Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Can "gun people" and "anti-gun people" ever come to the table together and talk Options · View
MrNudiePants
Posted: Thursday, May 09, 2013 10:01:34 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,140
Location: United States
Monocle wrote:


Incorrect. Your persecution complex and Snell's have _everything_ to do with the content of this thread. They _define_ the content and context of this thread.



So, if I posted that you should be shot because of your viewpoints, and you objected, could I fairly say that you have a persecution complex? Or should I more honestly say that a post advocating someone's death isn't appropriate for this venue or subject matter?

MrNudiePants
Posted: Thursday, May 09, 2013 10:03:03 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,140
Location: United States
WellMadeMale wrote:


No you don't need to be shot. You need about a fifth worth of shots. Call your poison, I'll drink with you and we can shoot the shit (not literally).

But put some fucking shorts or something on.

You and I both could probably stand to relax and chill out. I'm sure you have your good points, and I'm sure after about 7 shots, I could find them.

Wild Turkey 101 for me.

*you can even bring your handgun(s)...but give 'em to Xuani for safekeeping while we're boozing up.


Xuani doesn't like guns, remember? And I don't carry when I've been drinking. Which means that I rarely drink. But feel free. I tend to prefer Elijah Craig.

Rembacher
Posted: Thursday, May 09, 2013 10:14:47 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,106
MrNudiePants wrote:



I believe I'm failing, but at least I'm trying to bridge some part of the divide between "them" and "us".


Well, there's something we agree on. But think about this: Before calling anyone who disagrees with you a hypocrite, how about considering why they disagree with you? Or possibly even consider the fact that they may have fully considered your argument, but still prefer their opinion? If you want people to respect, and fully consider your viewpoint, you have to respect, and fully consider theirs. This article did not do that. As LadyX mentions in her post, a lot of that has to do with tone. It was very condescending and derogatory to anyone who wants stricter gun laws.

Next time you want to educate someone on a viewpoint they don't agree with, try sticking more with facts, and ideally, use an article that acknowledges the validity of the other sides concerns. It will be far more likely to be accepted.

It's a lot easier to bridge the divide when you lay the stones, rather than throw them at the other side.
Monocle
Posted: Thursday, May 09, 2013 10:16:04 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 300
MrNudiePants wrote:



So, if I posted that you should be shot because of your viewpoints, and you objected, could I fairly say that you have a persecution complex? Or should I more honestly say that a post advocating someone's death isn't appropriate for this venue or subject matter?


If you posted I should be shot I'd call you moron and a hypocrite, and dangerous, since I know you're plenty well armed. I wouldn't lament about anyone else not calling you out for it, nor tar everyone I disagree with as taking your murderous side.

You could then call me whatever else you wanted, but after already saying I should be shot, any additional verbiage really would be meaningless.

Calling out someone's language as being hypocritical and inappropriate is just fine and dandy, but you went way, _way_ beyond that.
Monocle
Posted: Thursday, May 09, 2013 10:40:59 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 300
Here's my ultimate answer to 'Can "gun people" and "anti-gun people" ever come to the table together and talk': No.

Here's why.

I interpret "Gun People" to be the extremists on the gun-loving side - Snell and NP self identify as members of this (small relative to the US population) group. "Anti-gun" people are that (also very small) group of people who actually do want all guns gone. These two groups will absolutely never see eye to eye and will never come to the table for anything productive. I'll go so far as to say that neither of these extremes will ever be productive in discussion with _moderates_ of the opposing side, because the extremist point of view, despite any protestations otherwise, has no latitude for compromise.

Can moderate gun advocates who want fewer restrictions, and moderate gun-control advocates those who want more restrictions come to the table and be productive? Yes, and they have and do. But they'll _never_ satisfy the extremists of both sides.
LadyX
Posted: Thursday, May 09, 2013 11:12:27 PM

Rank: Artistic Tart

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,827
MrNudiePants wrote:


But what you're not seeing is that the author really believes this
. It's his opinion, and he has every right to it, even as you have the right to say that gun ownership is not for you. And he's not alone. I agree with most of his bullet points. I do my very best to try and see things from your point of view. You have the right to believe whatever you choose to believe, and I don't have the right to call you names because of it, or threaten you because of it. And most gun enthusiasts I hang out with feel the same way. That's called 'freedom", and it's what we believe in.


