Originally Posted by Knoell Why am I a gun nut again? I'd be glad to answer that when I get home

In this discussion, I've seen zero willingness to consider *any* form of gun control from those on the right. In many cases, this also comes in the form of the willingness to entertain even any *debate* on the matter. Arguments are met with NRA talking points and slippery slope insanity of the "we need to defeat the government when the war comes" sort.

Rigid, absolute, ideological inflexibility = nut. Not the number or type of firearms you possess.

Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Originally Posted by mykevermin In this discussion, I've seen zero willingness to consider *any* form of gun control from those on the right. In many cases, this also comes in the form of the willingness to entertain even any *debate* on the matter. Arguments are met with NRA talking points and slippery slope insanity of the "we need to defeat the government when the war comes" sort. Rigid, absolute, ideological inflexibility = nut. Not the number or type of firearms you possess.

The problem with your premise is that there is the intention from the Liberal Dems to compromise. Firearms and the Second amendment have been under attack since the inception and the latest rounds of proposed legislature is absolute banning of guns. This is where the conversation is started and why Reps refuse to budge because you're not talking about fixing what's wrong with the system, as said constantly by Reps over and over and over again. It's not that they aren't acknowledging that there is a problem, they're actually pointing out the way to fix them but all the left is bombarded with is Gabby Giffords being shamefully paraded in front of the media, Obama hiding behind a wall of kids, how the history books never mention political parties, how Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and Democrats were the Confederates in the South that fought to keep slaves.

You say the Right refuses to compromise and rightly so, they've been compromising for many years to the point where the negotiations START at gun confiscation and criminalization. The perfect example of tyrannical government in the States is the Battle for Athens, Georgia, where Democrats committed rigged elections and were ousted by WW2 Veterans who could not take it any more.

The reason why Reps and the Right won't compromise is because you take gun control models from New York City, Chicago and California, you legislate and sow in propaganda into the proposals of these bills and motions of support that later get unleashed by the media. That's largely a despicable practice outright that can't be supported. I don't see why you have a problem with people opposing things that are not truthful, because that's what's happening despite all the media ignoring the reality of whats going on.

I liked the old days when Republicans were more for abusing the rights of women and gays and failing to see the irony. You know, like two months ago. Ah, those were the times.

Gun Control is like their collective clitoris. You even mention it and they orgasm a billion times over.

Originally Posted by Strell I liked the old days when Republicans were more for abusing the rights of women and gays and failing to see the irony. You know, like two months ago. Ah, those were the times. Gun Control is like their collective clitoris. You even mention it and they orgasm a billion times over.

For New Mexico, they haven't quite moved on from 2 months ago... New Mexico Bill Would Criminalize Abortions After Rape As 'Tampering With Evidence'

Years ago I remember hearing about this idea that a bunch of really rich people were going to buy a decommissioned military...something. It was like a missile launching silo platform out in the ocean. I can't remember the specifics exactly. The idea though was that these people would buy it and found their own country, complete with laws and a system of government and so forth. It was also parodied in the short-lived MTV animated series Undergrads.

The whole joke of the scenario was that you could declare yourself exempt from copyright laws, so it would become a data sharing heaven for the torrenting crowd. So really it was just an excuse to get free porn and anime and games. I imagine that this fell through given the rise of things like The Pirate Bay and other numerous channels to get free stuff.

At any rate, sometimes I wish I could do that and take a few choice individuals with me just to get away from the rest of the idiots. I'd settle for a tiny teeny place where we just sat around basking in the sun and wondering why the rest of the world was still this stupid.

I wonder sometimes about the folks who play the Bioshock games, if the more conservative among them realize the game is shitting on them.

You wonder a lot of things.

Originally Posted by Mad39er the latest rounds of proposed legislature is absolute banning of guns.

Well, okay, here's why Knoell was wondering why he's labeled a "gun nut." This is the other side of the "gun nut" premise - the person with absolutely no mental basis in reality. When compared to someone who legitimately believes that the government is going to take everyone's guns away, Knoell, I can totally see why you'd be incredulous at being called a "nut." You're not some Alex Jones/World Net Daily dumb, yes, so in that sense you shouldn't be lumped in the same category as Randy Weaver up here.

Originally Posted by Clak I wonder sometimes about the folks who play the Bioshock games, if the more conservative among them realize the game is shitting on them.

The second game's plot felt like it was a poorly written apology letter to angry "objectivists." The plot was like "no, there are problems with communism, too! here, see! we'll make the collectivist the villain!"

...and add multiplayer, I suppose. Yech. Anyway, yes, yes, Bioshock 1 was a very thinly disguised attempt to skewer Randian thought, but the sequel went into "oh, shit we must be 'fair and balanced'" overdrive, and the game was pretty uninspired as a result.

