Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by staticgator, Mar 14, 2019.
One could certainly say you are playing dumb.
Guys, you're getting too personal here. Please tone it back a notch. Thanks
It's the same tired, silly argument. It got exactly what it deserved. "Oh hey guys, nuclear bombs don't kill people! People kill people! How dare they try to impose nuke control!" I'm a pro-2A poster, but I'm still tired of hearing nonsense arguments like that. Guns are a tool that facilitate killing. You're not scoring points with anyone with the "guns don't kill people" cliche. There's no reason to make such a silly argument. Just focus on the Constitution, and let that one go.
P.S. It also doesn't help your argument that he's right. Guns do kill people. Nowhere in the statement does it say, "Guns, BY THEMSELVES, kill people." There are some great arguments for guns. Instead of making them, you're defending an empty platitude. Yeah, I think you can do a lot better than that.
I don't think so.
There is simply no rational interpretation of Trump's words as not a threat of violence...even if veiled. It's not remotely close to being innocuous as you are trying to make it seem.
Perhaps we should require our soldiers to only use nerf guns in warfare? After all, if it's just about the operator, than they should be alright.
Tell me when if ever have you prosecuted a gun for killing a person? The answer to that question is never.
While it may be a tired argument it is truth that needs to be spoken every time some one makes the lame of argument that guns kill people.
The fact is there are a lot of implements of death wielded by people that have a mind set to kill or maim their human counterparts. It's time to have a serious discussion about the issues instead of the same old diatribe don't you think?
We all wish we could live in the land of GOR as imagined by John Norman where the Priest Kings kept all modern technology concerning implements of death out of the hands of the populace. Unfortunately that did not exclude swords, daggers, and knives and other devices meant to kill, maim and destroy.
It is no more innocuous than your assessment concerning the words that were spoken.
Here is where we part ways and agree to disagree.
Wouldn't that be nice. It's the same sentiment I just expressed as why pro-2A people shouldn't push that silly argument, because it just distracts from the important points of the discussion. But instead, you're choosing to still defend that incorrect cliche. I have no interest in going around in circles on this. I think it's one of the weakest arguments pro-gun people can make, and I'd like to see it stop. Fin.
I think it is one of the weakest arguments anyone can make when advocating for gun control. It's lame and a tired old cliche. I'll ask you again when if ever has a gun been levied with the charge of murder? As a lawyer you certainly understand the meaning of words spoken or written in a sentence. Is this the argument of it depends on what the meaning of the word is is?
I'm with you. I am a pro 2A person but when nonsense takes the podium it needs to be called out for what it is. I recognize there are some highly intelligent people on this board and I also recognize everyone has their own agendas. I'm fine with that, but for Pete's sake the least we can do (and you and I can certainly agree on this) is have a healthy discourse on how to move forward instead of trotting out the same old nonsensical argument.
Only people can be charged with murder. It's the same reason why an animal that attacks and kills a person isn't charged with murder.
Yes, that would be nice.
That you and I certainly agree on. People can certainly be charged with murder regardless of the implement used to commit the crime. People kill people.
So do you think the US government should stop people from having nuclear weapons? They don't kill people.
Now we are back to the silly questions with regards to gun control. Given the fact the genie is out of the bottle and no one entity has control over all nuclear weapons the proper questions now center on the following assessments:
Is it plausible to eliminate all nuclear weapons on the planet? Simple Yes / No. If not? Why not? Can the why not be addressed?
Who should have nuclear weapons?
Why should they have nuclear weapons?
Who maintains the protocols for nuclear weapons? (inspections, fail safes and guide lines) Face it no nation wants their nuclear weapon to explode in their own back yard.
Who has the authority to deploy nuclear weapons?
Under what circumstances would the nuclear weapons be deployed?
How do you get all nations that have nuclear weapons to participate in an arms agreement?
How do you deal with nations that choose not to participate?
Start asking the right questions about gun control and go to the heart of the matter @mdgator05. Tell me what it is you really want concerning the matter of gun control and we can proceed from there. Who knows we may even find a solution we can all live with.
Of course that brings this thread off topic and it should be discussed elsewhere. If the Ops were to delete your question and my response I wouldn't feel slighted in the least.
Wait, so you mean this is a complicated issue that can't be summed up in a pithy catchphrase like you are trying to do on guns? Well, neither can the gun issue, which is also far more complicated than you are making it. You just wish it wasn't, but that doesn't make that wish true. A nuclear weapon by itself has killed just as many people as a gun by itself. However, the concerns for control in both instances deal with far more complex issues, such as why do people want these instruments and how do people choose to utilize these instruments. Simplicity of catch phrases may help you avoid complexity, but they aren't good at actually dealing with matters in an intellectually honest fashion.
My favorite part of this whole post is how upset you were with somebody putting words in his mouth based upon interpretation, then you put words in his mouth that he didn't say based on interpretation to make excuses for him. He never said "it would be bad for the nation period," despite your claim.
If you feel my response was pithy to the issue. So be it. I call it as I see it. Secondly I agree the issue of gun control is a sticky wicket and we are not going to get anywhere with a solution rehashing the same old diatribe.
As we are discussing the words President Trump said - it was clear to me that the intent of the subject line and the intent of the post was to make it certain that President Trump is threatening civil war. That assumption was based on conjecture of what President Trump asserted concerning groups of the populace that have his back. While others may see this as vile threats of civil war and disobedience I do not. I offered a perfectly plausible opinion of my own as to what I derived from the words he spoke. To be fair no one, not you or I, political pundits or news outlets let alone the author of this thread knows what the intent was without clarification from President Trump himself. Yet we have a thread that makes an accusation without merit and I simply pointed it out.
You did more than point it out. You did exactly what you were accusing others of doing, placed words in his mouth and then said he said them.
It's not normal.
Trump supporters believe Vito Corleone just wanted to make people good offers.