6 Reasons Your Right-Wing Friend Isnt Coming To Your Side On Gun Control

[Baconator]

"There are several reasons Second Amendment advocates aren’t running to your side of the argument, and it might not be the ones you think."

http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/06/6-reasons-right-wing-friend-isnt-coming-side-gun-control/

1. We Rarely Get to Come to the Conversation in Good Faith

2. The ‘Blood on Their Hands’ Attacks Are Offensive

3. The Loudest Voices Are Often the Most Ignorant

4. The Most Prominent Policy Ideas Have Nothing to Do With the Tragedy

5. We Seriously Don’t Care About Gun Laws in Other Countries

6. We Really Do Consider Owning Firearms a Right

________________________________________

I always find it helpful to look at a problem from all sides. Very few folks see themselves as the enemy.

Author, source etc... all on the other side of the spectrum but in the end the question should be "Do we want to fight?" or "Do we want results? If so, what are those...?"

Working with some good faith could go a long ways...

edit: Added the 6 Reasons. More at the article...

[Iggo]

1. Fuck 'em. Don't care.

[Baconator]

6. I guess we can safely put you in the "Just want to fight" category...

[Iggo]

9. Nope.

Just want their guns.

[Baconator]

13. Same difference...

[fallout87]

95. You volunteering to go door to door?

[wasupaloopa]

12. There is nothing to fight about. Kids are getting murdered in schools. If they need me to kiss

their asses for them to care they aren't worth the time.

[Baconator]

15. How do you expect to get from A to B (whatever that is)...

... without some semblance of negotiation.

Short of dictatorial fiat...

[Cary]

20. You are dealing here with a Republican party that doesn't negotiate

I once thought them to be perhaps misguided ideologues. No more.

They are venal and craven. The only language they will understand is a crushing defeat.

[Baconator]

25. Have you read "How Democracies Die"?

It's relatively new so maybe not. In any case, I encourage you to give it a read (or a listen).

The authors make a compelling case for why the race to the bottom in conduct and alliances etc... is a surefire way to erode our institutions and nation even more.

Link: http://a.co/1L2nwTi

[Cary]

71. What's your point?

Please tell me you're not trying to feed me some variant of "both sides do it."

[brush]

102. We're not dealing the repugs of the 80s, even the 90s. Were you paying attention at all since 2000?

They don't negotiate. It's their way or the proverbial highway.

They preemptively bombed and invaded Iraq and ignored that the Saudis funded the twin tower bombers despite all the protests in the streets.

Look how they said no for 8 years under Obama, even stole a SCOTUS seat instead of yielding an inch.

Look at them now on the tax scam and DACA.

They are the ones who won't negotiate.

They are vile, selfish, cheating, don't give a shit about kids getting killed, it's too early to talk about gun control, ass kissers of the rich a-holes.

You need to be criticizing them.

[Alpeduez21]

158. "You are dealing here with a Republican party that doesn't negotiate"

People need to fully appreciate the ramifications of this statement. One of the smartest assessments of Repukes that cannot be repeated enough.

[Cary]

161. The ramification is that it's a waste of time to negotiate with them

When you compromise you just move the bar toward their extreme.

[Quixote1818]

99. This is the only way to deal with this problem with Republicans

&t=191s

[Honeycombe8]

79. +1. nt

[lostnfound]

128. Your article contained ZERO strategies for reducing massacres. Not my problem?

And that’s the problem. Regulate yourselves, if you don’t like the approach from the other side.
Take responsibility for the consequences of your favorite pastime / hobby / obsession.

[smirkymonkey]

38. I agree. At this point, I could give a flying fuck about what they want.

It's time for the hammer to come down.

[stopbush]

69. Bingo. Fuck em.

[shenmue]

2. Not true

[WhiskeyGrinder]

3. I thought this was an important article when I saw it earlier this morning.

I've been having productive conversations with my friends who own more guns than me and consider themselves gun rights activists. There is common ground -- but approaching it with name-calling and bad-faith asides will get all of us nowhere.

[sharedvalues]

35. If you read the Federalist you are not a Democrat

The Federalist is right wing propaganda.

If you “saw this article earlier this morning “, you should re-evaluate your news sources. Because the billionaires that control the Federalist are doing their damndest to hit you with identity politics to get votes for the wealthy.


Read them if you want. But don’t you dare come here and present a Federalist article as some kind of news, without noting its well known Koch-induced, pro-NRA, heavy bias.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

48. No true Scotsman, eh?

No value in seeing how the other side thinks? No value in listening to a thoughtful and educated friend who is also an ideological opposite, to test his argument and look for weaknesses? Which is how I came across the article -- it originally ran last October, but I didn't see it until this morning when my friend posted it on FB. Thanks for the warning, I guess -- unneeded, but acknowledged, anyway.

[sharedvalues]

51. Federalist is billionaire-funded propaganda

And you didn’t read my post.

As I said in the post you replied to:
Feel free to read the Federalist. But don’t you dare come here and post articles from there pretending to take them seriously. They’re propaganda, and your post took them seriously.

[Sherman A1]

80. The source is inconsequential

there are valid points to be considered within the post and I thank the OP for sharing them. Being less than appreciative of the effort is a reflection of closed mindedness. We as a society can and must find a means to discuss this topic in an open means without being threatening to either side or there will be no progress.

[Honeycombe8]

85. I was unfamiliar w/The Federalist, so just took a look. It's not a legit source.

All the contributors are right wing, with past work for Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, The Daily Caller, etc.

So there's no way to know if those "opinions" cited in the article are even real opinions. The whole site is partisan and written to appeal to a certain group.

They way to cite sources for genuine discussions about the topic is to cite legit news sources, IMO. CNN, ABC, NBC, PBS, etc. They are news orgs and try to be objective and factual.

I don't believe, either, that the reasons listed in the article would make any difference to the 2nd Amendment people. I have some in my family. There is nothing the Dems can say that will ever convince them to give up anything regarding guns. They view it as a slippery slope that will lead to taking away all guns. They don't trust the government of "liberals." Pretty much the same way we'd view taking away part of something we treasure. Even if we would agree that that one step isn't unreasonable, we'd pretty much think it's a slippery slope on the way to taking away the whole thing.

When the local ammo shops can out of ammo after one of the mass shootings a while back (there was a run on guns and ammo, 2nd Am people thinking that their guns would be taken away), the local ammo shops ran out of ammo. Of course that was because there had been a run on ammo. The stores couldn't get more in, in time to satisfy the hordes. But my relatives thought the government had prevented the ammo from being shipped. That's how bad it is.