To the contrary, I can plainly see that the author believes everything he's saying. He seems to lack self-awareness, but certainly not sincerity. And while I’m pretty sure you don’t cop the same attitudes that this guy does, I know that you feel the same conviction for second amendment rights.

So here’s my question: is everyone with his/your point of view so convinced that there should be absolutely no restrictions and no limits on gun ownership that the least infringement will lead to total stripping and confiscation of rights? Is that why what goes into the works as “hey, let’s talk about stronger background checks and some limits on fully automatic weapons” invariably comes out of the works as “you can’t take my guns away!!”?

This guy spent, I’m guessing, close to 4k words making a passionate defense of gun ownership vs. the “anti-gunners". Is he- are you- really of the belief that there’s this huge groundswell of “let’s take all the guns away” activists? Yes, there are some. I’m not one of them, neither are most of the people you interact with here. Not being a tea party patriot is not tantamount to supporting total confiscation, yet the author lumped everyone who doesn't by default launch unprompted into a founding fathers speech into that same "anti-gunners" group.

Quote:
You, on the other hand, (and I use the generic "you", because while some people may not feel this way, in my opinion the vast majority of you do) you do believe that it's proper and right to hurl insults, call names, act boorish... Hell, that Kristin thing actually posted that I should be shot. Twice, if I'm not mistaken. If that's not the ultimate hypocrisy, I don't know what is. And not a single damned one of you pointed this out, or raised up a red flag and said, "Hey, we're all entitled to our own opinions. It isn't right to say that to someone just for posting what they believe in."


People get personal and go overboard, Nudes. At times I do too, as can you, as can everyone. Of course it’s out of bounds, and highly ironic, to suggest that you should be shot. That goes without saying. Anymore, I do my best to ignore the mudslinging and move along. Most of the time, I succeed in doing so. Easy for me to say, I wasn’t the target, I know- but this issue is just another political issue on which the divide might be empathized and understood, but never ultimately crossed. Conservatives will never agree to higher taxes and an expanded welfare state, and gun enthusiasts will never sign off on restrictions to gun ownership. These are the facts on the ground, and they appear permanent.
Quote:

You're all for peaceful coexistence, except for people like me. You're all for freedom, except for people like me. Freedom of expression, freedom from religion, freedom from persecution... except for people like me.

Who is “all” of us? Are you addressing the four or five people that look at these threads who actually support across-the-board disarmament and criminalizing of firearm ownership? Because the rest of us have no problem with the concept of firearms for private ownership and use. Some of us take issue with the idea of the guy down the street having a collection of Uzis in the back bedroom, but that’s very different from “all gun owners are crazy, they should be shot.” I do realize it’s gotten personal toward you in these threads, but in general, why the absolutism? Is any discussion of further restriction equally offensive as full-scale revocation of gun rights? Or is your ire here being cast a little too broadly?

Quote:

And it's the gun owner's fault that there's no peaceful dialog going on about this subject.


You know, I have to say, I did find it a bit amusing in that essay that he felt so hurt, so persecuted, so singled out by others for his beliefs, but seemingly had no idea where it was coming from. And yet, his essay is so damning toward those who disagree with him, so unrelentingly haughty and condescending, that it becomes clear that the people around him aren’t so much reacting to the concept of gun ownership, they’re reacting to his way of handling other points of view.

It’s like saying “all conservatives are dumbasses who are stuck in the past, can’t open their minds, can’t understand that that they’re old-fashioned bigots that abet the wealthy and turn their backs on the poor. So fuck them for not seeing things my way”, then being mystified by the lack of empathy and understanding in the responses. But I guess I shouldn’t be surprised: he’s judging opposing viewpoints based on a small minority and internet comment sections (!)*. So aside from a lack of self-awareness, I’d say he suffers from a lack of perspective. Most people don’t want to take away his guns, and those that do? Fuck’em, there are bigger things in life to worry about.




*I really can't stress enough how myopic that is. The only people that use comment sections are old ladies and trolls, seriously. That's a terrible gauge of public opinion, and perhaps the very worst place to look to as a marketplace of ideas.
sprite
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 1:24:02 AM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 14,514
Location: My Tower, United States
MrNudiePants wrote:




You, on the other hand, (and I use the generic "you", because while some people may not feel this way, in my opinion the vast majority of you do) you do believe that it's proper and right to hurl insults, call names, act boorish... Hell, that Kristin thing actually posted that I should be shot. Twice, if I'm not mistaken. If that's not the ultimate hypocrisy, I don't know what is. And not a single damned one of you pointed this out, or raised up a red flag and said, "Hey, we're all entitled to our own opinions. It isn't right to say that to someone just for posting what they believe in."



