|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control III | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
You know that is not true. Or are you truly an idiot? WHAT is not true? You didn't quote me. My Message 1048 was mainly about a link about Switzerland. (I LOVE this place)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
You're asking for the blatantly obvious for reasons known only to yourself, but to answer your question, Trump called the election fraudulent, even though he knew that was untrue, because he knew it would stir up his base, sowing chaos and confusion that he hoped would disrupt and hopefully change the counting of the electoral college votes, finally resulting in the January 6th insurrection. He's still calling the 2020 presidential election fraudulent even though unable to unearth any evidence, and despite even many Republicans telling him they can find no evidence of fraud anywhere near substantial enough to influence the outcome. Welcome back to just one off topic comment. Do you remember Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, and other Democrats claiming the elections they lost were illegitimate? Did you hear Elizabeth Warren recently claim the the Supreme Court is now illegitimate? Did you hear the queen of Democrat intelligence, Maxine Waters say "To hell with the Supreme Court? Are they doing this to stir up their base, knowing the rioting will get a free pass from the mainstream media? Do you think today's Supreme Court is illegitimate?
Welcome back to the thread's topic of gun control. Why do you think requiring registration of firearms, requiring that people be licensed to own a firearm, and requiring that guns have more safety features would destroy the second amendment? Because it documents for them just who has the guns, making them easier to round up in the future, Australian style.
Here's a conspiracy theory for you. You know why the government requires registration of cars, boats and planes? Because they're preparing for the future step of taking them away. Very good, that's it! Climate Change! Let's start with antique cars! But bulldozer drivers and arrogant checkered flag wavers need the government to get the guns first. They prefer to not get filled full of holes.
marc9000 writes:
ā I love how climate change alarmists accuse OTHERS of "scare tactics". Good to know you don't name call. What name did I call? (I love this place)
Boy, for someone who doesn't name call you sure have a way of saying some wickedly horrible things about people. Pointing out a lack of preparedness and foresight of what could happen is the equivalent of name calling? Looks like that's about it for "on-topic" for now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
marc9000 writes: a time when most American males carried guns, and had NO GUN LAWS to obey. Not true. If you want to provide sources and evidence I will engage. Until then what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I stand corrected. During the Pony Express, there were some local and state laws, controlling the wild cowboys in towns of those days. But there were no FEDERAL gun laws for 70+ years after the Pony Express. No laws for guns in the home.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
marc9000 writes:
If the government comes after me, I'll fight them at the ballot box, not by shooting them. You'll notice that Ringo, and his green dot providers have no problem with antique cars also being crushed by government. They must have hobbies that don't include antique cars, that they think are no threat to the environment, and they have no fear of government crushers coming after them next."I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!" -- Lucky Ned Pepper
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
Calling HIM and idiot? Could you have worded that a little differently, or are you trying to make it look like I'm the one doing the name calling? Or are you calling Theodoric and AZPaul lazy? No, he's looking at me, and for good reason. Name calling is, indeed, one of the worst things a lazy bum like me can resort to. Keep in mind, however, though name calling is socially and intellectually vapid, that in no way alters the fact that you really are an idiot. Someone pointed out idiot has some official clinical meaning but in this context the popular vernacular provides an apt definition you fit quite well. I don't think there is one supposed piece of information from you in any of your posts that has been truthful, accurate, untwisted by your violent religious and political fantasies. And that goes for your bible quotes too. The reason why this is so is because you are intellectually deficient with weak or lesser critical thinking skills and no shame in lying about any subject. You are the one who posts arguments with citation only to have the source say the exact opposite of your presentation. You either didn't read the source you posted or you thought we wouldn't catch the subterfuge. But as Percy points out I'm a bit on the lazy side and crunch that whole list of deficiencies down into the one epithet. marc9000, you are an idiot ... with harsher descriptive adjectives added as appropriate.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
Reality
Firearms regulation in Switzerland - Wikipedia What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2
|
Lol. So you were wrong and spouting right wing propaganda nda
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
AZPaul3 writes:
As I have said before, pointing out to a fat person that he is fat is not "name-calling" per se. It may be rude, insensitive, etc. but he has no right to feel insulted. Embarrassed maybe but not insulted. Keep in mind, however, though name calling is socially and intellectually vapid, that in no way alters the fact that you really are an idiot."I call that bold talk for a one-eyed fat man!" -- Lucky Ned Pepper
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
marc9000 writes: This is a gun control thread.
