Rookie wrote:

rammagen wrote:part of the issue the mentality of the people buying AR 15s. I just had an argument on real gm over an AR if it is an assault rifle the kid did not like the fact I shown him and so goes to insults. It is quick gratification. Mind you I served I know what an assault rifle is. I do not think people with out full training should be able to purchase one. Hey want an Ar 15 join up for two years see the damage get shot at and then let me know if you want one. The moron then proceeds he needs it for home protection and hunting. Sure .... but this just proves my point if we let idiots like my example buy guns with out training then these things will continue. Mind you I support the second amendment but not for this. I own a shotgun for home defense.
These assault rifles with the 556 round are made for one thing killing people not hunting not home defense.
The argument where I need one to protect myself falls way short because when was the last time someone with an AR or an AK stopped a crime?
I will go back to lurking now thanks

I have to say I agree with all of this. I own several AR’s just because I can. They have no real purpose other then killing people. There is no justfiable need for anyone to have a semi automatic rifle with a 30 round magazine. I put these new home defense shotguns which are semi automatic and chamber 15-20 rounds in the same catagory. It’s just a matter or time before one of these is misused.

As far as training, I trained with my local sheriff’s department at the law enforcement range and also find it helpful that my local shooting range is next to a millitary base and I can get knowledgeable answers to any questions.

While I do enjoy shooting an AR occasionally I don’t need one and keep them locked in a safe. I am just as happy shooting a lever or bolt action rifle if I want to send some rounds down range. I can’t justify owning one other then if the country and government fell into anarchy and chaos or we were invaded by a foreign country. Unlikely yes, but I keep them for that purpose just the same. I also was very curios about the AR. Television and movies make them look bad ass, so there was that curiosity thing also. Having satisfied the curiosity I can honestly say, I don’t need one and if it helps keep them out of the hands if mass killers, I would gladly give them up.

Aside from the mental health side of it...

The cost, accessibility and magazine capacity are all major issues.

Zero training is required to own this weapon or ammo (and any other gun for that matter)
Complete rifles can be purchased for under $500, with no waiting period. Once your NICS clears in about an hour, you go home with it. (dirt cheap & quick)
30rd mags are included free with tons of accessory purchases (NJ has 15rd limits)
Accessories like 60rd drum mags and bump stocks can be bought in PA (right over the bridge) with a drivers license

Far too easy.

meloshouldgo wrote:

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:My phone is not letting me "quote" the last post.

But this is why discussions disintegrate. When you start calling people ignorant and accusing them of knee jerk reactions. The majority of the country at one time owned and wanted slaves, that was a much more deeply rooted part of the culture and it was the law. Someone then started to see the error in their ways because a small minority at first started pushing back on the establishment ideology. Then it gained momentum and became a movement. Yes the other side won't give up without a fight but it doesn't have to be "fought" with weapons.

I guess MLK, didn't get the memo that culture cannot be changed, because he must have sounded pretty stupid, right?

No one said it's going to be easy or the other side can be sweet talked or will be willing to cave in. What I am asking for is movement to start the fight and to take it to the other side. This is not a knee jerk reaction. I don't have a colleague charged out plan to convince the other side. I think it's stupid to think like that.

Culture change is hard but you need an idea to fight another idea. Our side hadn't articulated a common idea or a goal. Incremental hacking at something else is not an idea. It's why nothing ever changes. Is why we keep having the discussion on the NRA's terms and context.

No you start a movement by focusing on what seems impossible, it takes faith, it takes trust and it takes a village. Then over time it evolves naturally into a movement that CAN change the world. But you can't chart it's course ahead of time or define how it will work. You can only set it up and let it run its own course.

I am not an idealist, anyone who reads my posts here will see a heavy dose of cynicism. But I can absolutely guarantee we are not going to win the fight against guns by incremental progress and dicking around with mental health issues.

ignorance is a lack of knowledge and information. Thats from Webster.
knee-jerk
1.(of a response) automatic and unthinking.
"a knee-jerk reaction"
synonyms: impulsive, automatic, spontaneous, instinctive, mechanical, unthinking, hasty, rash, reckless, impetuous, precipitate

I really have not heard anything but the above. That is meant as a challenge. Not as an attack.

I cant think of something more different than civil rights. Throwing MLK out there an example of the above.

Are guns responsible for infringing on the constitutional rights of 18 million people? I am sorry but comparing gun control to civil rights strikes me as slight to the civil right movement. One was the (and is) repressing the rights of American citizens. Civil rights is about fighting for the equality the constitution promises. How are you correlating that to gun control?

Also all the evidence points to the fact that most gun owners are responsible. Who is the enemy here? When you talk about changing the culture who are you even talking about?

I am not saying guns and slaves are the same thing
I gave you an example of how ingrained culture against something that has constitutional support can be changed. You are intentionally creating a strawman to change the subject.

If anyone here is providing knee jerk reactions with right wing talking points it's you.
When I am talking about changing culture I am talking about people who need to own guns to feel safe. Because people everywhere else on the world are doing without them.

I gave you an example of how ingrained culture against something that has constitutional support can be changed.

Not really. You gave me two examples. Slavery ended with war that killed more people than every other war combined.

The other example was civil rights, which did NOT have constituional support. The exact opposite. Jim Crow was literally unconstitutional. Thats is eventually why the civil rights movement was successful in eliminating Jim Crow.

If anyone here is providing knee jerk reactions with right wing talking points it's you.

Name one. Please.

Yes I gave two examples of two different things-

One was Slavery - the example was it's possible to overturn ingrained cultural beliefs and constitutional rights, I don't support war but if it takes war then war needs to happen. The lives of inncoent children are more important that whackjobs and their gun rights. Fuck anyone who says anything else.

Second example was MLK - because he articulated a position against it the predominant cultural narrative of the time. And yes according to you people who articulate views against guns are the problem. So **** that as well.

Example of knee jerk reaction -

Are guns responsible for infringing on the constitutional rights of 18 million people? I am sorry but comparing gun control to civil rights strikes me as slight to the civil right movement. One was the (and is) repressing the rights of American citizens. Civil rights is about fighting for the equality the constitution promises. How are you correlating that to gun control?

Completely irrelevant bull****. Because I wasn't correlating civil rights to guns, I was presenting evidence that people who speak up against cultural norms are not the problem and they are not stupid because you say so.

And as for the stuff you posted about why you bolded one part of the sentence and not the other. what was your comment? One is plain language the other is hard to follow? So it's your position we should cherry pick fragments of sentences from the constitution that meets the pervasive level of redneck illiteracy to inform our legal system? Fuck that.

I ask you questions to clarify your points, you curse at me.

And yes according to you people who articulate views against guns are the problem

So far the level of understanding you have demonstrated is about as deep as the guy on this site who posted videos of black people doing bad things with the message that Americans would be less racist if blacks were just better behaved. How did that sit with you? I am challenging you to come up with something deeper than point the finger.

So there is a problem, with a large group of people who's view is backed by law and the constitution. Your tact to change that culture is call them all dump phucking rednecks? Sorry if you think that is a solution. Your attitude IS part of the problem. You are literally the voice for non change. The types of things you have posted are fuel for non-change. You sound like a Russian bot posting on an NRA message forum.

42% of American households own a fire arm. 42%. Very close to half.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/249740/percentage-of-households-in-the-united-states-owning-a-firearm/
42% of American households are listening to you. What is your message?

Sorry to call you our specifically. Honestly I am.

I dont own firearms and have no intention to. If you polled me on every political position I would test out as liberal democrat. I can stomach the 2nd amendment and have some respect for its origins. I think (especially in rural areas) people should have the right to protect their homes with a firearm, especially in a nation where so many are armed. I am dead set against military style weapons and equally so handguns. If could choose to ban one I would pick handguns... easy. I also understand neither of those are going away anytime soon, and its pretty easy to understand why, if you choose to.

My goal in this "discussion" was to ask questions and make people think a little bit.

My hope was for something a little bit deeper than VMart's "all gun owners have murder in their heart" or your own comments about phucking rednecks which not only yield nothing, but actually fuel to cement opposing views and are used to fund that opposition.

42% of households.

Stop spinning your wheels, calling names and start learning. Do you know what the Dickey Amendment is? Start with a google on that one. Go from there. If you want to start change it starts with education and awareness, not name calling and not labeling 42% of America as idiotic rednecks or murderers waiting to happen. Unless you want that name calling. For many its more important to voice their disgust and trash those who do not see it their way. Its your internet. If that is what you want its your right as well. Again... my point is if you want the change you claim stop pointing fingers and start learning. Start with the Dickey Amendment. Start with data and information. Its not happening with this generation. Until YOU change your attitude and approach you will lose the next generation as well.