Nudie, if you are going to make those kind of statement, please cite the the source. Unless i missed it, i don't see a single post where Kirstin suggested you be shot which makes your statement slander. if you're going to set up rules here, if seems only fair that you play by them as well, if you expect the rest of us to.

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/hardcore/west-coast-games-part-one-the-beach.aspx
overmykneenow
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 3:59:26 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 6/8/2010
Posts: 1,019
Location: United Kingdom
sprite wrote:


Nudie, if you are going to make those kind of statement, please cite the the source. Unless i missed it, i don't see a single post where Kirstin suggested you be shot which makes your statement slander. if you're going to set up rules here, if seems only fair that you play by them as well, if you expect the rest of us to.


I think it stems from her use of the saying "they shoot horse, don't they" - used, I'm pretty sure, in the context that it's cruel to let him go on like this and if he was a horse he'd have been put out of his misery.

Warning: The opinions above are those of an anonymous individual on the internet. They are opinions, unless they're facts. They may be ill-informed, out of touch with reality or just plain stupid. They may contain traces of irony. If reading these opinions causes you to be become outraged or you start displaying the symptoms of outrage, stop reading them immediately. If symptoms persist, consult a psychiatrist.

Why not read some stories instead

NEW! Want a quick read for your coffee break? Why not try this... Flash Erotica: Scrubber
Monocle
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 4:58:13 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 300
overmykneenow wrote:


I think it stems from her use of the saying "they shoot horse, don't they" - used, I'm pretty sure, in the context that it's cruel to let him go on like this and if he was a horse he'd have been put out of his misery.


If that's where the accusation comes from it demonstrates a fantastic failure of comprehension and irony, and an overboard reaction.

As to this:
Quote:
You, on the other hand, (and I use the generic "you", because while some people may not feel this way, in my opinion the vast majority of you do) you do believe that it's proper and right to hurl insults, call names, act boorish...

This, in direct parallel to Snell demonstrates tremendous, generic, and utterly false assumptions about the vast majority of people one is disagreeing with, while failing to recognize even occasional similar behavior in oneself.
matt55
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 5:25:47 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/31/2013
Posts: 374
Location: Atlanta area, United States
Gun people and anti-gun people that are on the extremes of both sides will not come together and talk. It is just like democrats and republicans on the extremes of those parties. The ones who will be able to come together and talk are those that are able to listen to the other side and don't believe that their side is always right and the other side is always wrong.

Ironically, that is about 90% of the population but all we hear about...all the media covers...are the extreme positions. What this issue needs is for common sense people to take control of it.
elitfromnorth
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 3:51:11 PM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,617
Location: Burrowed, Norway
If there is to be a resolve with this issue that the majority can live with, the extremists on both sides simply needs to be ignored. Why? Because the extreme gun lovers won't be happy until they can put a minigun in their backyard and the extreme gun haters won't be happy until there's a global embargo on guns and every single gun, whether it's a hunting rifle or a machine gun, is destroyed.

The moderates needs to come up with a roadmap that all moderates can live with, including the restriction on what kind of weapons are allowed, how severe the background check needs to be and all that follows. If the gun nuts screams "this is ruining our nation" and the gun haters scream "this is not enough, you're sanctioning murders!" then so be it. In the real world there can be no pleasing those sides, same way that you can't please those crying for anarchy and those crying for a totalitarian dictatorship. It's basically the same thing.

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
justaddkatie
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 4:15:28 PM

Rank: Advanced Wordsmith

Joined: 3/21/2012
Posts: 80
Location: United States
I sure hope so. I'd hate to have to say goodbye to a few very close, very sexy friends here!
sprite
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 7:09:34 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 14,514
Location: My Tower, United States
here's the thing that's an issue...

the editorial talks about the anti-gun people like they're intractable. i'm one of the so called anti-gun people. i already came half way, i'm at the table. i'm ok with people owning guns. reasonable guns. rifles. ok. shotguns. ok. hands guns... i don't lke them, but ok. all i am asking is... no assault rifles, clip limits, and back ground checks. that's all. and what do i get when i bring my points to the table? people shouting at me, telling me that it's their right to own any gun they want, that i can't take their guns away, that i will have to pry them from their cold dead hands. if i'm willing to be reasonable, why can't you? the editorial mirrors that. it simply says "No" we're not budging. you meet us all the way or not at all and THAT is why we can't all sit down together - because when i sit down at the table, no one is will to take the seat across from me.