Yes. So most of this message of yours is about things other than gun control. I guess I'll keep this message of mine focused on the gun control things. You don't seem to remember much from previous posts. I very recently included comments about staying on topic in a message to you. Do you not remember it? It said that all topics tend to drift into side discussions as part of the natural flow, but that when a diversion onto some other topic becomes long or threatens to displace the main topic then it's time to consider taking it to another more appropriate thread. Does that sound familiar to you? It doesn't seem so, because nothing you just wrote indicates you have any awareness of it. What you said is more in the nature of trying to be intentionally annoying, especially since everything in my post that wasn't about gun control was a response to something you said. I don't generally just spontaneously go off-topic the way you do. My mind doesn't keep dropping into free-association mode, and I don't keep seeing associations that don't exist.
I think you should open a thread about the media and take all your complaints there. It would be a lot of fun especially now, considering all the rioting that went on this past weekend was reported as "mostly peaceful" by the mainstream media. (Fox News showed a montage of those claims this evening, before showing all the fires and beating on windows and property damage and arrests for attempted murder of policemen, etc.) But everyone knows how biased the mainstream media is, there are tons of links that prove it. But my starting a thread would result in me being called names by a dozen or more posters here, and fending it off would be a full time job. I can't do a full time job here, the pay isn't too good. Manage your time any way you see fit, but please try to avoid overwhelming main topics with side-discussions.
This is finally something closer to the thread's topic, though I know nothing about how armed most federal agencies are. That's clear, most gun controllers don't. Back up the bus there. Just like me, you also have no idea how armed most federal agencies are. You're just throwing out a quote from Matt Gaetz, of all people, who's just trying to distract attention from his legal troubles. It's like your mind is a magnet for unreliable sources. I provided you specific information about the number of employees in the IRS enforcement division and how much ammo and guns they have and estimated how many carried guns and how many rounds they might use in a year and what the costs might be, and in your reply you...well, you didn't reply. You completely ignored that portion of my message. What's the matter - math challenged?
What did you think of the vid I showed above, of a government supplied bulldozer smashing hundreds of useful motorcycles and ATV's? I don't usually watch videos (which I've told you at least several times now), so no, of course I didn't. A quick scan of your posts to this thread reveals a single video about Matthew McConaughey, so I assume that's not the one you mean. This is a big country, there are gazillions of things going on all the time. If you think this event represents some kind of meaningful and significant trend within the country that is worth discussing and in some way bears on gun control then please provide the video again. I'll do a quick scan and if it seems relevant and accurate I'll watch it.
What does this have to do with gun control? You'll notice that Ringo, and his green dot providers have no problem with antique cars also being crushed by government. They must have hobbies that don't include antique cars, that they think are no threat to the environment, and they have no fear of government crushers coming after them next. More likely, they have no hobbies at all. I see evidence of lots of people like that, they eat, sleep, sit on their ass, seek entertainment, and do as little work as possible, and burn with jealousy of people who achieve things, like owners of antique cars. If this is your reasoning for why your video is relevant to gun control then please don't bother providing the video.
