope and nature of the right to keep and bear arms -- not expressed as the views of a third party, and 2) what is the best approach to persuading those who would infringe upon this right to cease such infringement and instead support one of the original civil rights.

K.

1.) The "existential ends" (scope and nature) of the RKBA are basically twofold; to provide for yourself (hunting) and to protect yourself and those around you (personal defense). I understand the presence of entertainment value, but the Founders did not give you the fundamental right to plink, or for that matter to collect. It is, though undoubtedly very positive, only a side effect of the RKBA which has the main purpose of providing for the common defense, and by so doing promoting the general welfare.

Therefore, you have the right, and I fully support that right, to own whatever gun you feel is necessary to accomplish those ends. If that is no gun because you rely on a monitored alarm and the police a block away, fine. If you feel you need military-derived rifles in strategic places around your home, fine. I however have the right by free speech to question the circumstances by which you feel you need those arms to the degree you have them for said existential ends, and why you chose arms in lieu of other devices that would also ensure security or provide for yourself.

Quite simply, you have the right to own arms, and I have the right to challenge your need based on my stated purpose of the RKBA to own your particular choice of arms. You can, in kind, challenge my stated purpose of the RKBA or accept it and defend your need under it; both are valid rebuttals and reasoned discourse can proceed from there. However, to do neither does not rebut the challenge, and in debate, if you cannot refute a challenge your position is weakened. If you can't explain WHY you need the gun, or explain WHY my interpretation of the RKBA is wrong, all you're doing is Constitution-thumping, arguing by repetition that you are right. I hear a lot of that on these boards, and it DOES NOT WORK.

2.) Complex question; let me first state what it is NOT; The best approach to persuade those who are against guns is likely not going to be made on a general level or in the general case. It is not going to be to "firmly stand your ground". I've used the analogy of a brick wall; a brick wall looks strong and impenetrable, but no wall is immovable and no wall is indestructible. Even one built to deflect damage from one angle is vulnerable from another angle.

A better defense, though counterintuitive, is analagous to a wall that is firm but yielding; it absorbs and redirects force directed against it, and returns to its original shape and place. A bowling ball of sufficient speed will smash through a brick wall with significant damage to both; a mattress will absorb and redirect that force, and remain largely unaffected as will the bowling ball.

How is this applied to arguments levied against guns? Concede, then refute and redirect, and by so doing you regain your original position and possibly even gain ground while the argument focuses elsewhere. Any one of these three, if done by itself, is damaging. Conceding alone is simply giving up ground. Refuting presents an assailable solid wall, and redirection makes you look like you want to ignore the issues. When someone shoots up a mall or school with an AK clone, immediately saying "Guns don't kill people" accomplishes exactly nothing. It presents a solid wall of verifiable, unassailable fact that any emotional argument to the contrary will tear apart in the eyes of the public. Immediately blaming the kid and only the kid, who is beyond retribution, accomplishes exactly nothing; it does not appease those who are rightly enraged at the act and does not contribute any possible solution; how are you going to prevent this from happening in future? Each kid who does it has paid the ultimate price before the DoJ got their hands on him, and justice after the fact is the only recourse of a truly free society. The nation's discussions on this topic are not a moderated debate where the rules of logical argument apply and are enforced. A fallacious argument sounds perfectly reasonable, and to refute it your argument must not only sound reasonable but must sound MORE reasonable than the fallacious one, and pointing out the fallacies is only part of it.

You first have to concede the logical point that a high-powered semi-automatic rifle is a very powerful, very deadly weapon and its use by those who are ignorant or uncaring of the consequences has obviously tragic consequences. To concede that fact does not harm your position; to ignore, discount or refute it on the other hand is damaging to your credibility and the strength of your argument. THEN, you state your argument that the gun itself is not the problem. You are still going to meet resistance; you must, although they are both logical fallacies, appeal to the masses and to emotion, because the Brady Bunch is highly adept at doing same. A logically unassailable argument ("a gun with nobody at the trigger will never kill anyone"), made with what is perceived to be an uncaring tone will, in the public forum, simply be ignored in favor of one that appeases the anger and hurt felt by the public. That's the position the Brady Bunch has you; they coddle and appease, and thus appear to be "in tune" with the public, as opposed to the gun lobby, who bleats the party line and, it often seems, refuses to acknowledge public sentiment that people have been murdered by a man with a gun, and the public doesn't want it to happen again. Any such acknowledgement usually comes across as a one-sentence or one-clause preface to an argument that then begins with "but".