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/hardcore/west-coast-games-part-one-the-beach.aspx
MrNudiePants
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 9:01:47 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,140
Location: United States
sprite wrote:
here's the thing that's an issue...

the editorial talks about the anti-gun people like they're intractable. i'm one of the so called anti-gun people. i already came half way, i'm at the table. i'm ok with people owning guns. reasonable guns. rifles. ok. shotguns. ok. hands guns... i don't lke them, but ok. all i am asking is... no assault rifles, clip limits, and back ground checks. that's all. and what do i get when i bring my points to the table? people shouting at me, telling me that it's their right to own any gun they want, that i can't take their guns away, that i will have to pry them from their cold dead hands. if i'm willing to be reasonable, why can't you? the editorial mirrors that. it simply says "No" we're not budging. you meet us all the way or not at all and THAT is why we can't all sit down together - because when i sit down at the table, no one is will to take the seat across from me.


Which brings me to one of author Snell's primary points. Gun laws are being proposed and voted on by people with extremely limited experience with guns. There's no study, no finding of fact. Someone with no knowledge about the subject writes a bill, and if they're persuasive enough or have enough political clout, the bill gets passed into law. usually without even being read by the legislators that vote it in.

You're briefly familiar with firearms - you have a basic knowledge greater than some. Certainly you have a basic knowledge greater than Mme. Feinstein. And yet you're willing to allow some guns and disallow others, based purely on a scary name: "assault rifle".


Which of these two rifles is the more dangerous?








This is not a difficult test. The answer is really easy to guess.

MrNudiePants
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 9:22:32 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,140
Location: United States
quote=LadyX

To the contrary, I can plainly see that the author believes everything he's saying. He seems to lack self-awareness, but certainly not sincerity. And while I’m pretty sure you don’t cop the same attitudes that this guy does, I know that you feel the same conviction for second amendment rights.

So here’s my question: is everyone with his/your point of view so convinced that there should be absolutely no restrictions and no limits on gun ownership that the least infringement will lead to total stripping and confiscation of rights? Is that why what goes into the works as “hey, let’s talk about stronger background checks and some limits on fully automatic weapons” invariably comes out of the works as “you can’t take my guns away!!”?

Absolutely not. Most of us realize that our 2nd Amendment rights are ALREADY being infringed upon. Some of those infringements make sense. Some do not. Ask anyone who bought a gun at the outbreak of the Rodney King riots, and then had to wait a week to take possession whether or not that infringement made sense. If you asked them at the time, I know what their answer would have been. And speaking just for myself, if someone proposed a bill that made sense, and would actually do something to prevent crime, I'd back it even if it did add to my sense of being infringed upon. I just haven't seen that bill come along yet.

This guy spent, I’m guessing, close to 4k words making a passionate defense of gun ownership vs. the “anti-gunners". Is he- are you- really of the belief that there’s this huge groundswell of “let’s take all the guns away” activists? Yes, there are some. I’m not one of them, neither are most of the people you interact with here. Not being a tea party patriot is not tantamount to supporting total confiscation, yet the author lumped everyone who doesn't by default launch unprompted into a founding fathers speech into that same "anti-gunners" group.

Not a "huge groundswell", no. But there are enough people that do have that attitude that we're wary, and rightfully so. We feel much the same way that OB-GYN's must have felt back in the '80s when women's health clinics were being bombed every so often. Odds are, it'll never happen, but... we're wary.


Quote:
You, on the other hand, (and I use the generic "you", because while some people may not feel this way, in my opinion the vast majority of you do) you do believe that it's proper and right to hurl insults, call names, act boorish... Hell, that Kristin thing actually posted that I should be shot. Twice, if I'm not mistaken. If that's not the ultimate hypocrisy, I don't know what is. And not a single damned one of you pointed this out, or raised up a red flag and said, "Hey, we're all entitled to our own opinions. It isn't right to say that to someone just for posting what they believe in."


