It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Beto O’Rourke: Ban AR-15 Sales in America

page: 10
24
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 01:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Tartuffe
a reply to: narrator



-I never said rights should be restricted due to fear.
-No one died and made me god.
-I'm not frightened.


My apologies.

If you do not fear your neighbor owning a tank, what's the problem?



That's my point. There should be a line drawn somewhere. I don't want my neighbor (or any citizen) to own a tank that can actually fire live rounds, that sounds incredibly dangerous.



The problem is that it's a stupid idea to let random citizens own incredibly powerful weapons.


Do you consider the AR15 to be an "incredibly powerful weapon"?


I do not.

I consider it a weapon that's very efficient at firing multiple rounds when the idea is to go for overall accuracy rather than precision, and to hit a general target multiple times in a short period of time.

Like it or not, AR-15s, and similar firearms, are designed to do this exact thing. Kill a lot of people rather efficiently. That seems like something that probably shouldn't be available for purchase by anyone who isn't a convicted felon.

I always feel the need to add, I actually own an AR-15. It's fun to shoot. It also serves no real purpose for me, as I am not in the business of killing people.


Then yours must be defective.

Since it was 'designed to kill lot of people rather efficiently'.


What I mean is, it was designed to do something I'm never going to do.


Just like 99.9% of firearms.

Obvious design flaw.




posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Tartuffe
a reply to: narrator



-I never said rights should be restricted due to fear.
-No one died and made me god.
-I'm not frightened.


My apologies.

If you do not fear your neighbor owning a tank, what's the problem?



That's my point. There should be a line drawn somewhere. I don't want my neighbor (or any citizen) to own a tank that can actually fire live rounds, that sounds incredibly dangerous.



The problem is that it's a stupid idea to let random citizens own incredibly powerful weapons.


What I think you don't like is that my position is backed be actual laws, whereas your position is backed by hyperbole, deflection, personal attacks, and simple fear of others actions that you cannot control.




I'll say it again for the people in the back. My position has SCOTUS backing. So, I'm backed by actual laws as well. Not hyperbole and deflection. I've deflected zero times in this discussion. I've also attacked zero people on a personal level, whereas you and at least 2 other people have done precisely that to me.


SCOTUS once backed slavery. The point is, appealing to law is not sufficient.

Why should we restrict someone's freedoms because what you think they own is stupid?



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Tartuffe
a reply to: narrator



-I never said rights should be restricted due to fear.
-No one died and made me god.
-I'm not frightened.


My apologies.

If you do not fear your neighbor owning a tank, what's the problem?



That's my point. There should be a line drawn somewhere. I don't want my neighbor (or any citizen) to own a tank that can actually fire live rounds, that sounds incredibly dangerous.



The problem is that it's a stupid idea to let random citizens own incredibly powerful weapons.


Do you consider the AR15 to be an "incredibly powerful weapon"?


I do not.

I consider it a weapon that's very efficient at firing multiple rounds when the idea is to go for overall accuracy rather than precision, and to hit a general target multiple times in a short period of time.

Like it or not, AR-15s, and similar firearms, are designed to do this exact thing. Kill a lot of people rather efficiently. That seems like something that probably shouldn't be available for purchase by anyone who isn't a convicted felon.

I always feel the need to add, I actually own an AR-15. It's fun to shoot. It also serves no real purpose for me, as I am not in the business of killing people.


Then yours must be defective.

Since it was 'designed to kill lot of people rather efficiently'.


What I mean is, it was designed to do something I'm never going to do.


All guns do exactly what they are designed to do, that is whatever the owner of the gun decides to do with it.

If that's just shooting it for fun, then it's done its job.

Hunting small game(all a 223 is good for)? Using it in competitive shooting? Using it to protect your home and family?

Any one, combination or all of the above is fulfilling it's design.

You seem to think others are somehow limited in their thought, in the way you seem to be.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody



I'll say it again for the people in the back. My position has SCOTUS backing.

You will kindly site the scotus ruling banning ar-15s?
I am not familiar with that.


