Texas set to allow unlicensed handgun carry despite outcry

[Dill]

(05-29-2021, 06:48 PM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: Now we just need to get rid of Dill and that Baltimore guy.

LOL I'm proud to be lumped with Bpat here. 

[Dill]

(05-30-2021, 12:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You have zero clue of what actually happened or the history there.  So you'll kindly forgive me if I give your opinion the zero consideration it deserves.

I do have "clue of what actually happened or the history there." 

Accepting Bels' standard of diversity, this forum is the poorer without Dino and Fred. I immediately noticed the drop off in new threads the week after D was gone. Less interactive discussion,.  Having an actual lawyer participate in discussions was a good thing.

On this thread, I recalled Fred by way of an effective contribution on another, argued from "fact and commonsense," and in my view never adequately answered. 

You "recalled" Fred's "word twisting and prevarication," a behavior you often allege but never substantiate.  That's not trafficking in "facts and common sense." That's just injecting wholly unnecessary slander into factual discussion. Neither Fred nor Dino made a practice of so referencing fellow forum members. It took multiple personal attacks to get their dander up, if ever. 

You can't expect people--even new forum members--not to notice who's actually doing what and draw conclusions. It's right there in the record, thread after thread. 

It's one thing if some find this forum difficult because their views are exposed to and undermined by rational, evidence-based argument. It's quite another if it's difficult because personal attacks obfuscate, side track discussion, and shut down threads. 

In post #28, I've offered you a "divergent opinion" grounded in "facts and commonsense." Can you respond in kind, set the discussion back on track? 
 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-30-2021, 02:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I just wish we could get some more active posters, in here. It gets a bit boring when the majority of what we have been seeing was stuff from them or the idiocy of someone else. When we try to get a thread going about something more grounded it just doesn't get the attention.

I agree, I appreciate it when the forum is more active as well.  I think it's unfortunate that the price to pay for that is the participation of those two, especially Fred.  But they both chose to leave, and no one can put Fred leaving on me.  I put that cretin on ignore probably close to a year ago.

(05-30-2021, 03:10 PM)Dill Wrote: I do have "clue of what actually happened or the history there."

No, you actually don't.

Quote:Accepting Bels' standard of diversity, this forum is the poorer without Dino and Fred. I immediately noticed the drop off in new threads the week after D was gone. Less interactive discussion,.  Having an actual lawyer participate in discussions was a good thing.

I agree, GM was a major shit stirrer.  Fred was a lawyer who didn't know that the police can order you out of your vehicle and thought the Nuremburg defense was a good strategy for a defendant.  So no, we're actually better off without a lawyer who doesn't know the law.

Quote:On this thread, I recalled Fred by way of an effective contribution on another, argued from "fact and commonsense," and in my view never adequately answered. 

You "recalled" Fred's "word twisting and prevarication," a behavior you often allege but never substantiate.  That's not trafficking in "facts and common sense." That's just injecting wholly unnecessary slander into factual discussion. Neither Fred nor Dino made a practice of so referencing fellow forum members. It took multiple personal attacks to get their dander up, if ever. 

Numerous people, including Bel, have called Fred out for the exact behavior.  He's infamous for it.  This is another case of "Dill doesn't see it".

Quote:You can't expect people--even new forum members--not to notice who's actually doing what and draw conclusions. It's right there in the record, thread after thread. 

Oh, you mean UberHuber who's never contributed anything but the sniping and attacks you purport to decry?

Quote:It's one thing if some find this forum difficult because their views are exposed to and undermined by rational, evidence-based argument. It's quite another if it's difficult because personal attacks obfuscate, side track discussion, and shut down threads. 

In post #28, I've offered you a "divergent opinion" grounded in "facts and commonsense." Can you respond in kind, set the discussion back on track? 
 

You have a rather different idea of what that constitutes then most.  Regardless, I've already stated, I'm not in the habit of debating with people who support terrorism.

[BFritz21]

Anyone ever think about it this way:

Most illegal immigrants enter the US through Texas. Most illegal drugs enter the US through Texas.

You don't think drug dealers and people in drug cartels are packing?

You don't think it's right to give the citizens of Texas a ability to defend themselves, their families, and their properties?

