Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 640

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

If an automatic rifle fires bullets that are capable of killing, how would you remove the power to kill from them exactly?

Just curious what you meant.

Why do the bullets need to have the power to kill is my question.

Like, rubber bullets?

Listen, I’m not a gun person so I’m not incredibly knowledgeable on the topic to the point where I can provide a good

This is exactly why I feel we pro-gun control people need to learn more about these things.

Um okay then? Are you telling me there is a reason why guns at shooting ranges need lethal power? If so, I’d love to hear it.

no that is not what I was saying.

Then, respectfully, what the hell were you saying?

merely that we pro-gun control people need to better understand guns and gun terminology. At the very least, doing so would make us more effective in debate against the other side. You yourself admitted to not being incredibly knowledgeable on the topic to the point where you can provide a good solution. Therefore, get more knowledgeable.

I agree, it helps to argue for a cause when you understand the opposing point of view better. Well said, Warbler.

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

If an automatic rifle fires bullets that are capable of killing, how would you remove the power to kill from them exactly?

Just curious what you meant.

Why do the bullets need to have the power to kill is my question.

Like, rubber bullets?

Listen, I’m not a gun person so I’m not incredibly knowledgeable on the topic to the point where I can provide a good

This is exactly why I feel we pro-gun control people need to learn more about these things.

Um okay then? Are you telling me there is a reason why guns at shooting ranges need lethal power? If so, I’d love to hear it.

no that is not what I was saying.

Then, respectfully, what the hell were you saying?

merely that we pro-gun control people need to better understand guns and gun terminology. At the very least, doing so would make us more effective in debate against the other side. You yourself admitted to not being incredibly knowledgeable on the topic to the point where you can provide a good solution. Therefore, get more knowledgeable.

We’re not in a high school debate class lol. There’s no scoring points here.

Can I score with your mom, though?

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

Collipso said:

Why do you guys care so much that the weapon isn’t fully automatic? And it can be fully auto if the guy decides to buy something for the gun, so why would you argue and bring that point up so much? I mean, I much rather have the guy having to press the trigger at every shot than once per magazine, but it’s almost just as deadly. I’d argue that the guy has even more precision with a semi-auto. It doesn’t matter, it’s beyond the point.

I just like to get the facts and terminology correct.

Noted.

I don’t care however.

noted, and so is your rude dismissiveness and bad attitude.

It’s like you just met me or something.

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

If an automatic rifle fires bullets that are capable of killing, how would you remove the power to kill from them exactly?

Just curious what you meant.

Why do the bullets need to have the power to kill is my question.

Like, rubber bullets?

Listen, I’m not a gun person so I’m not incredibly knowledgeable on the topic to the point where I can provide a good

This is exactly why I feel we pro-gun control people need to learn more about these things.

Um okay then? Are you telling me there is a reason why guns at shooting ranges need lethal power? If so, I’d love to hear it.

no that is not what I was saying.

Then, respectfully, what the hell were you saying?

merely that we pro-gun control people need to better understand guns and gun terminology. At the very least, doing so would make us more effective in debate against the other side. You yourself admitted to not being incredibly knowledgeable on the topic to the point where you can provide a good solution. Therefore, get more knowledgeable.

I don’t need to know what is a good solution. I’m just posing a question. I can’t think of any reason why guns at shooting ranges need to be lethal. It’s a fucking legitimate question and I don’t think I need to know whether rubber bullets are a safe option or whatever to pose it. If you don’t know a solution either I don’t why you you’re questioning my knowledge. It’s not like I’m pretending, I’m being forthright about it. But it shouldn’t matter in this conversation.

darth_ender said:

Can I score with your mom, though?

Her standards are low, but not that low.

TV’s Frink said:

darth_ender said:

Can I score with your mom, though?

Her standards are low, but not that low.

That’s not what she said when it was just her, your dad, me, five of your other relatives, and our ukuleles last night.

She just likes to make people feel better about themselves.

I still think it’s beyond the point.

Edit: not the mom conversation.

Oh so the mom conversation is the point.

How dare you?

TV’s Frink said:

She just likes to make people feel better about themselves.

I thought we were having a pretty fun time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yX3Cok1SgY0

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

If an automatic rifle fires bullets that are capable of killing, how would you remove the power to kill from them exactly?

Just curious what you meant.

Why do the bullets need to have the power to kill is my question.

Like, rubber bullets?

Listen, I’m not a gun person so I’m not incredibly knowledgeable on the topic to the point where I can provide a good

This is exactly why I feel we pro-gun control people need to learn more about these things.

Um okay then? Are you telling me there is a reason why guns at shooting ranges need lethal power? If so, I’d love to hear it.

no that is not what I was saying.

Then, respectfully, what the hell were you saying?

merely that we pro-gun control people need to better understand guns and gun terminology. At the very least, doing so would make us more effective in debate against the other side. You yourself admitted to not being incredibly knowledgeable on the topic to the point where you can provide a good solution. Therefore, get more knowledgeable.

We’re not in a high school debate class lol. There’s no scoring points here.

-1

Mrebo said:

After reviewing the last few pages, I gather facts about guns don’t matter, effectiveness of policies are either beyond our comprehension or don’t matter, and Frink’s mom is one happening lady.