I never said that. I'm discussing something completely different that they keep bringing up, even though I've said it at least 5 times at this point.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Tartuffe
a reply to: narrator



-I never said rights should be restricted due to fear.
-No one died and made me god.
-I'm not frightened.


My apologies.

If you do not fear your neighbor owning a tank, what's the problem?



That's my point. There should be a line drawn somewhere. I don't want my neighbor (or any citizen) to own a tank that can actually fire live rounds, that sounds incredibly dangerous.



The problem is that it's a stupid idea to let random citizens own incredibly powerful weapons.


What I think you don't like is that my position is backed be actual laws, whereas your position is backed by hyperbole, deflection, personal attacks, and simple fear of others actions that you cannot control.




I'll say it again for the people in the back. My position has SCOTUS backing. So, I'm backed by actual laws as well. Not hyperbole and deflection. I've deflected zero times in this discussion. I've also attacked zero people on a personal level, whereas you and at least 2 other people have done precisely that to me.


Let me provide your OWN words to prove the above statement is a bold faced LIE.

No hyperbole, LIE

originally posted by: narrator

So my neighbor should be able to buy an F-16, and a full range of active missiles to accompany it, as long as he can afford it? That seems...unsafe.

You even admitted in a later post it was hyperbole, using that exact word!!!

No deflection. LIE

originally posted by: narrator
Does that mean you are against the Muslim ban, and the wall? Because those would prevent a ton of good people from coming to our country for no reason other than fear. The only argument for either of those is "some of them might do something bad".

This is deflection away from the topic to an unrelated side point....classic deflection when confronted with something you can't refute.

No personal attacks, LIE

originally posted by: narrator
The problem is that it's a stupid idea to let random citizens own incredibly powerful weapons.

So, anyone that thinks like that is stupid. That is a personal attack.


So, each of your points has been shown to be a lie using your own words in this thread. Why should we even trust your motives at all anymore? You have proven to be a liar, so, how do we know you won't snap and use your guns to kill people. Using your logic, you are a danger to everyone and must have them removed to protect us all from your inevitable rampage.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 02:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Tartuffe
a reply to: narrator



-I never said rights should be restricted due to fear.
-No one died and made me god.
-I'm not frightened.


My apologies.

If you do not fear your neighbor owning a tank, what's the problem?



That's my point. There should be a line drawn somewhere. I don't want my neighbor (or any citizen) to own a tank that can actually fire live rounds, that sounds incredibly dangerous.



The problem is that it's a stupid idea to let random citizens own incredibly powerful weapons.


Do you consider the AR15 to be an "incredibly powerful weapon"?


I do not.

I consider it a weapon that's very efficient at firing multiple rounds when the idea is to go for overall accuracy rather than precision, and to hit a general target multiple times in a short period of time.

Like it or not, AR-15s, and similar firearms, are designed to do this exact thing. Kill a lot of people rather efficiently. That seems like something that probably shouldn't be available for purchase by anyone who isn't a convicted felon.

I always feel the need to add, I actually own an AR-15. It's fun to shoot. It also serves no real purpose for me, as I am not in the business of killing people.


Then yours must be defective.

Since it was 'designed to kill lot of people rather efficiently'.


What I mean is, it was designed to do something I'm never going to do.


All guns do exactly what they are designed to do, that is whatever the owner of the gun decides to do with it.

If that's just shooting it for fun, then it's done its job.

Hunting small game(all a 223 is good for)? Using it in competitive shooting? Using it to protect your home and family?

Any one, combination or all of the above is fulfilling it's design.

You seem to think others are somehow limited in their thought, in the way you seem to be.


And this is exactly why having civil conversations with all of you is nigh on impossible. You always have to get these little digs in, to try to show that you're somehow better than the person questioning you.

NOT EVERYTHING IS AN ARGUMENT TO BE WON.

I legitimately wanted to have a civil conversation about the pros and cons of regulation and to hear different viewpoints. What I got was a near-constant barrage of defensive speak, bringing in things that had zero to do with the conversation (the 14th amendment?), one person flat out denying that I'd already said something even though they quoted me saying it, and now you're all firing questions at me so fast that I can't actually answer all of them in a timely fashion.