[Belsnickel]

(05-30-2021, 06:52 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Anyone ever think about it this way:

Most illegal immigrants enter the US through Texas. Most illegal drugs enter the US through Texas.

You don't think drug dealers and people in drug cartels are packing?

You don't think it's right to give the citizens of Texas a ability to defend themselves, their families, and their properties?

You're right. Texans had no way to defend themselves before this.

Also, undocumented migrants are no more violent than anyone else. That's asinine reasoning.

[BFritz21]

(05-30-2021, 07:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You're right. Texans had no way to defend themselves before this.

Also, undocumented migrants are no more violent than anyone else. That's asinine reasoning.

Drug dealers aren't more violent than anyone else?

Seriously?

How did Texans defend themselves before this in a more effective way than guns?

[Belsnickel]

(05-30-2021, 08:24 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Drug dealers aren't more violent than anyone else?

Seriously?

How did Texans defend themselves before this in a more effective way than guns?

I like how you just ignore what I said and decided to say something completely different. And my sarcastic point was because Texans already have some of the loosest laws on guns, around. The number of Texans I know rolling around with AR-15 truck guns is insane. It's very easy to get a license to carry concealed in Texas and the number of people carrying is high. They were doing fine.

[BFritz21]

(05-31-2021, 08:57 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I like how you just ignore what I said and decided to say something completely different. And my sarcastic point was because Texans already have some of the loosest laws on guns, around. The number of Texans I know rolling around with AR-15 truck guns is insane. It's very easy to get a license to carry concealed in Texas and the number of people carrying is high. They were doing fine.

I ignored what you said?  I'm pretty sure me asking you if drug dealers aren't violent criminals was pointing out that your "asinine reasoning" statement was a pretty ridiculous claim.

I love how you ignored it though and acted like it was a ridiculous question.

[Belsnickel]

(05-31-2021, 09:16 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: I ignored what you said?  I'm pretty sure me asking you if drug dealers aren't violent criminals was pointing out that your "asinine reasoning" statement was a pretty ridiculous claim.

I love how you ignored it though and acted like it was a ridiculous question.

Because it was, as I never said that. And it's nice how you ignored my commentary on Texas gun laws.

[*Nately120*]

Can't people just stop buying drugs and luring all these murderous drug selling illegals to the USA? I'm too busy working to get into a gunfight. Or let's just legalize drugs and cut them out of the equation. I'm so sick of "just buy a gun and shoot people who are trying to shoot you" being peddled as a solution for regular people.

[Dill]

(05-30-2021, 03:33 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan: Wrote: Quote: It's one thing if some find this forum difficult because their views are exposed to and undermined by rational, evidence-based argument. It's quite another if it's difficult because personal attacks obfuscate, side track discussion, and shut down threads. 

In post #28, I've offered you a "divergent opinion" grounded in "facts and commonsense." Can you respond in kind, set the discussion back on track? 

You have a rather different idea of what that constitutes then most.  Regardless, I've already stated, I'm not in the habit of debating with people who support terrorism.

LOL The last statement of your post suggests you have a rather different idea of what constitutes "word twisting and prevarication" than most, not to mention "shit stirring."

You were indeed "in the habit of debating people who support terrorism" on this very thread, 

--until one started providing examples of good-guys-with-guns shot by cops. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-31-2021, 12:07 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL The last statement of your post suggests you have a rather different idea of what constitutes "word twisting and prevarication" than most, not to mention "shit stirring."

You were indeed "in the habit of debating people who support terrorism" on this very thread, 

--until one started providing examples of good-guys-with-guns shot by cops. 

Oh do tell?  Please dear sir, point me in that direction.

[Dill]

(05-30-2021, 02:17 PM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: At least there’s not 50 new threads everyday shitting on anything and everything I believe in. I’m surprised I didn’t notice anything.

Seems like there is an implicit, core standard in that statement--"what I believe in." 

Threads then are judged by how closely they do or do not hew to that standard.  

Is that about right? 

[Dill]

(05-31-2021, 12:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote: You were indeed "in the habit of debating people who support terrorism" on this very thread, 


--until one started providing examples of good-guys-with-guns shot by cops.

Oh do tell?  Please dear sir, point me in that direction.

About all I can do is give you the post number--#28. 

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

(05-31-2021, 12:24 PM)Dill Wrote: Seems like there is an implicit, core standard in that statement--"what I believe in." 