How will you change the culture?
How will a ban on AR-15s keep us safe when there are already 5-10 million sold?
How will a ban on ALL assault rifles stop a kid from walking into school with 5 handguns and 200 rounds strapped on under his coat?

Are these not common sense questions? How hard to you want to fight for rules that have no impact? How can you make them more impactful?

Funny how quick you were to say things like "fishmike's interpretation" of the 2nd amendment. All I am doing is asking questions and you call me names, misquoted me and stomped around like a virtual toddler with phuck this and phuck that. Is that going to get you closer to the change culture change you say is so possible? Was that MLK's approach to changing culture during civil rights?

arkrud wrote:

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:My phone is not letting me "quote" the last post.

But this is why discussions disintegrate. When you start calling people ignorant and accusing them of knee jerk reactions. The majority of the country at one time owned and wanted slaves, that was a much more deeply rooted part of the culture and it was the law. Someone then started to see the error in their ways because a small minority at first started pushing back on the establishment ideology. Then it gained momentum and became a movement. Yes the other side won't give up without a fight but it doesn't have to be "fought" with weapons.

I guess MLK, didn't get the memo that culture cannot be changed, because he must have sounded pretty stupid, right?

No one said it's going to be easy or the other side can be sweet talked or will be willing to cave in. What I am asking for is movement to start the fight and to take it to the other side. This is not a knee jerk reaction. I don't have a colleague charged out plan to convince the other side. I think it's stupid to think like that.

Culture change is hard but you need an idea to fight another idea. Our side hadn't articulated a common idea or a goal. Incremental hacking at something else is not an idea. It's why nothing ever changes. Is why we keep having the discussion on the NRA's terms and context.

No you start a movement by focusing on what seems impossible, it takes faith, it takes trust and it takes a village. Then over time it evolves naturally into a movement that CAN change the world. But you can't chart it's course ahead of time or define how it will work. You can only set it up and let it run its own course.

I am not an idealist, anyone who reads my posts here will see a heavy dose of cynicism. But I can absolutely guarantee we are not going to win the fight against guns by incremental progress and dicking around with mental health issues.

ignorance is a lack of knowledge and information. Thats from Webster.
knee-jerk
1.(of a response) automatic and unthinking.
"a knee-jerk reaction"
synonyms: impulsive, automatic, spontaneous, instinctive, mechanical, unthinking, hasty, rash, reckless, impetuous, precipitate

I really have not heard anything but the above. That is meant as a challenge. Not as an attack.

I cant think of something more different than civil rights. Throwing MLK out there an example of the above.

Are guns responsible for infringing on the constitutional rights of 18 million people? I am sorry but comparing gun control to civil rights strikes me as slight to the civil right movement. One was the (and is) repressing the rights of American citizens. Civil rights is about fighting for the equality the constitution promises. How are you correlating that to gun control?

Also all the evidence points to the fact that most gun owners are responsible. Who is the enemy here? When you talk about changing the culture who are you even talking about?

I am not saying guns and slaves are the same thing
I gave you an example of how ingrained culture against something that has constitutional support can be changed. You are intentionally creating a strawman to change the subject.

If anyone here is providing knee jerk reactions with right wing talking points it's you.
When I am talking about changing culture I am talking about people who need to own guns to feel safe. Because people everywhere else on the world are doing without them.

I gave you an example of how ingrained culture against something that has constitutional support can be changed.

Not really. You gave me two examples. Slavery ended with war that killed more people than every other war combined.

The other example was civil rights, which did NOT have constituional support. The exact opposite. Jim Crow was literally unconstitutional. Thats is eventually why the civil rights movement was successful in eliminating Jim Crow.

If anyone here is providing knee jerk reactions with right wing talking points it's you.

Name one. Please.

Yes I gave two examples of two different things-

One was Slavery - the example was it's possible to overturn ingrained cultural beliefs and constitutional rights, I don't support war but if it takes war then war needs to happen. The lives of inncoent children are more important that whackjobs and their gun rights. Fuck anyone who says anything else.

Second example was MLK - because he articulated a position against it the predominant cultural narrative of the time. And yes according to you people who articulate views against guns are the problem. So **** that as well.

Example of knee jerk reaction -

Are guns responsible for infringing on the constitutional rights of 18 million people? I am sorry but comparing gun control to civil rights strikes me as slight to the civil right movement. One was the (and is) repressing the rights of American citizens. Civil rights is about fighting for the equality the constitution promises. How are you correlating that to gun control?

Completely irrelevant bull****. Because I wasn't correlating civil rights to guns, I was presenting evidence that people who speak up against cultural norms are not the problem and they are not stupid because you say so.

And as for the stuff you posted about why you bolded one part of the sentence and not the other. what was your comment? One is plain language the other is hard to follow? So it's your position we should cherry pick fragments of sentences from the constitution that meets the pervasive level of redneck illiteracy to inform our legal system? Fuck that.

So here is a classic example of when someone doesnt see things your way the next move is shut down dialogue and resort to name calling. You have proven my exact point about why these discussions go nowhere and nothing changes.

I ask you questions to clarify your points, you curse at me.

And yes according to you people who articulate views against guns are the problem

You have yet to articulate anything. That is what I am pushing you on. You opted NOT to articulate, and resort to name calling.

So far the level of understanding you have demonstrated is about as deep as the guy on this site who posted videos of black people doing bad things with the message that Americans would be less racist if blacks were just better behaved. How did that sit with you? I am challenging you to come up with something deeper than point the finger.

So there is a problem, with a large group of people who's view is backed by law and the constitution. Your tact to change that culture is call them all dump phucking rednecks? Sorry if you think that is a solution. Your attitude IS part of the problem. You are literally the voice for non change. The types of things you have posted are fuel for non-change. You sound like a Russian bot posting on an NRA message forum.

42% of American households own a fire arm. 42%. Very close to half.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/249740/percentage-of-households-in-the-united-states-owning-a-firearm/
42% of American households are listening to you. What is your message?

Sorry to call you our specifically. Honestly I am.

I dont own firearms and have no intention to. If you polled me on every political position I would test out as liberal democrat. I can stomach the 2nd amendment and have some respect for its origins. I think (especially in rural areas) people should have the right to protect their homes with a firearm, especially in a nation where so many are armed. I am dead set against military style weapons and equally so handguns. If could choose to ban one I would pick handguns... easy. I also understand neither of those are going away anytime soon, and its pretty easy to understand why, if you choose to.

My goal in this "discussion" was to ask questions and make people think a little bit.

My hope was for something a little bit deeper than VMart's "all gun owners have murder in their heart" or your own comments about phucking rednecks which not only yield nothing, but actually fuel to cement opposing views and are used to fund that opposition.

42% of households.

Stop spinning your wheels, calling names and start learning. Do you know what the Dickey Amendment is? Start with a google on that one. Go from there. If you want to start change it starts with education and awareness, not name calling and not labeling 42% of America as idiotic rednecks or murderers waiting to happen. Unless you want that name calling. For many its more important to voice their disgust and trash those who do not see it their way. Its your internet. If that is what you want its your right as well. Again... my point is if you want the change you claim stop pointing fingers and start learning. Start with the Dickey Amendment. Start with data and information. Its not happening with this generation. Until YOU change your attitude and approach you will lose the next generation as well.

How will you change the culture?
How will a ban on AR-15s keep us safe when there are already 5-10 million sold?
How will a ban on ALL assault rifles stop a kid from walking into school with 5 handguns and 200 rounds strapped on under his coat?

Are these not common sense questions? How hard to you want to fight for rules that have no impact? How can you make them more impactful?

Funny how quick you were to say things like "fishmike's interpretation" of the 2nd amendment. All I am doing is asking questions and you call me names, misquoted me and stomped around like a virtual toddler with phuck this and phuck that. Is that going to get you closer to the change culture change you say is so possible? Was that MLK's approach to changing culture during civil rights?

Changing the law or constitution is not changing the people mindset.
Change in people mindset can lead to changing the law and constitution.
We need to answer to ourselves as a nation what is more important: human life of freedom?
What is more important: mentally sick people on the lose or somebody locked up in mental health facility unnecessary?
Are we ready as a society to take our guns and dump them for the sake of saving innocent lives? All of us.
And what should be done to change the mind of majority.
Especially when many people are under control of their Ego which strives to create a separation.
Does not matter if Ego tells you that you are the best or the worst. The result is the same.