I'm done with this conversation, as I can now see that it wasn't a conversation from the very beginning, it was yet another argument that all of you felt the need to win.

For what it's worth, I actually did want to have a calm, rational discussion with all of you. We spend so much time constantly battling each other, I wanted to take a step back and actually talk. It very quickly went off the rails. Probably my fault for expecting a normal conversation in the mud pit.

I won't make that mistake again, as it's clear that none of you want that.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: narrator

Interestingly there are scotus rulings that prohibit firearm bans, as you and Beto are calling for.
In the interest of due process and all.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 02:09 PM
link   



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Tartuffe
a reply to: narrator



-I never said rights should be restricted due to fear.
-No one died and made me god.
-I'm not frightened.


My apologies.

If you do not fear your neighbor owning a tank, what's the problem?



That's my point. There should be a line drawn somewhere. I don't want my neighbor (or any citizen) to own a tank that can actually fire live rounds, that sounds incredibly dangerous.



The problem is that it's a stupid idea to let random citizens own incredibly powerful weapons.


What I think you don't like is that my position is backed be actual laws, whereas your position is backed by hyperbole, deflection, personal attacks, and simple fear of others actions that you cannot control.




I'll say it again for the people in the back. My position has SCOTUS backing. So, I'm backed by actual laws as well. Not hyperbole and deflection. I've deflected zero times in this discussion. I've also attacked zero people on a personal level, whereas you and at least 2 other people have done precisely that to me.


Let me provide your OWN words to prove the above statement is a bold faced LIE.

No hyperbole, LIE

originally posted by: narrator

So my neighbor should be able to buy an F-16, and a full range of active missiles to accompany it, as long as he can afford it? That seems...unsafe.

You even admitted in a later post it was hyperbole, using that exact word!!!

No deflection. LIE

originally posted by: narrator
Does that mean you are against the Muslim ban, and the wall? Because those would prevent a ton of good people from coming to our country for no reason other than fear. The only argument for either of those is "some of them might do something bad".

This is deflection away from the topic to an unrelated side point....classic deflection when confronted with something you can't refute.

No personal attacks, LIE

originally posted by: narrator
The problem is that it's a stupid idea to let random citizens own incredibly powerful weapons.

So, anyone that thinks like that is stupid. That is a personal attack.


So, each of your points has been shown to be a lie using your own words in this thread. Why should we even trust your motives at all anymore? You have proven to be a liar, so, how do we know you won't snap and use your guns to kill people. Using your logic, you are a danger to everyone and must have them removed to protect us all from your inevitable rampage.




So, I did use hyperbole. Forgot. CONGRATULATIONS, you caught me! You win a prize!

That isn't deflection, that's a question for clarification, because you are staunchly against that argument in one sense, but in another you fully agree with it. I was just looking for clarification on the topic at hand, I wasn't deflecting.

If me saying that's a stupid idea is a personal attack, then you've been personally attacking me since page 2.

The last paragraph is ridiculous.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

The AR-15 wasn't a gun when the 2nd was written, so using that as part of the argument is disingenuous.


Doesn't matter.. The musket was the top arms for then and the AR is the top for today. Tomorrow might be lasers who knows...



I know there are reasons to own an AR-15 (you don't hunt with it, unless you're popping off coyotes, and even then I wouldn't recommend it as an actual hunting rifle is better suited), such as target practice. But is that a real reason? You can target practice with any of my other 6 guns, and they all have an actual real-life purpose.


Home defense? A group of 4 guys break into your house what do you want to have, an AR or a 6 round .38 2" revolver? Also, my wife and kids can easily shoot an AR compared to a .40 pistol or shot gun.



Bottom line, I, being the owner of an AR-15 (that's admittedly a ton of fun to shoot), would be perfectly ok with government regulations being put on rifles of that nature.

Hunting rifles, shotguns, etc? Totally different story.