[Cosmocat]

148. Name one time when ANYONE has called for the right to "have an open discussion"

The only way to have a "discussion" with entrenched right wingers on most any topic, and in specific this topic, is to relentlessly treat them with kid gloves, turn the other cheek when they spew their ad hominem's, fight back your gag reflex when they get all snowflakey balling about simple statement of facts that they experience as mortal personal ad hominem attacks, repressing the internal drive to smash your head off the wall over their desperate attachment to the alliterative reality they live in, before finding the "middle ground" of a single half measure they don't carry through on.

Hey - if you can do it, great.

But, the only way to dig out of this is to accept that 40% of the country is walking dead gone, to fight the battle to get our team united, and try to get the mushy middle engaged ...

[Sherman A1]

159. I believe that we

will disagree with our interpretation of the information. If you believe that the discussion should not take place or that you are the only one who holds the truth, I would suggest that it is perhaps better to wish you good luck.

[Squinch]

151. Have we learned nothing? The source is ALWAYS consequential.

[Sherman A1]

160. We have learned a significant amount of things but perhaps

We can still learn more from a variety of sources offering different views, methods and opinions, unless you have already completed all the learning that there is to find. If that is the case please share a solution that respects all viewpoints and is one that can actually be implemented.

[Squinch]

162. I have, indeed, completed all the learning that there is to find from trollish sites like

the Federalist. So have you.

We can respect others' viewpoints without supporting that shit.

Their headline now is how the Russian bots are all just a liberal conspiracy theory and it's Adam Schiff's fault.

Do you respect that viewpoint? Do you have things to learn from that?

[Honeycombe8]

81. I've never read it, but it's been my observation....

that well read people, esp educated people, read a broad spectrum of material. This is a problem with the Repubs.

I'm going to check it out and see how bad it is.

[GulfCoast66]

4. I am an advocate of the 2nd amendment that also believes in gun control

Those are not mutually exclusive positions.

[xmas74]

115. Exactly.

I don't own guns but growing up rural I've fired plenty. Target practice on a friend's farm with a few beers was entertainment on a boring Saturday. And I've had more than my fair share of deer jerky, wild turkey roast and venison chili.

There is no reason why someone can't be pro 2A and pro gun control. They are not exclusive. Responsible owners know and understand this.

[Cary]

5. What do you find helpful there?

Sounds to me like 6 lame excuses to do nothing.

In fact I was undecided on guns, and these excuses have driven me into the gun control camp.

[Baconator]

8. Uh huh... Just now...? This very moment?

Interesting...

[Cary]

16. What if it was?

I didn't say that, but I fail to see why that would matter.

In fact the past few massacres have convinced me. Why is that a surprise?

How about answering my question?

[Baconator]

21. I did in the OP...

I think it's beneficial to understand the perspective of the other side...

To acknowledge that most of these people are decent folks who see things differently but aren't bloodthirsty monsters gleefully lubricating their bolt action with the blood of the fallen.

In short, to act like a grown-up and work to identify what a reasonable goal is and how to get there instead of just spitting venom and accomplishing nothing.

[Cary]

24. I see

And how many guns always and everywhere types have you converted?

[Baconator]

26. If your goal is for your opponent to just give up and think like you do...

... then I suspect you'll be in for a disappointment.

[Cary]

45. My goal?

Help me out here. I am getting all of these suggestions, like yours, that I am somehow responsible for others. I'm supposed to have an agenda wherein I change people.

My goal is to find facts and truth. My agenda is me, myself and I.

It is irrational to think I can change anyone. Let's use you, and this discussion, for example. I stated my belief that those 6 excuses were nothing but excuses. I made a compelling factual argument but did I change you?

No, you kept insisting that I have some duty or obligation to suffer fools.

Our children are being murdered in their classrooms. If that doesn't compel them, nothing will.

[Baconator]

130. You claim that you aren't responsible for others...

... but seem to be suggesting that all gun owners are responsible for the acts of a statistically small subgroup of owners as a whole.

[Motownman78]

28. About 15 here

Emotional Demagoguery is the domain of the Tea-baggers.

[Cary]

42. About 15 what?

[Caliman73]

138. The perspective of the other side is that they have already given up too much.

They are entrenched and see themselves as having given up too many of their freedoms already.

I know this because I have owned firearms and have been on the forums. Even the forums of liberal people who own firearms have the same arguments about "always having to give ground".

The reality is that Yes, there are many things that can and should be done to reduce violence in general and gun violence in particular, and most of those things are progressive in nature.

The other reality is that there is a "gun culture" that is kind of creepy. When people take pictures of their guns, and talk about them like they were animate objects, and express "love" for them like they would a family member. It is a weird thing.


I do agree about the name calling and straight insults. They are not helpful, but we are talking about people being killed in mass shootings with more regularity and there is rarely any kind of actual policy solution that is stated by the pro-gun side.

[sharedvalues]

41. Yes, Federalist, who funds you?? Even conservatives question this pub

John Schindler is a hard core conservative. He’s wirtten for the Federalist, and even HE has started calling them out for their propaganda.

Link to tweet

?s=20

[wasupaloopa]

7. Kids arendying in scholl and we have to coddle gun owners? Fuck that!

[Iggo]

10. The same way we have to coddle racists and misogynists.

See?

[Decoy of Fenris]

11. Pretty accurate article.

One of the reasons I don't consider myself part of the "Gun control" side is because of the extremist loons that frequently dominate the fringe of that movement. The "ban all guns" whackjobs, the lack of understanding of Constitutional matters, and the nonstop penis jokes get old quickly.

This article isn't just about the Right-Wing; there are quite a few on the left who wouldn't consider the gun control side our allies, even though we share the same end goals in most cases.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

30. I'm embarrassed sometimes when I'm at party meetings at the rhetoric and disinformation that I

hear. It's frustrating.

[sharedvalues]

33. The Federalist is pure propaganda

They refuse to disclose their donors. Like much right wing propaganda they are subsidized by billionaires.

It is clear GOP billionaires donate to the Federalist. It is speculated that the NRA or even foreign powers donate to the Federalist to sow division and hate in America (see John Schindler’s timeline)

[Decoy of Fenris]

64. Yes, Federalist is a right-wing rag. That doesn't mean everything they say is inherently false.

The source can be one hundred percent right wing and their argument can still be valid. Regardless of the source, the article makes several points that are valid and worth considering. Just look in this thread; "Losers." "Fuck 'em." "Racists." "Cowards." "Lame." "Gun owners love dead children." Penis jokes. There have even been posts, on this board, which state deathwishes and maiming on all gun owners, right wing or not.