There are actions that can be taken and discussed in regards to your bold. What would the first step be?

Most people prefer to rattle the can and demand change and want answers... but they are not willing to even look at the question.

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:My phone is not letting me "quote" the last post.
But this is why discussions disintegrate. When you start calling people ignorant and accusing them of knee jerk reactions. The majority of the country at one time owned and wanted slaves, that was a much more deeply rooted part of the culture and it was the law. Someone then started to see the error in their ways because a small minority at first started pushing back on the establishment ideology. Then it gained momentum and became a movement. Yes the other side won't give up without a fight but it doesn't have to be "fought" with weapons.

I guess MLK, didn't get the memo that culture cannot be changed, because he must have sounded pretty stupid, right?

No one said it's going to be easy or the other side can be sweet talked or will be willing to cave in. What I am asking for is movement to start the fight and to take it to the other side. This is not a knee jerk reaction. I don't have a colleague charged out plan to convince the other side. I think it's stupid to think like that.

Culture change is hard but you need an idea to fight another idea. Our side hadn't articulated a common idea or a goal. Incremental hacking at something else is not an idea. It's why nothing ever changes. Is why we keep having the discussion on the NRA's terms and context.

No you start a movement by focusing on what seems impossible, it takes faith, it takes trust and it takes a village. Then over time it evolves naturally into a movement that CAN change the world. But you can't chart it's course ahead of time or define how it will work. You can only set it up and let it run its own course.

I am not an idealist, anyone who reads my posts here will see a heavy dose of cynicism. But I can absolutely guarantee we are not going to win the fight against guns by incremental progress and dicking around with mental health issues.

ignorance is a lack of knowledge and information. Thats from Webster.
knee-jerk
1.(of a response) automatic and unthinking.
"a knee-jerk reaction"
synonyms: impulsive, automatic, spontaneous, instinctive, mechanical, unthinking, hasty, rash, reckless, impetuous, precipitate

I really have not heard anything but the above. That is meant as a challenge. Not as an attack.

I cant think of something more different than civil rights. Throwing MLK out there an example of the above.

Are guns responsible for infringing on the constitutional rights of 18 million people? I am sorry but comparing gun control to civil rights strikes me as slight to the civil right movement. One was the (and is) repressing the rights of American citizens. Civil rights is about fighting for the equality the constitution promises. How are you correlating that to gun control?

Also all the evidence points to the fact that most gun owners are responsible. Who is the enemy here? When you talk about changing the culture who are you even talking about?

I am not saying guns and slaves are the same thing
I gave you an example of how ingrained culture against something that has constitutional support can be changed. You are intentionally creating a strawman to change the subject.

If anyone here is providing knee jerk reactions with right wing talking points it's you.
When I am talking about changing culture I am talking about people who need to own guns to feel safe. Because people everywhere else on the world are doing without them.

I gave you an example of how ingrained culture against something that has constitutional support can be changed.

Not really. You gave me two examples. Slavery ended with war that killed more people than every other war combined.

The other example was civil rights, which did NOT have constituional support. The exact opposite. Jim Crow was literally unconstitutional. Thats is eventually why the civil rights movement was successful in eliminating Jim Crow.

If anyone here is providing knee jerk reactions with right wing talking points it's you.

Name one. Please.

Yes I gave two examples of two different things-

One was Slavery - the example was it's possible to overturn ingrained cultural beliefs and constitutional rights, I don't support war but if it takes war then war needs to happen. The lives of inncoent children are more important that whackjobs and their gun rights. Fuck anyone who says anything else.

Second example was MLK - because he articulated a position against it the predominant cultural narrative of the time. And yes according to you people who articulate views against guns are the problem. So **** that as well.

Example of knee jerk reaction -

Are guns responsible for infringing on the constitutional rights of 18 million people? I am sorry but comparing gun control to civil rights strikes me as slight to the civil right movement. One was the (and is) repressing the rights of American citizens. Civil rights is about fighting for the equality the constitution promises. How are you correlating that to gun control?

Completely irrelevant bull****. Because I wasn't correlating civil rights to guns, I was presenting evidence that people who speak up against cultural norms are not the problem and they are not stupid because you say so.

And as for the stuff you posted about why you bolded one part of the sentence and not the other. what was your comment? One is plain language the other is hard to follow? So it's your position we should cherry pick fragments of sentences from the constitution that meets the pervasive level of redneck illiteracy to inform our legal system? Fuck that.

So here is a classic example of when someone doesnt see things your way the next move is shut down dialogue and resort to name calling. You have proven my exact point about why these discussions go nowhere and nothing changes.

I ask you questions to clarify your points, you curse at me.

And yes according to you people who articulate views against guns are the problem

You have yet to articulate anything. That is what I am pushing you on. You opted NOT to articulate, and resort to name calling.

So far the level of understanding you have demonstrated is about as deep as the guy on this site who posted videos of black people doing bad things with the message that Americans would be less racist if blacks were just better behaved. How did that sit with you? I am challenging you to come up with something deeper than point the finger.

So there is a problem, with a large group of people who's view is backed by law and the constitution. Your tact to change that culture is call them all dump phucking rednecks? Sorry if you think that is a solution. Your attitude IS part of the problem. You are literally the voice for non change. The types of things you have posted are fuel for non-change. You sound like a Russian bot posting on an NRA message forum.

42% of American households own a fire arm. 42%. Very close to half.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/249740/percentage-of-households-in-the-united-states-owning-a-firearm/
42% of American households are listening to you. What is your message?

Sorry to call you our specifically. Honestly I am.

I dont own firearms and have no intention to. If you polled me on every political position I would test out as liberal democrat. I can stomach the 2nd amendment and have some respect for its origins. I think (especially in rural areas) people should have the right to protect their homes with a firearm, especially in a nation where so many are armed. I am dead set against military style weapons and equally so handguns. If could choose to ban one I would pick handguns... easy. I also understand neither of those are going away anytime soon, and its pretty easy to understand why, if you choose to.

My goal in this "discussion" was to ask questions and make people think a little bit.

My hope was for something a little bit deeper than VMart's "all gun owners have murder in their heart" or your own comments about phucking rednecks which not only yield nothing, but actually fuel to cement opposing views and are used to fund that opposition.

42% of households.

Stop spinning your wheels, calling names and start learning. Do you know what the Dickey Amendment is? Start with a google on that one. Go from there. If you want to start change it starts with education and awareness, not name calling and not labeling 42% of America as idiotic rednecks or murderers waiting to happen. Unless you want that name calling. For many its more important to voice their disgust and trash those who do not see it their way. Its your internet. If that is what you want its your right as well. Again... my point is if you want the change you claim stop pointing fingers and start learning. Start with the Dickey Amendment. Start with data and information. Its not happening with this generation. Until YOU change your attitude and approach you will lose the next generation as well.

How will you change the culture?
How will a ban on AR-15s keep us safe when there are already 5-10 million sold?
How will a ban on ALL assault rifles stop a kid from walking into school with 5 handguns and 200 rounds strapped on under his coat?

Are these not common sense questions? How hard to you want to fight for rules that have no impact? How can you make them more impactful?

Funny how quick you were to say things like "fishmike's interpretation" of the 2nd amendment. All I am doing is asking questions and you call me names, misquoted me and stomped around like a virtual toddler with phuck this and phuck that. Is that going to get you closer to the change culture change you say is so possible? Was that MLK's approach to changing culture during civil rights?

Names? What names? Fishmike's interpretation is name calling?
I did articulate my position very early on. Guns don't have a place in civilized society and they should be banned. Second amendment should be repealed or replaced. And Demicrats need to start taking the fight to the NRA instead of trying to find compromise. They are weak ass scumbags that are corrupt and in bed with the NRA, and they don't do anything to move the needle. Tell me I am repeating myself and this isn't news to you???

I don't actually care if you disagree with me, I want to be clear I am not trying to find common ground, that I think is the problem. The NRA doesn't try to find common ground, it's why they are successful. Democrats make the mistakes of taking marginal improvements as moral victories that's no way to fight systemic corruption and abuse of power. Start with the problem, build support to overturn the second amendment. It won't be easy but it has to be started. When and if they come in power make sales of all kinds of guns taxable at 800%. Do I need to draw a diagram? Do you realize the second amendment taken literally, the way you stated it actually gives people the right to own homemade nuclear bombs as well? Should we make uranium legal as well? There's already black market for it.