How do you appeal to emotion and the masses? Redirect. It's the kid's fault, and the kid, if he hadn't offed himself, should have been responsible for the consequences, but a kid driven to do something this horrific is NOT in his right mind, would NOT have done it under different circumstances, and DID NOT decide to do this all of a sudden on the morning of the shootings. THAT's where you direct focus; why did he do this, and how was he not noticed and stopped before he did? Yes, that's going to give him more media attention, but to ignore the killer is to ignore the real problem. It's dismissive simply to call him insane (we aren't all criminally insane; something drove him to it), and naive to think that fame is all that drives people like him. It is also dismissive to say that the particular gun he had did not in some way contribute to the fear and therefore the damage, however intangible, he was able to cause. This was an act of terrorism, and it succeeded admirably; people want to be safe, and will entertain any and all options that appear to ensure it. You therefore have to give them that.

Longer than I wanted it to be, but the main points (I hope) are obvious so Arfin can skim it without getting the wrong idea. I support RKBA, and I oppose restrictions that prevent me the gun owner from buying, keeping and using the firearms I feel are necessary to protect myself and, if it were necessary in my case, to hunt for my food. The weapons I feel are necessary are less... "controversial" than the weapons at issue here ("assault weapons"), and frankly if assault weapons went away the only effect to me personally is that handguns would become the front line, a line I will defend ferociously. For others here military-design rifles are a line that, if crossed, DOES affect them personally, and if you give me a logical argument that will appeal to the masses I will throw whatever weight I have behind it. I can defend my choices; that should be the only test for me and indeed for anyone to own X firearm, but "because I can" is NOT a valid reason for owning a firearm of any kind, and the Second Amendment, by its stated text, did NOT have that intention. You MUST have a better argument than that, that makes the Second Amendment applicable in the eyes of the public the same as it was 200 years ago, and not just BECAUSE it was applicable 200 years ago, that defends your right to X firearm, or indeed to X number of firearms. That will be difficult, but it must be done.

 

[Deanimator]

I understand the presence of entertainment value, but the Founders did not give you the fundamental right to plink, or for that matter to collect.

The Founders GAVE us NO rights. They RECOGNIZED and EXPOUNDED UPON certain rights, one of which was the right to OWN PROPERTY.

Have you begun to notice by now that every time you say something, contained within it is its own refutation?

To own the terms of debate is to own the tactical highground.

How are things down there in Dien Bien Phu?

 

[Sage of Seattle]

Hold up, guys.

The more I think about what Liko81 is saying, the more uncomfortable I feel. And I guess because I'm feeling uncomfortable, that's a good thing, because that source of discomfort means that maybe my stance on the RKBA isn't really strong. If I really thought the 2nd was unassailable, then I would have no doubts, right?

I dunno. What he's saying is really starting to make sense and that's kinda scaring me a little. Maybe I've ignored what the fundamental issues are in favor of "cold, hard fact" and not understanding that we're dealing with other human beings here. We all have feelings, right? Those feelings need protecting just as much as our physical bodies do, at least, that's how I see it. All of our "inalienable rights" have limits on them, so we can all live in as much peace and harmony as possible.

So, therefore, to be sure that I can remain true to myself and what I feel and also protect myself from possible harm, I think we need to ban Liko81.

It's for the children.




[/sarcasm]

 

[ArfinGreebly]

C R I M I N A L S

That in and of itself is laudable. I disagree with their focus. Ban guns and criminals use knives. However, the opposite holds true as well; give everyone guns and criminals use bombs.

Patently absurd. Simple speculation.

Really? It happened in Israel; civilians started carrying weapons to protect against Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah gunmen, and so those groups started employing suicide bombers. If a guy wants to kill a bunch of people and doesn't care what happens afterward, a gun is only one tool. That was my point; neither disarming NOR arming everyone will solve the problem of mass-murdering gunmen; they will either be mass-murdering gunmen shooting fish in a barrel with an illegal weapon, or they will be mass-murdering suicide bombers. That is not speculation; it has happened and is happening.

Y'all seem to be confused about the meaning of "criminals" in the above.

