07-02-2016, 07:59 AM
Google, among many, many others, Rocco Laurie, Gregory Foster, Joseph Piagentini, Waverly Jones, Daniel Faulkner, and Edward Byrne (Foster and Jones were black).
(07-01-2016, 07:31 AM)Anthony Wrote: [ -> ]But let's not forget who started this: The Communist terrorist Black Panthers, Black Liberation Army, etc., who shot thousands of cops in the back in the late 1960s and '70s.
Payback is a bitch - ain't it?
(06-29-2016, 06:52 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ](06-28-2016, 05:08 PM)playwrite Wrote: [ -> ]Pssss, the other side already has their military grade gun platform; what do they want to win more of, bazookas, tanks, ICBM???
Reasonable people, including gun owners like myself, want these high velocity, large mag guns out of civilIan hands and, of course, we're going to get angry every time these f'n things are used in mass shootings because that exactly why we want them gone.
You know what the vast majority of them want, but continue to spew pseudo psychological highly emotional sexually tainted verbiage with heavy doses of lies and strawman. Many think a right to own and carry weapons for self defense a right that ought to be continued. So long as blue politicians propose more restrictions whenever spree shooters cut loose where there are already absolute prohibitions there will be the sort of stubborn rejection you'd expect in a world view conflict.
I know your fantasy laden daydreams. If writing a law could make prohibitions work I'd have more sympathy. I'm in favor within reason of closing loopholes and enforcing what is on the books. The 'within reason' part is looking at diminishing returns. Prohibition is expensive and doesn't work. So long as you don't throw too much money away, put your fingers in the dike until you run out of fingers. I just think your dyke has too many holes.
As I've said many a time, a reasonable compromise that might give both sides most of what they want is a rewritten 2nd that firmly establishes a right to own and carry in self defense, but allows regulation of magazine size and rate of fire. Neither side is in a mood for reasonable, though. Discussing which side is more stubborn and immovable seems fairly pointless. Either faction can be compared to Gibraltar.
(06-29-2016, 06:31 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ](06-29-2016, 12:53 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]"Reasonable" is what YOU propose. No, there's no doubt at all which side is reasonable, and which not.
Tis a messy issues. Tis not obvious. That's why it isn't getting resolved. If you have no doubts, you're not on a reasonable side.
(07-02-2016, 07:59 AM)Anthony Wrote: [ -> ]Google, among many, many others, Rocco Laurie, Gregory Foster, Joseph Piagentini, Waverly Jones, Daniel Faulkner, and Edward Byrne (Foster and Jones were black).
(07-03-2016, 05:04 AM)playwrite Wrote: [ -> ](06-29-2016, 06:31 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ](06-29-2016, 12:53 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]"Reasonable" is what YOU propose. No, there's no doubt at all which side is reasonable, and which not.
Tis a messy issues. Tis not obvious. That's why it isn't getting resolved. If you have no doubts, you're not on a reasonable side.
This is not reasonableness, tis scantomonious glee of someone loving the status quo - a clear symptom of ammosexuality.
(07-03-2016, 08:10 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm trying to reprise a basic difference in approach between Eric and I.
(07-04-2016, 04:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Someone is self deceived.(07-03-2016, 08:10 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm trying to reprise a basic difference in approach between Eric and I.
You are simply self-deceived.
(07-03-2016, 06:59 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Somehow I think that gun control will fare better as 'ammo control'. How many rounds does a deer hunter need?
(07-04-2016, 08:44 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ](07-04-2016, 04:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Someone is self deceived.(07-03-2016, 08:10 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm trying to reprise a basic difference in approach between Eric and I.
You are simply self-deceived.
What measures with regard to prohibiting access to weapons do you most wish for? (I'd suggest limiting rate of fire and magazine size, but propose something.) To what degree are you willing to grant in perpetuity a right to own and carry weapons for self defense? I have proposed one tit-for-tat that attempts to grant both sides the most central elements of what they desire. I'm open to tweaks. You have persistently rejected anything except those who you disagree with completely surrendering.
