Not really admitting anything - but since it was the reverse situation:

If my prior post was a hijack, then so is your post here.

If your post here is not a hijack, than neither was mine.

Pick one. No double standard here.

no, i think most people understand that we don't need to do 'something'. big difference between a knee jerk reaction and common sense restrictions. only the ultra-zealous gun control folks are going to ask for a complete ban-everyone knows that won't happen.
by the same token, do we just say 'meh, can't do a thing'? no, no reason for that either.

You know what's ironic?

For all the energy in debating this (which I much enjoyed - thanks), I'm probably not in the market for an assault weapon anyway.

But, saw this post out there, and apparently just the debate has really ramped up the gun buying.

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/12/1...al-gun-buyers/

OK, many fear a "slippery slope", but emotions aside for both viewpoints - I wonder how many more people will have guns by the time any ban is enacted, and if they are doing it in response to anticipated legal measures, how long will the ban take for us to "break even" to the number of soon-to-be-banned guns that we have today?

people want hard core drugs. people want child porn. people want sex slaves. i still want my tank.
what's that got to do with it? i want it, so i should have it? of course not. many things are regulated, restricted, etc. why do guns get a pass? and there is a line drawn already on them. i don't have rpg's. the neighbor doesn't have sam's.

Because the NRA is essentially a lobbying arm now for gun and ammo manufacturers (it wasn't always, but it is now) and it's all about moving product. They want these things kept legal so they can sell them.

It's not the only think the NRA has lobbied about- I learned today that, since the 1980's, they have lobbied successfully for convicted felons to get their guns back. And many do, with no sort of review. Voting rights, they can't have back, but their guns, why sure. Because only one of those things can be purchased legally and it's all about moving product.

Federally convicted felons are still banned for life, but most felonies are state crimes, and many states now permit felons to own guns after they complete their sentence:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/14/us...irlY8lBrPWnmxg

As George Carlin said about war, it all comes down to stuff. In this case, selling stuff.

It's hard to be well mannered when you act like the conservative version of Riot talking around points and ignoring the ones that prove you wrong.

I have heard people say that they think restricting what types of guns people can purchase is a slippery slope that will lead to the destruction of certain rights. I disagree. The 2nd amendment is arguably open to more interpretation than any other amendment because the original intent is virtually inapplicable by modern standards. The "right to keep and bear arms" had everything to do with defending oneself from the government and/or his/her fellow man when they felt like their rights were being violated. The idea that people can stockpile assault rifles because of the 2nd amendment seems very silly to me. Restricting what types of guns can be made for legal purchase is constitutional.

:tro:

I agree. We are already limited to what we can or cannot own. We didnt slide down any slippery slope when the assault ban was in force before.

"As a teenager, Adam Lanza would come in for a haircut about every six weeks without speaking or looking at anyone and always accompanied by his mother."

http://news.yahoo.com/stylists-lanza...215310243.html

I've been waiting for days now for you to chime in on this topic of banning assault weapons and this is the best you can do?

How many times has the story changed? First it was the brother who was the shooter and the media reported that, then it was the mother was a teacher at the school, now she isn't, then the mother is a prepper, now she isn't.

You simply DO NOT CARE. STOP ACTING LIKE YOU CARE. If you cared you would restrain from wanting the second amendment destroyed. But unfortunately your brain can't see that many angles and definitely can't handle trauma so you just let the television do the thinking for you.

jms you're just a troll like Piers Morgan who wants to demonize his fellow American for not falling hook, line, and sinker for your masters beckoning. You have enough sense to see through the bs of this storyline.

More coverage by reporters and investigators in the media on gun control than finding out what really happened at that school.

You people who want to take our liberties for the illusion of safety need to open up a history book that isn't state run.

This country is unique. Take our right to defend ourselves away and we're stuck with a government the rest of the world truly despises. A government that has bullied millions of people on this planet. A country where the borders are wide open and have been for quite some time. A country where 50-60 million food stamps are handed out each month and the CEO of the bank that is making it so warning us that his bank will be o.k....America might not be.