People get personal and go overboard, Nudes. At times I do too, as can you, as can everyone. Of course it’s out of bounds, and highly ironic, to suggest that you should be shot. That goes without saying. Anymore, I do my best to ignore the mudslinging and move along. Most of the time, I succeed in doing so. Easy for me to say, I wasn’t the target, I know- but this issue is just another political issue on which the divide might be empathized and understood, but never ultimately crossed. Conservatives will never agree to higher taxes and an expanded welfare state, and gun enthusiasts will never sign off on restrictions to gun ownership. These are the facts on the ground, and they appear permanent.

I'm sure that most people feel this is a flaw in my personality, but I can't help but take things personally. This is why I had to quit my former profession. I just couldn't stand seeing the kinds of things people do to each other first-hand, and having my hands tied when it came to dealing with them. I can't help it. It is who I am. It makes me a fierce friend to have, and an even fiercer enemy. It's up to the people around me to decide which one they want to be.


Quote:

You're all for peaceful coexistence, except for people like me. You're all for freedom, except for people like me. Freedom of expression, freedom from religion, freedom from persecution... except for people like me.

Who is “all” of us? Are you addressing the four or five people that look at these threads who actually support across-the-board disarmament and criminalizing of firearm ownership? Because the rest of us have no problem with the concept of firearms for private ownership and use. Some of us take issue with the idea of the guy down the street having a collection of Uzis in the back bedroom, but that’s very different from “all gun owners are crazy, they should be shot.” I do realize it’s gotten personal toward you in these threads, but in general, why the absolutism? Is any discussion of further restriction equally offensive as full-scale revocation of gun rights? Or is your ire here being cast a little too broadly?

Again, "you" in the generic sense. Everyone from the little tart who wants to see me shot, to the newspaper columnist who wants to see me dragged behind a pickup. To the TV talk show host who wants to see me face down his colleague unarmed, while his colleague has a rifle. To the legislators who "only" want to see me imprisoned. Not you, specifically, X. And not many of the people who disagree with me on Lush. But as I just wrote... there are enough that it makes one wary - and rightfully so.

Quote:

And it's the gun owner's fault that there's no peaceful dialog going on about this subject.


You know, I have to say, I did find it a bit amusing in that essay that he felt so hurt, so persecuted, so singled out by others for his beliefs, but seemingly had no idea where it was coming from. And yet, his essay is so damning toward those who disagree with him, so unrelentingly haughty and condescending, that it becomes clear that the people around him aren’t so much reacting to the concept of gun ownership, they’re reacting to his way of handling other points of view.

It’s like saying “all conservatives are dumbasses who are stuck in the past, can’t open their minds, can’t understand that that they’re old-fashioned bigots that abet the wealthy and turn their backs on the poor. So fuck them for not seeing things my way”, then being mystified by the lack of empathy and understanding in the responses. But I guess I shouldn’t be surprised: he’s judging opposing viewpoints based on a small minority and internet comment sections (!)*. So aside from a lack of self-awareness, I’d say he suffers from a lack of perspective. Most people don’t want to take away his guns, and those that do? Fuck’em, there are bigger things in life to worry about.

If you worked in a venue where you were discriminated against on a daily basis, you may get a little touchy also. I think it's telling that he felt he had to wait until his last column with that employer to express his feelings, for fear of how his coworkers would treat him. You judge people based on your interactions with those around you. Stereotypes are created and reinforced by those interactions. Look at the way I get treated in these threads, and then ask yourself what stereotypes I've probably developed because of my interactions here. If you're honest, you might see something you don't like.


Always a pleasure, X.


sprite
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 10:09:05 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 14,514
Location: My Tower, United States
MrNudiePants wrote:


Which brings me to one of author Snell's primary points. Gun laws are being proposed and voted on by people with extremely limited experience with guns. There's no study, no finding of fact. Someone with no knowledge about the subject writes a bill, and if they're persuasive enough or have enough political clout, the bill gets passed into law. usually without even being read by the legislators that vote it in.

You're briefly familiar with firearms - you have a basic knowledge greater than some. Certainly you have a basic knowledge greater than Mme. Feinstein. And yet you're willing to allow some guns and disallow others, based purely on a scary name: "assault rifle".


Which of these two rifles is the more dangerous?