That's fine and dandy, people have the right to say what they want within reason here, but those insults are directed not just at Republicans, but gun-owning Democrats. As I mentioned in another thread, gun control proponents are often their own worst enemy, and have probably sold more guns through their rhetoric than any pro-gun lobbying firm.

[sharedvalues]

67. No. It means what they say is propaganda.

What they say is designed to mislead. This article is designed to persuade Democrats to despair. That’s why they published it.


The center and left in America haven’t figured out that the right wing media is nothing like the normal media. The right wing media seeks to lie and persuade - not inform. The goal of the right is to destroy a real free and honest press. They want propaganda only. And the Federalist is one of the worst offenders. As Democrats who care about the truth and want to make America better, we have to grapple with the truth that the right wing media — and the Federalist — wants to destroy free and open debate in the United States.

IF we MUST quote something from a right wing propaganda source it is incumbent upon us to note clearly that the source is biased and wishes to do liberals harm.

[Decoy of Fenris]

72. Even propaganda can be correct.

In many ways, the best propaganda is that which is true, just spun in a certain way. In this article's case, I (and others, apparently) also find truth in what it says. The gun control side -does- have a problem in message delivery, alienating what would otherwise be allies, as does any side of any group whose argument immediately devolves to "fuck you" and "tiny penis." I've seen better arguments from elementary school students.


All BS and propaganda-spin aside, the RKBA side has, in some ways, also been on the side of gun control. The division isn't over end-game objectives (Reducing overall suicides, violence, mass shootings), but methodology. The RKBA side thinks the problems are far deeper than just "guns", while the GC side thinks the issue is -only- guns. It's not an issue of left-v-right, but of solutions that are almost diametrically opposed to one another.

[sharedvalues]

74. Yes. Thats why you note the sources bias

You know the Federalist is trying to hurt the country and Democrats. So why give them the time of day?

If we’re going to take this country back from the billionaires, we’re going to have to start paying VERY close attention to who funds information sources.

[Skittles]

14. 7) their cowardice trumps all sense

FUCK THEM

[dweller]

43. and 8) they have teeny weeny tiny

hair triggers ...

[Skittles]

44. dead children don't bother them

but they HATE it when you question their precious masculinity

that tells us everything we need to know about them

[Squinch]

17. LOL. That's just 6 different ways of saying what they've always said: "Your thousands of dead

kids don't trump my hobby." And: "We couldn't give a shit about your thousands of dead kids."

[KPN]

18. Nothing new in any of that. I do agree

that calling morons morons generally isn't an effective persuasive technique, but aside from that, nothing in that list strikes me as reasonable, some points are incorrect and/or false, and the one about our lack of real gun knowledge is an insulting red-herring. I'll fight if that's the best they've got.

Oh, and regarding 2nd Amendment Rights, all rights are not equal; the right of any living person to life trumps all others in my and in most others' view.

[sharedvalues]

34. Yup. Propaganda. Schindler: Federalist less subtle than RT or Sputnik

https://demu.gr/100210077835

[Hoyt]

19. Screw these worthless killers and those who support them vocally or tacitly.

http://c-8oqtgrjgwu46x24kocigux2eogfkecnfcknax2eeqo.g00.medicaldaily.com/g00/3_c-8yyy.ogfkecnfckna.eqo_/c-8OQTGRJGWU46x24jvvrx3ax2fx2fkocigu.ogfkecnfckna.eqox2fukvgux2fogfkecnfckna.eqox2fhkngux2fuvangux2fhwnn_dtgcmrqkpvu_vjgog_ogfkecnfckna_fgumvqr_3zx2frwdnkex2f4235x2f32x2f53x2fiwpujqy.lrix3fk32e.octmx3dogfkc_$/$/$/$/$/$/$/$/$/$/$



Racism In White Americans Linked To Gun Ownership And Gun Control Opposition
http://www.medicaldaily.com/racism-white-americans-linked-gun-ownership-and-gun-control-opposition-261618



?zoom=2


?w=300&h=195

[AncientGeezer]

37. You constantly post the same few pictures....while you

know it's not just a "white" issue. It's a sick f'er issue.
J.A. Muhammad and L.B. Malvo ring a bell?
Nadal Hasan.
Cho Seung-hui

[Hoyt]

55. Well, glad you are over here from Discussionist to see them.

[AncientGeezer]

66. That's some sad deflection....

[tenderfoot]

88. Here...

"know it's not just a "white" issue. It's a sick f'er issue."


It's a sick f'er with easy access to guns issue.

[Leith]

119. Tell Ya What, OldGeezer

When gun humpers can come up with something better than "arm everybody - an armed society is a polite society." there can be a conversation.

Until then, your side is slaughtering people everywhere. Then gun loving snowflakes act all butthurt that "we don't understand, we're lumping you into one category, you don't know what you're talking about, blah blah blah."

What's to understand? I'm not an automotive engineer, but I can still have opinions on automotive safety. One doesn't have to be a professional meatcutter to want fresh, non-diseased meat in the grocery store. Even those who are not meteorologists are allowed to want clean air to breathe.

Funny how reichwingers scorn knowledge in areas like environment, medicine, politics, and even common courtesy when they form their opinions, but demand expertise in firearms from those who don't want to be shot dead by the latest gun humper who got pissed off by something or another.

Go back the the shithole known as Discussionist. Giggle with your fellow ignorati on how you really put the DUers in their place. I left that place after it was shut down for a reason. Don't bring your garbage here. Keep it in your own playpen that liberals set up for you to play in.

[Hoyt]

164. +10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 and then some.

[AncientGeezer]

187. Interesting....I just pointed out Hoyt's fallacy...the racial 1 he CONSTANTLY

pushes with a few select pictures. I asked about those that don't fall in his narrow, I'll call racist view of mass/serial killers.
Can you dispute it or do you just go on a tirade about where people can post?
Should be an easy question to answer.
Keep in mind Hoyt used to be a prolific poster on the joint you want me to post on....he made several sock accts when his vitriol crossed lines...that's on him.

Can you show me incorrect....I'll give it a try if you'd like.

[Leith]

189. Of Course I Dispute Your Assertion

We all know that mass/serial killers in the US are overwhelmingly white males. Well, brainwashed reichwingers dispute it with the exceptions that prove the rule like you just did. You are invited to prove the opposite. I'm not going to try to prove your beliefs for you.

