Gun Control thread (merged many)

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by August

Care to explain that comment?

The comment refers to the fact that you display such a level of hubris that you are unable to come to terms with your shortcomings; in this case specifically your interpersonal shortcomings as it relates to this forum. As such, Steve did not create a mistrepresentation of you, rather he spoke the truth. It is simply a truth that you didn't want to hear.

I hope that is more clear for you.

[August]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

The comment refers to the fact that you display such a level of hubris that you are unable to come to terms with your shortcomings; in this case specifically your interpersonal shortcomings as it relates to this forum. As such, Steve did not create a mistrepresentation of you, rather he spoke the truth. It is simply a truth that you didn't want to hear.

I hope that is more clear for you.

And I find you both biased and judgmental. You really are a terrible choice as moderator. I hope that is just as clear to you.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by August

And I find you both biased and judgmental. You really are a terrible choice as moderator. I hope that is just as clear to you.

If someone that acts like you thought I was a good guy and a good moderator, I would have failed in my job. People like you shouldn't like me.

[Hottentot]

Originally Posted by August

You really are a terrible choice as moderator.

I disagree.

-Fanboi

[August]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

If someone that acts like you thought I was a good guy and a good moderator, I would have failed in my job. People like you shouldn't like me.

Fine. We'll see what Neal thinks about your crap.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by geetrue

That is ironic isn't it

Actually the word is hypocritical not ironic.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

And I find you both biased and judgmental.

I am biased and judgemental, and no I'm not proud of it. That said, I'll stand by my observations. Sometimes you seem totally reasonable and at others you seem to be more than a little excitable. Like now.

But I didn't plan to say all this in public. I made a joke, and you got your back up about it. As I said, I agree with you on this subject. Yes, Feurer Frei is right - this specific point hasn't been touched before. On the other hand it is just one more gun control thread. So I made my joke, and I made my comment about topic spamming. Right? Wrong? Some of both? Either way I'm sorry for the derailing.

[CaptainMattJ.]

Originally Posted by August

Thank God we tend to base our laws on reason rather than emotionalism.

i've found this to be untrue in too many circumstance, especially recently.

In my opinion, there is no reason to own a military-grade assault rifle (and that means a rifle firing rifle rounds with selective fire and high capacity magazines). I have yet to see a single completely logical argument that would justify owning an assault rifle. That being said, the assault rifle is already a helluva thing to own for most people, therefore most people do not own assault rifles, making it a non-issue. If any legislation should be passed, it should be higher licensing standards, especially mandatory psychiatric evaluation, but again its already extremely difficult to legally own an assault rifle, making banning it outright a poor way of doing things. This half-assed undereducated mess of a bill is not going to solve anything.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

In my opinion, there is no reason to own a military-grade assault rifle (and that means a rifle firing rifle rounds with selective fire and high capacity magazines). I have yet to see a single completely logical argument that would justify owning an assault rifle.

That's the whole point of the Bill Of Rights. You don't have to justify owning anything. The government has to justify taking it away from you. The British governor of Massachussetts didn't see any justification in common citizens owning cannons either, so he sent troops to confiscate them. That's what Lexington and Concorde were about.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I am biased and judgemental, and no I'm not proud of it. That said, I'll stand by my observations. Sometimes you seem totally reasonable and at others you seem to be more than a little excitable. Like now.

But I didn't plan to say all this in public. I made a joke, and you got your back up about it. As I said, I agree with you on this subject. Yes, Feurer Frei is right - this specific point hasn't been touched before. On the other hand it is just one more gun control thread. So I made my joke, and I made my comment about topic spamming. Right? Wrong? Some of both? Either way I'm sorry for the derailing.

"Both" as in Takeda is both biased and judgmental, not you "both" are biased and judgmental Steve. Reading comprehension FTW.

[August]

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

i've found this to be untrue in too many circumstance, especially recently.

