(02-22-2018, 02:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Stop it. This is an outright lie. You keep repeating it and it is patently false.

(02-22-2018, 02:09 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Then why has almost every democrat fought against securing the schools with security or even arming teachers or staff? The only talk we here is banning guns. Like it or not but we will never ban guns.

We can secure the schools. If we can secure an airport we can secure a school.

We can strengthen mental health services and commit more people.

(02-22-2018, 02:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think that raising the minimum purchase age for things that were included in the AWB to 21 is a good move. Not banning them outright, and not raising the age for all rifles. But I think that raising the age for firearms like ARs and AKs would be an acceptable possibility.

(02-22-2018, 02:14 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: I am speaking about the law makers. Not the people on the board.

If it were up to a lot in here we would probably have all our guns seized.

(02-22-2018, 01:59 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The problem is that there needs to be a but more rigor on those. You can take a hunter safety course in Virginia and never handle a firearm, then turn around and get a concealed firearms permit. You can also take an online course on firearm safety and use that certificate to get one. You can quite literally be licensed to carry a loaded firearm in most places in Virginia, concealed, without ever having touched a gun before in your life.

This is why I have a problem with reciprocity for those permits. One state may have very strict guidelines and another may be like Virginia.

(02-22-2018, 02:09 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Then why has almost  every democrat fought against securing the schools with security or even arming teachers or staff?     The only talk we here is banning guns.    Like it or not but we will never ban guns.  

We can secure the schools.   If we can secure an airport we can secure a school.

We can strengthen mental health services and commit more people.

(02-22-2018, 02:27 PM)Benton Wrote: Well, an online firearms course is kind of pointless anyway.

Would you give someone a driver's license if they took a four hour online course? For most sane people, no. That's still more restrictions than we have on firearms, though.


The first graph, that's not correct. And even for those who have spoken out against arming staff... good. Again, it's a horrible idea. There's also no validity to the "all we hear is banning guns." That's unbelievably inaccurate. There are a small handful of extreme lawmakers advocating for banning some firearms, mostly what's deemed an assault rifle. Their numbers are much smaller (and less dangerous) than the ones advocating for arming civilians and putting them in schools.

As far as the rest, the GOP has taken steps to reduce school funding (which allows for less money to provide for security) and loosened restrictions on the mentally ill getting firearms. If you're going to make it a partisan issue, I wouldn't be advocating for things your side is against. 

(02-22-2018, 02:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You stated "The only talk we hear is banning guns." That is a lie. It is not the only talk going on right now, not by a long shot. Your statement is also overly broad. If you would like to qualify it to say "banning ARs or assault weapons" then that is fine. But that's also still a lie. We have elected officials out there talking about expanded background checks, waiting period, raising the ages to purchase, etc. So no, banning guns, or even a type of gun, is not "the only talk we hear."

(02-22-2018, 01:56 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Hence why I said “reasonable step”.  There are several things that need to happen.

(02-22-2018, 03:28 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Why are we even going to these things without securing the schools first?

(02-22-2018, 03:54 PM)Belsnickel Wrote:

(02-22-2018, 01:50 PM)Benton Wrote: That does go both ways, though.

Quote:Taking a stance that the Second is absolute in allowing all guns all the time, saying the issue is just a lack of God in schools (or violence in music), citing Chicago, which is high on gun restrictions and gun murders... even though it's around 10th in gun related homicides per capita (below red state wonders like New Orleans, STL and Atlanta), and around the same number in firearm related injuries (again behind a list of loose gun law cities and states). Even the traditional interpretation of the Second (it's there so people can overthrow the government if necessary) is outdated. 

Quote:I'm pro-guns, and anti most restrictions. But both sides need to dial back on the memes, as it's preventing a real discussion on how to deal with it.

(02-22-2018, 02:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: And while we all (generally) agree on steps to be taken...