Your ad hominem attack against Hoyt has been noted. I used to be a prolific poster on DI until it was temporarily shut down when DU was attacked. I decided not to return to posting in your toxic swamp after that. The vitriol you mentioned comes from the reichwingers against liberals so much more than anything Hoyt has ever come up with. That goes double for ignorance and cultlike behavior. When your side does something to rein in shkrelli, TinEar, and joefriday, you can fault us for not silencing ours.

This is a liberal message board. You are free to post facist and racist crap on DI. Skinner set it up so that cons can post for free without coming here to spread their filth.

[AncientGeezer]

190. What "...facist and racist crap..." have I EVER posted here?

Pointing out the DC snipers?
Pointing out the San Bernadino freaks?
Pointing out the Ft. Hood shooter?
How about Boston?
Pulse night club?

Fascist and racist....you can't even correctly spell Fascist.
"Your ad hominem attack against Hoyt...." that's just silly on it's face.
You can't source an ad hom "attack"....certainly NOT by me pointing out a FACT.

[smirkymonkey]

40. Just look at these losers!

We are letting THEM tell us what matters? Fuck them all!

[rpannier]

54. Your argument seems to be lumping every gun owner and supporter into the same bin

It's no wonder some of us cannot talk to gun owners and non-gun owners who are not on your side

[Squinch]

56. At this point, unless you are supporting gun control, you ARE in the same bin.

[Hoyt]

58. Exactly. It's like a trump supporter claiming they aren't racist. If you tolerate

it, you "is" one.

[Squinch]

61. I'd also kind of like to know: what is a "gun supporter." Is that like the ladies

auxiliary of domestic slaughter?

[rpannier]

60. Give your definition of gun control please

Part of the problem in talking to supporters of guns is that there seems to be no consensus on what gun control means
There are those who merely support stricter rules on purchasing guns all the way to those who feel no one should be able to own a gun
So, what do you mean when you say gun control? Because that statement covers a lot of territory depending on whom the speaker is.

[Squinch]

63. Stop that NRA bullshit. There is plenty of consensus. There are many measures that huge majorities

of the country support. They have been listed here umpteen times, so if you really don't know what they are, I encourage you to google.

Forgive me if I don't list those measures for you, but asking for the list is something all the gun humpers do so they can get the conversation around to, "There is nothing you can do about this, nothing will work, all kneel to me and my well-humped gun!" I really have no time for that bullshit any more. My gun humper bingo card is full.

Not that YOU would do that, mind you.

[rpannier]

90. I want to know what you think

Oh... and since I do NOT buy into the, "There's nothing you can do argument." your level of vitriol and outrage is wasted -- might want to save your anger for someone who actually does think that.

Considering I am a supporter of heightened background checks, of limiting access to certain weapons (like automatic weapons), that I can spout chapter and verse about Britain banning handguns after a school shooting and school shootings stopped in Britain (hence there is something that can be done) and I presently live in a very polite country with very strict gun control laws and travel to places that have very strict gun control laws and are very polite, like Japan. Ergo the 'armed society is a polite society' is incorrect. Oh... and for years the most heavily armed place on earth was Waziristan in Pakistan and it was one of the most dangerous places on the planet.

But see, I am able to explain (rationally) to those who disagree with me and... I have gotten more than ten people to agree with me.

[Squinch]

92. Really, not interested in having these NRA inspired list discussions. They always end up

in the same place, and they serve no purpose. But if that is your definition of rational, have at it. With someone else. PS, my anger is well earned and I know the tells when I see them.

[Marengo]

186. What is this list you are referring to? Something published by the NRA, something you can link...

Or cite?

[Hoyt]

57. Pretty much. Support guns, one supports these losers and mass killers, nowadays.

[AncientGeezer]

68. I wonder if POTUS agrees w/you

[Hoyt]

73. Most folks, even your buddies on the Discussionist, know where he stands

on the kind of guns that turn you guys on.

[AncientGeezer]

75. I'm a big fan of the over under President Obama is shooting...I have 1

Almost the exact same shotgun.

[Squinch]

82. Does that make you feel special?

[Hoyt]

87. Cracks me up when gun-fanciers think their guns actually impress anyone. Just the opposite here.

[Squinch]

89. I think it's more of a three-year-old-esque attempt to bug the people he's talking to.

Along the lines of "If it bothers you, I'll do it."

Seems a requisite attitude for those who want to block gun control when speaking to those who want gun control.

[AncientGeezer]

188. I'd say it's more...if it's a false claim it needs to be addressed..Hoyt is good

at posting stuff that needs correction.

[Squinch]

195. So you're saying it does make you feel special or it doesn't?

[AncientGeezer]

196. Me special....hell no. Just pointing out fallacies doesn't make me special...makes me honest.

[AncientGeezer]

200. Well...per you

"Hoyt (32,780 posts)
43. As a former robber, I locked the door to keep people out, especially police."

You are the reason some want to be armed

[Baconator]

201. Well that settles that..

Criminy...

[Marengo]

76. Whats the issue with the Lahti L39?

[Hoyt]

86. Nothing wrong with an anti-tank gun in a war zone. This is not a war zone, Marengo, in case you

haven't noticed.

Hows about confederate flag waving, racist gun-humpers?

[Marengo]

94. Its an NFA weapon. Expensive, extensive background check for the buyer, and above all registered.

Not to mention large, heavy, and impossible to conceal. How often have Lahtis and similar weapons been used in crime in the USA?

[Hoyt]

96. Who cares? The guy is a racist getting off on a big rifle. That crud fuels the friggin white wing

gun culture.

[Marengo]

123. So what? Non of that is relevant to the fact that a Lahti L39 legal to own following the...

Registration procedure as required by law.

[Hoyt]

124. Lots of things are legal, but deplorable and immoral. Gunner racism may be OK

with you, after all most, with a few exceptions, gunners are white wing racists. But it’s not OK with me. Gunners are also quite selfish, thinking of themselves rather than society.

[Marengo]

127. Robbery is immoral and selfish, but that didnt stop you.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=45338

[Hoyt]

139. You are too obtuse to own guns. Read the thread in full, without pointing

at each word while mouthing it.

[Marengo]

146. Obtuse is failing to comprehend that after having admitted to committing immoral and criminal...

acts of robbery, any judgement from you of the morality of persons who own legally possessable models of firearms is laughable.