Quote:You are hardly alone. On this board, as in the general population of the US, very few are open to considering and acknowledging the culture of the other guys. I'm not getting much in the way of agreement or tweaks from the conservatives either. I'm not saying that wanting all and being willing to yield nothing is unique to either side, is more common among Blue than Red.I do not value the gun culture at all. I value life. Guns are for killing people, and where necessary this should be done by paid professionals as directed and supervised by democratic authorities. Yes, I am values locked on that. I am in favor of whatever legislative compromises can reduce gun violence. I realize today that I can't get my own way on this. My own way matters less to me than reducing needless deaths and injuries.
Quote:The country is very sincerely and deeply divided. The values are profoundly deep and sincere on both sides. If you can't acknowledge that, no doubt about the lack of connection with reality.
(07-05-2016, 12:52 AM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]Before the hounds of hell descend upon me let me address from my observation Americans give a smear to groups. Reds, blues, etc and act as if ALL people who identify with one or the other will be as bad as the EXTREMISTS and stereotypes of that cohort. America is very tribal from what i can gather. Rather than going by judgement, best to start listening and seeing the reasons behind beliefs and also seeing that not everyone fits the mold. But listening and putting evidence first would be a start. Should I get my hopes up that America will listen to that though? I doubt it. Too much polarization colouring views of life to start changing colours now. I can only have hope for future generations thinking older folks are frigging morons for letting blind idealism stand in the way of seeing one another and coming together to fix old issues.
(07-05-2016, 12:10 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I do not propose prohibition. You use that word, but it does not compute.
We have agreed on some control measures.
(07-05-2016, 12:10 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:The country is very sincerely and deeply divided. The values are profoundly deep and sincere on both sides. If you can't acknowledge that, no doubt about the lack of connection with reality.
No doubt about the division of our country on values. The Red side is mainly authoritarian, but also paradoxically libertarian; which actually means allowing economic authority to dominate us.
(07-03-2016, 08:10 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ](07-03-2016, 05:04 AM)playwrite Wrote: [ -> ](06-29-2016, 06:31 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ](06-29-2016, 12:53 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]"Reasonable" is what YOU propose. No, there's no doubt at all which side is reasonable, and which not.
Tis a messy issues. Tis not obvious. That's why it isn't getting resolved. If you have no doubts, you're not on a reasonable side.
This is not reasonableness, tis scantomonious glee of someone loving the status quo - a clear symptom of ammosexuality.
I'm trying to reprise a basic difference in approach between Eric and I. I'll go out of my way to show how two conflicting world views can both be considered well and truly justified. If one side of a conflict is conservative, one is apt to find some time and place in the past where the solutions provided by the world view worked very well, thank you, and might still be working well in some environments. If the other side is progressive, it is quite likely that the progressive is dwelling somewhere where the old solutions aren't working well anymore. Anyone following this thread ought to realize that both factions truly believe their approach works and ought to be allowed, while both sides also see obvious flaws in the other side. My belief, not just in this issue, but in many issues, is that one ought to fully comprehend both sides of a story and respect where both sides are coming from. While that really isn't the human way, I have a stubborn rainbows and unicorns belief that it ought to be.
On another thread, I recently reminded people once more of the history of the Middle East. They have good reasons to hate us. Their world views are not irrational. The 'terrorists' didn't spring out of nowhere. Many US citizens, even though they ought to know better, persist in a perspective that we are the good guys pushing democracy and human rights while they are irrational religious fanatics. That might feel good, but it doesn't make for a working understanding of the problem. Without a working understanding of the problem, the problem isn't going to go away.
Eric is more representative of the human way. He has his perspective. He is absolutely correct, the other guy is absolutely wrong, and he ain't gonna listen. While he might be worse than most posters in this respect, milder variations on this sort of 'my way or the highway' thinking dominates most of our partisan threads. You don't often get conversations with both people listening... with either person listening, really. He's just one of the worst case obvious examples.