People participating in asymetrical warfare (declared or not) are not "criminals" in any conventional use of the word. They are soldiers. The siege of London by V2 bombs and Henkel overflights was not "criminals using bombs." Dresden was not rival gangs with explosives. And the IRA's "indiscriminate" bombing of targets in the UK was not random bad guys blowing stuff up. All of these acts were organized behind a cause.

Your example of suicide bombers is really beyond the scope of this discussion. Really, it would get a better treatment if addressed separately.

I will say this though: suicide bombing only works against an enemy that's willing to sit still and allow itself to be bombed, i.e. a "civilized" enemy. I'm pretty sure that would have been a dead-end approach had it been tried in Stalin's Russia or if someone were to give it a fling in China. When the default response to crap like that is extermination, it fails as a strategy.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Need? 'Scuse Me?

Quite simply, you have the right to own arms, and I have the right to challenge your need based on my stated purpose of the RKBA to own your particular choice of arms. You can, in kind, challenge my stated purpose of the RKBA or accept it and defend your need under it; both are valid rebuttals and reasoned discourse can proceed from there. However, to do neither does not rebut the challenge, and in debate, if you cannot refute a challenge your position is weakened. If you can't explain WHY you need the gun, or explain WHY my interpretation of the RKBA is wrong, all you're doing is Constitution-thumping, arguing by repetition that you are right. I hear a lot of that on these boards, and it DOES NOT WORK.

Ya got a thought framing error there, fella.

It's not the Bill Of Needs, it's the Bill Of Rights.

A right doesn't require justification.

Why do you need to question my right? If you can't justify your need to "freely speak" about my rights, then you should, as the saying goes, ****. You see, it doesn't commute.

This is the same kind of rationale that fuels reasoning like, "if you have nothing to hide, why won't you let us search your house?" Also see, "if you aren't guilty, why are you refusing to talk?" And later, "hey, your patriotism is pretty suspect if you won't quarter these troops at your home."

I don't -- and mustn't -- question your need to read porn. Neither will I question Hustler's need to publish it.

And I see no merit at all in trying to justify my "need" for arms. If the need isn't evident to you, that is truly your problem, and not mine.

My exercise of my rights is not predicated on your perception of my needs.

That would be socialism.

Sorry, I don't do socialism.

 

[ROMAK IV]

Liko, I think I see what you are trying to prove, but you aren't even on the same wavelength. I have no problem, from a personal level, with you being a liberal, but like most liberals, you ignored the points made by the previous posters, and ignore points that have been made since. I am sorry you feel hostility towards "neo-cons, but as a certifiable, religious right wing zealot, I can tell you that the Bush administration IS NOT, extreme right wing.

As liberals go, most, not all are anti-gun. If you are not, then that is a good thing, not a bad thing. If our arguments aren't going to sway certain people, so what? Are we to compromise the truth in exchange for popularity? The meaning of the 2nd Amendment wasn't really questioned, until early in the 20th Century, so why am I supposed to give ground to untruthful statements? Yes, guns kill! So what? There are people that can never be convinced, so why even bother with them? I try to educate those truely ignorant of the subject who believe everything they are told on the News with the exception of Fox. Gun Control, if it is really so popular, is popular out of ignorance and a 40+ year disinformation campaign. Gun Owners are demonized as if they are mass murderers themselves or at best stupid klutzes that sell guns to criminals and give guns to children. Former Clinton Administration officials will trash the Bush Aministration for Not talking to Iran, yet brag about CLinton "standing up to the NRA", like it is worse then the Iranians. The Brady Camaign will rant on about gun safety and training for the purpose of banning guns. Facts are facts. The so-called "assault rifles", that is, the semiautomatic ones that are claimed to be so dangerous are STILL seldom used in crimes, irregardless of the aledged "easy availability" and glorification of these types of firearms. In fact, if there is a news report about a certain crime, it will, more often than not, be blamed on an "assault weapon" or AK-47 no matter what the actual weapon was.

So, like I already pointed out, the Doctor's comments are untruthful for the purpose of promoting the antigun agenda. They imply a certain conclusion NOT based on the facts. That, my friend, is propoganda. While it isn't illegal to tell a lie to the news media and for them to print it, It is unethical and does harm to the country. In my world, the doctor would be counseled by the hospital regarding political comments of any kind. And the newroom would be repremanded for presenting such a one-sided article. But we know that won't happen, since they don't tend to provide an open forum for comments. We do here, that is why you are being tolerated.