I am annoyed at people trying to broker compromise with ****heads that talk about how many guns they own when children are being shot to death.

Do you have data on how many kids are being massacred using cars in countries that do ban guns? That was your point right? Guns don't kill, people do, should we ban cars....blah blah blah. Any data on number of school children killed in those other countries in a year?

Nope, all you got are empty talking points. And this politically correct bull**** about compromise. Fuck compromise.

How do we implement this? Well we do what all these other countries did, where is the rocket science? Are you gonna sit and listen to people who tell you it won't work in the US? That's bull**** and you know it. It works everywhere else. And you start by putting people in jail for owning guns and making examples out of them. Like I said it's not going to be popular or politically correct. If that's what keeps you from doing the right thing, God help you.

One last clarification, I am NOT talking about banning AR15s, I am talking about banning guns. I said this before and I will repeat it again, I am not looking for specific policies at this time. I am looking for Democrats to start and lead a large scale movements to permanently ban guns in the US. You can't change culture unless you force the conversation. All I want right now is for people to force the conversation, I am not asking for everything to be banned starting tomorrow.

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:My phone is not letting me "quote" the last post.
But this is why discussions disintegrate. When you start calling people ignorant and accusing them of knee jerk reactions. The majority of the country at one time owned and wanted slaves, that was a much more deeply rooted part of the culture and it was the law. Someone then started to see the error in their ways because a small minority at first started pushing back on the establishment ideology. Then it gained momentum and became a movement. Yes the other side won't give up without a fight but it doesn't have to be "fought" with weapons.

I guess MLK, didn't get the memo that culture cannot be changed, because he must have sounded pretty stupid, right?

No one said it's going to be easy or the other side can be sweet talked or will be willing to cave in. What I am asking for is movement to start the fight and to take it to the other side. This is not a knee jerk reaction. I don't have a colleague charged out plan to convince the other side. I think it's stupid to think like that.

Culture change is hard but you need an idea to fight another idea. Our side hadn't articulated a common idea or a goal. Incremental hacking at something else is not an idea. It's why nothing ever changes. Is why we keep having the discussion on the NRA's terms and context.

No you start a movement by focusing on what seems impossible, it takes faith, it takes trust and it takes a village. Then over time it evolves naturally into a movement that CAN change the world. But you can't chart it's course ahead of time or define how it will work. You can only set it up and let it run its own course.

I am not an idealist, anyone who reads my posts here will see a heavy dose of cynicism. But I can absolutely guarantee we are not going to win the fight against guns by incremental progress and dicking around with mental health issues.

ignorance is a lack of knowledge and information. Thats from Webster.
knee-jerk
1.(of a response) automatic and unthinking.
"a knee-jerk reaction"
synonyms: impulsive, automatic, spontaneous, instinctive, mechanical, unthinking, hasty, rash, reckless, impetuous, precipitate

I really have not heard anything but the above. That is meant as a challenge. Not as an attack.

I cant think of something more different than civil rights. Throwing MLK out there an example of the above.

Are guns responsible for infringing on the constitutional rights of 18 million people? I am sorry but comparing gun control to civil rights strikes me as slight to the civil right movement. One was the (and is) repressing the rights of American citizens. Civil rights is about fighting for the equality the constitution promises. How are you correlating that to gun control?

Also all the evidence points to the fact that most gun owners are responsible. Who is the enemy here? When you talk about changing the culture who are you even talking about?

I am not saying guns and slaves are the same thing
I gave you an example of how ingrained culture against something that has constitutional support can be changed. You are intentionally creating a strawman to change the subject.

If anyone here is providing knee jerk reactions with right wing talking points it's you.
When I am talking about changing culture I am talking about people who need to own guns to feel safe. Because people everywhere else on the world are doing without them.

I gave you an example of how ingrained culture against something that has constitutional support can be changed.

Not really. You gave me two examples. Slavery ended with war that killed more people than every other war combined.

The other example was civil rights, which did NOT have constituional support. The exact opposite. Jim Crow was literally unconstitutional. Thats is eventually why the civil rights movement was successful in eliminating Jim Crow.

If anyone here is providing knee jerk reactions with right wing talking points it's you.

Name one. Please.

Yes I gave two examples of two different things-

One was Slavery - the example was it's possible to overturn ingrained cultural beliefs and constitutional rights, I don't support war but if it takes war then war needs to happen. The lives of inncoent children are more important that whackjobs and their gun rights. Fuck anyone who says anything else.

Second example was MLK - because he articulated a position against it the predominant cultural narrative of the time. And yes according to you people who articulate views against guns are the problem. So **** that as well.

Example of knee jerk reaction -

Are guns responsible for infringing on the constitutional rights of 18 million people? I am sorry but comparing gun control to civil rights strikes me as slight to the civil right movement. One was the (and is) repressing the rights of American citizens. Civil rights is about fighting for the equality the constitution promises. How are you correlating that to gun control?

Completely irrelevant bull****. Because I wasn't correlating civil rights to guns, I was presenting evidence that people who speak up against cultural norms are not the problem and they are not stupid because you say so.

And as for the stuff you posted about why you bolded one part of the sentence and not the other. what was your comment? One is plain language the other is hard to follow? So it's your position we should cherry pick fragments of sentences from the constitution that meets the pervasive level of redneck illiteracy to inform our legal system? Fuck that.

So here is a classic example of when someone doesnt see things your way the next move is shut down dialogue and resort to name calling. You have proven my exact point about why these discussions go nowhere and nothing changes.

I ask you questions to clarify your points, you curse at me.

And yes according to you people who articulate views against guns are the problem

You have yet to articulate anything. That is what I am pushing you on. You opted NOT to articulate, and resort to name calling.

So far the level of understanding you have demonstrated is about as deep as the guy on this site who posted videos of black people doing bad things with the message that Americans would be less racist if blacks were just better behaved. How did that sit with you? I am challenging you to come up with something deeper than point the finger.

So there is a problem, with a large group of people who's view is backed by law and the constitution. Your tact to change that culture is call them all dump phucking rednecks? Sorry if you think that is a solution. Your attitude IS part of the problem. You are literally the voice for non change. The types of things you have posted are fuel for non-change. You sound like a Russian bot posting on an NRA message forum.

42% of American households own a fire arm. 42%. Very close to half.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/249740/percentage-of-households-in-the-united-states-owning-a-firearm/
42% of American households are listening to you. What is your message?

Sorry to call you our specifically. Honestly I am.

I dont own firearms and have no intention to. If you polled me on every political position I would test out as liberal democrat. I can stomach the 2nd amendment and have some respect for its origins. I think (especially in rural areas) people should have the right to protect their homes with a firearm, especially in a nation where so many are armed. I am dead set against military style weapons and equally so handguns. If could choose to ban one I would pick handguns... easy. I also understand neither of those are going away anytime soon, and its pretty easy to understand why, if you choose to.

My goal in this "discussion" was to ask questions and make people think a little bit.

My hope was for something a little bit deeper than VMart's "all gun owners have murder in their heart" or your own comments about phucking rednecks which not only yield nothing, but actually fuel to cement opposing views and are used to fund that opposition.

42% of households.

Stop spinning your wheels, calling names and start learning. Do you know what the Dickey Amendment is? Start with a google on that one. Go from there. If you want to start change it starts with education and awareness, not name calling and not labeling 42% of America as idiotic rednecks or murderers waiting to happen. Unless you want that name calling. For many its more important to voice their disgust and trash those who do not see it their way. Its your internet. If that is what you want its your right as well. Again... my point is if you want the change you claim stop pointing fingers and start learning. Start with the Dickey Amendment. Start with data and information. Its not happening with this generation. Until YOU change your attitude and approach you will lose the next generation as well.

How will you change the culture?
How will a ban on AR-15s keep us safe when there are already 5-10 million sold?
How will a ban on ALL assault rifles stop a kid from walking into school with 5 handguns and 200 rounds strapped on under his coat?

Are these not common sense questions? How hard to you want to fight for rules that have no impact? How can you make them more impactful?

Funny how quick you were to say things like "fishmike's interpretation" of the 2nd amendment. All I am doing is asking questions and you call me names, misquoted me and stomped around like a virtual toddler with phuck this and phuck that. Is that going to get you closer to the change culture change you say is so possible? Was that MLK's approach to changing culture during civil rights?