Originally Posted by GBAstar It should be expected for a gun own to keep his firearms secure (in a safe) and report them as soon as they are missing. That means checking on them at least weekly. I don't think that is unreasonable.

I'm down with the first two and have mentioned those in the past, but the last one? Are you some kind of fascist gun grabber or something?

You know that by saying those things, you're throwing your lot in with "liebruls that want to ban guns" in the eyes of people that think any regulation is bad, right?

Originally Posted by Clak I wonder sometimes about the folks who play the Bioshock games, if the more conservative among them realize the game is shitting on them.

You realize that some people think that Colbert is some sort of meta comedy show and isn't satire, right?

Originally Posted by mykevermin Well, okay, here's why Knoell was wondering why he's labeled a "gun nut." This is the other side of the "gun nut" premise - the person with absolutely no mental basis in reality. When compared to someone who legitimately believes that the government is going to take everyone's guns away, Knoell, I can totally see why you'd be incredulous at being called a "nut." You're not some Alex Jones/World Net Daily dumb, yes, so in that sense you shouldn't be lumped in the same category as Randy Weaver up here.

Honestly, if I seriously thought that the US government was going to ban all guns and confiscate them, I would be all up in that shit with the gun nuts too, but it is so far from reality that you'd have some sort of paranoia to the extent of being an actual clinical mental health issue.

The second game's plot felt like it was a poorly written apology letter to angry "objectivists." The plot was like "no, there are problems with communism, too! here, see! we'll make the collectivist the villain!" ...and add multiplayer, I suppose. Yech. Anyway, yes, yes, Bioshock 1 was a very thinly disguised attempt to skewer Randian thought, but the sequel went into "oh, shit we must be 'fair and balanced'" overdrive, and the game was pretty uninspired as a result.

Don't forget that it was also done by a different studio. Not as fun either.

Originally Posted by dohdough Don't forget that it was also done by a different studio. Not as fun either.

That is why I know Infinite is going to be amazing. If not, I will be a sad panda. I trust Ken Levine to deliver though.

Originally Posted by cancerman1120 That is why I know Infinite is going to be amazing. If not, I will be a sad panda. I trust Ken Levine to deliver though.

Word. I'm actually happy about the delay because they're doing it to ensure a more superior product. I wish they did that with DmC. I'm a slightly depressed panda because of that.

Originally Posted by dohdough Honestly, if I seriously thought that the US government was going to ban all guns and confiscate them, I would be all up in that shit with the gun nuts too, but it is so far from reality that you'd have some sort of paranoia to the extent of being an actual clinical mental health issue.

The perception that it's far from reality is only because it's being fought tooth and nail. The New York SAFE Act that several States have proposed to copy and enhance is a lesser version of what several bills were combined to be. Confiscation was there, if the SAFE Act passed as they wanted it to there would have been confiscation of guns, magazines and anything that fell into the assault weapon status which was basically every semi-auto rifle and shotgun out there.

MA's Governor introduced an Enhanced version of the SAFE Act that is being fought right now, the AWB that Feinstein and McCarthy have been trying to reinstate for 10 years now since 2003 now reads like the enhanced version of the SAFE Act. The Chief of San Diego Police seeks to disarm the population within a generation through gun control. It is very much real and there despite every Lib saying they don't want to take the guns, yet their voting record shows they're gun grabbers during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Hah, how ya like them state's rights now?

Originally Posted by Mad39er The perception that it's far from reality is only because it's being fought tooth and nail. The New York SAFE Act that several States have proposed to copy and enhance is a lesser version of what several bills were combined to be. Confiscation was there, if the SAFE Act passed as they wanted it to there would have been confiscation of guns, magazines and anything that fell into the assault weapon status which was basically every semi-auto rifle and shotgun out there.

This might surprise you, but lots of lieberals are ok with people owning guns and would defend it. And just because there are items in a bill, doesn't mean that they're seriously considered. Someone could've thrown in a rider for killing all kittens, but it doesn't mean it'll make it to the final bill. This is just more slippery slope nonsense.

But hey, if gun owners don't want to abide by the law, they're no longer the law abiding gun owners they project themselves to be.

MA's Governor introduced an Enhanced version of the SAFE Act that is being fought right now, the AWB that Feinstein and McCarthy have been trying to reinstate for 10 years now since 2003 now reads like the enhanced version of the SAFE Act. The Chief of San Diego Police seeks to disarm the population within a generation through gun control. It is very much real and there despite every Lib saying they don't want to take the guns, yet their voting record shows they're gun grabbers during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

WTF are you talking about? I'm going to go all "both sides do it" and say that Reagan, gun manufacturers, AND the NRA had tons to do with the original ban. Not to mention that NY's state senate is controlled by Republicans and that prior to the act, buying a long gun in a vast majority of NY was ridiculously easy. Bring a NY driver's license and walk out with the store. IMO folding stocks suck anyways. If the gun nuts would actually engage in the debate, we would have more sensible regulation instead of banning things akin to ricing out a car. Hell, I would love for suppressors to be legal because I live less than a mile from a range and those damn hicks(I mean that affectionately) can't help but get their gun off at 6 in the morning on Saturdays. Otherwise, NICS checks on ammo and private sales are not bad things and neither are health professionals reporting people that have serious thoughts about going on a rampage. Gun safe provisions are solid as well. The mag capacity thing, I'm lukewarm about.