Meanwhile, there you go again with ammosexuality. You know full well I don't own a firearm, let along be obsessed with stockpiling ammunition. I own a bow and about a dozen target arrows. That's it. There are times I think all you've got is that one strawman argument that you know full well is bogus. Whenever you can't answer a point, you run at the mouth with ammosexuality. It's about as meaningful and argument as comparing folks with Hitler. It's a sign you haven't a rational argument. If you insult and lie over and over again, do you think you are going to get anywhere? If we were talking about a racial or sexual issue, the sort of repeated insult based argument you indulge in would have long since been reported to the moderator. If you continue, I'm considering doing just that.
Cause it is a sexual insult. As far as I can read it, you believe you have a proper respectful relationship with your rifle, but add one feature to the weapon and the relationship becomes akin to a black guy being with a white girl, or two women being together. You go bonzo nuts with the sort of language I'd expect of a bigot. It's not a rational argument. You are not diagnosing a disease that exists outside of your obviously disturbed mind. All you are doing is making rational conversation impossible by constantly diverting the conversation away from the issue and into your perverse pseudo-sexual hang up.
(07-03-2016, 01:55 PM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ](07-03-2016, 08:10 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ](07-03-2016, 05:04 AM)playwrite Wrote: [ -> ](06-29-2016, 06:31 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ](06-29-2016, 12:53 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]"Reasonable" is what YOU propose. No, there's no doubt at all which side is reasonable, and which not.
Tis a messy issues. Tis not obvious. That's why it isn't getting resolved. If you have no doubts, you're not on a reasonable side.
This is not reasonableness, tis scantomonious glee of someone loving the status quo - a clear symptom of ammosexuality.
I'm trying to reprise a basic difference in approach between Eric and I. I'll go out of my way to show how two conflicting world views can both be considered well and truly justified. If one side of a conflict is conservative, one is apt to find some time and place in the past where the solutions provided by the world view worked very well, thank you, and might still be working well in some environments. If the other side is progressive, it is quite likely that the progressive is dwelling somewhere where the old solutions aren't working so well anymore. Anyone following this thread ought to realize that both factions truly believe their approach works and ought to be allowed, while both sides also see obvious flaws in the other side. My belief, not just in this issue, but in many issues, is that one ought to fully comprehend both sides of a story and respect where both sides are coming from. While that really isn't the human way, I have a stubborn rainbows and unicorns belief that it ought to be.
On another thread, I recently reminded people once more of the history of the Middle East. They have good reasons to hate us. Their world views are not irrational. The 'terrorists' didn't spring out of nowhere. Many US citizens, even though they ought to know better, persist in a perspective that we are the good guys pushing democracy and human rights while they are irrational religious fanatics. That might feel good, but it doesn't make for a working understanding of the problem. Without a working understanding of the problem, the problem isn't going to go away.
Eric is more representative of the human way. He has his perspective. He is absolutely correct, the other guy is absolutely wrong, and he ain't gonna listen. While he might be worse than most posters in this respect, milder variations on this sort of 'my way or the highway' thinking dominates most or our partisan threads. You don't get conversations with both people listening... with either person listening, really. He's just one of the worst case obvious examples.
Meanwhile, there you go again with ammosexuality. You know full well I don't own a firearm, let along be obsessed with stockpiling ammunition. I own a bow and about a dozen target arrows. That's it. There are times I think all you've got is that one strawman argument that you know full well is bogus. Whenever you can't answer a point, you run at the mouth with ammosexuality. It's about as meaningful and argument as comparing folks with Hitler. It's a sign you haven't a rational argument. If you insult and lie over and over again, do you think you are going to get anywhere? If we were talking about a racial or sexual issue, the sort of repeated insult based argument you indulge in would have long since been reported to the moderator. If you continue, I'm considering doing just that.
Cause it is a sexual insult. As far as I can read it, you believe you have a proper respectful relationship with your rifle, but add one feature to the weapon and the relationship becomes akin to a black guy being with a white girl, or two women being together. You go bonzo nuts with the sort of language I'd expect of a bigot. It's not a rational argument. You are not diagnosing a disease that exists outside of your obviously disturbed mind. All you are doing is making rational conversation impossible by constantly diverting the conversation away from the issue and into your perverse pseudo-sexual hang up.
