U.S. Politics - Page 618 - Cyclingnews Forum

Go Back   Cyclingnews Forum > Cafe > General

General Grab a short black and come join in the non-cycling discussion. Favourite books, movies, holiday destinations, other sports - chat about it all in the cafe.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #6171  
Old 01-10-13, 14:30
Amsterhammer's Avatar
Amsterhammer Amsterhammer is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 3,325
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh Januss View Post
You guys are 'tards. Cars kill, swimming pools kill, drugs and drinking kill, texting kills, yet all of these things have laws that try to reduce the danger that they represent. The minute anyone begins talking about laws to try to reduce gun danger you guys all go bat**** crazy. If only non crazy people are allowed to have guns I don't think any of the "somebody comes in my home and I'm opening up with automatic weapons on his ***" crowd would qualify.
This. Exactly this!

BD and Patrick are mere trolls, but I'll admit that I'm kinda disappointed about Scotty hanging with the bat****ters on this.
__________________
The LOTE has won, all hail the LOTE.
Reply With Quote
  #6172  
Old 01-10-13, 14:41
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,188
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amsterhammer View Post
This. Exactly this!

BD and Patrick are mere trolls, but I'll admit that I'm kinda disappointed about Scotty hanging with the bat****ters on this.

Sorry to disappoint

I don't think most clear thinking individuals are for irresponsible gun ownership and against reasonable restrictions. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the typical knee jerk left bleeding heart BS that is being discussed now.

Those that make the rules will still have their armed guards and will do whatever it takes to keep themselves and their families safe. But, the rest of us will be restricted because we can't be trusted.

Not really a govt of the people anymore, is it?

Above all else, make sure we don't address the real problems.

All politics all the time.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #6173  
Old 01-10-13, 14:57
rhubroma's Avatar
rhubroma rhubroma is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,501
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Sorry to disappoint

I don't think most clear thinking individuals are for irresponsible gun ownership and against reasonable restrictions. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the typical knee jerk left bleeding heart BS that is being discussed now.

Those that make the rules will still have their armed guards and will do whatever it takes to keep themselves and their families safe. But, the rest of us will be restricted because we can't be trusted.

Not really a govt of the people anymore, is it?

Above all else, make sure we don't address the real problems.

All politics all the time.
What are we still in the late XVIII century? By your logic that would seem to be the case. I've got news for you, the country hasn't been a government of the people for quite some time now, at least since the time of the industrial magnates, whereas trusting everyone (as if still during the Revolutionary War) hasn't exactly produced commendable results civically.

Oh, sure, let's address the real problems, starting with the fundamental one of having too many weapons in circulation with too lax controls for acquiring them. This can be dealt with instantly, were the political will there to do it. That it is not is mostly on the right’s conscience. All the other problems will take years and decades to even begin to address, though why should that deter taking care of one we can deal with right now?
Reply With Quote
  #6174  
Old 01-10-13, 15:44
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,188
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rhubroma View Post
What are we still in the late XVIII century? By your logic that would seem to be the case. I've got news for you, the country hasn't been a government of the people for quite some time now, at least since the time of the industrial magnates, whereas trusting everyone (as if still during the Revolutionary War) hasn't exactly produced commendable results civically.

Oh, sure, let's address the real problems, starting with the fundamental one of having too many weapons in circulation with too lax controls for acquiring them. This can be dealt with instantly, were the political will there to do it. That it is not is mostly on the right’s conscience. All the other problems will take years and decades to even begin to address, though why should that deter taking care of one we can deal with right now?
Go for it. Your desired result of making yourself feel better while solving nothing will be attained. Your specialty, I suppose.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #6175  
Old 01-10-13, 16:09
rhubroma's Avatar
rhubroma rhubroma is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 5,501
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Go for it. Your desired result of making yourself feel better while solving nothing will be attained. Your specialty, I suppose.
The statistical evidence of every other case in which guns are more strictly regulated among the developed counties, demonstrates the imbecility of your logic. Your specialty, I suppose.
Reply With Quote
  #6176  
Old 01-10-13, 16:23
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,096
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Sorry to disappoint

I don't think most clear thinking individuals are for irresponsible gun ownership and against reasonable restrictions. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with the typical knee jerk left bleeding heart BS that is being discussed now.
um, that's exactly what's being discussed now, reasonable restrictions on guns and armament. But as we see with just about everything else, like say climate change and carbon taxes or health care, the knee-jerk reaction of the conservative right is to resist it solely because it involves government.

Freedom!

Quote:
Those that make the rules will still have their armed guards and will do whatever it takes to keep themselves and their families safe. But, the rest of us will be restricted because we can't be trusted.
Pray tell, what other developed country that has introduced sensible gun control regulations has experienced this problem? Canada? Australia? Japan? Any in western Europe?