Names? What names? Fishmike's interpretation is name calling?
I did articulate my position very early on. Guns don't have a place in civilized society and they should be banned. Second amendment should be repealed or replaced. And Demicrats need to start taking the fight to the NRA instead of trying to find compromise. They are weak ass scumbags that are corrupt and in bed with the NRA, and they don't do anything to move the needle. Tell me I am repeating myself and this isn't news to you???

I don't actually care if you disagree with me, I want to be clear I am not trying to find common ground, that I think is the problem. The NRA doesn't try to find common ground, it's why they are successful. Democrats make the mistakes of taking marginal improvements as moral victories that's no way to fight systemic corruption and abuse of power. Start with the problem, build support to overturn the second amendment. It won't be easy but it has to be started. When and if they come in power make sales of all kinds of guns taxable at 800%. Do I need to draw a diagram? Do you realize the second amendment taken literally, the way you stated it actually gives people the right to own homemade nuclear bombs as well? Should we make uranium legal as well? There's already black market for it.

I am annoyed at people trying to broker compromise with ****heads that talk about how many guns they own when children are being shot to death.

Do you have data on how many kids are bedding massacred using cars in countries that do bn guns? That was your point right? Guns don't kill, people do, should we can cars....blah blah blah. Any data on number of school children killed in those other countries in a year?

Nope, all you got are empty talking points. And this politically correct bull**** about compromise. Fuck compromise.

How do we implement this? Well we do what all these other countries did, where is the rocket science? Are you gonna sit and listen to people who tell you it won't work in the US? That's bull**** and you know it. It works everywhere else. And you start by putting people in jail for owning guns and making examples out of them. Like I said it's not going to bed popular or politically correct. If that's what keeps you from doing the right thing, God help you.

One last clarification, I am NOT taking about banning AR15s, I am talking about banning guns. I said this before and I will repeat it again, I am not looking for specific policies at this time. I am looking for Democrats to star and lead a large scale movements to permanently ban guns in the US.

You can start movement to ban boos, cigarettes, drugs, and prostitution. Will work as well as guns.
If legal guns will not be available everyone will be able to get them from black market.
If some dude decided to massacre a bunch of people he will be really afraid of getting jail time for gun ownership.
Unfortunately or fortunately life is much more complicated that the picture of it in your brain.

Guns in the Black market will cost 50x more than in the supermarket, it is like with drugs, if you legalize drugs, the price will go down quickly and everybody can afford to use drugs, follow me ?

meloshouldgo wrote:

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:My phone is not letting me "quote" the last post.
But this is why discussions disintegrate. When you start calling people ignorant and accusing them of knee jerk reactions. The majority of the country at one time owned and wanted slaves, that was a much more deeply rooted part of the culture and it was the law. Someone then started to see the error in their ways because a small minority at first started pushing back on the establishment ideology. Then it gained momentum and became a movement. Yes the other side won't give up without a fight but it doesn't have to be "fought" with weapons.

I guess MLK, didn't get the memo that culture cannot be changed, because he must have sounded pretty stupid, right?

No one said it's going to be easy or the other side can be sweet talked or will be willing to cave in. What I am asking for is movement to start the fight and to take it to the other side. This is not a knee jerk reaction. I don't have a colleague charged out plan to convince the other side. I think it's stupid to think like that.

Culture change is hard but you need an idea to fight another idea. Our side hadn't articulated a common idea or a goal. Incremental hacking at something else is not an idea. It's why nothing ever changes. Is why we keep having the discussion on the NRA's terms and context.

No you start a movement by focusing on what seems impossible, it takes faith, it takes trust and it takes a village. Then over time it evolves naturally into a movement that CAN change the world. But you can't chart it's course ahead of time or define how it will work. You can only set it up and let it run its own course.

I am not an idealist, anyone who reads my posts here will see a heavy dose of cynicism. But I can absolutely guarantee we are not going to win the fight against guns by incremental progress and dicking around with mental health issues.

ignorance is a lack of knowledge and information. Thats from Webster.
knee-jerk
1.(of a response) automatic and unthinking.
"a knee-jerk reaction"
synonyms: impulsive, automatic, spontaneous, instinctive, mechanical, unthinking, hasty, rash, reckless, impetuous, precipitate

I really have not heard anything but the above. That is meant as a challenge. Not as an attack.

I cant think of something more different than civil rights. Throwing MLK out there an example of the above.

Are guns responsible for infringing on the constitutional rights of 18 million people? I am sorry but comparing gun control to civil rights strikes me as slight to the civil right movement. One was the (and is) repressing the rights of American citizens. Civil rights is about fighting for the equality the constitution promises. How are you correlating that to gun control?

Also all the evidence points to the fact that most gun owners are responsible. Who is the enemy here? When you talk about changing the culture who are you even talking about?

I am not saying guns and slaves are the same thing
I gave you an example of how ingrained culture against something that has constitutional support can be changed. You are intentionally creating a strawman to change the subject.

If anyone here is providing knee jerk reactions with right wing talking points it's you.
When I am talking about changing culture I am talking about people who need to own guns to feel safe. Because people everywhere else on the world are doing without them.

I gave you an example of how ingrained culture against something that has constitutional support can be changed.

Not really. You gave me two examples. Slavery ended with war that killed more people than every other war combined.

The other example was civil rights, which did NOT have constituional support. The exact opposite. Jim Crow was literally unconstitutional. Thats is eventually why the civil rights movement was successful in eliminating Jim Crow.

If anyone here is providing knee jerk reactions with right wing talking points it's you.

Name one. Please.

Yes I gave two examples of two different things-

One was Slavery - the example was it's possible to overturn ingrained cultural beliefs and constitutional rights, I don't support war but if it takes war then war needs to happen. The lives of inncoent children are more important that whackjobs and their gun rights. Fuck anyone who says anything else.

Second example was MLK - because he articulated a position against it the predominant cultural narrative of the time. And yes according to you people who articulate views against guns are the problem. So **** that as well.

Example of knee jerk reaction -

Are guns responsible for infringing on the constitutional rights of 18 million people? I am sorry but comparing gun control to civil rights strikes me as slight to the civil right movement. One was the (and is) repressing the rights of American citizens. Civil rights is about fighting for the equality the constitution promises. How are you correlating that to gun control?

Completely irrelevant bull****. Because I wasn't correlating civil rights to guns, I was presenting evidence that people who speak up against cultural norms are not the problem and they are not stupid because you say so.

And as for the stuff you posted about why you bolded one part of the sentence and not the other. what was your comment? One is plain language the other is hard to follow? So it's your position we should cherry pick fragments of sentences from the constitution that meets the pervasive level of redneck illiteracy to inform our legal system? Fuck that.

So here is a classic example of when someone doesnt see things your way the next move is shut down dialogue and resort to name calling. You have proven my exact point about why these discussions go nowhere and nothing changes.

I ask you questions to clarify your points, you curse at me.

And yes according to you people who articulate views against guns are the problem

You have yet to articulate anything. That is what I am pushing you on. You opted NOT to articulate, and resort to name calling.

So far the level of understanding you have demonstrated is about as deep as the guy on this site who posted videos of black people doing bad things with the message that Americans would be less racist if blacks were just better behaved. How did that sit with you? I am challenging you to come up with something deeper than point the finger.

So there is a problem, with a large group of people who's view is backed by law and the constitution. Your tact to change that culture is call them all dump phucking rednecks? Sorry if you think that is a solution. Your attitude IS part of the problem. You are literally the voice for non change. The types of things you have posted are fuel for non-change. You sound like a Russian bot posting on an NRA message forum.

42% of American households own a fire arm. 42%. Very close to half.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/249740/percentage-of-households-in-the-united-states-owning-a-firearm/
42% of American households are listening to you. What is your message?

Sorry to call you our specifically. Honestly I am.

I dont own firearms and have no intention to. If you polled me on every political position I would test out as liberal democrat. I can stomach the 2nd amendment and have some respect for its origins. I think (especially in rural areas) people should have the right to protect their homes with a firearm, especially in a nation where so many are armed. I am dead set against military style weapons and equally so handguns. If could choose to ban one I would pick handguns... easy. I also understand neither of those are going away anytime soon, and its pretty easy to understand why, if you choose to.

My goal in this "discussion" was to ask questions and make people think a little bit.

My hope was for something a little bit deeper than VMart's "all gun owners have murder in their heart" or your own comments about phucking rednecks which not only yield nothing, but actually fuel to cement opposing views and are used to fund that opposition.