Absolutely brilliant. Low information liberals...the lot of you.

Thanks for the compliment, I guess. Welcome back and please stay.

Thanks.

But really the storyline changes daily. Doesn't seem to matter that the media is being irresponsible. What matters is people see through it. Cable news ratings are plummeting...mainly because heartland America doesn't want to come home after a hard days work...oh who am I kidding? Most people who watch cable news don't work, and if they do work it's more than likely they're a barista or work in some hipster health food store that serves gmo.

What amazes me is how the same media can still manipulate the population to agree and support their agenda. You know, there was a time in this country when investigative reporting and ethical standards in journalism mattered somewhat. Why would any sane American want to give a government anything? Especially one that can't even decide on a budget, much less balance one. A government that selectively shows their outrage on tragedies. A government that didn't have multiple press conferences and attend religious services of the victims of drone strikes that we're responsible for as a country.

My reasoning why they didn't? They DON'T CARE!! There is nothing to gain by mourning the death of innocent men, women and children if they aren't American. In fact, we still deny any responsibility for the death of these people.

So knowing this, why would you want to give up your right to defend yourself, family, and property and hand everything that could protect you to an irresponsible government?

Sure semi-autos have been banned before. But when has a bureaucrat, once they've banned a certain type of gun, stopped pursuing all of them? A country of significance, not one of the small fufu countries that doesn't have a 5th world country next door.

Do you really think that a government in a country where just about every chronic health condition has skyrocketed the past 20 years really cares about our well being? Whatever. Keep shining, you cray cray diamond.

The storyline today seems to be the shooter basically didn't exist the past 3 years.

How can you not be on the internet? No trail? YOU REALLY BELIEVE THIS S.HIT?

Come on be smarter than this, people. For some of you I know that's an impossibility but most of you know better. It doesn't add up.

Notice how the picture they keep showing is of a child. This murderer is 20 years old. The Trayvon Martin trick...to get feels out of you. Mind/Control System.

It's real.

Welcome back coach. Good to see ya.

No one is trying to take away your liberties or your right to defend yourself. I haven't seen anyone say that in any post on the subject.

No one is for giving up our rights to defend ourselves. The argument is about semi automatic rifles. We don't need them IMO. Are handguns not enough to defend yourself?

What are you defending yourself against that you need a semi automatic weapon?

It's also about ending gun shows where average americans make their living. But f.uck those people and their livelihood.

Tell you what, Hoss. When the government solves the debt problem, the jobs problem, the health care problem, the infrastructure problem, the spies in our government problem, the nuclear weapons problem, the border problem, etc. then I'll talk about giving up my rights that the founders made possible.

All of your reasoning is not important. If you don't like guns don't buy one. A gun ban in a country with an open border to our neighbor that has some of the most evil drug cartels on earth is ridiculous.

They are playing with your emotions and it is clouding your reasoning. The majority of these shooters didn't have registered guns. They were using them illegally. A gun ban is not going to take the semi-autos out of the criminals hand.

No pie chart, statistic, or liberal talking point will change that fact. Think a criminal won't take advantage of the citizens if he has a cache of semi-autos and he knows you have a pea shooter? PPPPPPFFFFFFFFFFFT

:tro: Couldn't agree more. And welcome back Coach.

Remember emo boy in Portland that stole a friends gun and went on that rampage in the mall?

That story has seemed to drop completely off the state-run media news reel. I believe why it did is because an armed citizen brandished his weapon, the shooter saw him and like the chicken sh.it he was took his own life. That guy is a hero IMO.
They don't want good news that counters their agenda. It's sinister.

Edit: Said the guy killed the shooter. He didn't. Here is the story...

http://www.tucsonnewsnow.com/story/2...n-mall-shooter

My reasoning isn't important...but your first argument is about people losing jobs (maybe) because a ban on semi automatic rifles (might) end gun shows? Come on, you're just giving me the conservative talking points, while talking around my points.