Liberals also tend to have, like I already said, a problem with Moral relativity. I cna tell you most assuredly, that the American public in general, does not, and that is why it is so necessary for the reporting of these incidents to be one-sided. Who would normally have sympathy for a mass-murderer? The UnaBomber wasn't executed. He lived! When these scumbage that commit crimes like this kill themselves at the end of their crime, they do the society a favor. I can just see the damage that would have been done to this society, if the Omaha shooter had surrendered. Some big lawyer would have taken the case for free, in order to promote his own carreer, and it would have ended up that He was the victim, not the people he shot. And liberals and the Doctor have the nerve to compare me defending my home with a cold blooded killer? Outrageous! And to the people that would believe them, you are really stupid.

And furthermore, there isn't really that much choice in the matter. If you are a male, and are "drafted" as part of a legal military call-up of the "militia", you DON't have a choice to refuse. In the same light, the federal government doesn't "have a choice" not to follow the 2nd Amendment. It is nobody's business, especially the federal government's what type of gun I buy. The machine gun ban that began in 1934 and was instituted in 1986, is unconstitutional. We have people, that believe the Supreme Court has the final say in the Constitution. It doesn't. Many of those people believe that out of ignorance, or they believe that because the Supreme Court has acted in a way that they agree.

 

[ROMAK IV]

And to add, if the government can limit the caliber, capacity, ect. of your firearms, the 2nd Amendment is useless. And if only one side is allowed to voice their opinion, the First Amendment, at least the "free speech" part, is meaningless. After all, the Soviet Union had free speech as long as you didn't criticize the government. In the US, free speech has made a rebound BECAUSE of the Internet, and talk radio.

 

[AndyC]

Liko, I think the best paper yet written on countering anti-gun sentiment is this - Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality

 

[bluestarlizzard]

liko, i hate to burst your bubble but a valid reson for owning "assault rifles" is "i want one" being that i have a right to PERSONAL PROPERTY.
i won't even get it to your whole use of that nonsense term 'assault rifle'.
your right, arming folks may make lunatics resort to diffrent methods of mass murder. However the united states is not the same as Israel. point of fact, our continent has not been in a constant state of warfare since the middle ages, like the middle east.

 

[Liko81]

I won't even get it to your whole use of that nonsense term 'assult rifle'

You'll notice that's the first time I'd used it in several posts; I agree, it's misleading. I used "military-design rifles" quite a bit in earlier posts but it sounded too much like a euphemism, and it's also too specific. The antis want to ban "assault weapons". Whatever "assault weapons" are, they are the weapons at stake, and the Brady Bunch have a definition of that term whether you think the term is undefineable or not.

Liko, I think the best paper yet written on countering anti-gun sentiment is this - Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality

Very good read. It has some of the points I was trying to make; the culture of victimhood leading to groups who nurture that culture for their own ends, the fact that simply repeating pro-gun rhetoric in the face of anti-gun sentiment isn't going to convince anybody, and in fact just the opposite, and the fact that changing the antis' minds is not going to be done by general discourse. I'll have to remember the more specific tips she gave; that's good stuff.

How are things down there in Dien Bien Phu?

Translated: I'm a liberal hippie socialist. Or worse, communist. Textbook ad hominem argument, stereotypical gun nut statement. Very constructive, and very conducive towards getting me to listen to what you have to say or to pay any attention to you at all. [/sarcasm] Did you READ the part in previous posts where I said I argued against ignorance, and that I didn't care for the arguments of gun rights advocates in part because they generally included insult and general slights on my status as a "true" American? Read that above article AndyC posted the link to; I think you'll find something in it where it says if you are rude, arrogant, or belittling, all you do is prove the antis' point. I don't care if you're trying to change anyone's mind, and if you're not you're doing well, because your dismissive, insulting tone serves only to make your opposition dig in their heels. Why on earth would they want to agree with someone who treats people like you do?

 

[bluestarlizzard]

deleted

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Insult?

so on our 'home ground' we can't insult the people who think we are all wacked out, murdering [ psychopaths ] ? we can't vent because we get treated like second class citizens out in the daily world soley because we choose to own a gun?

Well, no, actually, we don't insult people here.

We don't do ad hominem attacks. That's for undisciplined emo-boards.