There are as in it can not be full auto...Which BTW is really pushing the second. I would even suggest that an AR is much safer than a handgun... About 2% per year of gun deaths is from AR style weapons. 3x more people die by cheap handguns in Chicago alone.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Xtrozero




If people would actually read the Federalist Papers and other documents that led to our Constitution they would understand our forefathers had great fears in a tyrannical Federal Government and this is why things are as they are. If we look at Federalist Paper 46... " Federalist No. 46: Madison's brilliance. Federalist 46 deals with the issue in imaginative and brilliant form. Madison argues that standing army vs. militia is a false dichotomy. The nation can have both, and it is precisely the citizen militia that makes the standing army a safe thing to have. We are the citizen militia...everyone of us with or without guns. We also have the right to personal defense in our right to bear arms to doing so...

interesting this was in no way discussed or aproached
nor were the quotes from the founders I provided

gun grabbers do not want people to know actual history



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Tartuffe
a reply to: narrator



-I never said rights should be restricted due to fear.
-No one died and made me god.
-I'm not frightened.


My apologies.

If you do not fear your neighbor owning a tank, what's the problem?



That's my point. There should be a line drawn somewhere. I don't want my neighbor (or any citizen) to own a tank that can actually fire live rounds, that sounds incredibly dangerous.



The problem is that it's a stupid idea to let random citizens own incredibly powerful weapons.


What I think you don't like is that my position is backed be actual laws, whereas your position is backed by hyperbole, deflection, personal attacks, and simple fear of others actions that you cannot control.




I'll say it again for the people in the back. My position has SCOTUS backing. So, I'm backed by actual laws as well. Not hyperbole and deflection. I've deflected zero times in this discussion. I've also attacked zero people on a personal level, whereas you and at least 2 other people have done precisely that to me.


Let me provide your OWN words to prove the above statement is a bold faced LIE.

No hyperbole, LIE

originally posted by: narrator

So my neighbor should be able to buy an F-16, and a full range of active missiles to accompany it, as long as he can afford it? That seems...unsafe.

You even admitted in a later post it was hyperbole, using that exact word!!!

No deflection. LIE

originally posted by: narrator
Does that mean you are against the Muslim ban, and the wall? Because those would prevent a ton of good people from coming to our country for no reason other than fear. The only argument for either of those is "some of them might do something bad".

This is deflection away from the topic to an unrelated side point....classic deflection when confronted with something you can't refute.

No personal attacks, LIE

originally posted by: narrator
The problem is that it's a stupid idea to let random citizens own incredibly powerful weapons.

So, anyone that thinks like that is stupid. That is a personal attack.


So, each of your points has been shown to be a lie using your own words in this thread. Why should we even trust your motives at all anymore? You have proven to be a liar, so, how do we know you won't snap and use your guns to kill people. Using your logic, you are a danger to everyone and must have them removed to protect us all from your inevitable rampage.




So, I did use hyperbole. Forgot. CONGRATULATIONS, you caught me! You win a prize!

That isn't deflection, that's a question for clarification, because you are staunchly against that argument in one sense, but in another you fully agree with it. I was just looking for clarification on the topic at hand, I wasn't deflecting.

If me saying that's a stupid idea is a personal attack, then you've been personally attacking me since page 2.

The last paragraph is ridiculous.



Please show me wear I launched a personal attack. Exposing your obvious fear is not a personal attack, but an observation based upon your own statements. See, I am having a coherent and calm discussion, using facts to back up my statements. When I was shown a misunderstanding on my part, I openly and publicly recognized it as such.

What you seem to not like is that we do not agree with your position, and refuse to back down from the discussion.

When it involves MY RIGHTS being infringed, illegally, then you are darn right I won't back down.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 02:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: MisterSpock

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Tartuffe
a reply to: narrator



-I never said rights should be restricted due to fear.
-No one died and made me god.
-I'm not frightened.


My apologies.

If you do not fear your neighbor owning a tank, what's the problem?



That's my point. There should be a line drawn somewhere. I don't want my neighbor (or any citizen) to own a tank that can actually fire live rounds, that sounds incredibly dangerous.



The problem is that it's a stupid idea to let random citizens own incredibly powerful weapons.


Do you consider the AR15 to be an "incredibly powerful weapon"?


I do not.

I consider it a weapon that's very efficient at firing multiple rounds when the idea is to go for overall accuracy rather than precision, and to hit a general target multiple times in a short period of time.

