Quote :

"is it a law that gun nuts have to be pedants?"

The issue is that when people call for firearm legislation they often don't have a good handle on what they're talking about, and vocabulary matters; especially when we're going to write the law.

It IS unfortunate, that the trend has been, that most people who know and understand firearms have been heavily on one side of the argument. I can't think of many other debates where one side has the principled and the technical argument, but the other side has a MASS of numbers and statistics.

4/4/2018 5:35:47 PM

it’s the same reason that those who oppose a woman’s right to choose are experts in womens health

4/4/2018 6:27:12 PM

^Can't tell if you're being sarcastic or just forgot a word.

4/4/2018 6:30:51 PM

Quote :

"can't think of many other debates where one side has the principled..."

Good to know only one side has the principled arguments.

There are plenty of knowledge gun owners in support of gun control legislation but obviously it's not the low hanging fruit of being able to correct someone for calling a magazine a clip

4/4/2018 6:39:10 PM

Quote :

"The issue is that when people call for firearm legislation they often don't have a good handle on what they're talking about, and vocabulary matters; especially when we're going to write the law."

Eh. For most discussions, the vocabulary is less important and can easily be established as part of the discussion. The only real vocabulary issues are in reference to banning firearms and some of those stem from using generic labels. And I'm still convinced that many people use incorrect vocabulary on purpose gain eyeballs. Sure some people just don't know.

But here's the thing. What we want doesn't really matter. Congress generally acts on the overall subject; they're not responsive to the details of that movement. Those details come from lobbyists / insiders / money. So you can whine about vocabulary. I don't think it matters in the end. What matters is the general notion from society. That normally gets congress to do something (or something that is really nothing).

4/5/2018 8:26:21 AM

When non white-Christian kids are shooters, you never hear anyone blaming bullies...I wonder why because gun enthusiasm and racism are a match made in heaven.

4/6/2018 6:16:50 PM

preach!

https://youtu.be/c-Kzc0jBQeM?t=4m41s

local citizen Mr. Mark Robinson comment on Greensboro Mayor's proposal to stop hosting gun shows at the Greensboro Coliseum.

4/6/2018 6:20:40 PM

Quote :

"Good to know only one side has the principled arguments. There are plenty of knowledge gun owners in support of gun control legislation but obviously it's not the low hanging fruit of being able to correct someone for calling a magazine a clip "

I guess what I'm saying is that the "anti-gun" side (got it, that's not really a fair term) tends to use a results based argument rather than a principled based one. EG: Guns kill people and therefore are bad, we should reduce the number of guns in an effort to save lives. Compared to the "pro-gun" side, which I associate with an argument more closely surrounded in moral principle. EG: People have a right to protect themselves and their property with deadly force, thus guns shouldn't be restricted.
To me, one side is arguing in defense of a principle, the other is arguing for a presumed result.

I'm not saying that either side's argument is wrong or as simplified as I'm making them here, but those are themes that I repeatedly see in the debate.

Quote :

"But here's the thing. What we want doesn't really matter. Congress generally acts on the overall subject; they're not responsive to the details of that movement. Those details come from lobbyists / insiders / money. So you can whine about vocabulary. I don't think it matters in the end. What matters is the general notion from society. That normally gets congress to do something (or something that is really nothing)."

I don't understand what you're saying.... Who's WE and who's SOCIETY!?!?

Also my post was in response to someone basically saying that this conversation always devolves into the pro gun side arguing about vocabulary. So I feel like you took that a touch out of context.

[Edited on April 7, 2018 at 12:16 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on April 7, 2018 at 12:25 AM. Reason : .]

4/7/2018 12:14:08 AM

Quote :

"Guns kill people and therefore are bad, we should reduce the number of guns in an effort to save lives"

Those are both strawmen agruments that don't represent the majority of gun control advocates' positions.

Most don't simply call guns "bad" or want to "reduce the number guns" as the said number stands.

Most would be wildly overjoyed by ANY movement in the direction of making guns just a little harder to acquire. Be it waiting periods, background checks, bump stocks, age restrictions, or whatever the fuck. *Any* movement would make most cream their pants.

Quote :

"To me, one side is arguing in defense of a principle, the other is arguing for a presumed result."

Incorrect. Both sides are defending [different] principles.