42% of households.

Stop spinning your wheels, calling names and start learning. Do you know what the Dickey Amendment is? Start with a google on that one. Go from there. If you want to start change it starts with education and awareness, not name calling and not labeling 42% of America as idiotic rednecks or murderers waiting to happen. Unless you want that name calling. For many its more important to voice their disgust and trash those who do not see it their way. Its your internet. If that is what you want its your right as well. Again... my point is if you want the change you claim stop pointing fingers and start learning. Start with the Dickey Amendment. Start with data and information. Its not happening with this generation. Until YOU change your attitude and approach you will lose the next generation as well.

How will you change the culture?
How will a ban on AR-15s keep us safe when there are already 5-10 million sold?
How will a ban on ALL assault rifles stop a kid from walking into school with 5 handguns and 200 rounds strapped on under his coat?

Are these not common sense questions? How hard to you want to fight for rules that have no impact? How can you make them more impactful?

Funny how quick you were to say things like "fishmike's interpretation" of the 2nd amendment. All I am doing is asking questions and you call me names, misquoted me and stomped around like a virtual toddler with phuck this and phuck that. Is that going to get you closer to the change culture change you say is so possible? Was that MLK's approach to changing culture during civil rights?

Names? What names? Fishmike's interpretation is name calling?
I did articulate my position very early on. Guns don't have a place in civilized society and they should be banned. Second amendment should be repealed or replaced. And Demicrats need to start taking the fight to the NRA instead of trying to find compromise. They are weak ass scumbags that are corrupt and in bed with the NRA, and they don't do anything to move the needle. Tell me I am repeating myself and this isn't news to you???

I don't actually care if you disagree with me, I want to be clear I am not trying to find common ground, that I think is the problem. The NRA doesn't try to find common ground, it's why they are successful. Democrats make the mistakes of taking marginal improvements as moral victories that's no way to fight systemic corruption and abuse of power. Start with the problem, build support to overturn the second amendment. It won't be easy but it has to be started. When and if they come in power make sales of all kinds of guns taxable at 800%. Do I need to draw a diagram? Do you realize the second amendment taken literally, the way you stated it actually gives people the right to own homemade nuclear bombs as well? Should we make uranium legal as well? There's already black market for it.

I am annoyed at people trying to broker compromise with ****heads that talk about how many guns they own when children are being shot to death.

Do you have data on how many kids are being massacred using cars in countries that do ban guns? That was your point right? Guns don't kill, people do, should we ban cars....blah blah blah. Any data on number of school children killed in those other countries in a year?

Nope, all you got are empty talking points. And this politically correct bull**** about compromise. Fuck compromise.

How do we implement this? Well we do what all these other countries did, where is the rocket science? Are you gonna sit and listen to people who tell you it won't work in the US? That's bull**** and you know it. It works everywhere else. And you start by putting people in jail for owning guns and making examples out of them. Like I said it's not going to be popular or politically correct. If that's what keeps you from doing the right thing, God help you.

One last clarification, I am NOT talking about banning AR15s, I am talking about banning guns. I said this before and I will repeat it again, I am not looking for specific policies at this time. I am looking for Democrats to start and lead a large scale movements to permanently ban guns in the US. You can't change culture unless you force the conversation. All I want right now is for people to force the conversation, I am not asking for everything to be banned starting tomorrow.

Do you have data on how many kids are being massacred using cars in countries that do ban guns? That was your point right? Guns don't kill, people do, should we ban cars....blah blah blah. Any data on number of school children killed in those other countries in a year?

As someone that would value seeing meaningful gun legislation passed you are as big an obstacle for change as the NRA itself. If you dont want to hear my message that is on you. I dont have to tell you that your anger and ranting is useless and fruitless. Thats easy to see.

Did you even google the Dickey Amendment yet? Or are you too angry to use your brain? When your done rattling your can and banging your head against rocks while blaming others come back to the discussion.

SupremeCommander wrote:what I find fascinating is that high school students are leading the charge. Us adults have failed them. Kudos to them for recognizing that and recognizing that this **** isn't normal. I really applaud them for their ability to stand up and take action during what would normally be the "thoughts and prayers" stage

arkrud wrote:

Gudris wrote:

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:My phone is not letting me "quote" the last post.
But this is why discussions disintegrate. When you start calling people ignorant and accusing them of knee jerk reactions. The majority of the country at one time owned and wanted slaves, that was a much more deeply rooted part of the culture and it was the law. Someone then started to see the error in their ways because a small minority at first started pushing back on the establishment ideology. Then it gained momentum and became a movement. Yes the other side won't give up without a fight but it doesn't have to be "fought" with weapons.

I guess MLK, didn't get the memo that culture cannot be changed, because he must have sounded pretty stupid, right?

No one said it's going to be easy or the other side can be sweet talked or will be willing to cave in. What I am asking for is movement to start the fight and to take it to the other side. This is not a knee jerk reaction. I don't have a colleague charged out plan to convince the other side. I think it's stupid to think like that.

Culture change is hard but you need an idea to fight another idea. Our side hadn't articulated a common idea or a goal. Incremental hacking at something else is not an idea. It's why nothing ever changes. Is why we keep having the discussion on the NRA's terms and context.

No you start a movement by focusing on what seems impossible, it takes faith, it takes trust and it takes a village. Then over time it evolves naturally into a movement that CAN change the world. But you can't chart it's course ahead of time or define how it will work. You can only set it up and let it run its own course.

I am not an idealist, anyone who reads my posts here will see a heavy dose of cynicism. But I can absolutely guarantee we are not going to win the fight against guns by incremental progress and dicking around with mental health issues.

ignorance is a lack of knowledge and information. Thats from Webster.
knee-jerk
1.(of a response) automatic and unthinking.
"a knee-jerk reaction"
synonyms: impulsive, automatic, spontaneous, instinctive, mechanical, unthinking, hasty, rash, reckless, impetuous, precipitate

I really have not heard anything but the above. That is meant as a challenge. Not as an attack.

I cant think of something more different than civil rights. Throwing MLK out there an example of the above.

Are guns responsible for infringing on the constitutional rights of 18 million people? I am sorry but comparing gun control to civil rights strikes me as slight to the civil right movement. One was the (and is) repressing the rights of American citizens. Civil rights is about fighting for the equality the constitution promises. How are you correlating that to gun control?

Also all the evidence points to the fact that most gun owners are responsible. Who is the enemy here? When you talk about changing the culture who are you even talking about?

I am not saying guns and slaves are the same thing
I gave you an example of how ingrained culture against something that has constitutional support can be changed. You are intentionally creating a strawman to change the subject.

If anyone here is providing knee jerk reactions with right wing talking points it's you.
When I am talking about changing culture I am talking about people who need to own guns to feel safe. Because people everywhere else on the world are doing without them.

I gave you an example of how ingrained culture against something that has constitutional support can be changed.

Not really. You gave me two examples. Slavery ended with war that killed more people than every other war combined.

The other example was civil rights, which did NOT have constituional support. The exact opposite. Jim Crow was literally unconstitutional. Thats is eventually why the civil rights movement was successful in eliminating Jim Crow.

If anyone here is providing knee jerk reactions with right wing talking points it's you.

Name one. Please.

Yes I gave two examples of two different things-

One was Slavery - the example was it's possible to overturn ingrained cultural beliefs and constitutional rights, I don't support war but if it takes war then war needs to happen. The lives of inncoent children are more important that whackjobs and their gun rights. Fuck anyone who says anything else.

Second example was MLK - because he articulated a position against it the predominant cultural narrative of the time. And yes according to you people who articulate views against guns are the problem. So **** that as well.

Example of knee jerk reaction -

Are guns responsible for infringing on the constitutional rights of 18 million people? I am sorry but comparing gun control to civil rights strikes me as slight to the civil right movement. One was the (and is) repressing the rights of American citizens. Civil rights is about fighting for the equality the constitution promises. How are you correlating that to gun control?

Completely irrelevant bull****. Because I wasn't correlating civil rights to guns, I was presenting evidence that people who speak up against cultural norms are not the problem and they are not stupid because you say so.

And as for the stuff you posted about why you bolded one part of the sentence and not the other. what was your comment? One is plain language the other is hard to follow? So it's your position we should cherry pick fragments of sentences from the constitution that meets the pervasive level of redneck illiteracy to inform our legal system? Fuck that.