Threads then are judged by how closely they do or do not hew to that standard.  

Is that about right? 

I don’t know why you’re acting like pretty much everyone does the exact same thing. Only difference is this is your echo chamber.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-31-2021, 12:30 PM)Dill Wrote: About all I can do is give you the post number--#28. 

Is that about all you can do?  Allow me to clarify, I'm not going to debate a topic about the terrorists with someone who supports the terrorists.  But at least you're now acknowledging your support for known terrorist organizations.

[BFritz21]

(05-31-2021, 09:43 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Because it was, as I never said that. And it's nice how you ignored my commentary on Texas gun laws.

You said that undocumented immigrants aren't more violent than anyone else, but, as statistics show, the most illegal drugs from Mexico come through Texas, so you're saying that illegal immigrants entering through Texas and bringing drugs aren't more violent than anyone else.

I didn't ignore your point about Texas gun laws.  Ok, they have loose laws, so what's wrong with loosening them even more so that citizens can protect themselves?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-31-2021, 03:35 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: You said that undocumented immigrants aren't more violent than anyone else, but, as statistics show, the most illegal drugs from Mexico come through Texas, so you're saying that illegal immigrants entering through Texas and bringing drugs aren't more violent than anyone else.

I didn't ignore your point about Texas gun laws.  Ok, they have loose laws, so what's wrong with loosening them even more so that citizens can protect themselves?

I can tell you definitively that most people entering the country illegally have nothing to do with gangs or the cartels.  In fact a fair number of them are fleeing the violence caused by the drug trade.  Are some of them smugglers, either human or narcotics, absolutely.  However, they are a very small percentage of those people.  This isn't to say that the gangs and cartels don't use our policies, such as allowing instant admittance to unaccompanied minors, to their advantage by sending teenagers into the US who are gang members.  This should be addressed, and it really isn't.  But, again, that doesn't alter the fact that the vast majority of illegal immigrants have zero affiliation with the cartels or gangs.

[Dill]

(05-31-2021, 01:06 PM)CarolinaBengalFanGuy Wrote: I don’t know why you’re acting like pretty much everyone does the exact same thing. Only difference is this is your echo chamber.

I'm not "acting like pretty much everyone does the exact same thing," or I'd not have asked you the question I did.  

All political discussion forums are not "echo chambers"; and this one is not (though it may be losing some of its diversity).  Echo chambers are created when people with different political views are shouted down, insulted, and chased off, so true believers can share their "truths" in a safe space. They don't have to explain observations, terms, or analogies. They can count on everyone "just seeing" them. 

If, from the get go, enough people consider posted news articles written from other political viewpoints to be "shitting on everything and anything [they] believe in," they may turn a vibrant and diverse forum into an echo chamber by reducing opposing view points. 

The echo chamber effect only disappears to the degree each side is willing to work to understand (not agree with) the other. That can't happen unless each adheres to norms of civility and rational discussion. It can't happen unless each side poses the other questions and counter-arguments, and the other stays for an answer. And it can't happen if one group already believes they know all they need to about the other side, believes they can "predict" what they say, etc. Or if questions and counter-arguments are perceived as simple attack.

One of my goals in this forum has been to understand what the "other side" thinks and why. Often--most of the time--this is not easy. Some opponents are often ready to tell me what's what, but not to follow up questions I may have. If a rare a thread produces lots of discussion in which "the other side" lays out motivations and reasons for their views, then I consider it, and its participants, to be making a valuable contributions to the forum.  Some might be happy that former rightists like Bfine and Lucy are gone, but I am not one of them. If you didn't personally attack them, those guys stood for questions, and more questions. They haven't been easy to replace. 

Hence my question about your does-it-agree-with-my-beliefs standard. Not everyone is on the same page in this forum, in terms what they expect to get from it, or out of other participants.  That's not necessarily a bad thing. 

[CarolinaBengalFanGuy]

(05-31-2021, 11:24 PM)Dill Wrote: All political discussion forums are not "echo chambers"; and this one is not (though it may be losing some of its diversity).  Echo chambers are created when people with different political views are shouted down, insulted, and chased off, so true believers can share their "truths" in a safe space. They don't have to explain observations, terms, or analogies. They can count on everyone "just seeing" them.