We argue the merits. Emotions are, when turned loose in argumentation, a kind of effluent that we try to avoid here.

[ I ] bet everyone on this board has [ received ] major insults based on our intrest in firearms. Liko81, not only are we fighting for our rights, we are [ demeaned ] by those same people who you are [ defining ].

And this would be true, but . . .

so if we feel like blowing off a little steam by insulting them on OUR message board before going off in to the real world where we work like hell to get them to JUST [ listen ] to what we have to say for FIVE minutes, i think thats our [ perogative ].

Well, no, not really. This isn't "our" message board so much as it is Oleg's board, and Oleg gets to make the rules. One of his rules is that we don't insult.

If you're gonna "blow off steam" you need to keep it clean and keep the gloves up.

Just a friendly reminder.

 

[bluestarlizzard]

arfingreebly,
i never insulted. i just defended the person who made the snid remark. i apoligies for geting overly hyped up. i can see why they typed that. i really can.

 

[Cosmoline]

you have the right to own arms, and I have the right to challenge your need based on my stated purpose of the RKBA to own your particular choice of arms.

If I have a RIGHT to own arms, then the question of NEED becomes a matter of personal choice. If I must justify my NEED to the state, then I don't really have a RIGHT at all but a mere PRIVILEGE.

If you can't explain WHY you need the gun, or explain WHY my interpretation of the RKBA is wrong, all you're doing is Constitution-thumping, arguing by repetition that you are right.

If there is a right to keep and bear arms, then there is no requirement to explain why I need to keep and bear them.

Now if all you're doing is questioning whether X firearm is the proper choice for Y person in Z circumstance, that's fine. But the legal forum is not the place for such debate. Nor was Herr Doktor in this example merely making a tactical argument.

You first have to concede the logical point that a high-powered semi-automatic rifle is a very powerful, very deadly weapon and its use by those who are ignorant or uncaring of the consequences has obviously tragic consequences.

Nobody is claiming that the weapon in this case is anything but a deadly weapon. What we are pointing out is that if the meager 7.62x39 is too potent a round for civilian consumption, then every hunting rifle in the nation should be made illegal as well. We are disputing emotional claptrap with facts. I see nothing wrong with that. It's just this sort of argument that won me over from my old position as an anti.

I think we are at our worst when we appeal to emotions on our own side. This is seen in broad proclamations about how we're planning to shoot the JBT's and so on. The facts are on our side. Logic is on our side. These are the tools we must use. There will always be a core on the other side that refuses to comprehend and gets violently upset when we raise factual arguments, but this is all the more reason to keep hammering them home over and over and over again.

I do agree that we should not base our arguments on how firearms will prevent crime. Nor should we rely on statistics. Crime has so many causes and these causes vary so much from region to region and town to town that trying to figure out exactly what role the gun laws play is nearly impossible. There are places where literally every single household has multiple high-powered firearms that haven't had a murder in decades. There are other places with widespread gun ownership that have gangs shooting at each other. And there are places with draconian gun laws that have gangs shooting at each other. THe RKBA does not require policy arguments to support. It is about an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT. Even if it can be proven that liberal gun laws = more crime, it would not matter. The state has no right to seize my iron unless I do something to justify such seizure as a specific criminal sanction, and they convict me of it.

For example, I have little doubt that a government edict prohibiting anyone from speaking to anyone else on the street or in bars, would reduce the number of violent altercations and make the streets "safer." But it would also be a clear infringement on the First Amendment rights to assembly and expression.

 

[Liko81]

so on our 'home ground' we can't insult the people who think we are all wacked out, murdering psycho paths? we can't vent because we get treated like second class citizens out in the daily world soley because we choose to own a gun? i bet everyone on this board has reseaved major insults based on our intrest in firearms. Liko81, not only are we fighting for our rights, we are demeaneded by those same people who you are definding. so if we feel like blowing off a little steam by insulting them on OUR message board before going off in to the real world where we work like hell to get them to JUST listin to what we have to say for FIVE minutes, i think thats our perogitive.