So here is a classic example of when someone doesnt see things your way the next move is shut down dialogue and resort to name calling. You have proven my exact point about why these discussions go nowhere and nothing changes.

I ask you questions to clarify your points, you curse at me.

And yes according to you people who articulate views against guns are the problem

You have yet to articulate anything. That is what I am pushing you on. You opted NOT to articulate, and resort to name calling.

So far the level of understanding you have demonstrated is about as deep as the guy on this site who posted videos of black people doing bad things with the message that Americans would be less racist if blacks were just better behaved. How did that sit with you? I am challenging you to come up with something deeper than point the finger.

So there is a problem, with a large group of people who's view is backed by law and the constitution. Your tact to change that culture is call them all dump phucking rednecks? Sorry if you think that is a solution. Your attitude IS part of the problem. You are literally the voice for non change. The types of things you have posted are fuel for non-change. You sound like a Russian bot posting on an NRA message forum.

42% of American households own a fire arm. 42%. Very close to half.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/249740/percentage-of-households-in-the-united-states-owning-a-firearm/
42% of American households are listening to you. What is your message?

Sorry to call you our specifically. Honestly I am.

I dont own firearms and have no intention to. If you polled me on every political position I would test out as liberal democrat. I can stomach the 2nd amendment and have some respect for its origins. I think (especially in rural areas) people should have the right to protect their homes with a firearm, especially in a nation where so many are armed. I am dead set against military style weapons and equally so handguns. If could choose to ban one I would pick handguns... easy. I also understand neither of those are going away anytime soon, and its pretty easy to understand why, if you choose to.

My goal in this "discussion" was to ask questions and make people think a little bit.

My hope was for something a little bit deeper than VMart's "all gun owners have murder in their heart" or your own comments about phucking rednecks which not only yield nothing, but actually fuel to cement opposing views and are used to fund that opposition.

42% of households.

Stop spinning your wheels, calling names and start learning. Do you know what the Dickey Amendment is? Start with a google on that one. Go from there. If you want to start change it starts with education and awareness, not name calling and not labeling 42% of America as idiotic rednecks or murderers waiting to happen. Unless you want that name calling. For many its more important to voice their disgust and trash those who do not see it their way. Its your internet. If that is what you want its your right as well. Again... my point is if you want the change you claim stop pointing fingers and start learning. Start with the Dickey Amendment. Start with data and information. Its not happening with this generation. Until YOU change your attitude and approach you will lose the next generation as well.

How will you change the culture?
How will a ban on AR-15s keep us safe when there are already 5-10 million sold?
How will a ban on ALL assault rifles stop a kid from walking into school with 5 handguns and 200 rounds strapped on under his coat?

Are these not common sense questions? How hard to you want to fight for rules that have no impact? How can you make them more impactful?

Funny how quick you were to say things like "fishmike's interpretation" of the 2nd amendment. All I am doing is asking questions and you call me names, misquoted me and stomped around like a virtual toddler with phuck this and phuck that. Is that going to get you closer to the change culture change you say is so possible? Was that MLK's approach to changing culture during civil rights?

Names? What names? Fishmike's interpretation is name calling?
I did articulate my position very early on. Guns don't have a place in civilized society and they should be banned. Second amendment should be repealed or replaced. And Demicrats need to start taking the fight to the NRA instead of trying to find compromise. They are weak ass scumbags that are corrupt and in bed with the NRA, and they don't do anything to move the needle. Tell me I am repeating myself and this isn't news to you???

I don't actually care if you disagree with me, I want to be clear I am not trying to find common ground, that I think is the problem. The NRA doesn't try to find common ground, it's why they are successful. Democrats make the mistakes of taking marginal improvements as moral victories that's no way to fight systemic corruption and abuse of power. Start with the problem, build support to overturn the second amendment. It won't be easy but it has to be started. When and if they come in power make sales of all kinds of guns taxable at 800%. Do I need to draw a diagram? Do you realize the second amendment taken literally, the way you stated it actually gives people the right to own homemade nuclear bombs as well? Should we make uranium legal as well? There's already black market for it.

I am annoyed at people trying to broker compromise with ****heads that talk about how many guns they own when children are being shot to death.

Do you have data on how many kids are bedding massacred using cars in countries that do bn guns? That was your point right? Guns don't kill, people do, should we can cars....blah blah blah. Any data on number of school children killed in those other countries in a year?

Nope, all you got are empty talking points. And this politically correct bull**** about compromise. Fuck compromise.

How do we implement this? Well we do what all these other countries did, where is the rocket science? Are you gonna sit and listen to people who tell you it won't work in the US? That's bull**** and you know it. It works everywhere else. And you start by putting people in jail for owning guns and making examples out of them. Like I said it's not going to bed popular or politically correct. If that's what keeps you from doing the right thing, God help you.

One last clarification, I am NOT taking about banning AR15s, I am talking about banning guns. I said this before and I will repeat it again, I am not looking for specific policies at this time. I am looking for Democrats to star and lead a large scale movements to permanently ban guns in the US.

You can start movement to ban boos, cigarettes, drugs, and prostitution. Will work as well as guns.
If legal guns will not be available everyone will be able to get them from black market.
If some dude decided to massacre a bunch of people he will be really afraid of getting jail time for gun ownership.
Unfortunately or fortunately life is much more complicated that the picture of it in your brain.

Guns in the Black market will cost 50x more than in the supermarket, it is like with drugs, if you legalize drugs, the price will go down quickly and everybody can afford to use drugs, follow me ?

So you want mafia to get rich on guns?
Remember you are in America.
This country had history of prohibition.
How well it went?
Drags are dirt-chip our days because mafia works on volume and drugs are available in huge bulks.
Guns are even worth. AK47 on black market cost less than semiautomatic in stores.
World is flooded with guns.
We need to identify and isolate mentally sick people.
They are the ultimate weapons not guns they use.
After taking care of this having the legal guns out of their hands will be easier.

Gudris wrote:

arkrud wrote:

Gudris wrote:

arkrud wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:My phone is not letting me "quote" the last post.
But this is why discussions disintegrate. When you start calling people ignorant and accusing them of knee jerk reactions. The majority of the country at one time owned and wanted slaves, that was a much more deeply rooted part of the culture and it was the law. Someone then started to see the error in their ways because a small minority at first started pushing back on the establishment ideology. Then it gained momentum and became a movement. Yes the other side won't give up without a fight but it doesn't have to be "fought" with weapons.

I guess MLK, didn't get the memo that culture cannot be changed, because he must have sounded pretty stupid, right?

No one said it's going to be easy or the other side can be sweet talked or will be willing to cave in. What I am asking for is movement to start the fight and to take it to the other side. This is not a knee jerk reaction. I don't have a colleague charged out plan to convince the other side. I think it's stupid to think like that.

Culture change is hard but you need an idea to fight another idea. Our side hadn't articulated a common idea or a goal. Incremental hacking at something else is not an idea. It's why nothing ever changes. Is why we keep having the discussion on the NRA's terms and context.

No you start a movement by focusing on what seems impossible, it takes faith, it takes trust and it takes a village. Then over time it evolves naturally into a movement that CAN change the world. But you can't chart it's course ahead of time or define how it will work. You can only set it up and let it run its own course.

I am not an idealist, anyone who reads my posts here will see a heavy dose of cynicism. But I can absolutely guarantee we are not going to win the fight against guns by incremental progress and dicking around with mental health issues.

ignorance is a lack of knowledge and information. Thats from Webster.
knee-jerk
1.(of a response) automatic and unthinking.
"a knee-jerk reaction"
synonyms: impulsive, automatic, spontaneous, instinctive, mechanical, unthinking, hasty, rash, reckless, impetuous, precipitate

I really have not heard anything but the above. That is meant as a challenge. Not as an attack.

I cant think of something more different than civil rights. Throwing MLK out there an example of the above.

Are guns responsible for infringing on the constitutional rights of 18 million people? I am sorry but comparing gun control to civil rights strikes me as slight to the civil right movement. One was the (and is) repressing the rights of American citizens. Civil rights is about fighting for the equality the constitution promises. How are you correlating that to gun control?

Also all the evidence points to the fact that most gun owners are responsible. Who is the enemy here? When you talk about changing the culture who are you even talking about?

I am not saying guns and slaves are the same thing
I gave you an example of how ingrained culture against something that has constitutional support can be changed. You are intentionally creating a strawman to change the subject.