This is not a difficult test. The answer is really easy to guess.


let my clarify my stance. when i say 'assualt rife' i'm throwing a generic term out, one that's become kind an umbrella for all sorts of weapon.

what i object to are guns that are capable of holding a large magazine and firing at a very high rate and are either military grade or one step down. there's no reason, be it hunting or home defense that some one needs to be able to fire off an entire magazine (30 rounds) a minute. and that's if its unmodified. i've come across sites that claim you can legally modify them to fire at least twice that rate. those aren't for sport, they're for taking down mass targets as quickly as possible, and when those mass targets are living breathing human beings, i would like to see them banned. period. why is that such issue? do you really NEED to own something like that? if so, tell me why - and don't tell me it's to keep the government from stomping on your rights - please don't insult my intelligence like that.

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/hardcore/west-coast-games-part-one-the-beach.aspx
sprite
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 10:12:57 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 14,514
Location: My Tower, United States
MrNudiePants wrote:
quote=LadyX

If you worked in a venue where you were discriminated against on a daily basis, you may get a little touchy also.


.


for the record, i live in a world where i am discriminated against on a daily basis. i do get a little touchy at times. so the discrimination he feels somehow trumps mine?

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/hardcore/west-coast-games-part-one-the-beach.aspx
Guest
Posted: Friday, May 10, 2013 10:35:33 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 534,624
"Look at the way I get treated in these threads, and then ask yourself what stereotypes I've probably developed because of my interactions here."

You reap what you sow. Scary name or not, some fire arms need not be in the hands of everyone to defend their home. Make all arguments you want for the modern day frontiersman, or whatever scenario fits your bill and most NRA backers.

And that is the simple truth. There is money in guns. There is money in producing and selling them, and money to be made in many ways that is juxtaposed to actual discussion and points made by those who are 'anti-gun." Like Yeager, many of your points and his are synonymous, and those do scare people. The guns may scare people, but it's truly people that want, and need those armaments that really scare people even more.

Kinda confused as to why another thread need be created to discuss something already being discussed in numerous threads. But, I guess control is also another issue.
Marshall_Lewis
Posted: Saturday, May 11, 2013 10:22:37 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/16/2012
Posts: 329
Location: South Charleston , United States
I can come to the table as a "gun-person" to meet a "anti-gun person." I will come with reason and respect, trying to see their side as well as letting them see our side.

Question #1
What can we do about automatic weapons with high capacity rounds?

My answer:
I personally would offer a compromise. Do we need those high capacity rounds, no. If they are you are truly a gun person. Then you should be able to get what you want out of your weapon in one shot. We trim the round capacity from 30-20-15 to a max of 5. To those saying. "What if another country invades us?!?!" Chill out, if they did, most of you would be laying in your cellar, with your hands holding your ass checks together to keep the shit from falling out and crying for mommy. We turn fully automatic weapons(Assault, SMG, Pistols etc.) single shot. Then go through and shutdown any business doing illegal modifications to the weapons.

Question #2
How do we keep guns away from people who want to use them for harm.

My answer:
We make mandatory mental health screenings for anybody wishing to purchase a gun. You have to take one before holding a gun for your military, so why not before you make a purchase. If you show any signs of psychopathic tendencies or anything in the same context, you can not legally purchase a weapon. And for God sakes, lets put a better lock on our cabinets to keep kids, and thief's out of your weapons.

Here are some ideas. I am game for a discussion.
sprite
Posted: Saturday, May 11, 2013 10:29:40 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 14,514
Location: My Tower, United States
Master_Yoda wrote:
I can come to the table as a "gun-person" to meet a "anti-gun person." I will come with reason and respect, trying to see their side as well as letting them see our side.

Question #1
What can we do about automatic weapons with high capacity rounds?

My answer:
I personally would offer a compromise. Do we need those high capacity rounds, no. If they are you are truly a gun person. Then you should be able to get what you want out of your weapon in one shot. We trim the round capacity from 30-20-15 to a max of 5. To those saying. "What if another country invades us?!?!" Chill out, if they did, most of you would be laying in your cellar, with your hands holding your ass checks together to keep the shit from falling out and crying for mommy. We turn fully automatic weapons(Assault, SMG, Pistols etc.) single shot. Then go through and shutdown any business doing illegal modifications to the weapons.

Question #2
How do we keep guns away from people who want to use them for harm.

My answer:
We make mandatory mental health screenings for anybody wishing to purchase a gun. You have to take one before holding a gun for your military, so why not before you make a purchase. If you show any signs of psychopathic tendencies or anything in the same context, you can not legally purchase a weapon. And for God sakes, lets put a better lock on our cabinets to keep kids, and thief's out of your weapons.