Quote :

"I'm not saying that either side's argument is wrong"

That's not honest, by any stretch of the imagination. You're obviously pretty damn far from impartial here.

4/7/2018 2:27:25 AM

Okay, sure... both sides can be defending different principles. I can see your point.

Quote :

"I'm not saying that either side's argument is wrong or as simplified as I'm making them here, but those are themes that I repeatedly see in the debate."

I like how you decided to critique arguments that I obviously said were over simplifications to illustrate my point. Furthermore, how are either of them propping up a straw man? Finally, because I have a stance doesn't mean I can't see and respect the other side's argument. Please, tell everyone what my opinion is...

4/7/2018 7:32:49 AM

Quote :

" how are either of them propping up a straw man"

Er, because they:

Quote :

"don't represent the majority of gun control advocates' positions"

Quote :

"Please, tell everyone what my opinion is... "

Where have I done that? Seems to be more your thing tbh.

Quote :

"Finally, because I have a stance doesn't mean I can't see and respect the other side's argument"

I have no doubt you can respect the other side's arguments, but I'm not sure you can actually see them given your "simplification" above.

4/7/2018 9:47:27 AM

the moral of the cartoon was "don't get into a debate on gun specs with gun people" they are the experts and you will lose. WDPRICE then uses the cartoon as a way to start a debate on gun specs with gun people and gets hammered.

This is what liberals do every time and start the debate from a position where they have already lost credibility.

4/7/2018 3:18:13 PM

^^I don't think you know what a straw man argument is... and you decided to make a pretty big statement about what you have assumed to by my opinion when you said I wasn't being honest WRT to my acknowledgement of both sides' validity saying I was "obviously pretty damn far from impartial here."

I love TSB so much...

[Edited on April 7, 2018 at 6:21 PM. Reason : .]

4/7/2018 6:14:22 PM

Quote :

"the "anti-gun" side (got it, that's not really a fair term) tends to use a results based argument...EG: Guns kill people and therefore are bad, we should reduce the number of guns in an effort to save lives."

Are textbook straw man arguments.

4/7/2018 6:20:48 PM

So, did I intentionally set up BOTH positions in an attempt to knock them down!?!?

Also, that quote is only one argument that, again I said in the initial post, was obviously an oversimplification.

[Edited on April 7, 2018 at 6:25 PM. Reason : .]

4/7/2018 6:23:06 PM

anyone care to discuss the video beats posted? or is arguing semantics and word choice more productive?

4/7/2018 7:53:14 PM

that guy didn't say anything new. i wonder if he was a plant.

4/7/2018 9:01:27 PM

I can't believe I'm going to agree with ^

But, yea... he didn't say anything new. I don't think he's a plant, but he's certainly not blowing anyone's mind.

4/7/2018 11:26:29 PM

guess I was asking the anti-gun people what they disagreed with. nothing either side brings up is new.

4/8/2018 12:07:11 AM

The guy in the video has fallen into the same trap the NRA wants everyone to believe, that if you are a good guy with a gun you're still going to get your gun taken away.

He's defending the ability of bad people to get guns so that he doesn't lose his own. And that's not really the debate that pro gun reform people are trying to have. Therefore it's just a distraction.

4/8/2018 12:14:57 PM

Quote :

"He's defending the ability of bad people to get guns so that he doesn't lose his own"

naw, he was defending the right for good people to host and attend a gun show. all laws apply at the shows

4/8/2018 12:22:38 PM

Didn’t watch the video, but are suggesting that the anti side doesn’t intent to take guns away?

4/8/2018 12:23:24 PM

^its like 3 or 4 mins hah

4/8/2018 12:24:43 PM

^^ that hurt really head reading bad.

4/8/2018 3:22:53 PM

Treat them like fully auto weapons

Ban the manufacturing and restrict the transfer and just let time do it’s thing

4/8/2018 3:49:44 PM

^^ hahaha sorry. I was sitting in the carwash, typing on the iPhone. I fucked up.

4/8/2018 7:52:04 PM

https://twitter.com/nratv/status/998275408704421888?s=21

Is... the NRA going full men’s rights?

5/20/2018 7:36:38 PM

^good points. large media outlets should choose not to show pictures of or name douche bag shooters

[Edited on May 20, 2018 at 8:13 PM. Reason : w]

5/20/2018 8:13:11 PM

I was wondering why so many people were normalizing this nonsense today on Twitter, makes sense now

5/20/2018 8:15:08 PM

good for them for finding and using a thesaurus?

