I'm getting so tired of right wingers telling me I need to educate myself on guns in order to have an opinion on gun legislation. I don't care anything about learning about those awful killing machines any more than I care about learning about medieval torture devices. I couldn't care less what the difference is between a semi-automatic and an automatic or what the difference between the Child Killer 6000 and the Arab Impaler 7500 guns. Honestly, what does it matter?
Haven't we gone too far when we can own weapons that kill 50 people?
If Omar Mateen had had one of those guns that go POW! click-click POW! click-click POW! could he have killed 50 people? Could Adam Lanza have shot a classroom full of children with a gun like that?
The kind of guns that go ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta and fire lots of bullets really quickly need to go. You don't need it to hunt and you don't need it to defend your home. These guns are for killing and should not be in the possession of civilians!
We liberal's lack of knowledge of guns is just a red herring.
Because you are arguing on a topic you know nothing about, you can be anti gun and still be educated on firearms, but you can't debate firearms if you know nothing about firearms without looking like a fool.
There is always someone smarter than you in a debate, but no smart person makes it their goal to be the dumbest in a debate.
Because without knowing what you are talking about you look like an idiot. The AR-15 used doesn't go ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta it goes pow pow pow every time you pull the trigger just like any other legal rifle or hand gun. So to answer your own question yes if Omar Mateen had had one of those guns that go pow pow pow he could have killed 50 people and he did. He could have done that with a hand gun too or even a shotgun. He had the hostages for several hours, he could have killed them all with a box cutter.
Nonetheless the AR-15 was designed specifically for military use--meaning killing numerous people. IMO: I do not see anyone in the civilian life needing that kind of firepower.
If it is any handgun or shotgun that I own he would definitely need to reload. And I doubt if he could have killed 50 people with a box cutter without people at that place jumping him and taking him down.
In a panic situatation where I just shot 10 people running for thier lives I'd like to see someone try to take me out before I can change a magazine.
Because you are arguing on a topic you know nothing about, you can be anti gun and still be educated on firearms, but you can't debate firearms if you know nothing about firearms without looking like a fool.
There is always someone smarter than you in a debate, but no smart person makes it their goal to be the dumbest in a debate.
I'm getting so tired of right wingers telling me I need to educate myself on guns in order to have an opinion on gun legislation. I don't care anything about learning about those awful killing machines any more than I care about learning about medieval torture devices. I couldn't care less what the difference is between a semi-automatic and an automatic or what the difference between the Child Killer 6000 and the Arab Impaler 7500 guns. Honestly, what does it matter?
Haven't we gone too far when we can own weapons that kill 50 people?
If Omar Mateen had had one of those guns that go POW! click-click POW! click-click POW! could he have killed 50 people? Could Adam Lanza have shot a classroom full of children with a gun like that?
The kind of guns that go ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta-ta and fire lots of bullets really quickly need to go. You don't need it to hunt and you don't need it to defend your home. These guns are for killing and should not be in the possession of civilians!
We liberal's lack of knowledge of guns is just a red herring.
Trying to turn a discussion about public policy on guns into something technical is an old stand by strategy of the far right of the gun issue. Its trying desperately to place themselves in a stronger position in the discussion so they want to discuss technical specifics. You did a great job of exposing the tactic.
Good post.
Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and most of them stink.
The issue is whether the opinion is valid or not. What makes an opinion valid is information, and the more informed one is, the more valid and important the opinion.
If you're tired of being told something why not try doing what they suggest?
I guess ignorance really is bliss
You say all that like it's a bad thing.
Trying to turn a discussion about public policy on guns into something technical is an old stand by strategy of the far right of the gun issue. Its trying desperately to place themselves in a stronger position in the discussion so they want to discuss technical specifics. You did a great job of exposing the tactic.
Good post.
yes - it is and see post 34.
:lamo will any one ever top Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette�� Seriously? It was the gun haters that started the technical arguments but it backfired when your ignorance derailed your agenda. Feinstein took the cake on looking like a blathering moron.
:lamo will any one ever top Democratic Rep. Diana DeGette
“I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those know they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.”
�� Seriously? It was the gun haters that started the technical arguments but it backfired when your ignorance derailed your agenda. Feinstein took the cake on looking like a blathering moron.
Only the ignorant would try to paint the expectation of knowledge as unfair.
Trying to turn a discussion about public policy on guns into something technical is an old stand by strategy of the far right of the gun issue. Its trying desperately to place themselves in a stronger position in the discussion so they want to discuss technical specifics. You did a great job of exposing the tactic.
Good post.
For over a dozen years I have seen people here who have no experience as teachers tell me about their views on public education.
So spare me the sanctimonious preaching about ignorance.
Interesting. Do property taxes go to pay for guns to arm citizens?
If you have children going to public school and you have to help pay for public school, there is a distinct possibility they may want some say in that education. I guess that's why we have local school boards. Your analogy is somewhat flawed.
My analogy is spot on but your belief system and tactics refuse to accept it as it exposes a major defect in your approach.
Of course it is. So you claim to know my belief system. There is no defect in my approach as it is logical rather than emotional. Please refrain from supposed mind reading to make an appeal to closure, it makes your arguments look stupid.
Your analogy is terrible. As is your rebuttal.
Tell us again how public school funding is the same as gun control.
Both are matter of public policy which impact a citizen.
You miss the point in your ardor and zeal to constantly attack me since you have identified me as an enemy of your belief system. And the point is simple: and American citizen has a right to an opinion on matters of public policy and need to pass or satisfy no test of technical knowledge that you or anyone else wants to throw out there as a way to discredit them and silence them from voicing a contrary opinion to theirs.
People with no formal education or even knowledge of public education do it all the time on issues of teachers and education and it does not stop them.
But when it comes to guns, a few of you try to make it some test of the technical aspect of guns and we get this derision about people not knowing the difference between as ASSAULT RIFLE and an ASSAULT WEAPON and then you all snicker and roll your eyes.
The far right gun techies should stop that sort of thing as it does their side no service.
Except in one case a property owner is forced to participate and fund it.
In the other case unless and until a citizen becomes a criminal no one else is impacted.
Ardor and zeal, funny, my posts are fairly emotionless. Yours are filled with emotionally driven taunts, jabs, caps locking and nicknames for those you oppose. I think you need to stop projecting and just stick with the topic.
The topic is that before you can craft a law that impacts something, you ought to know about that something first.
In the other case unless and until a citizen becomes a criminal no one else is impacted.
Ardor and zeal, funny, my posts are fairly emotionless. Yours are filled with emotionally driven taunts, jabs, caps locking and nicknames for those you oppose. I think you need to stop projecting and just stick with the topic.
The topic is that before you can craft a law that impacts something, you ought to know about that something first.
We all live in the society and are thus "forced" by law to have our lives impacted by the laws that arise from matters of public policy.
False - we are all impacted by the laws and policies regarding guns.
And to me it appears that it is you who are doing he projecting.
And it is the "SOMETHING" that is in dispute and upon which there will never be agreement especially when the gun side tries to make it technical as some sort of the test to see if people know the secret handshake.
I don't care anything about learning about those awful killing machines .........
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?