marc9000 writes:
ā One of the forum rules says something about "bare assertions". I don't mind bare assertions, if they are logical. Your bare assertion isn't logical. Do you have any links, any proof, that the public is cool with the IRS being heavily armed? Or you think that Matt Gaetz and I are the only ones who wonder about this? And what they believe they need ammo for? Matt Gaetz, he of allegations of cocaine snorting and sex trafficking and shacking up with a 17-year-old girl and of showing images of girls he'd slept to Republican colleagues on the House floor, and of his legal troubles forcing him to let his law license lapse in Florida since it likely would not have been renewed anyway, is not exactly a font of truth. Let's see, in one of your off-topic statements above, did you say something about "poisoning the wells"? (I love this place) You're using the term "poisoning the well" incorrectly. If what I said was untrue then it would be character assassination, but it is true about the allegations, and federal investigators are looking into them. He's also been arrested for DUI. Read all about it: Matt Gaetz Legal Issues Enhancing background checks for gun buyers, part of the new legislation, is good. The rest of the bill, which incentivizes "red flag" laws and provides financial assistance for mental health and school safety, is like spitting in the wind: useless and pointless. Including dating partners as potential domestic abusers was the only other good thing. Yes I know, gun control measures are NEVER enough. As I've said, what is actually needed is registration, licensing, and safety features.
I find name calling deplorable, mainly because it demonstrates such laziness. If someone has trouble with facts and logic then just say so while citing specific examples. Calling him an idiot is just lazy. Calling HIM an idiot? Could you have worded that a little differently, or are you trying to make it look like I'm the one doing the name calling? Or are you calling Theodoric and AZPaul lazy? You're having trouble following simple grammar. "Him" is the "someone" referred to in the previous sentence. I think name calling is lazy, but on the other hand, once you've detailed someone's errors several times, if they persist anyway then it doesn't seem reasonable that one should be required to detail the idiocies over and over again. Eventually, as Jefferson pointed out, ridicule is the only recourse. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Hey jar, you Texas guys always had open carry, right?
Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
marc9000 writes: Welcome back to just one off topic comment. Do you remember Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, and other Democrats claiming the elections they lost were illegitimate? Yes, this is certainly off-topic. No, I don't remember Al Gore or Hillary Clinton claiming the elections they lost were illegitimate. The main reason I don't remember it is because it didn't happen. Here's part of Al Gore's concession speech (full text here):
quote And here's part of Hillary Clinton's concession speech (full text here):
quote And here's Donald Trump's concession speech in it's entirety:
quote But here's the kinds of things Donald Trump does say, this from a recent speech in Texas:
quote Donald Trump is the only person in the history of the United States who has claimed that his presidential election loss was illegitimate.
Did you hear Elizabeth Warren recently claim the the Supreme Court is now illegitimate? ... Do you think today's Supreme Court is illegitimate? Yes, of course I read about Elizabeth's Warren's comments. Why do you think she said that? Could it be because the Republicans stole two Supreme Court appointments through political machinations? Could it be because three of the justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade promised to respect that precedent during the confirmation process? What can one say about a court where more than a fifth are illegitimate and a third are liars? And then there's Clarence Thomas, who's in a class by himself.
Did you hear the queen of Democrat intelligence, Maxine Waters say "To hell with the Supreme Court?" Are they doing this to stir up their base, knowing the rioting will get a free pass from the mainstream media? Here's a slighter fuller version of her comments:
quote Seems like an appropriate response to a court decision that will result in forced births. Here's a recent example of what will become more and more common: She wanted an abortion. Now, she has twins. Welcome back to the thread's topic of gun control. Why do you think requiring registration of firearms, requiring that people be licensed to own a firearm, and requiring that guns have more safety features would destroy the second amendment? Because it documents for them just who has the guns, making them easier to round up in the future, Australian style. If you don't know who has the guns, then how are you going to implement the "red flag" laws you favor? When someone is somehow revealed to be a danger to themselves or others, how do you take their guns away if you don't know they have them? "Got any guns?" "Nope!" Now what? The types of firearms that were part of Australia's mandatory buyback program were automatic and semiautomatic rifles and shotguns.
Here's a conspiracy theory for you. You know why the government requires registration of cars, boats and planes? Because they're preparing for the future step of taking them away. Very good, that's it! Climate Change! Let's start with antique cars! But bulldozer drivers and arrogant checkered flag wavers need the government to get the guns first. They prefer to not get filled full of holes. You're not very clear here. Are you against the registration of cars, boats and planes, too?
marc9000 writes:
ā I love how climate change alarmists accuse OTHERS of "scare tactics". Good to know you don't name call. What name did I call? (I love this place) "Climate change alarmists" is a complement?