[Squinch]

150. OOOOH! You're getting fancy! That's the "but what about the bad thing YOU did that has

nothing to do with this discussion?" page of the NRA script! Wow! That one is WAY toward the back of the script! I'm impressed!

[Marengo]

152. Leaping to the defense of an admitted criminal who chastises others for being immoral? Ill...

Enjoy watching your credibility disappear beneath the waves just as Hoyt’s has.

[Squinch]

153. Oh. My. God! We have a CHAMPION here! That's the "I unilaterally declare you

not credible for no particular reason but in very forceful terms!" gambit!

Wow. You did the PhD NRA script program, didn't you? What was your thesis? I can only imagine.

[Marengo]

166. Hey, its no bother to me if want to damage your credibility by hitching your horse to that wagon.

Is this script nonsense the only play in your book?

[Squinch]

169. LOL! And now you are reduced to, "I know you are but what am I?"

[Marengo]

173. As I said, its your credibility at stake. So please, do continue.

[Squinch]

175. .

[Hoyt]

165. Didn't admit to being a criminal, tried to get you gunners to accept fact everyone is not out to

kill you, so don't go blasting away with your concealed weapon. Like I said, you were too obtuse to get it.

BTW, about half the gunners on that old thread have been booted from DU for spreading right wing BS.

[Marengo]

167. Yes you did. You refered to yourself as a former robber. Unless robbery isnt a crime, that means...

You have a criminal history.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=45338

[Squinch]

171. Wow! You've been stalking him since 2012?? That's not creepy at all.

(if you are as crazy as a rat in a wine vat, that is..)

I guess that's what deep pockets get you though.

[Marengo]

172. Interesting thats what you focus on rather than the point that an admitted criminal has no...

Credibility chastising others for immortality when engaging in a legal activity.

[Squinch]

174. "I've gotten myself into a corner on that gun discussion we were having, so I'll

point OVER THERE and allege, with pretty much no evidence, that HE DID SOMETHING WRONG that has nothing to do with this gun discussion. But look over there at that thing he did wrong!!!!1!"

Keep going. I almost have BINGO.

And really: 2012? That's disturbing.

[Marengo]

177. He admitted to it, if you didnt notice. Do you consider robbery a moral act?

[Squinch]

179. Back to the silly rhetorical question! I HAVE BINGO!!!

[Marengo]

182. What you have is someone, myself, who finds it curious you would so quickly and consistently...

Come to the defense of another who has admitted to immoral and illegal acts. Criminal acts he has never expressed any remorse or regret for. What does that say about you?

[Squinch]

184. Oh, sweetie, I know you worked hard for this, memorizing the script and everything.

But we already have a winner.

We DO, however, have some lovely parting gifts for you. A Lactona toothbrush! And a case of tuna, if I'm not mistaken!

Maybe next time.

[Marengo]

185. What is this script argument you keep resorting to? What are you claiming is scripted, and...

What is the relation to the NRA?

[Marengo]

180. What corner would that be?

[AncientGeezer]

203. You certainly did...admit to being a criminal...shall I quote YOU?

Ok....
"Hoyt (32,780 posts)
43. As a former robber, I locked the door to keep people out, especially police."

[Hoyt]

206. Responding to you gunners who said robbers lock doors when they are going

massacre everyone. I simply pointed out that you guys are wrong, except you and Mango are too _____ to get it.

I don't remember you guys on that thread, at least posting under your current user name. A bunch of those folks were booted from DU and now post on Discussionist, a couple using confederate flag avatars.

In any event, tell us about your gunz.

[AncientGeezer]

217. I wouldn't trigger you by posting about my "gunz"

You did post as I quoted you above....you can't erase the web dude.
You also can't show me EVER posting a Confederate flag....EVER.

[Hoyt]

218. You and your Discussionist buddies cant erase the context either.

[AncientGeezer]

222. Again a Hoyt fallacy...I don't have di "buddies". You can't link your claim either.

Try....no, really try. This should be amusing.
I'll keep an eye out for the lit yellow "my post" box when you find ONE example.

[Leith]

22. Same Old Lame Talking Points

The first two arguments are "you hurt my feewings!" The third is "you don't even know enough about guns" to talk to me. Fourth is "your ideas won't do any good anyway." The last two can be summed up as "2A!"

The author's closing words:

If you’re really looking to win over your gun-loving friend, try reading up on firearms, dumping anti-NRA talking points, and assume he or she is equally committed to preventing these evil acts.

I could say the same for the anti-science idiots in charge of everything based in science in this country: figure out what the hell you are talking about because it sure isn't anything that has to do with medicine, the environment, etc.

What is missing is glaringly obvious: pro-gun advocates have come up with absolutely nothing to reduce gun violence in the US. They are so quick to fall back on their tired excuses that they forgot to give a single thought to working toward a workable solution.

Until they take a step or two in our direction, they can shut the fuck up about our ideas.

[Motownman78]

29. Like I said above

Emotional Demagoguery is the domain of the Tea-baggers.

[treestar]

107. All we need to know about guns is that they kill people

It is BS that we need to know all the details. And some kill more people faster than others. When we try to let them have their guns except for the ones that spit bullets out faster, they immediately start talking about details about guns and crow that we don't know about it. We don't care. They spit out bullets that can kill people.

[LexVegas]

23. ....

[samir.g]

27. I'm sorry that I offended a bunch of bloody-handed, racist cowards

There, now let's move forward and disarm these goons.

[Marengo]

77. All gun owners are bloody-handed, racist cowards?

[samir.g]

78. I'll allow that there may be a small minority that aren't.

In the spirit of dialogue and compromise.

[Marengo]

103. How about the gun owners here on DU, are they exempt? All, or just some?

[samir.g]

133. You'll have to ask them why they love the same murder machines as the fascists

Maybe it's just a coincidence.

[Marengo]

136. All gun owners love murder machines? Would you define murder machine?

[Squinch]

142. Bwahahahaha!!!! There you go again! That's page 4 of the script, right?

You guys are hilarious!!!

[Marengo]

168. Perhaps you can offer an opinion, if youre capable of anything other than this script nonsense.

[Squinch]

170. Did you not get the part where I said it would be a waste of my time to offer you an opinion?

This is taking a long time to get through, isn't it?

[Marengo]

176. Rubbish, youve wasted considerably more time dodging the question. Why is that? Its odd and

Suspect

[Squinch]

178. Seriously, this is the most fun I've had with one of you guys in a long time. I've found

the secret.

