Stewart stomps pro-gun rhetoric.

And how does requiring registration ban anyone from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights? As he noted, people have to register to vote, and that doesn’t ban them from exercising their right to vote

I know! That was beautiful the way Stewart just maneuvered Dahm into admitting such.
 
That would PREVENT future shootings?????? Really????? How???? I'm for DNA registration if it's applied to every other right.

Well, if you're for it (I'm not, by the way), then you would know that whenever someone with a criminal record would be tagged and prevented from purchase via a universal background check). But just using driver or state I.D.'s coupled with a 7 day waiting period would do the same.

Now pay attention: This would not prevent all criminal activity with guns, but it would help stem the tide of adding to problem.
 
so when you ban one type of gun, and people still get shot, you will fuck off, or no?

When you admit that all the AR-15 style weapons used in mass shooting could have been kept out of those perps hands by regulation, will you stop trolling?
 
Nobody is defending drunk driving as a right. Nor is theft one.

But many believe guns are a right. The litany about responsible gun owners is endless as it echoes through the country. It is wrong. Guns are designed to cause pain and death to other humans.

Yet you effectively want to punish millions of safe, law-abiding American drivers for the actions of a few drunken assholes.

Duh. It is a right. An enumerated right. I support the unenumerated rights of abortion and gay marriage, which you also support, yet you want to ban an enumerated right. Can't you see how self-damaging your POV can be?
 
The gun-banners seek to ban all guns. Banning "assault weapons", a fabricated term, is just a stepping stone.

I've asked several anti-gun LWers if Obama's 2013 Gun Ban had passed, would they be satisfied that it was enough. All avoided the question because the answer is obvious; it's a first step to a total gun ban.

The logic goes like this: If limiting magazines to 10-rounds, wouldn't limiting them to 5-rounds be better? If banning some semi-automatic rifles is good, isn't banning all of them better? They'll keep pushing until all that is left are single-shot muskets and then they'll try to ban those. Only for the poor and middle class, of course, since the rich will always be able to pay for it like abortion.

Gun banners on JPP have already supported a total ban on all guns or all semi-automatic guns.

I don't trust liars and this is the #1 reason why I don't trust Democrats nor will I ever vote for one.

I know of only one (maybe two) posters who are for banning of all civilian gun ownership. The majority of gun regulation folk on this site (and in America) are for GUN REGULATION, NOT total banning or confiscation. Hell, NRA members are for such, and Stewart stated so up front. To date, I have not read of any official legislative proposal of a national ban or confiscation of guns for the law abiding citizenry.

As for your tale regarding Obama:

Here are the facts: The Washington Post reported that Obama is considering an executive order that would expand the number of gun sellers required to subject buyers to background checks. Such an action wouldn’t take anyone’s guns away.

And — separately — in the wake of mass shootings, Obama has mentioned Australia’s legislation on gun control, which did involve taking away some guns. But Obama has not indicated, nor has any major media outlet suggested, that he is even considering an executive order that involves confiscating guns.
https://www.factcheck.org/2015/10/trump-hears-obama-wants-to-take-guns/

So it would seem YOU are the liar when it comes to the debate over guns in America, Dutch. Sad.
 
You seem to think showing an ID bans people from voting. You need to get your head right before you address these issues.

You need to think before you type....either that or stop lying.

When the ID proposals by the GOP came about, it was a well timed, immediate effort to eliminate elderly voters in blue state enclaves across the country before a coming election. Phasing in such over a decent period of time would not have been unreasonable.

Much different from what is going on regarding the gun regulation debate.

Know WTF you're talking about before your fingers hit the keys. Makes you look less foolish.
 
I know of only one (maybe two) posters who are for banning of all civilian gun ownership. The majority of gun regulation folk on this site (and in America) are for GUN REGULATION, NOT total banning or confiscation...
If Obama had passed his 2013 gun ban bill, would you have been satisfied that was sufficient gun regulation? If not, why not? What more would you have wanted?
 
Originally Posted by Nordberg View Post
A couple of cheer leaders tried to get in a car and oops, it was the wrong one. The owner of the car walked up to the car and started shooting. He was a responsible gun owner until that second.


And it doesn't change the fact that the VAST MAJORITY of gun owners in America are responsible and you will punish them instead of the actual irresponsible gun possessors.

Again, how is keeping A SMALL FRACTION of weapons out of civilian circulation "punishing" you? You sound like a little kid at Christmas who got a toy didn't get the toy brand he saw advertised.
 
Originally Posted by Doc Dutch View Post
Just like someone who walks into a store and then shoplifts. They were honest until they were not.

Have you ever driven a car with a drink or two in you? Worse? Regardless if you were caught or not, you were a criminal who negligently put the lives of other people at risk for your own convenience.


