They Don't Hate The NRA. They Hate You.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: Asktheanimals

Free will, free thought, free speech. How much does the left support any of those ideals?

Why must you guys always speak in such absolutes?

That's just not true, ata. Just simply unjust, unfair, and untrue.

Don't just claim it's untrue. Explain how it's untrue.

Right now, there are any number of subjects where I feel like my point of view is considered hateful, not because it's actually spoken or motivated by true hatred but because the person I attempt to speak to hates hearing the simple disagreement.

The onus is on the one making the claim.

Just going 'leftists' are (insert baseless accusation here) then expecting someone to disprove it isn't really a valid stance.

Ah, but in this instance, I didn't say anything about "leftists."

I simply said there are a number of subjects and referred to a person. If you saw "leftist" in this particular post, then that's your inference there.

a reply to: amazing

You don't have to watch news shows.

You can read any number of sources to get that impression, too.

Print can also be just as persuasive as video to the literate.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: Asktheanimals

Free will, free thought, free speech. How much does the left support any of those ideals?

Why must you guys always speak in such absolutes?

That's just not true, ata. Just simply unjust, unfair, and untrue.

Don't just claim it's untrue. Explain how it's untrue.

Right now, there are any number of subjects where I feel like my point of view is considered hateful, not because it's actually spoken or motivated by true hatred but because the person I attempt to speak to hates hearing the simple disagreement.

The onus is on the one making the claim.

Just going 'leftists' are (insert baseless accusation here) then expecting someone to disprove it isn't really a valid stance.

Ah, but in this instance, I didn't say anything about "leftists."

I simply said there are a number of subjects and referred to a person. If you saw "leftist" in this particular post, then that's your inference there.

The original post referred to the left. No inference required, just basic reading skills.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

The problem with that is that any legislation banning guns that stands will quickly be spread all throughout the country.

You cannot deny this.

The modern leftist politicians don't really want to fix Chicago or any other violent metro, they want complete control over all citizens, even the ones who are responsible enough to handle gun ownership.

Nothing I've seen from the modern leftists in Congress lead me to believe any differently. Perhaps if we had more Joe Manchin types ... but they're rapidly being purged by their own party. Even Dianne Fienstein is too moderate for the leftists in this country.

a reply to: ScepticScot

And I was talking to the poster I replied to, not commenting specifically on the OP.

I am sorry if you have trouble following the flow of conversation.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ScepticScot

And I was talking to the poster I replied to, not commenting specifically on the OP.

I am sorry if you have trouble following the flow of conversation.

And the post you replied to was a reply to a post about the left.

What was that about following the flow of conversation,?

a reply to: ScepticScot

Yes, and I did not snipe back in kind about leftists.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ScepticScot

Yes, and I did not snipe back in kind about leftists.

Never said you did. Just pointed out the responsibility to prove the claim lies with original poster.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

originally posted by: ElGoobero
I think the OP is on point.

I saw a meme on Facebook; essence was, conservatives will agree to disagree and walk away, but leftists will not leave things alone. if a leftist doesn't want to own a gun, fine. his/her business. but the leftist won't accept my right to have a gun; he will insist I be disarmed. same with big-gulp sodas or SUVs or any number of things. if conservatives don't like they walk away; if leftists don't like they demand they be outlawed / restricted.

look at their expressions. listen to them. they really are haters and fanatics. they get in their frenzied emotional zone and can't be reasoned with. scary.

thank God Hillary lost or those people would be running the government.

Interesting your description of lefties sounds much like Christians....

It is interesting isn't it.

For years now the lefties have been actually as bad and now WORSE than Christians...and almost caught up to Muslims in being judgemental labellers and revelling in their religion...it needs an official new name.

a reply to: ketsuko
If the problem is the legislation, then how can they use such as an example, such as the city of Chicago?

Is there a problem? Yes.

Could they do something to stop and solve this problem? Yes

Would there be opposition? Yes.

The real problem is not the legislation, it is the politicians who vote where the money comes from and people like Tom Cotton. Every major donor to him, he has voted how they wanted, no matter what. And when it comes out how many millions they dropped into his campaign, it is not too hard to see where his interest lay, and it is not in the people of his district, but in that of his political donors. A majority of the votes or controversies that the man has made, if one looks at the donors, can show up, including a few news making items as well.

Answer me this, do you think that the republicans would vote any different if the NRA did not put the hundreds of millions into their political campaigns? Don't you think that such large amounts of money has some sway in the mind of those politicians, to where they will not even consider ideas that may be part of the solution? Any time they even try to offer up such, the NRA pitches a fit, speaks ill of such, all out of fear, and it ends up not getting passed.

They really should bring Sharia law, good old no seperation from church...or mosque as is the usual case with Islamic countries, which should be feared.

Well if they do, no more gay community, that little village 30 mins away would be burned to cinder like Sodom, no more monkey an gender business, back to a time when men were men, and women are objects.

Those were the good old days!!!

Best of all, no liberals, for they should speak, for it against the word and beleive of God. They d be put to death for speaking such non sense...women's rights. No more me me me...just god.

And Jesus is just a prophet whose always right, even though he says he the son of God, when they say he clearly is not.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

Why point out Tom Cotton? Do you think he's the only one? How about so-called independent Claire McCaskill who votes pretty much 100% DNC every single time despite her claims that she votes the way her constituents want?

Oh, my bad, she does; it's just that her constituents aren't the ones voting for her.