Sure, but consider this; I came on to this message board a new gun owner looking to get information about shooting, defense tactics. What I got on a regular basis was the same anti-liberal **** that I as a Texas Democrat have had to live with for the last 20 years. You think you've been dumped on, try saying you think it's time for the Repubs to get out and let someone else clean up the mess they've made of our foreign and domestic policy, not to mention the U.S. budget. Repubs dump on Dems for high spending and big government, yet it's Republicans who give us the Patriot Act, the DHS, and if you go back a bit further the Senate Committee on Un-American Activities. Repubs say the RKBA is fine with them, but the Fourth and Fifth Amendments don't apply; neither do the Hague or Geneva Conventions.

I am a gun owner; I have also been pushed more towards the antis' camp by what I have seen here than I've ever been. THESE are the people who own guns? They're exactly the kind of puffed-up, deaf, arrogant, rude, and hateful people the Brady Bunch say they are! They're not trying to raise gun awareness; like any other fringe group they simply want to hate anyone who thinks differently. These are not the people whom I want possessing guns anywhere near me. This may be your "home turf", but here's a stunner: it's the Internet. Nothing's private here. You think I found you guys because someone gave me the speakeasy's password? The Bradys can take every last insult, and hateful comment and plaster it front and center on THEIR website, painting anyone who said anything that could be taken out of context as radical, treasonous, fascist, racist, sexist, and otherwise biased in favor of the evil RKBA. Every word you say here that you wouldn't say in public can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion. I seriously don't want to be identified with people this rude, arrogant, and hateful. I as a gun owner know plenty of people who own guns and yet respect the views of those who do not like them, and those are the people I want to congregate with. Oh don't think I'll just disappear; it's your prerogative to take an ad hominem stab at someone speaking against guns, and it's my prerogative to call you out each and every time you do it. You think you've seen a troll? You've seen nothing. And if you ban me, all it does is prove my point; this forum simply exists to hate, not to listen to anything other than your own noise.

 

[Cosmoline]

These arguments are quite simply not working.

And I wanted to address this claim as well. Can you back it up? We've had a number of very high-profile mass shootings in the past few years, indeed all the way back to Columbine. Where is the new federal anti-gun law? If our arguments have been failing all these years, how is it we've experienced a true revolution in the right to carry movement, overturning a century of established law in most states in the nation? How is it we're turning the tide on the once universally-accepted doctrine that the Second Amendment only protects a state's right to arm its militias?

I think we're winning.

 

[BRASSM]

Futility

:banghead:Forget the facts, his mind is already made up.
You can't confuse the really determined stupid with the truth.:banghead:
I doubt that there is anyone on THR that doesn't know the ballistics of the 7.62 x 39 vs 5.56 x 45, we all know the facts, we aren't dealing on emotion. As an engineer that's how I make my decisions. Did you ever wonder how the competition thinks [or doesn't].

 

[bluestarlizzard]

"You think you've been dumped on, try saying you think it's time for the Repubs to get out and let someone else clean up the mess they've made of our foreign and domestic policy, not to mention the U.S. budget. Repubs dump on Dems for high spending and big government, yet it's Republicans who give us the Patriot Act, the DHS, and if you go back a bit further the Senate Committee on Un-American Activities. Repubs say the RKBA is fine with them, but the Fourth and Fifth Amendments don't apply; neither do the Hague or Geneva Conventions."

where did this happen on THR? did someone slam liko for not liking the republican party?
liko, i don't like the republican party either, i also don't like the democrates. one wants to take away my right to choice and the other wants to take away my enforcement of my right to choice. i belive (i know i've seen someones signature) that their are many on this board that have different overall political beliefs. in fact i'm pretty sure that the only real commen denomiater is the fact that we all (well, most of us) support and belive in our second amendment rights.

 

[Sage of Seattle]

I am a gun owner; I have also been pushed more towards the antis' camp by what I have seen here than I've ever been.

Then by all means, give up your guns.

You don't seem to realize the irony in you coming to a board, any board, whose members hold logic and rationality over emotion and irrationality and arguing to those members that they should abandon reason in favor of emotion when presenting thier "side" in firearms debate while using NO logic or reason of your own.

You must not have lurked over here on THR for very long if you think that the members here have treated you with nearly the same level of invective and hyperbole that the "anti" crowd has done, time and time again, much of which has been pointed out in this very thread. That doctor heavily implied that by the mere fact of you being a gun owner, for example, you are either a criminal or will become one eventually. Where is your anger and sense of injustice when that is said about you?

Oh, wait. Of course. That doctor is not really talking about you, right? Just the rest of America's gunowners that you merrily paint after you pick up that broad brush the doctor is slinging ignorantly around.

