Venezuelans regret gun ban, 'a declaration of war against an unarmed population'

[Lursa]

You’re right, you didn’t post a single dishonest thing. You posted more than a single dishonest thing. You repeatedly, and falsely, said that I had posted statements that I never did. That is being dishonest.

We were discussing mag limits. 10 was an example. And you didnt object to using it...until things didnt go your way.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

We were discussing mag limits. 10 was an example. And you didnt object to using it...until things didnt go your way.

Nah. Now you’re BS’ing even more, which your own words prove. You even used quotation marks to indicate I had literally said the things that not only did I not say, but I never even implied. You made stuff up out of thin air and tried to pin them on me. Not cool.

 

[Lursa]

Nah. Now you’re BS’ing even more, which your own words prove. You even used quotation marks to indicate I had literally said the things that not only did I not say, but I never even implied. You made stuff up out of thin air and tried to pin them on me. Not cool.

What's not cool is being called out on a poor response to an argument and acting like you didnt decide that 'hey, it's ok with me so if everyone else would be like me, it's not a problem.'

 

[RaleBulgarian]

What's not cool is being called out on a poor response to an argument and acting like you didnt decide that 'hey, it's ok with me so if everyone else would be like me, it's not a problem.'

So now you want to add mind reader alongside prevaricator on your forum resume?

Repost any post of mine that reasonably would be construed as the mindset you have attributed to me. Be careful not to cut/paste out of context because I will call you in that too.

 

[Tigerace117]

Well that is a stupid post. You act as if fighting a war against a "tyrannical" government equates the news cycle or some **** like that. The Afghans most likely find their balls because of all the death and lack of liberties and important things like that. The bored American that you perceive would no longer exist in that situation. Look Afghans are humans and they have acted just like humans, and there is no logical reason that we would not act like humans as well.

The problem here is obviously your hate of America plain and simple. Thats the only message that comes through for your argument.

Ah yes, the old "if you don't agree with my fantasies, you obviously hate America" line of crap.

Hate to break it to you bud, but pointing out basic realities is not "hating America".

You desperately attempting to handwave away my point with nonsensical babbling is amusing though.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Ah yes, the old "if you don't agree with my fantasies, you obviously hate America" line of crap.

Hate to break it to you bud, but pointing out basic realities is not "hating America".

You desperately attempting to handwave away my point with nonsensical babbling is amusing though.

Yea sure but...that isnt "basic realities" it is your opinion, you should learn the difference.

 

[Lursa]

So now you want to add mind reader alongside prevaricator on your forum resume?

Repost any post of mine that reasonably would be construed as the mindset you have attributed to me. Be careful not to cut/paste out of context because I will call you in that too.

The mindset of minimizing restrictions that would IMO have very negative effects on the law-abiding gun owner, see:

I find it fascinating, and sad, that some see any attempt at reducing gun violence as an imminent threat to their 2nd Amendment rights. Some even going so far as to spread ludicrous predictions of the future.

Which attempts at reducing gun violence do not leave law-abiding citizens more vulnerable to criminal activity and at a greater disadvantage to those that choose not to follow the law?

There are states now where gun control amounts to almost a ban and the merest normal act in another state can make you a felon: here's one example, carrying a firearm, unloaded, with the ammo stored elsewhere in car, driving anywhere but to a firing range or hunting.

Even in the home, you are limited in rounds in a firearm, type of ammo, type of firearm. And they have to be locked up at all times.

Just how useful is a firearm that is locked away and even if you do get it out in time, the criminals have you outgunned?

My opinion only, but banning full auto weapons and restricting allowed magazine capacity are two that, although I do not support the idea, would have no effect on my ability to protect myself/my family. Reasons are simple: first, getting one is not easy (even for bad guys) and rarely does a bad guy attack with a full auto weapon. And magazine capacity deficit can be overcome by carrying additional mags (I do). Yeah, yeah, I know the argument about lost time changing out mags, but part of gun ownership responsibility is proficiency in use. Practice shooting, practice mag swap outs. Again I’m not endorsing anything, just sayin’.

So the magazine limit discussion came out of this one, please note the bold. When you mentioned 'any,' I named at least 3 different restrictions that do affect the law-abiding in a negative way. Mag limits were one of those and you went on to dismiss it as something that we can just overcome with 'more practice,' since it doesnt really 'affect you.'

That last perspective is what I focused on, as it was very telling in the big picture of discussing this issue even with people that consider themselves 'pro-gun.' And while I understand yours was perhaps not of major importance to your foundational views on the subject, you chose to double down and defend it. IMO, the attitude displayed in that statement is a big issue...accepting and minimizing a very harmful, IMO, restriction for gun owners...just because 'it doesnt affect you and the rest of us can just train more.'