But it is fun to watch you guys on the right dream up these absurd hypothetical scenarios based on little more than hysterical paranoia and too many viewings of Red Dawn. Do you see why we really, really don't want you guys to be armed?

Quote:
Above all else, make sure we don't address the real problems.
Totally agree. Let's address the real problems. There's one real problem that we can address quite quickly and easily - reducing the flood of military-grade armaments by banning the sale and ownership of military-grade guns, body armor, armor-piercing bullets, high-capacity magazines, etc. There. One of the real problems addressed. Now we can move on to addressing some of the other root problems, like - for example - reducing crime by reducing poverty and income inequality. I'm sure there won't be a knee-jerk resistance from the right about that, eh?

Last edited by VeloCity; 01-10-13 at 16:27.
Reply With Quote
  #6177  
Old 01-10-13, 16:45
VeloCity's Avatar
VeloCity VeloCity is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 3,096
Default

Here's a gun nut who was clearly itching to shoot folks. Think he should've been allowed to carry, Scott?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2439284.html

Quote:
Ratliff was known as an outspoken gun advocate. In a message posted to Twitter on Aug 11, 2012, he wrote: "I went to the movies with my pistol in my pocket the whole time I was praying that somebody would try to pull a Batman!"
Only a step or two away from becoming a James Holmes himself. Mentally ill?
Reply With Quote
  #6178  
Old 01-10-13, 17:14
Scott SoCal's Avatar
Scott SoCal Scott SoCal is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 4,188
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeloCity View Post
Here's a gun nut who was clearly itching to shoot folks. Think he should've been allowed to carry, Scott?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2439284.html

Only a step or two away from becoming a James Holmes himself. Mentally ill?
Good point. We better bann Twitter.

Google "twitter threats" and let everybody know what you find.
__________________
Instigating profanity laced tirades since 2009
Reply With Quote
  #6179  
Old 01-10-13, 17:17
aphronesis aphronesis is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,737
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott SoCal View Post
Good point. We better bann Twitter.

Google "twitter threats" and let everybody know what you find.
Well according to you if we ban welfare we'll be able to reinstate dual parent families in the inner city.

So I don't hear much difference between your argument and the ones you think you're ridiculing.
Reply With Quote
  #6180  
Old 01-10-13, 17:26
patricknd's Avatar
patricknd patricknd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: houston texas
Posts: 1,660
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amsterhammer View Post
This. Exactly this!

BD and Patrick are mere trolls, but I'll admit that I'm kinda disappointed about Scotty hanging with the bat****ters on this.
i'm poking a little fun at everyone in this discussion, which wouldn't be taking place if a bunch of white middle class people hadn't died. this conversation never starts on sunday morning when the morgues of cities across the country have their slabs covered with the casualties of the previous night's gang/drug wars, because we're all insulated from that.
people don't need guns, but then they don't need alcohol or any number of potentially deadly things. my cousin is dead and my oldest brother and sister are still feeling the effects of injuries sustained in a drunk driving accident 35 years ago. but we all like our drinks, so we'll just accept that risk. can't slaughter or own sacred cows can we? prohiition isn't the answer of course, and in the past 20 years drunk driving deaths have steadily declined, in large part due to education programs that have gradually changed our culture. gosh, maybe that's where we need to be starting here as well.
read the arguments, not just here but sites on both sides of the political spectrum. there are those that think they should be able to own anything they want, and there are those that think my owning a gun infringes on their rights. they're both wrong. i know that we need tougher gun laws, but i also know that hunting, target shooting and the like are perfectly fine hobbies and we need to make sure that we recognise that. our laws need to be well thought out, they need to be made by people that are truly educated on the issue and the firearms that they want to regulate, and they need to be made not out of emotion but common sense and fairness. when i see comments from the shrill old biddy section (and that covers people on both sides) i know that reasoned discourse probably ain't gonna happen. we don't have to assume that changes to the laws mean confiscation, but then there are many that are in favor of that. we aslo don't have to assume that gun owners are all nuts, because they're not. like everything else in the world, this whole issue needs common sense solutions, but more than that it needs compromise.
we also need to realize that life is a crap shoot. what is the price of safety? if we all shut ourselves up in cocoons we aren't living. a life worth living carries risks.
unfortunately i think that there are too many that see this only as a political fight, that really don't give a **** about the issue, it's just one more contest to win for the party. and so like most of the other crap that we face today, we'll all be losers.

and so hamsterslammer, that is why i like to poke at everyone. i don't see that all of the "discussion" here really accomplishes much besides adding to climate change, but at least it's entertaining
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:38.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited. All rights reserved. Future Publishing Limited is part of the Future plc group. Future Publishing Limited is a company registered in England and Wales with company registration number 2008885 whose registered office is at Beauford Court 30 Monmouth Street Bath, UK BA1 2BW England.