If anyone here is providing knee jerk reactions with right wing talking points it's you.
When I am talking about changing culture I am talking about people who need to own guns to feel safe. Because people everywhere else on the world are doing without them.

I gave you an example of how ingrained culture against something that has constitutional support can be changed.

Not really. You gave me two examples. Slavery ended with war that killed more people than every other war combined.

The other example was civil rights, which did NOT have constituional support. The exact opposite. Jim Crow was literally unconstitutional. Thats is eventually why the civil rights movement was successful in eliminating Jim Crow.

If anyone here is providing knee jerk reactions with right wing talking points it's you.

Name one. Please.

Yes I gave two examples of two different things-

One was Slavery - the example was it's possible to overturn ingrained cultural beliefs and constitutional rights, I don't support war but if it takes war then war needs to happen. The lives of inncoent children are more important that whackjobs and their gun rights. Fuck anyone who says anything else.

Second example was MLK - because he articulated a position against it the predominant cultural narrative of the time. And yes according to you people who articulate views against guns are the problem. So **** that as well.

Example of knee jerk reaction -

Are guns responsible for infringing on the constitutional rights of 18 million people? I am sorry but comparing gun control to civil rights strikes me as slight to the civil right movement. One was the (and is) repressing the rights of American citizens. Civil rights is about fighting for the equality the constitution promises. How are you correlating that to gun control?

Completely irrelevant bull****. Because I wasn't correlating civil rights to guns, I was presenting evidence that people who speak up against cultural norms are not the problem and they are not stupid because you say so.

And as for the stuff you posted about why you bolded one part of the sentence and not the other. what was your comment? One is plain language the other is hard to follow? So it's your position we should cherry pick fragments of sentences from the constitution that meets the pervasive level of redneck illiteracy to inform our legal system? Fuck that.

So here is a classic example of when someone doesnt see things your way the next move is shut down dialogue and resort to name calling. You have proven my exact point about why these discussions go nowhere and nothing changes.

I ask you questions to clarify your points, you curse at me.

And yes according to you people who articulate views against guns are the problem

You have yet to articulate anything. That is what I am pushing you on. You opted NOT to articulate, and resort to name calling.

So far the level of understanding you have demonstrated is about as deep as the guy on this site who posted videos of black people doing bad things with the message that Americans would be less racist if blacks were just better behaved. How did that sit with you? I am challenging you to come up with something deeper than point the finger.

So there is a problem, with a large group of people who's view is backed by law and the constitution. Your tact to change that culture is call them all dump phucking rednecks? Sorry if you think that is a solution. Your attitude IS part of the problem. You are literally the voice for non change. The types of things you have posted are fuel for non-change. You sound like a Russian bot posting on an NRA message forum.

42% of American households own a fire arm. 42%. Very close to half.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/249740/percentage-of-households-in-the-united-states-owning-a-firearm/
42% of American households are listening to you. What is your message?

Sorry to call you our specifically. Honestly I am.

I dont own firearms and have no intention to. If you polled me on every political position I would test out as liberal democrat. I can stomach the 2nd amendment and have some respect for its origins. I think (especially in rural areas) people should have the right to protect their homes with a firearm, especially in a nation where so many are armed. I am dead set against military style weapons and equally so handguns. If could choose to ban one I would pick handguns... easy. I also understand neither of those are going away anytime soon, and its pretty easy to understand why, if you choose to.

My goal in this "discussion" was to ask questions and make people think a little bit.

My hope was for something a little bit deeper than VMart's "all gun owners have murder in their heart" or your own comments about phucking rednecks which not only yield nothing, but actually fuel to cement opposing views and are used to fund that opposition.

42% of households.

Stop spinning your wheels, calling names and start learning. Do you know what the Dickey Amendment is? Start with a google on that one. Go from there. If you want to start change it starts with education and awareness, not name calling and not labeling 42% of America as idiotic rednecks or murderers waiting to happen. Unless you want that name calling. For many its more important to voice their disgust and trash those who do not see it their way. Its your internet. If that is what you want its your right as well. Again... my point is if you want the change you claim stop pointing fingers and start learning. Start with the Dickey Amendment. Start with data and information. Its not happening with this generation. Until YOU change your attitude and approach you will lose the next generation as well.

How will you change the culture?
How will a ban on AR-15s keep us safe when there are already 5-10 million sold?
How will a ban on ALL assault rifles stop a kid from walking into school with 5 handguns and 200 rounds strapped on under his coat?

Are these not common sense questions? How hard to you want to fight for rules that have no impact? How can you make them more impactful?

Funny how quick you were to say things like "fishmike's interpretation" of the 2nd amendment. All I am doing is asking questions and you call me names, misquoted me and stomped around like a virtual toddler with phuck this and phuck that. Is that going to get you closer to the change culture change you say is so possible? Was that MLK's approach to changing culture during civil rights?

Names? What names? Fishmike's interpretation is name calling?
I did articulate my position very early on. Guns don't have a place in civilized society and they should be banned. Second amendment should be repealed or replaced. And Demicrats need to start taking the fight to the NRA instead of trying to find compromise. They are weak ass scumbags that are corrupt and in bed with the NRA, and they don't do anything to move the needle. Tell me I am repeating myself and this isn't news to you???

I don't actually care if you disagree with me, I want to be clear I am not trying to find common ground, that I think is the problem. The NRA doesn't try to find common ground, it's why they are successful. Democrats make the mistakes of taking marginal improvements as moral victories that's no way to fight systemic corruption and abuse of power. Start with the problem, build support to overturn the second amendment. It won't be easy but it has to be started. When and if they come in power make sales of all kinds of guns taxable at 800%. Do I need to draw a diagram? Do you realize the second amendment taken literally, the way you stated it actually gives people the right to own homemade nuclear bombs as well? Should we make uranium legal as well? There's already black market for it.

I am annoyed at people trying to broker compromise with ****heads that talk about how many guns they own when children are being shot to death.

Do you have data on how many kids are bedding massacred using cars in countries that do bn guns? That was your point right? Guns don't kill, people do, should we can cars....blah blah blah. Any data on number of school children killed in those other countries in a year?

Nope, all you got are empty talking points. And this politically correct bull**** about compromise. Fuck compromise.

How do we implement this? Well we do what all these other countries did, where is the rocket science? Are you gonna sit and listen to people who tell you it won't work in the US? That's bull**** and you know it. It works everywhere else. And you start by putting people in jail for owning guns and making examples out of them. Like I said it's not going to bed popular or politically correct. If that's what keeps you from doing the right thing, God help you.

One last clarification, I am NOT taking about banning AR15s, I am talking about banning guns. I said this before and I will repeat it again, I am not looking for specific policies at this time. I am looking for Democrats to star and lead a large scale movements to permanently ban guns in the US.

You can start movement to ban boos, cigarettes, drugs, and prostitution. Will work as well as guns.
If legal guns will not be available everyone will be able to get them from black market.
If some dude decided to massacre a bunch of people he will be really afraid of getting jail time for gun ownership.
Unfortunately or fortunately life is much more complicated that the picture of it in your brain.

Guns in the Black market will cost 50x more than in the supermarket, it is like with drugs, if you legalize drugs, the price will go down quickly and everybody can afford to use drugs, follow me ?

So you want mafia to get rich on guns?
Remember you are in America.
This country had history of prohibition.
How well it went?
Drags are dirt-chip our days because mafia works on volume and drugs are available in huge bulks.
Guns are even worth. AK47 on black market cost less than semiautomatic in stores.
World is flooded with guns.
We need to identify and isolate mentally sick people.
They are the ultimate weapons not guns they use.
After taking care of this having the legal guns out of their hands will be easier.

Lets say today you are a mentally healthy person and get guns, but tomorrow you get fired get stressed start to drink and use drugs, go to the workplace(school) and kill everybody, follow me ? but i understand that is still not critical point to get rid of guns in USA, Americans need 10 000+ gun killings every month to start to think rationally, by statistics you can reach that point by 2021.

This is possible.
Social life is not certain, it is based on probability and variance is huge.
We can reduce the probability of mentally sick people to buy guns which is good.
The gun ownership have to be time bound.
Every year the person who wants to maintain the gun ownership need to be required to get reevaluation based on his mental health and other things.
Making the gun ownership more cumbersome an time consuming to maintain will reduce it right away.
There are many ways to make it painful enough without the ban and constitutional changes to reduce participation.
At the same time the illegal gun ownership will increase so we will have more organized crime and more people in jail.
This will need to be provision and $$$ allocated to. Our tax dollars.