Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?

[Dan H]

http://monsterhunternation.com/2013/09/ ... checklist/

Another fun part of this one is the following scenario:

Liberal 1: Attack, attack. ATTACK!

Liberal 2: Attack attack, attack attack!

Conservative: Defend.

Liberal 1: How rude.

Liberal 2: Indeed, how rude.

Liberal 1: You Sound Angry.

[Ghost]

Hmm, and yet Gawker, Patheos, and other sites with well-known progressive biases are posted with no comment. Got it. The most interesting thing from TTAG in my mind was the quotes from the actual Supreme Court briefs, but whatever. At this point the entire conversation is kind of like tilting at windmills. You guys are hoplophobes and no amount of debate will change that.

Patheos has far more religious, right-wing blogs than left wing atheist blogs. Also, the link I posted to it (and I think I have only posted one link, so it's not like it shows up here often) was simply a list of direct quotes from conservatives who won't call a racist murderer a racist. You will note that plenty of times, we will dismiss links posted by other liberals when they are full of rhetoric and trash, so don't think you are special there.

But seriously, your TTAG article... We aren't dismissing it because of the source. It is because it's completely devoid of anything useful. OK, there are some quotes... So what? They have nothing to do with anything. They have no relevance to an intelligent debate on either issue. They are a rant.

There are a lot of truly awful left wing articles I see every day. Do you know why I don't post them? Because they are worthless. Even when I agree with their side, I'm not going to post a bunch of rhetorical trash and expect anyone to take me seriously.

When you posted the TTAG rant, even though the title of the blog does scream out "NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE," I read it. I do not write it off as garbage because of the source, but because of the awful content. (I do, however, now associate that site with awful content.)

As for calling us hoplophobes, do you even know where any of us stand on gun control? I lnowkI have said what I think a dozen or more times over the years, but you still seem to think I want to ban guns. What is it about this issue that makes you incapable of not only considering the other side, but even hearing it correctly?

But yeah, it's us, not you. Even though the common thread in the communications breakdowns that occur on this topic is you. it's actually everyone else. .

[Dan H]

As for calling us hoplophobes, do you even know where any of us stand on gun control? I lnowkI have said what I think a dozen or more times over the years, but you still seem to think I want to ban guns. What is it about this issue that makes you incapable of not only considering the other side, but even hearing it correctly?

Perhaps because the pro-side has conceded and compromised multiple times since NFA '34, and yet we still keep hearing that it's not enough. Compromise generally includes both sides giving up something, the only time the anti side has given up anything has been as the result of legal action. As such resistance is a natural instinct to the ratcheting effect of laws in this country.

Let's compare it to abortion. Roe legalized it everywhere. Since then every time there's any sort of action to rein it back even a little, your side of the aisle loses their minds. Even for something like partial-birth abortion, which many people on both sides agree is a pretty heinous thing. Heck, the latest thing is people going crazy over showing women the ultrasounds because "it's invasive", when the doctor is doing an ultrasound anyway to guide him in the procedure.

I wasn't around when it happened, but did you guys talk about Kermit Gosnell when that was in the news? He makes Dylan Roof look like a junior leaguer. People on the pro-life side tried to push the issue to their use; those on the other side reflexively defended against that because they knew that it would be one click in the ratchet.

[Indy]

Why can't we discuss the single topic at hand without always trying to link it to another issue?

[Dan H]

Umm, I don't know, maybe because most issues are complex and not binary solutions?

[Indy]

Nobody is talking about binary solutions either. It seems to me (and maybe it is because I am a very infrequent visitor lately) that whenever we are discussing an issue in this part of the site, I am guaranteed to read a conflation argument from you, or a redirection to a different issue altogether. Not attacking, really just trying to stay focused. It has always been a problem for me in the past (doing very similar things) and I am just noticing it a lot more and trying to keep from being swayed (or swaying things from my end) to other issues.

[Indy]

Perhaps because the pro-side has conceded and compromised multiple times since NFA '34, and yet we still keep hearing that it's not enough. Compromise generally includes both sides giving up something, the only time the anti side has given up anything has been as the result of legal action. As such resistance is a natural instinct to the ratcheting effect of laws in this country.

This isn't a balance issue, though. I think we would all agree that there would be less murders (especially mass murders) in this country if there weren't any firearms. Obviously that isn't a solution that could ever be executed, so it is all about curtailing the lack of control (and accountability) of those weapons. I am not sure finding a "middle of the road solution that both sides agree on" is even a remote possibility.

[Dan H]

I think we would all agree that there would be less murders (especially mass murders) in this country if there weren't any firearms

Mass events, possibly. Overall, I'm not sure that it would matter much. Killers gonna kill, with apologies to Taylor Swift.

http://countercurrentnews.com/2014/11/b ... knife-ban/

"In the UK, the rate of knife violence is approximately one in every 374 people victimized, compared with a rate of one in 750 people victimized by gun violence in the United States."

Then again there's this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... China.html

[Ghost]

Yes, let's compare gun control to abortion. Hmm, this is a tricky one, so I'm going to start by listing things they have in common.

THINGS THEY HAVE IN COMMON:
* both are issues

THINGS NOT IN COMMON:
* everything else

Well, that was fast.

OK, in the interest of trying to salvage a sinking ship of an argument, without bothering with the abortion angle, I will even grant your point 100%. OK, so a small minority of liberals want to take your guns away. None of us are those people.

