calfoxwc Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 In NY, they thought gun registration was "a step in the right direction". and they published the list of names and addresses. It was never to take a "step the right direction to stop gun violence". It was "a step in the liberal direction to win our colture war with America". Say, here's an idea. Let's make all Americans take required training, and get licensed, before they are allowed to get pregnant out of wedlock. And before unmarried couples have sex, they have to register with the gov ! After all, look at the abortion rate. And require training and education before ever being allowed to get an abortion, and require registration with the government before said abortion. We just have to DO something, and that would be a "step in the right direction". Sorry, I haven't had my coffee yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Something can not possibly solve every problem ever so why bother? I'm assuming you don't wear a seatbelt, then, because people still die in car crashes, for example? I know you have a very defeatist attitude on basically everything, but try looking at the positives - it might surprise you. That's what you took from my statement saying I supported stringent training? By all means spin your wheels all you want and then praise yourself for trying even if your efforts are meaningless. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 You still don't seem to understand that even if criminals are denied buying a gun at the gun store they can still go out and get an illegal gun on the streets like the gangstas do. They are out there already. What you're doing is making people like us who aren't insane murderers jump through more hoops. I'm not saying it would solve the problem, but I think it would be a step in the right direction. "It wont fix everything" or "liberal's secret plans" don't seem like good reasons to not at least work toward a solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 I think it's probably a cost versus results proposition. Not only a cost in money but effort freedom inconvenience etc. And what kind of results would be acceptable and directly related to your actions? That should probably be a consideration no matter what the problem and proposed solution would be. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 I've been on record for years supporting gun training. When I was in the Boy Scouts I got an NRA patch from people who were as stringent about gun safety as anyone you could possibly imagine. But expecting that we will end gun violence is as silly as expecting that we will end marijuana use. And I'll bet dollars to dog turds that there is a lot more weed smoking going on then gun violence. WSS Sure, but one of the two things you mentioned is much, much worse than the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Sure, but one of the two things you mentioned is much, much worse than the other. Just pointing out some things are impossible to stop, not taking a shot at your weed crusade. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Just pointing out some things are impossible to stop, not taking a shot at your weed crusade. WSS Impossible, so don't bother trying to reduce it at all? It's impossible to get Fatty McFatFat Jr to stop shoving fries and chocolate in his face completely, but you can sure as hell get him to cut down and improve his health. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StinkHole Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 It's impossible to get Fatty McFatFat Jr to stop shoving fries and chocolate in his face completely, but you can sure as hell get him to cut down and improve his health. As in "oxymoron", is there a term for a sentence that is completely contradictory? Never mind its a paradox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 I'd be willing to listen to your ideas how you can stop that especially without violating anyone's precious civil rights. I don't know how you do that entirely, but the steps are simple, same as anything you're trying to stop the black market for. Don't worry so much about the gangstas and whatever, find the people selling them guns, find their suppliers and crack down on them. If it's domestic, then no problem, go from there. If it's international, then more difficult, but it can be done. Sneaking one or two guns across the border might be easy, but getting an arsenal across, enough stock to make it worth the risk, that should be the tricky part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hammertime Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 shame they couldn't resuscitate the shooter, long enough to torture him anyways... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Woody, everybody wants to work toward a solution. The problem is, what is legitimately a solution, and what is just ignorant and/or deliberate culture war/political posturing. Making it a legal obligation for psychiatrists, doctors... to report dangerous conditions and behavior to the background check system is a good idea. but all people are imperfect. Suppose a psychiatrist falsely reports something, to discredit a person with whom they had an affair, for example? What checks and balances are there that the background check remains a VALID background check? When a "good idea" doesn't have practical implementations, it isn't a good idea. Going after all social security recipients, all senior citizens who have someone take care of their finances (like, because they don't get around well, and have a lot of trouble going to the bank/grocery store), and going after veterans who get upset about their experiences in battle like Iraq/Afghanistan)and get counseling is just bs. It's antagonistic political liberal theater. Why not go after gangs? Illegals? drug dealers? Because it doesn't help the left win their culture war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Impossible, so don't bother trying to reduce it at all? It's impossible to get Fatty McFatFat Jr to stop shoving fries and chocolate in his face completely, but you can sure as hell get him to cut down and improve his health.By all means spend any amount of money! Go to fattys moms house and drag her in for reprogramming, put fatty in reform school where they eat carrots drama make fatty fill out 16 pages of paperwork before he's allowed into a restaurant, actually plays a scale outside of each restaurant and deny entrance to anyone over a certain weight kind of like the breathalyzer in a car's ignition. Install treadmills in front of the counter at every fast