Here are some ideas. I am game for a discussion.


that, as an "anti-gun" person, is really all i am asking for. nothing more. see what happens when reasonable people sit down together? :) i'm not about taking away everyone's guns - just making sure that people who shouldn't have them, don't and making sure that no one's running around with something that can do maximum harm in minimum time. :)

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/hardcore/west-coast-games-part-one-the-beach.aspx
MrNudiePants
Posted: Saturday, May 11, 2013 10:32:06 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,140
Location: United States
sprite wrote:


let my clarify my stance. when i say 'assualt rife' i'm throwing a generic term out, one that's become kind an umbrella for all sorts of weapon.


I understand that. But how does one legislate something that one can't even readily define? In my post above, what makes the top rifle different from the bottom rifle? They both fit your description of "assault rifle".

sprite wrote:


what i object to are guns that are capable of holding a large magazine and firing at a very high rate and are either military grade or one step down. there's no reason, be it hunting or home defense that some one needs to be able to fire off an entire magazine (30 rounds) a minute. and that's if its unmodified. i've come across sites that claim you can legally modify them to fire at least twice that rate. those aren't for sport, they're for taking down mass targets as quickly as possible, and when those mass targets are living breathing human beings, i would like to see them banned. period. why is that such issue? do you really NEED to own something like that? if so, tell me why - and don't tell me it's to keep the government from stomping on your rights - please don't insult my intelligence like that.


Both those rifles can hold a "large magazine". Your "thirty rounds a minute" figure is bogus - they each fire one shot for each pull of the trigger. You can't legally modify either one to become fully automatic - if you do and you're found out, it earns you a lengthy stretch in the Federal slammer. Neither one is for "taking down mass targets", because neither one orients itself, aims itself at mass targets, or pulls its own trigger. They're tools, nothing more. It's already illegal to use them for "taking down mass targets", just as it's illegal to use a car, a knife, or a bomb. Passing another law won't get rid of them - Pandora's box is already opened. You can't shut it again. Not when any decent machinist with access to even a poorly equipped shop can physically construct a fully automatic machine gun in a matter of hours. You would have to take civilization back to the bronze age (or farther) to achieve your goal.

And "need" really has nothing to do with it.

And FWIW, see this link. The IRS has formally apologized for targeting groups for investigation based entirely on the fact that those groups happened to have the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their name. How long before the IRS targets groups with "gay" or "pride" in their name? And gee... who do you suppose could have ordered the IRS to take such actions? I'm hardly a tin-foil hatter, but this kinda makes me go "Hmmmmmm."

MrNudiePants
Posted: Saturday, May 11, 2013 10:34:22 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,140
Location: United States
sprite wrote:


for the record, i live in a world where i am discriminated against on a daily basis. i do get a little touchy at times. so the discrimination he feels somehow trumps mine?


Nobody has ever said that, have they? But just because you get discriminated against, does that make it proper that I get discriminated against? We should both be angry as hell at both of us being treated unfairly. I'm pissed that you've been treated poorly. How about you?

sprite
Posted: Saturday, May 11, 2013 10:38:45 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 14,514
Location: My Tower, United States
MrNudiePants wrote:


Nobody has ever said that, have they? But just because you get discriminated against, does that make it proper that I get discriminated against? We should both be angry as hell at both of us being treated unfairly. I'm pissed that you've been treated poorly. How about you?


what rights of yours have been denied? that's a serious question, btw, and i would appreciate an honest answer.

http://www.lushstories.com/stories/hardcore/west-coast-games-part-one-the-beach.aspx
MrNudiePants
Posted: Saturday, May 11, 2013 10:39:52 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,140
Location: United States
Master_Yoda wrote:
I can come to the table as a "gun-person" to meet a "anti-gun person." I will come with reason and respect, trying to see their side as well as letting them see our side.

Question #1
What can we do about automatic weapons with high capacity rounds?

My answer:
I personally would offer a compromise. Do we need those high capacity rounds, no. If they are you are truly a gun person. Then you should be able to get what you want out of your weapon in one shot. We trim the round capacity from 30-20-15 to a max of 5. To those saying. "What if another country invades us?!?!" Chill out, if they did, most of you would be laying in your cellar, with your hands holding your ass checks together to keep the shit from falling out and crying for mommy. We turn fully automatic weapons(Assault, SMG, Pistols etc.) single shot. Then go through and shutdown any business doing illegal modifications to the weapons.