If you don't follow the script, you are lost! rofl:

[Marengo]

181. You guys? What do you mean by that?

[AncientGeezer]

198. You have a better chance of being hit by lightning than getting an answer

I've asked the same question and been called a "facist"...person can't spell fascist but called me 1.

[Marengo]

209. Agreed. A classic one trick pony, that one. It seems to regard itself as clever, but I see no...

Evidence of that. As if the NRA script accusation is anything other than a script itself, a meaningless and cliched one at that.

[Marengo]

207. What do you mean by you guys? Where is this script you keep referring to? Have a link or cite?

[Wednesdays]

205. Something they apparently don't have in abundance in most civilized countries. nt

[Marengo]

208. Can you provide more details? What characteristics distinguish a murder machine from other firearms?

[Squinch]

83. All those trolling against, speaking against, working in any way against sensible gun control

are bloody-handed racist cowards.

[Marengo]

104. Can you define sensible gun control?

[Squinch]

108. Seriously, you guys need to vary the script now and then.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10259528

[Marengo]

116. Sensible is entirely subjective, and your refusal to answer is interesting, perhaps even a bit...

Suspect.

[Squinch]

132. Suspect away. Your script is obvious. And really, really old.

[Marengo]

134. Why cant you express at least some of your ideas? Are they that controversial or extreme? Its not..

As if you don’t have the time. Speaking of scripted, the phrase “sensible gun control” is cliched and effectively meaningless.

[Squinch]

140. You really can't handle the script being taken away from you, can you?

[Marengo]

144. I find it extremely odd that you expect absolute agreement with a position you are unwilling or...

Incapable of articulating in any detail. It seems in fact you have expended a great deal of effort to avoid answering. I’m left to wonder why.

[Squinch]

147. When did I ever ask YOU for any agreement, much less absolute agreement? YOUR agreement

is certainly not something anyone who wants gun control would expect or want.

Wonder away. It seems all you are capable of doing when a person who dislikes the slaughter of children does not follow that NRA script.

[Marengo]

154. Again, very odd you spend all this effort deflecting and avoiding answering a simple question.

Leaves me to wonder what you may be hiding.

[Squinch]

155. LOL! You can't think of anything else, can you? Lost like a little lamb in the woods!

[AncientGeezer]

199. I'm not a lamb...shall we visit posts made here.

Hoyt (32,780 posts)
43. As a former robber, I locked the door to keep people out, especially police.

[Marengo]

183. What is this script you keep referring to, and what is the relation to the NRA?

[KT2000]

31. A lot of it is high school

clique behavior. Peers would consider them wimpy. Gun control is considered feminine and weapons are considered manly.

Let's face it - there is no argument that will bring them to our side because they love their guns more than anything else.

[Squinch]

70. I will disagree with you on one point. They LIKE their guns. They LOVE that we hate their guns.

They don't think about the slaughter. They think about the fact that the slaughter breaks our hearts and makes us furious. And they LOVE that.

[KT2000]

93. excellent point! n/t

[MountCleaners]

137. I've found that I get further with them...

...when I tell them I own a gun (I don't). What does that tell you about them? That if I have the ability to shut them up with my gun, they're less likely to argue. That legitimacy comes from being armed. It's social capital.

[sharedvalues]

32. Propaganda. _Federalist_ is propaganda paid for by Koches

Everything the Federalist writes is designed to harm Democrats and help GOP billionaire donors.

Here, their line is to sow despair and encourage us to give up.

We should not listen to a single word the Federalist writes.

[randr]

36. #7--They do not know the definition of "well regulated".

[LonePirate]

53. #8 - They care more about their guns than their kids.

[kacekwl]

59. This to me is the starting and the

stopping point when the 2nd amendment is discussed. The mere thought of a well regulated militia or any regulation or amendments to it will not be discussed. EVER in my experiences.

[kcr]

39. DU is not for peddling right wing garbage from places like The Federalist n/t

[Stargleamer]

46. This

[Kingofalldems]

47. Interesting post.

My first impression was right.

[sharedvalues]

49. Interesting- what do you mean?

[Kingofalldems]

50. Let's just say I didn't like it--or the source cited.

[sharedvalues]

52. Yup, agreed. And, Federalist is even worse...

Than the usual right wing propaganda. They have very secretive donors. We know Breitbart is entirely funded by billionaires: Mercers. We know Reason and Cato and Heritage are entirely funded by billionaires- Koches, etc. We know the NY Post and WSJ lose money and are funded by Murdoch. We know Wash Examiner and Free Beacon and Fox and right wing radio receive support and are controlled by American billionaires.

But who exactly funds the Federalist? It’s not clear. Perhaps the NRA sends dark money to them?

[Glamrock]

62. Fuck em.

Here's the thing. The country, as a whole is getting fed up. Get on board now with some of these ideas, or lose your rights. Every one of these massacres moves more minds to an all out gun ban.

[lunasun]

65. The Federalist ? more at the link ? Huh?

Did you want your OP to go down in flames by using an article from the Federalist ?

[tenderfoot]

84. The Blood on Their Hands Attacks Are Offensive

Aren't these the ones that scream "snowflake!" at every opportunity?

Plus, the "blood on their hands" thing applies to the NRA and politicians that take their money.

[Quixote1818]

98. I made the same point below about the blood on their hands argument.

Applies to politicians and the NRA.

[treestar]

106. +1

And they don't care about what happens in other countries? That proves they are in bad faith. They do not want to consider applicable examples, because it doesn't support them.

[Squinch]

110. It HAS applied only to the NRA before, but now, in my mind, it applies to anyone who

trolls against or speaks against or works against gun control. It applies to people in this thread.

And if that's offensive to them, too fucking bad. Those dead children are offensive to me, and those trolls are some of the voices that made that slaughter inevitable.

[bullwinkle428]

91. In the early 1960s, you could have written essentially the very same article, substituting

"civil rights" for "gun control".

[Quixote1818]

97. Let me shred each one

1. We Rarely Get to Come to the Conversation in Good Faith -

2. The ‘Blood on Their Hands’ Attacks Are Offensive - Not one time have I seen this argument made to a gun owner. It's always directed at the NRA and politicians.

3. The Loudest Voices Are Often the Most Ignorant - According to the even more ignorant

4. The Most Prominent Policy Ideas Have Nothing to Do With the Tragedy - Really? Background checks, closing loopholes, banning assault weapons, (grandfathered in like last time) banning extremely dangerous add ons, etc have nothing to do with the tragedy? Those are the arguments I see most of the time.