5/20/2018 10:19:17 PM

I like this. Of course, the gun nuts won't.

This Law Allows Cops To Take Guns Away From People
https://www.facebook.com/vicenews/videos/237422933563816

Quote :

"A new Washington State law allows the government to seize firearms from a person who has been deemed to be a danger to himself or others — even if they are otherwise legally able to own guns. This is what it looks like in action. "

14 states have the ERPO law; that's news to me.

7/25/2018 10:47:52 PM

^ Looking forward to the liberal tears when they find out this law will primarily be invoked against minorities. Then looking forward to seeing it get thrown out by the courts

7/26/2018 10:53:29 PM

^ like any law, it is only useful and fair if applied to everybody equally. note: equally here does not mean equal percentages within the racial groups should lose their guns; it means cases should be taken seriously and investigated impartially and the same judgement issued given same case specific without regard to race.

7/27/2018 1:43:49 AM

^ You have met the American criminal justice system, right?

7/27/2018 11:20:27 PM

apparently theres no federal law against making a gun in your kitchen as long as you dont sell it and are not prohibited from owning guns. good. its not like a law could stop that anyway

[Edited on July 28, 2018 at 5:50 AM. Reason : f]

7/28/2018 5:48:51 AM

Quote :

"its not like a law could stop that anyway"

This is one of the dumbest and most used arguments ever

7/28/2018 12:07:52 PM

Supremely dumb.

7/28/2018 12:29:35 PM

it's not like a law could stop [literally anything] anyways

7/28/2018 10:35:19 PM

So are we cancelling all laws? Guyz pls, I have a match tonite.

7/29/2018 12:57:18 AM

the debate on 3D printed guns is heating up. anybody here for outlawing them?

who is fully for them?

and who is in the middle or undecided?

watch this video by CRTV arguing for them, but of course:
https://www.facebook.com/whitehousebrief/videos/1746100968800375

for those who don't know CRTV: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Review

8/2/2018 9:33:10 PM

I assume they will be outlawed. The NRA and the companies they represent want everyone to be able to buy a gun, not download one without paying a gun manufacturer. They’ll give in and point to that as evidence that they are for common sense gun control

8/2/2018 10:33:22 PM

I’d support banning 3D printed guns but the same law should also ban commercial manufacturing of guns using additive manufacturing techniques

8/3/2018 3:14:40 AM

Quote :

" should also ban commercial manufacturing of guns using additive manufacturing techniques"

What purpose would this serve?

Also, im totally against this. We have always been able to manufacture our own guns, and these aren't the guns being used to commit crimes.

8/3/2018 8:03:19 AM

what part of shall not be infringed...

8/3/2018 2:06:21 PM

dp

[Edited on August 3, 2018 at 2:11 PM. Reason : ]

8/3/2018 2:11:40 PM

NRA claims because of legal troubles or some shit they may have to shut down.

What are the chances it's actually because Mueller's investigation is uncovering the NRAs ties to Russia and possible campaign finance violations.

Better to fold up shop than risk more exposure and real legal repurcushions eh comrades?

Should this go in the Russia thread?

[Edited on August 3, 2018 at 10:15 PM. Reason : ?]

8/3/2018 10:14:51 PM

^the NRA ain't going anywhere

[Edited on August 4, 2018 at 4:29 AM. Reason : D]

8/4/2018 4:17:42 AM

I agree. Worst case they closedown and open back up as a new org.

I just think the timing of their "struggles" and woe is me story is a little too convenient. They're likely trying to avoid the feds and/or appealing to their donors for a money grab.

8/4/2018 11:27:00 PM

NPR makes it sound like their financial troubles are related to NY state gov't officials putting pressure on financial companies not to do business w/ the NRA. As in, the NRA can't process donations because financial service companies are afraid of NY state regulators. Not exactly a good thing, if true. What's more, if it's true, you are going to see the state of NY paying a lot of money to the NRA, which would be delicious irony.

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/04/635618126/nra-says-it-faces-a-financial-crisis-in-lawsuit-against-new-york-state-officials

8/5/2018 4:18:17 PM

they are having trouble getting corporate insurance too

they are fine though, this is nothing more than trying to influence their lawsuit and get more donations

8/5/2018 6:22:14 PM