Boy, for someone who doesn't name call you sure have a way of saying some wickedly horrible things about people. Pointing out a lack of preparedness and foresight of what could happen is the equivalent of name calling? You need to read more carefully. I didn't label this particular thing that you said name calling. I called it wickedly horrible to say that those in favor of gun control consider 911 a laugher. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
AZPaul3 writes: Hey jar, you Texas guys always had open carry, right? So did New Hampshire. There are no registration or licensing requirements. There's a gun store about 5 minutes away, so in less than a half hour I could be walking down Main Street with my loaded gun on my hip, safety off for ready use, and without a bit of training and with no lockboxes at home. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
Theodoric writes:
ā
You know that is not true. Or are you truly an idiot? marc9000 writes: WHAT is not true? You didn't quote me. My Message 1048 was mainly about a link about Switzerland. (I LOVE this place) So I put up a link from Snopes (not considered a conservative source), you claim it's not true, name call, and then put up a link from Wikipedia (also not considered a conservative source) and apparently declare yours is true and mine is false, I guess just because you're true and noble, and anything I say is automatically false? From your link;
quote and;
quote and;
quote Now from my link in Message 1048 Gun Ownership in Switzerland
quote Your link was more detailed, but I didn't see any disagreement between the two. Why did you say my link was false? Can you be specific about why it's false? Or would it just be easier to fly into a rage and get a nice collection of green dots? The reason I put the Snopes link up was to show that gun controllers (Percy's in this case) claim that guns in the home automatically make that home less safe isn't a cold, hard fact. It's just a gun control talking point, nothing more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
Your original post insinuated that there is open carry. There is not. Switzerland does not help the good guy with a gun idea. Unlike most US ammosexuals, the Swiss are highly trained in the weapons they possess.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
marc9000 Member Posts: 1522 From: Ky U.S. Joined: Member Rating: 1.3 |
You don't seem to remember much from previous posts. I very recently included comments about staying on topic in a message to you. Do you not remember it? It said that all topics tend to drift into side discussions as part of the natural flow, but that when a diversion onto some other topic becomes long or threatens to displace the main topic then it's time to consider taking it to another more appropriate thread. Does that sound familiar to you? It doesn't seem so, because nothing you just wrote indicates you have any awareness of it. I guess it depends on who is reading what I wrote. I really avoided responding to much of your off-topic comments in both Message 1060 and Message 1062.
What you said is more in the nature of trying to be intentionally annoying, especially since everything in my post that wasn't about gun control was a response to something you said. I don't generally just spontaneously go off-topic the way you do. My mind doesn't keep dropping into free-association mode, and I don't keep seeing associations that don't exist. What you see as "free association mode", comes from two distinct things; 1) As usual here, I'm facing a frantic gang, who pulls me in different directions, trying to shout down free speech. And 2), gun control is something that can have projections and repercussions that start an unlimited array of changes in a once free society. It has in past societies. Have you noticed, since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, how in the news media (even the places where you get YOUR news) that the cries are "WHAT'S NEXT? Will abortion be outlawed nationwide? Will gay marriage be outlawed? How many more of our rights will this Supreme Court deny us?" But in the news, when it comes to gun control, there NEVER is question of WHAT'S NEXT? That should be an advantage to a forum like this, to discuss drifts into relevant, side discussions. But no, I guess not.
I don't usually watch videos (which I've told you at least several times now), so no, of course I didn't. A quick scan of your posts to this thread reveals a single video about Matthew McConaughey, so I assume that's not the one you mean. No it's not, your quick scan must have been lightening quick, because it was very plain. It wasn't embedded, but the link was very clear. Message 1057 This should be an indicator to you that the 2022 U.S. government isn't a brand new, caring institution that we can blindly entrust all our freedoms to, without worrying the way tyrants in the past have operated. There are videos and instances from the past of government representatives destroying useful property. And that was before climate change was invented.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024