Thing is that there are plenty of things that could be tried in Chicago. Simply attempting to remove guns is overly simplistic and, much like with welfare, does nothing to directly address the true problem that causes the violence in the first place. Any actual solution has to address that or you are only trying to cover up the issue, not solve it, and people continue to suffer.

Stay vigilant my American friends.

a reply to: amazing

Yeah, don't be a one trick pony is what I say. I am a member of the NRA and the National Association of Gun Rights. I support both. Both organizations keep me abreast of any anti-second amendment push and make it easy for me to email my representatives to express my wishes on gun legislation. When I get an alert from either org., along with an email, I also call my reps and leave a message on their voicemail system. I get regular email/snail mail responses from my reps in response to my contacts.
I am a vet and I have the "courage of my convictions". I embrace my natural rights as espoused in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution and do not hesitate to let my representatives know that I absolutely expect them to legislate in a manner that follows the Supreme Law of the Land. It matters not one whit to me what letter is behind a politicians name when they attack my natural rights or promote laws that conflict with our founding principles. No party has a lock on failing to abide by the Constitution and/or Bill of Rights. There are snakes on every team!

a reply to: LostThePlot

One of the best movies ever! So many good lines.

originally posted by: RomeByFire

originally posted by: neo96
Why do leftists let the NRA live rent free in their heads?

Answer: Cause their DUMB.

Is this the new level of intellect we can come to suspect from Trump supporters?

New level? You mean same level as the libs?

It's never been about sensible gun control with these people. It's collectivism vs individualism.

Authority vs freedom.
Control vs choice.
If they gave a crap about gun violence they would do something about the bodies piling up in places like Chicago or Detroit.

Christ.

Hundreds of millions of people, and still you insist on dividing them into "us" and "leftists".

When will you understand that you're merely perpetuating the tribal divide expected of you by TPTB? It's a distraction tactic and you continue to fall for it hook line and sinker.

Meanwhile politicians continue to rule the world and dictate your very existence, and you gobble it up gleefully and point fingers at anyone not wearing a Chinese-made MAGA hat.

Tragic.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: ketsuko
If the problem is the legislation, then how can they use such as an example, such as the city of Chicago?

Is there a problem? Yes.

Could they do something to stop and solve this problem? Yes

Would there be opposition? Yes.

The real problem is not the legislation, it is the politicians who vote where the money comes from and people like Tom Cotton. Every major donor to him, he has voted how they wanted, no matter what. And when it comes out how many millions they dropped into his campaign, it is not too hard to see where his interest lay, and it is not in the people of his district, but in that of his political donors. A majority of the votes or controversies that the man has made, if one looks at the donors, can show up, including a few news making items as well.

Answer me this, do you think that the republicans would vote any different if the NRA did not put the hundreds of millions into their political campaigns? Don't you think that such large amounts of money has some sway in the mind of those politicians, to where they will not even consider ideas that may be part of the solution? Any time they even try to offer up such, the NRA pitches a fit, speaks ill of such, all out of fear, and it ends up not getting passed.

Its not about the NRA buying republicans any more than its Planned Parenthood buying democrats. See which one spends more...

The problem is that legislation has proven time and time again that it is not going to solve this problem. If legislation worked Chicago wouldn't have the problem it has now. But legislation doesn't work. Legislation does not change the behavior of criminals. It only gives you a way to prosecute them after the fact. What good is that if you want to save lives? But all democrats ever want to do is take the guns away from law abiding citizens and they do it by promising their constituents that it will solve the problem. When it fails, like it always does, they come back saying they need more legislation.

The fact that we, The People, stand against them does not mean we have been bought and paid for by the NRA. It means we are tired of being lied to and having our Constitutional rights sacrificed at the altar or democrat bullsh1t. Democrats try to tell us they aren't coming after our guns. It wasn't long ago that they said that. Now look what is happening. They want to ban assault rifles. That will be a good trick. How do you ban an assault rifle in 2018 when it was banned back in 1968? When they say assault rifles they mean things that look like assault rifles. And they try to tell us thats all they want. Not ONE of us believes that. And for good reason. Today its assault rifles. Then its bump stocks and magazines. Then its ammunition and semi auto rifles. Then its semi auto handguns and shotguns. Then its revolvers. It never ends. It can't. Liberal extremism won't let it end. Every time their legislation fails to achieve its goal and fulfill their promises to their constituents they have to come back chasing after more expansive legislation.

And all the while they complain that republicans will not compromise or even have a productive discussion about gun control. Its hard to compromise and be productive with people who keep calling you a nazi segregationist racist bigot hater every time they talk to you or about you. "Hey you nazi white supremacist racist scum bag, lets have an honest productive talk about gun control..." What a bunch of crap.

a reply to: fencesitter85

This isn't about being divided. It is amply obvious that we are already, and for that it takes two to tango, yes, but do you deny that certain actors in all this outright hate their political opponents? This long ago progressed beyond disagreement. There is no more agreeing to disagree. Reasonable people can disagree.

I can look at someone who thinks we should get rid of all guns and recognize that I disagree with them, but I am a reasonable person. I recognize they are simply people who go about their lives, jobs, home to families, etc., and aren't in reality too very different than I am.

Sure we disagree, but they are as likely to be a neighbor across the street, or a coworker, or my son's teacher, or my doctor, as they are some random person I discuss different points of view with on the internet. So, while I may disagree, sometimes vehemently, they're still another person and citizen of this country and if they had a flat on the highway, I'd be as likely stop and lend a hand as I would to anyone else because that's what people do for each other.

Disagreement isn't about hating.