Like it or not, AR-15s, and similar firearms, are designed to do this exact thing. Kill a lot of people rather efficiently. That seems like something that probably shouldn't be available for purchase by anyone who isn't a convicted felon.

I always feel the need to add, I actually own an AR-15. It's fun to shoot. It also serves no real purpose for me, as I am not in the business of killing people.


Then yours must be defective.

Since it was 'designed to kill lot of people rather efficiently'.


What I mean is, it was designed to do something I'm never going to do.


All guns do exactly what they are designed to do, that is whatever the owner of the gun decides to do with it.

If that's just shooting it for fun, then it's done its job.

Hunting small game(all a 223 is good for)? Using it in competitive shooting? Using it to protect your home and family?

Any one, combination or all of the above is fulfilling it's design.

You seem to think others are somehow limited in their thought, in the way you seem to be.


And this is exactly why having civil conversations with all of you is nigh on impossible. You always have to get these little digs in, to try to show that you're somehow better than the person questioning you.

NOT EVERYTHING IS AN ARGUMENT TO BE WON.

I legitimately wanted to have a civil conversation about the pros and cons of regulation and to hear different viewpoints. What I got was a near-constant barrage of defensive speak, bringing in things that had zero to do with the conversation (the 14th amendment?), one person flat out denying that I'd already said something even though they quoted me saying it, and now you're all firing questions at me so fast that I can't actually answer all of them in a timely fashion.

I'm done with this conversation, as I can now see that it wasn't a conversation from the very beginning, it was yet another argument that all of you felt the need to win.

For what it's worth, I actually did want to have a calm, rational discussion with all of you. We spend so much time constantly battling each other, I wanted to take a step back and actually talk. It very quickly went off the rails. Probably my fault for expecting a normal conversation in the mud pit.

I won't make that mistake again, as it's clear that none of you want that.


I'm completely willing to have a calm, rational, civil discussion.

I'm just curious why should we restrict someone's freedoms because what you think they own is stupid, and/or unsafe, dangerous?



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 02:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator
So, I did use hyperbole. Forgot. CONGRATULATIONS, you caught me! You win a prize!

That isn't deflection, that's a question for clarification, because you are staunchly against that argument in one sense, but in another you fully agree with it. I was just looking for clarification on the topic at hand, I wasn't deflecting.

If me saying that's a stupid idea is a personal attack, then you've been personally attacking me since page 2.

The last paragraph is ridiculous.


Yes, it is ridiculous, as is your position upon which that paragraph was based. It's ridiculous when applied to you, but makes perfect sense when applied to others? Do you see the hypocrisy you are spewing here? Seriously?



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Tartuffe
a reply to: narrator



-I never said rights should be restricted due to fear.
-No one died and made me god.
-I'm not frightened.


My apologies.

If you do not fear your neighbor owning a tank, what's the problem?



That's my point. There should be a line drawn somewhere. I don't want my neighbor (or any citizen) to own a tank that can actually fire live rounds, that sounds incredibly dangerous.



The problem is that it's a stupid idea to let random citizens own incredibly powerful weapons.


What I think you don't like is that my position is backed be actual laws, whereas your position is backed by hyperbole, deflection, personal attacks, and simple fear of others actions that you cannot control.




I'll say it again for the people in the back. My position has SCOTUS backing. So, I'm backed by actual laws as well. Not hyperbole and deflection. I've deflected zero times in this discussion. I've also attacked zero people on a personal level, whereas you and at least 2 other people have done precisely that to me.


Let me provide your OWN words to prove the above statement is a bold faced LIE.

No hyperbole, LIE

originally posted by: narrator

So my neighbor should be able to buy an F-16, and a full range of active missiles to accompany it, as long as he can afford it? That seems...unsafe.

You even admitted in a later post it was hyperbole, using that exact word!!!

No deflection. LIE

originally posted by: narrator
Does that mean you are against the Muslim ban, and the wall? Because those would prevent a ton of good people from coming to our country for no reason other than fear. The only argument for either of those is "some of them might do something bad".

This is deflection away from the topic to an unrelated side point....classic deflection when confronted with something you can't refute.