(02-22-2018, 02:34 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The blatant serial lying is an ongoing impediment to any serious discussion on any topic. But, especially this one. It does nothing to add to the discussion. It actually exacerbates a pre-existing problem. If he can't stop lying, he shouldn't be allowed to continue to participate.

(02-22-2018, 04:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I will never understand why people such as yourself and Matt even bother responding to him.  GM, Dill and Fred do so as he's low hanging fruit.  They can beat him up with arguments that wouldn't work on an informed and serious person and then feel good about their "victory".  Just ignore him, you'll find yourself happier for it.  I do the same thing to Fred when he goes into full toast mode.

(02-22-2018, 04:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, it really doesn't.  The pro-gun side does not make up statistics or deliberately lie.  They are generally very clear and up front with their goals. 

Most of what you just described are opinions.  They may not be backed up by hard data, but that's never stopped anyone from having an opinion on something.  What you didn't just describe is what I did in the post you quoted, the deliberate falsehoods constantly spread by the anti-2A crowd.  Having a total numbers versus a per capita argument is not the same as deliberately falsifying data.


I agree, in theory.  However, this can never happen until the anti-2A crowd is honest about what they really want.  I live in a state in which the constant creep of further regulation is consistent.  They are now confiscating lawfully purchased property.  Any pro-gun person need only look to CA to see an "endgame" for the antis, and it is an unacceptable result for most, if not all.


We do?  What exactly are these steps the we all (generally) agree on?


I will never understand why people such as yourself and Matt even bother responding to him.  GM, Dill and Fred do so as he's low hanging fruit.  They can beat him up with arguments that wouldn't work on an informed and serious person and then feel good about their "victory".  Just ignore him, you'll find yourself happier for it.  I do the same thing to Fred when he goes into full toast mode.

(02-22-2018, 04:15 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I agree, in theory.  However, this can never happen until the anti-2A crowd is honest about what they really want.  I live in a state in which the constant creep of further regulation is consistent.  They are now confiscating lawfully purchased property.  Any pro-gun person need only look to CA to see an "endgame" for the antis, and it is an unacceptable result for most, if not all.

(02-22-2018, 03:39 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It's a step, but I don't know if it's reasonable to arm educators. 

(02-22-2018, 02:34 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The blatant serial lying is an ongoing impediment to any serious discussion on any topic. But, especially this one. It does nothing to add to the discussion. It actually exacerbates a pre-existing problem. If he can't stop lying, he shouldn't be allowed to continue to participate.

(02-22-2018, 04:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I do ignore him for the most part. I was a little irritated, today, though. And bored. Work is slow.

(02-22-2018, 04:20 PM)GMDino Wrote:

(02-22-2018, 04:22 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't agree. I mean, I understand what you have going on out in CA, but I really think that is an outlier to most of the country. That stuff wouldn't fly in the midwest or most of the east coast.

(02-22-2018, 05:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: We all have our moments of weakness.


Now what an emoji doesn't do?  Refute a single damn thing I wrote. 


You're looking at it the wrong way.  It's not that it will definitely end that way in the specific state someone resides in.  It's proof of the real end game for the anti-gun crowd.  If you know what your "opponent" really wants, and have real world proof of this, why would you trust them when they say they only want something less restrictive, or use meaningless buzz terms like "common sense gun control"? 

(02-22-2018, 05:01 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're looking at it the wrong way.  It's not that it will definitely end that way in the specific state someone resides in.  It's proof of the real end game for the anti-gun crowd.  If you know what your "opponent" really wants, and have real world proof of this, why would you trust them when they say they only want something less restrictive, or use meaningless buzz terms like "common sense gun control"? 

(02-22-2018, 05:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I have no doubt that there is a legitimate "anti-gun" element involved in the discourse, but I disagree that they make up most, or even a sizable minority of the folks talking about gun control measures right now on the national level. Now, I don't think most of them know what the hell they are talking about or have any real idea what good gun policy would be, but that's a different matter.