5. We Seriously Don’t Care About Gun Laws in Other Countries - That's because you are quite frankly stupid and close minded.

6. We Really Do Consider Owning Firearms a Right - Umm, no one is coming to take your guns. Straw-man argument! 99% of the time the argument does not include taking anyone's guns. In a perfect world yes that would be great but most people know that will never occur unless we want to see a million Ruby Ridges.

[Squinch]

109. Nicely done!

[Nevernose]

100. On the surface those are 6 thoughtful points

It's just that when I actually read the whole thing do I realize that 95% of it is just plain obfuscation and rationalization. It's an old tactic, perfected on the Internet(s) by the right wing: give it a title or title with reasonable-sounding concepts -- stuff that normal, honest people wouldn't disagree with. Then use those headlines to bury the bullshit underneath. Like when the article starts off with the premise that "killing babies is wrong." I'm gonna go out on a limb here and suggest that that position is one most people agree with. But then, a paragraph or two in, it starts to sink in (at least for discerning readers) that the baby killing they're referring to is "condoms."

1. We Rarely Get to Come to the Conversation in Good Faith
The entire article is in bad faith. At best, the article is simply preaching to the choir.

It is a true dehumanization of Second Amendment advocates to think that we didn’t see the events unfolding in Las Vegas and have the same ache deep in our souls...As hard as it may be to imagine, a person can watch this, ache, hurt, and be profoundly affected by these events and not change his or her position on the Second Amendment.

"Dehumanized?" Really? Like people with machine guns are poor, innocent victims and those of us who want to ban bumpstocks are motherfucking Pol Pot?

And no one doubts that you or other gun owners feel horrid watching these things unfurl on the television. That's where the disconnect is. You feel terrible, but you really don't care. If you did, you'd want to do something to prevent the next one. You're an abusive husband. You beat the shit out of your wife, and you really do feel terrible about it afterwards, but you don't care enough to make sure it never happens again.

Finally, if you're not willing to compromise, then you're the one not coming to the conversation in good faith.

(I omitted the middle portion, but y'all should read the original. A masterpiece of twisted persuasion.)

2. The ‘Blood on Their Hands’ Attacks Are Offensive

Maybe it's offensive, maybe it isn't. You spent that portion of the essay writing about how the NRA was gun owner's first line of defense, but the fucking NRA wasn't pro-gun enough for you because they were willing to discuss the possibility of preventing people on the no-fly list from buying AK-47s.

It's irrelevant anyway, because if your hobby frequently enables mass shootings, then you have blood on your hands. And you need to find a new hobby.

3. The Loudest Voices Are Often the Most Ignorant

It's gun nuts that confused and muddied the definition of "assault rifle" so much that the term is meaningless.

Your other bit of evidence was a HuffPo reporter once asked a question on Twitter, then publicly announced that his first guess was wrong. Clearly, a person totally unqualified to dig seventeen graves in Florida

4. The Most Prominent Policy Ideas Have Nothing to Do With the Tragedy

Which tragedy? This tragedy? That tragedy? The article seems to have been written after Las Vegas, so I'm assuming it was that tragedy.

All of which is irrelevant. The point isn't to stop the previous tragedy, it's to minimize the next one. If there's a less prominent policy idea that would be more effective, then stop writing shitty listicles for The Federalist and call your state representative.

5. We Seriously Don’t Care About Gun Laws in Other Countries

Then why can't y'all ever shut the fuck up about Switzerland?

6. We Really Do Consider Owning Firearms a Right

Okay. Sure. Your other rights are regulated, too. The word "regulated" even appears in the text of your right.

[world wide wally]

101. Just let me put it this way,,,

Fuck the NRA

[treestar]

105. #2 is kind of funny, since they call us "snowflakes"

and yet they are so sensitive! They can't take a little criticism!

Maybe we can give them 6 reasons we aren't going to their side.

[Baconator]

131. Criticism or insult...

Are you more or less likely to work with someone who gives rationed, reasoned and thoughtful criticism or someone who insults you with the broadest brush possible (must be racist, tiny penis etc...)

[Squinch]

141. Sorry. Really tired of this one. We're supposed to be sensitive to the feelings of these

idiots or the trolls will swarm us. But guess what: the gun culture IS racist, and most of those who have to own assault weapons because they feel the grocery store is a hotbed of danger ARE compensating for shortcomings.

[PA Democrat]

111. Their first point "We Rarely Get to Come to the Conversation in Good Faith "

The problem is that they have REFUSED to EVER have a "good faith" conversation. PERIOD. It's too early, blah blah, blah.

I call total bullshit.

But of course, I could have told you that based upon the source of the article.

[KG]

112. don't have any r.w. friends. and piss on the r/w's whiney justifications.

and piss on the federalist

[Baconator]

117. You have a screening application?

Sounds boring...

[xmas74]

113. There is no good faith for some.

I've had a few inform me that a few dead kids is the price we pay for freedom-and that freedom includes owning any type of weapon they can afford. I was informed that sacrifice has to be made to be free and it that sacrifice is my teenage daughter gunned down in school, so be it.

For some there are no negotiations. If you can look a scared mother in the eyes and say what was said-no humanity. For some, it's a "I've got mine, fuck you" mentality.

[hunter]

114. Fuck the second amendment.

It's of the same sick world that considered slaves three-fifths of a person.

Gun fetishes are disgusting.

[Downtown Hound]

118. Reason #7

He/she is a selfish idiot who values their right to fondle themselves with their gun more than children's lives.

[redstatebluegirl]

120. I totally don't care at this point.

Most of them will NEVER come to the table because they LOVE THEIR GUNS! I would agree with one thing, the loudest voices are the most ignorant, like the ones who are saying awful things about the young people from Parkland who are questioning why we still allow people to have assault weapons. Sorry, hang on to those if you want to. I'm tired of being nice to people who want to kill me at a concert or a movie theater or kill my kids at school.

[LanternWaste]

121. Odd that someone arguing for rational discussion quickly devolves into petulance

Odd that someone arguing for rational discussion quickly devolves into petulance, pouting and carping when your position is merely challenged.


"I guess we can safely put you in the "Just want to fight" category.."

"Uh huh... Just now...? This very moment?"

"...just spitting venom and accomplishing nothing."

"You have a screening application? Sounds boring..."