I realize a ban won't stop crime with semi automatic weapons. But I'm still waiting for someone...anyone to give me a reasonable explanation why they need a semi automatic weapon.

Sorry, I doubt our founding fathers could see this far into the future and thought people would have access to these kinds of guns. They realized they were imperfect, which is why we have amendments. (I stole that from the movie With Honors.)

So since I used a talking point it's o.k. to counter the libtard talking point that the founding fathers didn't have vision, didn't expect society and technology to advance, therefore the 2nd amendment is flawed.

Sure, Hossy. Which talking point is more ridiculous? Hmm?

People will lose their jobs and definitely their income will decline. That's a fact. An absolute fact backed by the law of averages. Do I need to list the reasons why? I can go balls deep on a conservative talking point if need be.

Quite frankly the assumption that our founding fathers didn't have vision and belief in progress, the same ones who crossed an ocean for the chance at freedom, is insulting to my intelligence.

For shame. You should get an autographed picture of Piers Morgan for that one.

Of course people shouldn't have big bad weapons. But real life isn't a f.ucking Disney movie and sometimes life doesn't have a happy ending...because asian massage parlors are being shut down.

So you thought our founding fathers envisioned the world as it is today? People shooting up malls and schools with semi automatic weapons? Really? They were smart, but not that smart.

Sorry, we'll just agree to disagree on this.

People will lose their jobs and income will decline if we shut tracks down (which I happen to agree with your point of view) but you are okay with that. But you're concerned about the possible income loss by gun dealers if we ban semi automatic rifles?

I don't get it.

That's right, Piers. Move the goal post so that you're right.

You asked this...


Whoa massive technological advancements of improvements in speed and capacity! A concept foreign to humans until 2012!!

Holy f.uck turds, Piers.

Let's get Nick Cage on the case. Maybe there is an asterisk that faded on the Constitution.

The state-run media at its finest. Say hello to Piers Morgan...champion of bad trolling and flawed logic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9z1wfgNf9E

Hoss, I'm still waiting for someone from the government to give me one reasonable explanation why the DHS and the SSA need to stockpile almost 2 BILLION rounds of hollow point ammunition:


http://www.lookintoit.org/DHS-Prepar...an-People.html

A coincidence I'm sure that this is never mentioned on the state-run media.

Meanwhile, they just arrested two guys in Tampa for planning to set off a bomb in NYC in retaliation for the 100's if not 1,000's of innocent children killed in front of their parents, by this presidents illegal drone war.

{looking for a link, was reported on the news once this morning and has mysteriously disappeared from their scroll on-line}

Not a tear shed by the American people for these kids or their families.

Americans still have faith in law enforcement. Well here is an authority figure asking relevant questions.

If you care about what happened to these children and adults in Sandy Hook then take 20 minutes of your time and give this a listen...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=greuYvcMLDk

That kind of says it all...

Where do you come up with this stuff? First, you call me a right-winger, then you call me a"bleeding heart liberal", then you accuse me of being a pot smoker, and now you think I want assault weapons banned. So far you've been wrong on every single one of your assumptions. I look at every individual issue separately. I'm basically a moderate Republican but you're going to have a hard time guessing where I stand on issues based on that. I'm left of center on certain issues and right of center on others. The fact that I like all animals doesn't make me a bleeding heart liberal. The fact that I'm not a big fan of hunters doesn't mean I want to ban assault weapons. The fact that I think marijuana should be legal doesn't mean that I smoke marijuana.The fact that I'm a registered Republican doesn't mean that I don't want Boehner to compromise a liitle more and make a deal with the President on the Fiscal Cliff.