This part gets fun.

for calling us hoplophobes, do you even know where any of us stand on gun control? I lnowkI have said what I think a dozen or more times over the years, but you still seem to think I want to ban guns. What is it about this issue that makes you incapable of not only considering the other side, but even hearing it correctly?

Perhaps because the pro-side has conceded and compromised multiple times since NFA '34, and yet we still keep hearing that it's not enough. Compromise generally includes both sides giving up something, the only time the anti side has given up anything has been as the result of legal action. As such resistance is a natural instinct to the ratcheting effect of laws in this country.

So... Your defense for being unable to understand a moderate approach to gun control is that you are super defensive because you think we are going to take your guns. Only, we aren't going to do that. But you won't believe us because you are super defensive, and actually seem to view me saying that I don't want to take your guns as a threat to your gun rights.

[Dan H]

Oh, I understand completely that you wouldn't volunteer to come get it personally, or maybe even support someone else doing that. But you are on the side of those who would like to, which is essentially the same thing.

[Ghost]

...what???

In what universe does it make sense that someone who supports gun ownership but also supports reasonable gun control get associated with a fringe minority? How are we on the same side?

I can't tell if you are being serious or trolling me with that one. But because it makes so ridiculously little sense, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are trolling.

[Indy]

Mass events, possibly. Overall, I'm not sure that it would matter much. Killers gonna kill, with apologies to Taylor Swift.

Are you being serious with this?

[Ghost]

Dan, the best part of this is that you posted an article at the top of this page mocking liberals, and you obstinately refuse to engage in a fair debate on this topic. And yet, you probably also think you are being reasonable. I'm still hoping it's trolling, though.

[Dan H]

How have I not engaged in a fair debate? You believe guns aren't currently regulated enough by law, I believe that they are. Any position you've adopted only calls for more regulation than what currently exists, of course I'm not going to agree with that. Particularly any sort of Federal registration given the historical precedents with those sorts of things.

Are you being serious with this?

Was I being flip? Yes, I was. But the more serious point is that people who want to do others harm are going to figure out ways to do it, either with knives, bombs, or fire. The tool isn't the problem, it's the person behind it.

[Indy]

Are you being serious with this?

Was I being flip? Yes, I was. But the more serious point is that people who want to do others harm are going to figure out ways to do it, either with knives, bombs, or fire. The tool isn't the problem, it's the person behind it.

So no need to regulate nuclear arms then...

[Dan H]

I was unaware we had personal nuclear weapons. Were they inspired by Fallout 3?

http://thelawdictionary.org/arms/

Anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands, or uses in his anger, to cast at or strike at another. Co. Litt. 1616, 162a; State v. Buzzard, 4 Ark. 18. This term, as it Is used in the constitution, relative to the right of citizens to bear arms, refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense. The arms of the infantry soldier are the musket and bayonet; of cavalry and dragoons, the sabre, holster pistols, and carbine; of the artillery, the field-piece, siegegun, and mortar, with side arms.

[Indy]

I was unaware we had personal nuclear weapons. Were they inspired by Fallout 3?

http://thelawdictionary.org/arms/

Anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands, or uses in his anger, to cast at or strike at another. Co. Litt. 1616, 162a; State v. Buzzard, 4 Ark. 18. This term, as it Is used in the constitution, relative to the right of citizens to bear arms, refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense. The arms of the infantry soldier are the musket and bayonet; of cavalry and dragoons, the sabre, holster pistols, and carbine; of the artillery, the field-piece, siegegun, and mortar, with side arms.

Your argument above is that regulations/limited access will not stop bad people from doing bad things. Are you saying that logic is so specific and narrow that it only applies to the 2nd amendment?

[Dan H]

Your argument above is that regulations/limited access will not stop bad people from doing bad things.

Umm . . . duh? We should totally make drug abuse and murder illegal, that will totally stop people from doing it.

Are you saying that logic is so specific and narrow that it only applies to the 2nd amendment?

Stop being deliberately obtuse, I'm responding to your snark about nuclear weapons.

[Indy]

Your argument above is that regulations/limited access will not stop bad people from doing bad things.

Umm . . . duh? We should totally make drug abuse and murder illegal, that will totally stop people from doing it.

Not to pull a Dan here and head off in another direction all together, but why are people that use (or even abuse) drugs "bad people"?

Are you saying that logic is so specific and narrow that it only applies to the 2nd amendment?

Stop being deliberately obtuse, I'm responding to your snark about nuclear weapons.

The obtuseness is on your end. You think it does no good to regulate firearms because people that want to kill still will, but for some reason you fail to see that logic applying to anything else?

[Dan H]

Not to pull a Dan here and head off in another direction all together, but why are people that use (or even abuse) drugs "bad people"?

The main point of my comment was not a value judgement; we already see how successful laws against murder and drugs have been, yet you think that more gun regulation on top of what we already have is just what we need . . . just a little bit more, then everything will be hunky dory and no bad things will ever happen.

The obtuseness is on your end. You think it does no good to regulate firearms because people that want to kill still will, but for some reason you fail to see that logic applying to anything else?

What specific logic in which particular situation am I supposed to apply it to? We're discussing gun control of personal firearms, you're the one who started talking about nuclear weapons.