Nobody is defending drunk driving as a right. Nor is theft one. But many believe guns are a right. The litany about responsible gun owners is endless as it echoes through the country. It is wrong. Guns are designed to cause pain and death to other humans.

Guns have the following purposes:

- to hunt for food

- to defend against predatory animals

- to defend against unwanted attacks by other people

- War

- practice for all the above.

We can't change the past or how it affects the present. But we can make the effort to make things better...reasonable gun control legislation is part of that. Fighting against the propaganda of profit hungry gun manufacturers and retailers is just part of the package.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
I know of only one (maybe two) posters who are for banning of all civilian gun ownership. The majority of gun regulation folk on this site (and in America) are for GUN REGULATION, NOT total banning or confiscation...

If Obama had passed his 2013 gun ban bill, would you have been satisfied that was sufficient gun regulation? If not, why not? What more would you have wanted?

Why is it whenever gun monkeys are presented with the FACT that does NOT support their assertion (Post #65), they keep trying to promote a "what if" or "could be" as some sort of litmus test that would magically validate their original assertion?

You made an assertion, I presented the FACTS that DOES NOT support the basis of that assertion. Repeating yourself in various ways won't change that.

FACTS vs. Beliefs

FACTS win. Deal with it.
 
Why is it whenever gun monkeys are presented with the FACT that does NOT support their assertion (Post #65), they keep trying to promote a "what if" or "could be" as some sort of litmus test that would magically validate their original assertion?

You made an assertion, I presented the FACTS that DOES NOT support the basis of that assertion. Repeating yourself in various ways won't change that.

FACTS vs. Beliefs

FACTS win. Deal with it.

Your refusal to answer the question was expected since no gun banner ever has answered the question.

Kudos to you for at least giving a reason for refusing to answer. Most just run from it. LOL

Oh, BTW, Second Amendment. FACT. :D
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Why is it whenever gun monkeys are presented with the FACT that does NOT support their assertion (Post #65), they keep trying to promote a "what if" or "could be" as some sort of litmus test that would magically validate their original assertion?

You made an assertion, I presented the FACTS that DOES NOT support the basis of that assertion. Repeating yourself in various ways won't change that.

FACTS vs. Beliefs

FACTS win. Deal with it.



Your refusal to answer the question was expected since no gun banner ever has answered the question.

Kudos to you for at least giving a reason for refusing to answer. Most just run from it. LOL

Oh, BTW, Second Amendment. FACT. :D

Dutch, you deteriorate to an insipidly stubborn right wing troll regarding guns. Same old stupid tactic....YOU avoid dealing with FACTS you can't refute by dodging to some fabricated scenario, then you bray like an ass if no one takes the bait that you "won". :palm:

Like YOU have pointed out numerous times over the years, that doesn't work for the MAGA mooks when you take them to task .... so it won't work with me.

Now, run-a-long and get praise from the man you see in the mirror for your "cleverness". Let me know when you want to discuss things like an adult.



So far:

Stewart = 100 points

:orang:= 0 points
 
Then why not ignore me?

The FACT you believe stripping innocent Americans of rights is a good way to go is a point you and I will never agree upon.

Yakuda and Zymurgy made the same assertions as you do here. If you have the courage or will, check out my responses to them in the chronology of the posts.

If you get dumber or more trollish on other subjects, you'll be banned like you have in the past. Here, I'll just ignore you and let you have the last word if you don't come up with something of worth.
 
If you get dumber or more trollish on other subjects, you'll be banned like you have in the past. Here, I'll just ignore you and let you have the last word if you don't come up with something of worth.
Oh, please ban me, dumbass. Why the fuck would I ever respect a person who seeks to strip innocent Americans of their rights?

What is the difference between you and the racist fuckwits on JPP except for who you hate and seek to harm?
 
If you get dumber or more trollish on other subjects, you'll be banned like you have in the past. Here, I'll just ignore you and let you have the last word if you don't come up with something of worth.
Oh, please ban me, dumbass*. Why the fuck would I ever respect a person who seeks to strip innocent Americans of their rights?

The only difference between you and the racist fuckwits on JPP is who you hate and which Americans you seek to harm. Fuck off, dimwit.

*$20 says your "ban" is a thread ban but you won't put me on ignore because you are just a pussified piece of shit and a fucking bully.
 
So far, you haven't discussed any of the major topics from the OP. Perhaps you can explain to the reading audience what progressive official proposal's regarding gun control are "illogical". We'll wait.

so far the only thing you've ever been able to do is rely on debunked talking points and irrational throwback labels to avoid the reality of you being wrong. you're dismissed
 
Back
Top