Rather than the ironic distinction from the premise you yourself started, I imagine the above will quickly be justified as quite rational. Indeed, no doubt you simply and accurately illustrated your original point in some mysterious fashion.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

122. What have our "right-wing friends" contributed to the debate?

What have they contributed to the "solution" other than preventing new gun regulations from being adopted by electing politicians over and over again whom instead repeatedly LOOSEN current gun laws and facilitate the distribution of more guns to more people in more and more places with fewer and fewer safeguards.


At some point, we have to admit that they are part of the problem if they are not part of the solution.

[meadowlander]

125. 1 and 5 are mutually exclusive.

If they wanted to have a discussion in good faith, they would listen to how gun control has worked in other countries. It is obviously relevant.

[guillaumeb]

126. Most Americans do not own guns.

And a tiny fringe own most of the guns. So a tiny fringe holds 325 million hostage.

[Crunchy Frog]

129. They're wingnuts. They don't come around to our side on anything

For any reason.

[Puzzledtraveller]

135. Most ppl I know who own a gun

are not right wingers, that is to say I know mostly sane people.

[muriel_volestrangler]

143. The woman is a stubborn dolt. That's why she's not coming to our side.

Her own 'reasons' contradict each other. If she's going to say "We Seriously Don’t Care About Gun Laws in Other Countries", she then can't turn around and claim it's about an "intrinsic and inalienable right". It's her own fault that "We Rarely Get to Come to the Conversation in Good Faith", because they stonewall any suggestion. That's why they got rid of the measure to make it harder for people with mental health issues to pass background checks, this time last year. "The Loudest Voices Are Often the Most Ignorant" applies to people like her. She thinks she's civilised, She's not. She's a barbarian.

They aren't looking for solutions. They're looking for more guns.

[JHB]

145. In practice, these aren't reasons so much as excuses...

...for simply dismissing any discussion, action, or opposition out of hand.

I've seen plenty of attempts to find common ground swatted aside. If it's up to us to control the rhetoric of every last person on this side of the issue, what responsibility the author of this piece held her own side to? We were treated to 8 years of screaming about how Obama was coming to take your guns, despite nothing of the sort taking place. Can I ask Ms. Dake-O'Connor to point me to her columns providing lists to those persons how that was unhelpful and would not make anyone more likely to see their view?

Here's a "good faith" task they can work on: It is often said that we have enough gun laws, it's that they aren't being enforced. (This often comes with a big scare-em number in the tens of thousands about how many gun laws there are, a number which is disingenuously generated by counting the same clusters of similar laws across hundreds of jurisdictions. Speaking of good faith, how about shitcanning crap numbers like that, eh?)

So let's drill down: Which existing laws are not being enforced, and why not? And how do we correct that?

I have occasionally gotten people to think with that one, but it never lasts long. One visit to their favorite media sites/stations and it's washed away like a sandcastle when the tide comes in.

[Cosmocat]

149. I dare you, DOUBLE dare you, to find ONE single article from an R imploring right wingers

to "have an open discussion" over ANYTHING, much less guns.

Find ONE, ONE SINGLE article ...

Then we can talk.

[JHB]

156. You may have missed my point...

...because it was the same as yours. There ain't no such animal.

[vi5]

157. #8 says it all

"We seriously don't care about gun laws in other countries."

If at any point the "other side" is basically stating that they refuse to look at facts and data that doesn't support what they already believe then this is not someone who can be reasoned with or reached or discussed or any of it.

[octoberlib]

163. If keeping their guns are more important to them than the wholesale slaughter of children ,

I don't really give a fuck what they think.

[WyattKansas]

191. Gun advocates can only have a valid argument...

If gun owners are registered in a State Militia and that militia has regular meetings with policies in place controlling their members. It is not logical to only look at one part, while dismissing another part of the 2nd Amendment. If you want to make that your position, then you are not following the 2nd Amendment.

I own a gun, which is a single action revolver... I shot it once after buying it a few months later. I have never fired it again and don't really have any reason to take it out of the closet and only I have access to it.

[Marengo]

192. Where and when has militia membership been a prerequisite for the ownership of firearms?

[WyattKansas]

213. You can't cherry pick the 2nd Amendment.

Since when is the entirety of an Amendment not relevant? When it doesn't support a specific position?

If you do not like the words in that Amendment, then change the Amendment.

I do not care if you want to own a tank and shoot it off, but the moment that violates another, then it is a problem. Personally, I have owned a Mini-14 with Ramline folding stock and 30 round clips... Same round as the AR15. I finally figured out when I was 21 that it served me absolutely no purpose and it was not needed for anything, so I sold it. The reason I had a Mini-14 is because back then, was probably because the assault weapons were not mass marketed and advertised as a glorified hobby to jump on. And it was a lot less expensive. I asked a guy a few years ago what was so fun about shooting an AR15... He said, 'It's fun to blast the hell out something.' My response, 'At some point you have to grow up.' All I got was a bewildered look and silence.

[Marengo]

215. If the right of gun ownership exists outside militia service, then why would you suggest that...

This is not a valid interpretation?

[Marengo]

193. Are you enrolled in the state militia? If not, why do you own a firearm?

[WyattKansas]

214. There are no State Militias... It's not 1791 anymore.

I've always been around guns. I actually hunted growing up too. What I own now is my insurance policy against becoming too emancipated with poor health where I can't take care of myself. That is the reality in the USA.

[Marengo]

216. In that case, by your own argument you shouldnt possess it.

[WyattKansas]

219. No law has been passed saying I cannot have it, so why not?

The Constitution says neither way, which means the 2nd Amendment argument is neither yes nor no on my "right" to own it.

[Marengo]

220. Youre not enrolled in a militia.

[WyattKansas]

223. So a law can be passed saying I cannot have it.

Since there are no militias anymore, it's neither yes or no with regards to whether I can own it. If a law is passed and I protest by saying I need it for militia service, then I will lose the argument.

[Marengo]

224. By your own standard, it is illogical for you to own a firearm if not enrolled in a militia...

As there are no militias (official at any rate I suppose) in existence and enrollment is impossible, the answer is most certainly no. Agsin, this is by the standard you established.

[hatrack]

202. Fine. Fuck 'em.

I don't have any right-wing friends any more.

[Baconator]

204. That sounds....

... insulated.

[hatrack]

210. It probably sounds however you want it to . . .

I have better things to do with my remaining time on Earth than tolerate the bullshit and humor the delusions of sad little gun-humping pillocks.

[Baconator]

211. Sounds like what's best for everyone...

[retread]

221. Forgot #7 You're trying to take