You want to argue emotion? Why don't you respond to what I said upthread then? I went right down to the level of emotion, just like you wanted. I decided that, all logic aside, you were a threat to my way of thinking. Of course, I doubt very much you see how much people rely on logic and reason and how little emotion has to do with effecting decent public policy.

I for one, really don't wish you to be banned. I merely said that to make a point which is most likely lost on you, but I know others picked up on it and that's good enough for me.

Also, this

Every word you say here that you wouldn't say in public can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion.

doesn't make any sense to me. Whatever gave you the idea that THR is private?

I as a gun owner know plenty of people who own guns and yet respect the views of those who do not like them

Do you share those views as well, and should we respect them?

Oh don't think I'll just disappear; it's your prerogative to take an ad hominem stab at someone speaking against guns, and it's my prerogative to call you out each and every time you do it.

Feel free to do so. I won't mind and I'm sure others here won't mind as well. You will be called on your illogic and rhetoric too, in turn, if I feel like it.

You think you've seen a troll? You've seen nothing.

So you admit that you're trolling?

 

[siglite]

I am a gun owner; I have also been pushed more towards the antis' camp by what I have seen here than I've ever been.

I don't think anyone's pushing you anywhere. I think you're sitting right next to the campfire over there in the Brady drum circle. Of course, from my point of view, your threat to go join the anti camp elicits a "good riddance" response. We have enough enemies of freedom as it is. We can live without them as "the enemy within."

THESE are the people who own guns? They're exactly the kind of puffed-up, deaf, arrogant, rude, and hateful people the Brady Bunch say they are!

Pretty virulent insults you're slinging there. The thing is, I've seen no such arrogance or rudeness directed at you. I think you mistake poking holes in your twisted logic for personal attacks. It's not our fault that your arguments are weak and easily torn to pieces by the forum members here, who, clearly are so intellectually inferior.

They're not trying to raise gun awareness; like any other fringe group they simply want to hate anyone who thinks differently.

What shadows of boogeymen are you seeing? I've seen nothing in this thread that indicates hatred by anyone. What I have seen is your arguments torn to shreds. Repeatedly. How does your inability to present logical arguments which can stand up to logical scrutiny equate to "fringe hatred?"

These are not the people whom I want possessing guns anywhere near me.

It is my suspicion, that you don't want anyone possessing guns anywhere. Perhaps only trauma surgeons are intellectually qualified? Is it ok if they own guns near you?

This may be your "home turf", but here's a stunner: it's the Internet. Nothing's private here. You think I found you guys because someone gave me the speakeasy's password? The Bradys can take every last insult, and hateful comment...

The only insults and hateful comments I've seen thus far have come from you, and are quoted above.

and plaster it front and center on THEIR website, painting anyone who said anything that could be taken out of context as radical, treasonous, fascist, racist, sexist, and otherwise biased in favor of the evil RKBA.

Now who's painting with a narrow minded brush? What treason, fascism, racism and sexism have you found in this thread? Are your biases perhaps bleeding through? Once your position and arguments have been soundly trounced by any member here willing to take the trollbait, are insults like this all you have left?

Every word you say here that you wouldn't say in public can and will be used against you in the court of public opinion.

Rest assured I would say anything I've said in this thread on a soapbox in downtown DC, my state capitol, at my place of employment, at my church, or any other public place.

I seriously don't want to be identified with people this rude, arrogant, and hateful.

I think you have your parties mungled. You just called US narrow minded, treasonous, racist, fascist. Along with "rude, arrogant and hateful." Yet, I see absolutely no basis in fact for any of these false charges. Who should be disassociating themselves with whom here?

I as a gun owner know plenty of people who own guns and yet respect the views of those who do not like them, and those are the people I want to congregate with.

You'll find these people here: http://www.bradycampaign.org. I think you'll find like-minded folks there.

Oh don't think I'll just disappear; it's your prerogative to take an ad hominem stab at someone speaking against guns, and it's my prerogative to call you out each and every time you do it.

Ah.... have to love the first amendment. Gee, what protects your prerogative?

You think you've seen a troll? You've seen nothing. And if you ban me, all it does is prove my point; this forum simply exists to hate, not to listen to anything other than your own noise.

That sounds sort of like a threat. Why would you threaten us? Has someone threatened you?