You'd ban deer hunting before banning assault weapons. You can't make this **** up. :zz:

Just to clarify, which founding fathers do you think crossed an ocean for the chance at freedom? Alexander Hamilton was born on an island in the Caribbean, so maybe you are talking about him. The rest of the guys people usually refer to as "founding fathers" were all born in the thirteen colonies so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
Of course, if you are the only one reading "a history book that isn't state run," maybe you are privy to special information that the rest of us don't have.

I don't know if I'm necessarily in favor of banning deer hunting. As I said before, if you have a situation where there is such an overpopulation problem that all the deer will die if the herd isn't trimmed, and there is no other viable way to trim the herd, then there may be no choice but to have some hunting.

Just to touch on something I was talking about in the other thread, if a guy hunts to feed his family because he does not like regular meat and he doesn't think regular meat is healthy, I don't really have a problem with that. But what percentage of hunters do it for that reason? I think the percentage is very small. I think most hunters hunt because they think it's fun. I don't know how anyone could look at a deer or any other animal, and think it's fun to kill them. Do you understand why I would be critical of someone who gets a thrill out of shooting an animal?

As I said before, if I lived out in the wilderness and every type of food option was available, I would probably catch some fish. I wouldn't enjoy it. I wouldn't do it for fun. I would do it out of necessity. If a hunter hunts out of necessity, I don't have a problem with that.

Oh so you assume that our founders never crossed the ocean in order to be free?

What happened to all of those trips to France? Did the founders of our country travel by dragons?

See I don't like you and you don't care for me at all. Unlike you I don't approach my ENEMY (you) playing semantics with a few lines out of many to win some e-debate.

Saul Alinsky tactics don't work on me. Get bold and challenge me like a man otherwise f. off.

Or keep poking me with a stick. I've got resources. Come at me.

Here's my question on that....if someone is a vegetarian (I'm not) and they criticize hunters as engaging in wrongful behavior, I say fine. I may not agree with the vegetarian's criticism but at least I think they're being logically consistent.
What I don't understand is people who think hunting is disgusting and/or immoral but then go to the grocery store or a restaurant and buy up meat to consume and think that's perfectly fine. That seems odd.
Personally I don't hunt. But it seems weird for me to criticize those who do while I'm inhaling my chicken sandwich.

In answer to your inquiry, most of the founding fathers did travel to Europe at some point in their lives, although I don't believe George Washington ever did. I just found your post humorous because you were saying a poster was "insulting your intelligence" at the same time you were posting some ignorant stuff.
We certainly disagree on a number of topics, that's true. I believe we agree on some others. I'm fine with debating politics with you (or anyone) any time on here. The only two things that annoy me about your style is that you tend to fly into wild overreaction about stuff and you seem to get really hostile when its pretty unwarranted.

"Get bold and challenge me like a man."
Ummm....we're in a discussion on the politics page of a horse racing forum. Its probably not that big of a deal.

Don't even try it.
Man up and mention the other ignorant things I said. Why not address all of them?

I SEE THROUGH YOU. You are the hostile person. Passive-aggressive behavior is bookmarked on your browser.

I'm not wrong about people. Look what happened to Riot. You have always been on my radar because of your posting style. You're a snippy little progressive loser who hides behind fake manners.

If we ever wake up as a populace these progressives with their snipping powers on forums will come to an abrupt end.

No one likes a person who crowbars back into a debate by taking one paragraph out of context to prove someone is wrong. Especially when they're the enemy.

Do you like being a traitor and enemy to the country you live in? Because since you play semantics then I'll play. That's what you are. It's time to stop being nice to the ENEMY.

You are the one calling for fundamental change to our constitution. Therefore, you have the motherfu.cking problem. If you don't like it then move to a country with stricter gun laws.

Stop making my fellow Americans criminals. Stop taking their livelihoods away, ENEMY.

It's not my fault most people are too stupid or scared to call it like it is.

LEAVE THIS COUNTRY NOW.

I agree with you. We talked about this very thing in the other thread. When a person buys meat at the store (or in a restaurant), all they are really doing is hiring someone to kill the animal for them.

Cool