food restaurant. Require medical transcripts with metabolic information as identification required for purchasing a hamburger. Place cows and potatoes on the endangered species list. Outlaw commercials for food like we did for whiskey and cigarettes. Severely restrict the broadcast hours of television stations and make video games illegal. I'm sure there's more... WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 And this is why we can't have sensible discussions here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Impossible, so don't bother trying to reduce it at all? It's impossible to get Fatty McFatFat Jr to stop shoving fries and chocolate in his face completely, but you can sure as hell get him to cut down and improve his health. Go easy on Mr McFatFat. He has a glandular problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Go easy on Mr McFatFat. He has a glandular problem. And is American, so will probably sue McDonalds for making him fat. And win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 And is American, so will probably sue McDonalds for making him fat. And win. God bless America! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 God bless America! Now that was a funny movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 And this is why we can't have sensible discussions here. You've blindly stumbled into a pillar of truth here old chum. The reason for that is the only thing that will make even a tiny bit of difference is a total and enforceable ban. Even then the results would likely be small and not seen at all for years. But if just making a gun purchase a tiny bit less convenient is enough to make a political speech great. Good for you. You've done nothing and scored yourself some points from the liberal base. Bravo. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 I could probably list some draconian measures that would actually work but liberals would freak out over. Probably conservatives too. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 It's similar with the gay "marriage" thing. Civil unions were the answer, but the left refused to accept that. sorry gramps, you don't get to rewrite history to suit your current narrative. Time for a coat check. Civil unions were what the left was offering as a fair compromise in the 80's and 90's. It was refused by the right because it too closely resembled actual marriage. They said, you mean they get all the rights and benefits we do just without the name? A pox on those fgts. I called this in the early 90's that if they didn't give em civil unions eventually they were just gonna get marriage. I distinctly remember guys like the good rev Robertson on his stupid little show railing civil unions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 I have a question for those of you who support more gun control. Which criteria would you change in the registration process? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 sorry gramps, you don't get to rewrite history to suit your current narrative. That's what we just got finished doing you insufferable idiot. I have no problem with gay marriage but I do have a problem with idiots like you who make everyone who supports gay marriage look idiotic. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 That's what we just got finished doing you insufferable idiot. I have no problem with gay marriage but I do have a problem with idiots like you who make everyone who supports gay marriage look idiotic. WSS who's "we"? You say "we" just got finished rewriting history. I have no idea what you're talking about. My point about conservatives having zero tolerance for civil unions back in the 80's and 90's is 100% factual. To suggest now that conservatives were the ones who suggested civil unions is pure rubbish and indicative of profoundly disturbed minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 We, dunce,the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Whether we agreed or not, it's still we. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 I was fine with civil unions, most of us were, you moron. You really don't understand much, butt of the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 I have a question for those of you who support more gun control. Which criteria would you change in the registration process? I'm interested as well. Let's hear it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 I was fine with civil unions, most of us were, you moron. You really don't understand much, butt of the board. Lie. I'll take you at your word that "you" were fine with civil unions....but most of you were absolutely not you old codge. Cause if you were, civil unions would have been adopted nationwide. The ONLY opposition to civil unions carrying the same economical and health rights as marriage came from where Cal? Green men from mars? Was it those guys? "Why if not for martian interference we would have gladly and warmly welcomed homosexuals and their partnerships built on solid foundations into the folds of our society". Unpredictable martians though huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clevfan4life Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 We, dunce,the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Whether we agreed or not, it's still we. WSS Maybe this is why you don't jump into arguments mid stream, cause the danger is you clamor off cluelessly not knowing exactly what the other two were going on about. You don't understand the comment I made about rewriting history so, I dunno, just stop or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted August 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 Lie. I'll take you at your word that "you" were fine with civil unions....but most of you were absolutely not you old codge. Cause if you were, civil unions would have been adopted nationwide. The ONLY opposition to civil unions carrying the same economical and health rights as marriage came from where Cal? Green men from mars? Was it those guys? "Why if not for martian interference we would have gladly and warmly welcomed homosexuals and their partnerships built on solid foundations into the folds of our society". Unpredictable martians though huh? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKDnp97rTI4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted August 27, 2015 Report Share Posted August 27, 2015 I'm interested as well. Let's hear it. Not about background checks, although I'm sure a case could be made for precluding mentally ill and those with a history of violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.