 

[RaleBulgarian]

The mindset of minimizing restrictions that would IMO have very negative effects on the law-abiding gun owner, see:









So the magazine limit discussion came out of this one, please note the bold. When you mentioned 'any,' I named at least 3 different restrictions that do affect the law-abiding in a negative way. Mag limits were one of those and you went on to dismiss it as something that we can just overcome with 'more practice,' since it doesnt really 'affect you.'

That last perspective is what I focused on, as it was very telling in the big picture of discussing this issue even with people that consider themselves 'pro-gun.' And while I understand yours was perhaps not of major importance to your foundational views on the subject, you chose to double down and defend it. IMO, the attitude displayed in that statement is a big issue...accepting and minimizing a very harmful, IMO, restriction for gun owners...just because 'it doesnt affect you and the rest of us can just train more.'

You fail to demonstrate the things you’ve falsely accused me of.

I never, not one time, said anything about 10 rounds being good enough as you repeatedly and falsely ascribed to me, and I repeatedly stated it was only my opinion, and made no assertion that anyone had to do what I do or even agree with my position.

I did acknowledge your concern about being limited to 10 round mags by saying that I agreed it was bad/wrong, and recommended that you contact your state rep to voice your concern. Not that it matters, but my state happens to have a 20 round limit that I am satisfied with.

You took my statements out of context and then fabricated things I did not say or even imply.

If you disagreed with what I clearly and repeatedly said was my opinion only then you should have said so instead of getting all worked up, taking it personally, and then lying.

 

[Lursa]

You fail to demonstrate the things you’ve falsely accused me of.

I never, not one time, said anything about 10 rounds being good enough as you repeatedly and falsely ascribed to me, and I repeatedly stated it was only my opinion, and made no assertion that anyone had to do what I do or even agree with my position.

I did acknowledge your concern about being limited to 10 round mags by saying that I agreed it was bad/wrong, and recommended that you contact your state rep to voice your concern. Not that it matters, but my state happens to have a 20 round limit that I am satisfied with.

You took my statements out of context and then fabricated things I did not say or even imply.

If you disagreed with what I clearly and repeatedly said was my opinion only then you should have said so instead of getting all worked up, taking it personally, and then lying.

More of this? The focus was never 10 bullets, it was lower mag caps as an example of a harmful restriction and your response.

And you posted your opinion in a discussion and I continued discussing it....and you didnt like my assessment, my opinion, of yours.

I didnt take your comments out of context....they were actually the point of the discussion. I cant believe I have to spell this out for you. It was clear in the quotes in my previous post.

I challenged your implication minimizing the threat of gun control/restrictions.

some see any attempt at reducing gun violence as an imminent threat to their 2nd Amendment rights.

Then I mentioned some examples. Then you addressed those examples and I called you out...to discuss...on the one that perfectly demonstrated what I consider a problem with people that consider themselves pro-gun. Basically, you blew off a very significant negative restriction with 'it doesnt affect me and just practice more.'

I followed the discussion right where it was supposed to go...a demonstration on just why seemingly minor attempts at reducing gun violence can indeed be harmful to law abiding people...and that you didnt even realize it...or maybe werent concerned. And I came to that conclusion reading your responses, not making stuff up. Certainly not lying.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I didnt take your comments out of context....they were actually the point of the discussion. I cant believe I have to spell this out for you. It was clear in the quotes in my previous post.

...... not making stuff up. Certainly not lying.

You just keep digging that hole deeper. You flat out lied. It’s in black and white for everyone to see. Even Trump would call you out for lying.

Time to move on.

 

[Lursa]

You just keep digging that hole deeper. You flat out lied. It’s in black and white for everyone to see. Even Trump would call you out for lying.

Time to move on.

I didnt lie at all. Please show it in quotes or stop lying about it.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I didnt lie at all. Please show it in quotes or stop lying about it.

Post #100. Plain as day.

You even used quotation marks.

 

[Lursa]

Post #100. Plain as day.
View attachment 67246327

No..a specific lie.

The 10 rounds was my 'mag limit' in the example. I was discussing your comments on mag limits, which in general is 10 rounds.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

No..a specific lie.

The 10 rounds was my 'mag limit' in the example. I was discussing your comments on mag limits, which in general is 10 rounds.

Whatever, Lursa. The point has been made and irrefutably validated. Continue saying whatever you need to help yourself to feel better. I’m out of this “conversation”.

 

[Lursa]

Whatever, Lursa. The point has been made and irrefutably validated. Continue saying whatever you need to help yourself to feel better. I’m out of this “conversation”.

What point was made? That you made a fuss over a number to avoid the discussion? I was pretty clear on the point of the discussion...and you are under no obligation to continue it...but dont distort it into something it wasnt to avoid it.