You are spot on regarding the character of both playwrite and Eric. I have mentioned the exact same thing to both of them.
(07-04-2016, 04:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ](07-03-2016, 08:10 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm trying to reprise a basic difference in approach between Eric and I.
You are simply self-deceived.
We could agree that some measures might be needed, as you sometimes say, and let it go at that. Instead, you feel compelled nevertheless to call all gun control measures "prohibition" and say they aren't important. You take out a stand you call "reasonable" and then proceed to call more progressive approaches unreasonable and do not consider them. You speak of values lock, but are yourself the supreme example of same.
So, your discussion of me might get agreement from others also deceived, but it gets the conversation nowhere. Do you care about that? Then stick to the issues, not personalities, and do what you say you do instead of just what you accuse others of doing.
(07-04-2016, 08:44 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ](07-04-2016, 04:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Someone is self deceived.(07-03-2016, 08:10 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm trying to reprise a basic difference in approach between Eric and I.
You are simply self-deceived.
What measures with regard to prohibiting access to weapons do you most wish for? (I'd suggest limiting rate of fire and magazine size, but propose something.) To what degree are you willing to grant in perpetuity a right to own and carry weapons for self defense? I have proposed one tit-for-tat that attempts to grant both sides the most central elements of what they desire. I'm open to tweaks. You have persistently rejected anything except those who you disagree with completely surrendering.
You are hardly alone. On this board, as in the general population of the US, very few are open to considering and acknowledging the culture of the other guys. I'm not getting much in the way of agreement or tweaks from the conservatives either. I'm not saying that wanting all and being willing to yield nothing is unique to either side, is more common among Blue than Red.
The country is very sincerely and deeply divided. The values are profoundly deep and sincere on both sides. If you can't acknowledge that, no doubt about the lack of connection with reality.
(07-04-2016, 09:13 PM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]Best example of damning admiration I've ever seen.(07-04-2016, 08:44 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I agree and I can see it especially as a foreigner as I know of another culture that is not as deeply divided as America. You are certainly not self deceived. You are aware and take all sides into account.(07-04-2016, 04:13 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Someone is self deceived.(07-03-2016, 08:10 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm trying to reprise a basic difference in approach between Eric and I.
You are simply self-deceived.
What measures with regard to prohibiting access to weapons do you most wish for? (I'd suggest limiting rate of fire and magazine size, but propose something.) To what degree are you willing to grant in perpetuity a right to own and carry weapons for self defense? I have proposed one tit-for-tat that attempts to grant both sides the most central elements of what they desire. I'm open to tweaks. You have persistently rejected anything except those who you disagree with completely surrendering.
You are hardly alone. On this board, as in the general population of the US, very few are open to considering and acknowledging the culture of the other guys. I'm not getting much in the way of agreement or tweaks from the conservatives either. I'm not saying that wanting all and being willing to yield nothing is unique to either side, is more common among Blue than Red.
The country is very sincerely and deeply divided. The values are profoundly deep and sincere on both sides. If you can't acknowledge that, no doubt about the lack of connection with reality.
(07-05-2016, 12:41 AM)taramarie Wrote: [ -> ]Reds and libs have told me blues are authoritarians on different issues. Thing is neither is listening so nothing will be done. Some of them would also say they value life too and some blues don't (abortion). For me personally, I do not like guns. Never have, never will. I have never touched a gun in my life and distrust anyone with one. Reason being is the culture i was brought up in. Illegal to carry guns here and you never see a gun anywhere here. To me it means defense is up and an area is dangerous. (My reaction when i went to South Africa.) It means danger to me. As to abortion it should be the decision of the parents, or if a rape case; the mother as she has to live with the actions against her. No matter the thoughts of outsiders it should be her decision. However my first comments are to address what is being said on the other side. If blues do not listen to reds, why should they listen to you? That has lead to extremism, anger and polarization, as well as other reasons of course.