In all reality, what good would this do? Any halfway competent sheet metal worker can turn out a magazine that will hold any number of rounds in a matter of a couple hours. And even if they couldn't, how long does it take you to change a magazine? A couple seconds, if you're slow about it. So any potential rescuer responding to an emergency would have a handicap that the attacker wouldn't have - he followed the law and only had five rounds, whild the attacker had as many as he wished. How fair is that?

Question #2
How do we keep guns away from people who want to use them for harm.

My answer:
We make mandatory mental health screenings for anybody wishing to purchase a gun. You have to take one before holding a gun for your military, so why not before you make a purchase. If you show any signs of psychopathic tendencies or anything in the same context, you can not legally purchase a weapon. And for God sakes, lets put a better lock on our cabinets to keep kids, and thief's out of your weapons.

Now, all you have to do is completely retool the HIPAA laws to allow for release of confidential medical information to every Tom, Dick, and Harry on the planet. They can't only have access to the mental health records of people being treated for problems - they have to have EVERYONE'S, or else how are they going to know that you're sane?

Here are some ideas. I am game for a discussion.


MrNudiePants
Posted: Saturday, May 11, 2013 10:41:17 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,140
Location: United States
sprite wrote:


what rights of yours have been denied? that's a serious question, btw, and i would appreciate an honest answer.


I never said I've had rights denied. I've said that I've been discriminated against.

Monocle
Posted: Saturday, May 11, 2013 10:42:43 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 300
I guess it's OK for the original poster of a thread to diverge completely from the thread's original subject while chastising other people when he thinks they're drifting off topic. God job demonstrating the concept of 'double standard'.

As for the IRS, pretty dumb of them. Unprofessional and partisan. Your insinuations about who could have 'ordered' them to do it a *perfect* example of tin-foil hattery.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Saturday, May 11, 2013 10:48:24 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,140
Location: United States
Monocle wrote:
I guess it's OK for the original poster of a thread to diverge completely from the thread's original subject while chastising other people when he thinks they're drifting off topic. God job demonstrating the concept of 'double standard'.

As for the IRS, pretty dumb of them. Unprofessional and partisan. Your insinuations about who could have 'ordered' them to do it a *perfect* example of tin-foil hattery.


My friend made a statement insinuating that one would never need fear the government "stomping" on one's rights, but here government workers are, stomping away... I fail to see how that was unclear to you.

sprite
Posted: Saturday, May 11, 2013 10:52:08 PM

Rank: Her Royal Spriteness

Joined: 6/18/2010
Posts: 14,514
Location: My Tower, United States
MrNudiePants wrote:


I never said I've had rights denied. I've said that I've been discriminated against.


specifics please: events of discrimination based on your pro-gun stance. to help you out:

1. Bias or prejudice resulting in denial of opportunity, or unfair treatment regarding selection, promotion, or transfer. Discrimination is practiced commonly on the grounds of age, disability, ethnicity, origin, political belief, race, religion, sex, etc. factors which are irrelevant to a person's competence or suitability.

2. Unequal treatment provided to one or more parties on the basis of a mutual accord or some other logical or illogical reason.

3. Differences in two rates not explainable or justifiable by economic considerations such as costs.




http://www.lushstories.com/stories/hardcore/west-coast-games-part-one-the-beach.aspx
Monocle
Posted: Saturday, May 11, 2013 10:52:43 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/19/2007
Posts: 300
MrNudiePants wrote:


My friend made a statement insinuating that one would never need fear the government "stomping" on one's rights, but here government workers are, stomping away... I fail to see how that was unclear to you.


I fail to see how your or anyone's possession or lack of possession of any particular firearm would have prevented or in any way at all affected the IRS actions or sped their apology. The IRS situation has absolutely nothing to do with the topic or discussion of this thread. It's a complete non sequitur.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Saturday, May 11, 2013 10:53:48 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,140
Location: United States
Monocle wrote:


I fail to see how your or anyone's possession or lack of possession of any particular firearm would have prevented or in any way at all affected the IRS actions or sped their apology. The IRS situation has absolutely nothing to do with the topic or discussion of this thread. It's a complete non sequitur.



I didn't bring it up. I guess this one's aimed at you, Sprite.

Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.