In my opinion, there is no reason to own a military-grade assault rifle (and that means a rifle firing rifle rounds with selective fire and high capacity magazines). I have yet to see a single completely logical argument that would justify owning an assault rifle. That being said, the assault rifle is already a helluva thing to own for most people, therefore most people do not own assault rifles, making it a non-issue. If any legislation should be passed, it should be higher licensing standards, especially mandatory psychiatric evaluation, but again its already extremely difficult to legally own an assault rifle, making banning it outright a poor way of doing things. This half-assed undereducated mess of a bill is not going to solve anything.

Psychiatric evaluation to exercise a constitutional right? Lovely.

[August]

Originally Posted by Wolferz

A clumsy oaf who has had four years of metal shop classes perhaps?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

"Both" as in Takeda is both biased and judgmental, not you "both" are biased and judgmental Steve. Reading comprehension FTW.

So you want to continue this? Okay. I don't speak for anyone else. That said, if it's what you want I'll give you my take on you.

You're a nice guy. So is Skybird. So is Tribesman. I've made observations on them. That said, everybody has their opinions. Mine is that I'm usually wrong. Yours seems to be that you're usually right. That, to me, is dangerous. The guy who "knows" he's right can't deal with the possibility that he might not be. As I said, on one thread you can be reasonable and even logical. Sometimes. In my opinion you don't seem to understand how logic really works, or how debate really works. You say what seems reasonable to you, up to a point. When challenged enough you get your dander up and start to become antagonistic. When someone points that out you become defensive. Defense mode then leads to attack mode. When someone responds in kind you become downright hostile. Someone is always attacking you, never the other way around. And this is all because you don't seem to understand give and take.

Have you ever been wrong? Have you ever admitted that you might be wrong? Debate involves exploring an issue, not just making pronouncements on it.

The next time you jump on the Constitution bandwagon in defense of your opinions, remember this: The Constitution, every single word of it, was the result of compromise. I'm not saying we should compromise our rights or our freedoms, just that to truly grasp the situation you need to see it from the other side as well.

Oh, and "Reading comprehension FTW" is exactly the kind of arrogant, snarky attitude we were talking about.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

So you want to continue this?

Says the guy who said he'd drop it but then brings it back up again by taking offense at a statement that wasn't even directed at him.

Okay. I don't speak for anyone else. That said, if it's what you want I'll give you my take on you.

I didn't ask you for your take on me Steve. Nor have I asked for your condescending lecture on the constitution so you and Takeda can go bother someone else. I'm done with you both.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by CaptainMattJ.

i've found this to be untrue in too many circumstance, especially recently.

In my opinion, there is no reason to own a military-grade assault rifle (and that means a rifle firing rifle rounds with selective fire and high capacity magazines).

Close enough to pass as being correct. Though I would maintain that the magazine capacity is irrelevant when talking about Assault Rifles. Though i do wonder what you consider "high capacity" verses what you would consider a "normal capacity" magazine.

I have yet to see a single completely logical argument that would justify owning an assault rifle.

I didn't realize anyone was actually arguing for the possession real assault rifles. I know I never have. However people are arguing about rifles based on the civilian version of Armalite Rifle No. 15. Regarding that, I found a

That being said, the assault rifle is already a helluva thing to own for most people, therefore most people do not own assault rifles, making it a non-issue.

Also correct. Assault rifles don't grow on trees. You just can't go down to your local gunshop and buy one. They are rare, and incredibly expensive.

If any legislation should be passed, it should be higher licensing standards, especially mandatory psychiatric evaluation, but again its already extremely difficult to legally own an assault rifle, making banning it outright a poor way of doing things.

Yeah, you have to jump through hoops to get a class 3 as it is already. Fingerprints, mug shots, the whole ball of wax.

This half-assed undereducated mess of a bill is not going to solve anything.

When was the last time an assault rifle was used in a shooting anyway? Off the top of my head, I think that was the north Hollywood shootout. Interestingly, the 1994 assault weapons ban was in effect at the time. Clearly it was working wonders.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

That's the whole point of the Bill Of Rights. You don't have to justify owning anything. The government has to justify taking it away from you. The British governor of Massachussetts didn't see any justification in common citizens owning cannons either, so he sent troops to confiscate them. That's what Lexington and Concorde were about.

Yes sir, it is called the Bill of Rights. Not the "bill of needs". I find myself rather tired of politicians wiping their asses with it.