No personal attacks, LIE

originally posted by: narrator
The problem is that it's a stupid idea to let random citizens own incredibly powerful weapons.

So, anyone that thinks like that is stupid. That is a personal attack.


So, each of your points has been shown to be a lie using your own words in this thread. Why should we even trust your motives at all anymore? You have proven to be a liar, so, how do we know you won't snap and use your guns to kill people. Using your logic, you are a danger to everyone and must have them removed to protect us all from your inevitable rampage.




So, I did use hyperbole. Forgot. CONGRATULATIONS, you caught me! You win a prize!

That isn't deflection, that's a question for clarification, because you are staunchly against that argument in one sense, but in another you fully agree with it. I was just looking for clarification on the topic at hand, I wasn't deflecting.

If me saying that's a stupid idea is a personal attack, then you've been personally attacking me since page 2.

The last paragraph is ridiculous.



Please show me wear I launched a personal attack. Exposing your obvious fear is not a personal attack, but an observation based upon your own statements. See, I am having a coherent and calm discussion, using facts to back up my statements. When I was shown a misunderstanding on my part, I openly and publicly recognized it as such.

What you seem to not like is that we do not agree with your position, and refuse to back down from the discussion.

When it involves MY RIGHTS being infringed, illegally, then you are darn right I won't back down.



None of that is true. Except the last sentence, because you're SUPER TOUGH KRAKATOA that has to point out that you aren't backing down.

I'm not afraid of anything that you are saying I am. That's a personal attack.

I care not that you disagree with me. I knew that going into it, that's actually exactly why I wanted to have the conversation.

I care about how it went off the rails into something that is definitely not a calm discussion. I'm done with the mud pit.

Maybe I'll post this in a non-mud pit forum so all of that crap won't be a part of the discussion.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: narrator




Maybe I'll post this in a non-mud pit forum so all of that crap won't be a part of the discussion.


Better use a quill pen and some paper, and snail mail it in.

No more assault posting please.




posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 02:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator
So, I did use hyperbole. Forgot. CONGRATULATIONS, you caught me! You win a prize!

That isn't deflection, that's a question for clarification, because you are staunchly against that argument in one sense, but in another you fully agree with it. I was just looking for clarification on the topic at hand, I wasn't deflecting.

If me saying that's a stupid idea is a personal attack, then you've been personally attacking me since page 2.

The last paragraph is ridiculous.


Yes, it is ridiculous, as is your position upon which that paragraph was based. It's ridiculous when applied to you, but makes perfect sense when applied to others? Do you see the hypocrisy you are spewing here? Seriously?




You called me a liar multiple times in that paragraph. And said I might snap and shoot a bunch of people.

I'm no longer talking to you. You're incredibly insulting, and I'm not going to waste another second speaking to someone like you.

Congrats, you won. I guess.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Tartuffe
a reply to: narrator



-I never said rights should be restricted due to fear.
-No one died and made me god.
-I'm not frightened.


My apologies.

If you do not fear your neighbor owning a tank, what's the problem?



That's my point. There should be a line drawn somewhere. I don't want my neighbor (or any citizen) to own a tank that can actually fire live rounds, that sounds incredibly dangerous.



The problem is that it's a stupid idea to let random citizens own incredibly powerful weapons.


What I think you don't like is that my position is backed be actual laws, whereas your position is backed by hyperbole, deflection, personal attacks, and simple fear of others actions that you cannot control.




I'll say it again for the people in the back. My position has SCOTUS backing. So, I'm backed by actual laws as well. Not hyperbole and deflection. I've deflected zero times in this discussion. I've also attacked zero people on a personal level, whereas you and at least 2 other people have done precisely that to me.


Let me provide your OWN words to prove the above statement is a bold faced LIE.

No hyperbole, LIE

originally posted by: narrator

So my neighbor should be able to buy an F-16, and a full range of active missiles to accompany it, as long as he can afford it? That seems...unsafe.

You even admitted in a later post it was hyperbole, using that exact word!!!

No deflection. LIE

originally posted by: narrator
Does that mean you are against the Muslim ban, and the wall? Because those would prevent a ton of good people from coming to our country for no reason other than fear. The only argument for either of those is "some of them might do something bad".