That said, I'm morbidly curious as to what Katrina has to do with this.

Originally Posted by dohdough This might surprise you, but lots of lieberals are ok with people owning guns and would defend it. And just because there are items in a bill, doesn't mean that they're seriously considered. Someone could've thrown in a rider for killing all kittens, but it doesn't mean it'll make it to the final bill. This is just more slippery slope nonsense. But hey, if gun owners don't want to abide by the law, they're no longer the law abiding gun owners they project themselves to be.

I'll note your typo, yes, Lieberals. Freudian

If those Liberals would pick a side rather than let the media and the politicians determine their stance, the situation would be much better off. As it stands now you have Liberals letting their politicians, their media and everybody else do the speaking for them. But since you're unfamiliar with the SAFE Act, I'll help you along. The sponsoring Senators were sworn in on 1/9/13, the bills were proposed between the 1/9 and 1/11. On Monday 1/14, the Governor circumvented the State law requiring a 3 day staying period on legislation, waving that by "necessity". On 1/14 the State Senate was held until 11:30 at night as they hashed out what ultimately would become the SAFE Act. Assemblymen received their copies of the SAFE ACT shortly after 12, on 1/15 the SAFE Act was voted on and approved by the Democratic Majority and heralded as bipartisan because Senator Dean Skelos crossed party lines as he was the chairman of the committee responsible for sending the bill through in the Senate. It passed 103-47 or something in the Assembly and was signed the same day by the Governor.

The rejected proposals included confiscation of all semi-auto rifles, shotguns and magazines. It also included requiring ammunition coding which would have made all lawful gun owners criminals after 2 years if they possessed uncoded ammunition. On top of that they spread the lies that semi-auto rifles were capable of spray firing and killing large amounts of people because of that.

WTF are you talking about? I'm going to go all "both sides do it" and say that Reagan, gun manufacturers, AND the NRA had tons to do with the original ban. Not to mention that NY's state senate is controlled by Republicans and that prior to the act, buying a long gun in a vast majority of NY was ridiculously easy. Bring a NY driver's license and walk out with the store. IMO folding stocks suck anyways. If the gun nuts would actually engage in the debate, we would have more sensible regulation instead of banning things akin to ricing out a car. Hell, I would love for suppressors to be legal because I live less than a mile from a range and those damn hicks(I mean that affectionately) can't help but get their gun off at 6 in the morning on Saturdays. Otherwise, NICS checks on ammo and private sales are not bad things and neither are health professionals reporting people that have serious thoughts about going on a rampage. Gun safe provisions are solid as well. The mag capacity thing, I'm lukewarm about. That said, I'm morbidly curious as to what Katrina has to do with this.

There is your lovely misinformation, the New York Senate and Assembly is Democratic controlled, they hold a 2-1 Majority. You still had to undergo a NICS check to purchase a rifle, it wasn't simply walk in and walk out.

Those gun nuts you speak of are engaged in actual debate, look at all the Youtube footage of the SAFE Act, only one Democrat has their video posted and that's Tom Abinanti saying he's fed up with legal gun owners. Every Rep wants mental health reform, every single one of them went on video, posted their videos on youtube. It's all there and it's all transparent.

As for what this has to do with Katrina, the Vitter Amendment was enacted because the Police were disarming lawful LA gun owners, confiscating and destroying their guns. Feinstein, Hillary Clinton, Chuck Shumer and Frank Lautenberg all voted against the Vitter Amendment to protect the rights of lawful gun owners in aftermath of Katrina. Lautenberg and Feinstein have been on TV saying they don't want to take guns, their voting record speaks otherwise.

cray-cray.

"Dan Brown, Missouri State Senator, Wants Gun Education In First Grade"

This is actually an interesting case of ironic conservative ideals. In theory I am not against teaching kids how to react to finding a gun or that guns are not to be played with. The part I find ironic is he wants it done at school. The same party that does NOT want schools teaching about safe sex, conception and STDs wants to teach 6-7 year old children gun safety. I guess I would make that compromise. We give you gun safety and you gives us sex safety.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2585217.html

But if we teach kids about guns, then they'll ENGAGE IN GUN INTERCOURSE

Originally Posted by Strell But if we teach kids about guns, then they'll ENGAGE IN GUN INTERCOURSE

I knew this comment was not far behind. Thanks for not disappointing.