This is deflection away from the topic to an unrelated side point....classic deflection when confronted with something you can't refute.

No personal attacks, LIE

originally posted by: narrator
The problem is that it's a stupid idea to let random citizens own incredibly powerful weapons.

So, anyone that thinks like that is stupid. That is a personal attack.


So, each of your points has been shown to be a lie using your own words in this thread. Why should we even trust your motives at all anymore? You have proven to be a liar, so, how do we know you won't snap and use your guns to kill people. Using your logic, you are a danger to everyone and must have them removed to protect us all from your inevitable rampage.




So, I did use hyperbole. Forgot. CONGRATULATIONS, you caught me! You win a prize!

That isn't deflection, that's a question for clarification, because you are staunchly against that argument in one sense, but in another you fully agree with it. I was just looking for clarification on the topic at hand, I wasn't deflecting.

If me saying that's a stupid idea is a personal attack, then you've been personally attacking me since page 2.

The last paragraph is ridiculous.



Please show me wear I launched a personal attack. Exposing your obvious fear is not a personal attack, but an observation based upon your own statements. See, I am having a coherent and calm discussion, using facts to back up my statements. When I was shown a misunderstanding on my part, I openly and publicly recognized it as such.

What you seem to not like is that we do not agree with your position, and refuse to back down from the discussion.

When it involves MY RIGHTS being infringed, illegally, then you are darn right I won't back down.



None of that is true. Except the last sentence, because you're SUPER TOUGH KRAKATOA that has to point out that you aren't backing down.

I'm not afraid of anything that you are saying I am. That's a personal attack.

I care not that you disagree with me. I knew that going into it, that's actually exactly why I wanted to have the conversation.

I care about how it went off the rails into something that is definitely not a calm discussion. I'm done with the mud pit.

Maybe I'll post this in a non-mud pit forum so all of that crap won't be a part of the discussion.


I beg to differ. Pointing out that you saying someone was "dangerous" without any actual reason other than what they "might do" is, if not fear, it is paranoia. I deferred to the lesser emotion of fear in your case because I do not think you are paranoid at all. Just fearful of powerful weapons in the hands of people you have not control over.



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator
So, I did use hyperbole. Forgot. CONGRATULATIONS, you caught me! You win a prize!

That isn't deflection, that's a question for clarification, because you are staunchly against that argument in one sense, but in another you fully agree with it. I was just looking for clarification on the topic at hand, I wasn't deflecting.

If me saying that's a stupid idea is a personal attack, then you've been personally attacking me since page 2.

The last paragraph is ridiculous.


Yes, it is ridiculous, as is your position upon which that paragraph was based. It's ridiculous when applied to you, but makes perfect sense when applied to others? Do you see the hypocrisy you are spewing here? Seriously?




You called me a liar multiple times in that paragraph. And said I might snap and shoot a bunch of people.

I'm no longer talking to you. You're incredibly insulting, and I'm not going to waste another second speaking to someone like you.

Congrats, you won. I guess.



I didn't call you a liar without proving it with your own words right here in this thread. The fact you refuse to admit that in 2 of the 3 cases speak more about you than your words. If you cannot back up your own statements, then do not get upset when you are called out on it here.

And, taking the low road of "whaa....you are a meaney, I'm not talking to you" is really engaging a calm discussion?


edit on 3/18/2019 by Krakatoa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 18 2019 @ 02:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: narrator


What I mean is, it was designed to do something I'm never going to do.


Isn't the pistol the same thing then, or do you hunt with a pistol, or plan on killing someone with one? I have said in a snarky way... If a gun needs banning it is cheap pistols.

Why own a pistol? would it be for maybe that one time in your life you need one? My older aunt was on her land of 150 acres tending a small garden and out of no where a man started to walk towards her, she pulled her gun and the man turned around and left. She might have saved her life that day as the gun was the only thing that would equalize her with the man. We might go through 80 years and never need to pull a gun, and then we might find ourselves in a gun fight for our lives...Who knows...I never used a fire extinguisher either but I got a number of them in my house.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join