Also, I like Collipso’s new avatar.

darth_ender said:

Since banning guns entirely will never be likely, I’m interested in more feasible solutions. For instance, the rubber bullets idea is actually a fairly reasonable solution: it may not be 100% effective, but I guarantee 17 people wouldn’t have died on Valentine’s Day if the perpetrator only had access to rubber bullets. The same enjoyable aspects of guns would remain, while the lethal aspect would be drastically reduced.

Like I said earlier, all guns should be registered with something like a title following every transaction. Definitely in order to own, but even better would be limiting the ability to shoot without training and a license renewed every three or five years. No training without a permit certified by a particular licensing agency. No gun purchases to anyone under 21. No training for anyone under 16. I mean, guns and cars are both potentially quite lethal–the two are quite comparable, only fewer people shoot than drive. A police officer should be allowed to see a man with a gun and ask him to produce his license to own.

TV’s Frink said:

Dek Rollins said:

chyron8472 said:

DominicCobb said:

I get why people like shooting automatic rifles at firing ranges. I get it.

I don’t.

Explain it to me. Why is this required as a potential pastime in this country?

Since when is any pastime “required”? A lot of people have a lot of fun shooting targets. When you add semi-auto or auto fire, it is just a different way to entertain yourself than with single-fire manual-cock guns.

And to those people I say “too fucking bad.”

Can you name any other type of “entertainment” that is potentially this dangerous, this frequently?

Cars, and they’re very heavily regulated because of it, as I think guns should be.

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

If an automatic rifle fires bullets that are capable of killing, how would you remove the power to kill from them exactly?

Just curious what you meant.

Why do the bullets need to have the power to kill is my question.

Like, rubber bullets?

Listen, I’m not a gun person so I’m not incredibly knowledgeable on the topic to the point where I can provide a good

This is exactly why I feel we pro-gun control people need to learn more about these things.

Um okay then? Are you telling me there is a reason why guns at shooting ranges need lethal power? If so, I’d love to hear it.

no that is not what I was saying.

Then, respectfully, what the hell were you saying?

merely that we pro-gun control people need to better understand guns and gun terminology. At the very least, doing so would make us more effective in debate against the other side. You yourself admitted to not being incredibly knowledgeable on the topic to the point where you can provide a good solution. Therefore, get more knowledgeable.

We’re not in a high school debate class lol. There’s no scoring points here.

ffs

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

If an automatic rifle fires bullets that are capable of killing, how would you remove the power to kill from them exactly?

Just curious what you meant.

Why do the bullets need to have the power to kill is my question.

Like, rubber bullets?

Listen, I’m not a gun person so I’m not incredibly knowledgeable on the topic to the point where I can provide a good

This is exactly why I feel we pro-gun control people need to learn more about these things.

Um okay then? Are you telling me there is a reason why guns at shooting ranges need lethal power? If so, I’d love to hear it.

no that is not what I was saying.

Then, respectfully, what the hell were you saying?

merely that we pro-gun control people need to better understand guns and gun terminology. At the very least, doing so would make us more effective in debate against the other side. You yourself admitted to not being incredibly knowledgeable on the topic to the point where you can provide a good solution. Therefore, get more knowledgeable.

I don’t need to know what is a good solution. I’m just posing a question. I can’t think of any reason why guns at shooting ranges need to be lethal.

I am confused as to what you think should be done to them to make them non-lethal.

It’s a fucking legitimate question and I don’t think I need to know whether rubber bullets are a safe option or whatever to pose it.

I never said it wasn’t a legitimate question.

If you don’t know a solution either I don’t why you you’re questioning my knowledge. It’s not like I’m pretending, I’m being forthright about it. But it shouldn’t matter in this conversation.

I did not mean to offend you. I am not questioning your knowledge, you questioned it yourself. You said

DominicCobb said:

Listen, I’m not a gun person so I’m not incredibly knowledgeable on the topic to the point where I can provide a good solution.

I am merely saying that by learning more about guns and how they work and the terminology and pro gun people and whatnot, we might get better at offering solutions. I am sorry if you thought I was picking on you or something. It was not my intent.

Mrebo said:

darth_ender said:

Mrebo said:

After reviewing the last few pages, I gather facts about guns don’t matter, effectiveness of policies are either beyond our comprehension or don’t matter, and Frink’s mom is one happening lady.

Also, I like Collipso’s new avatar.

darth_ender said:

Since banning guns entirely will never be likely, I’m interested in more feasible solutions. For instance, the rubber bullets idea is actually a fairly reasonable solution: it may not be 100% effective, but I guarantee 17 people wouldn’t have died on Valentine’s Day if the perpetrator only had access to rubber bullets. The same enjoyable aspects of guns would remain, while the lethal aspect would be drastically reduced.

Like I said earlier, all guns should be registered with something like a title following every transaction. Definitely in order to own, but even better would be limiting the ability to shoot without training and a license renewed every three or five years. No training without a permit certified by a particular licensing agency. No gun purchases to anyone under 21. No training for anyone under 16. I mean, guns and cars are both potentially quite lethal–the two are quite comparable, only fewer people shoot than drive. A police officer should be allowed to see a man with a gun and ask him to produce his license to own.

You are an exception! I think states should have greater leeway to implement gun control laws, because a “well regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State.” States should be able to implement rules to that end. This should be especially true under a state’s general police powers. Because of the dastardly 14th Amendment, the Court said the 2nd Amendment limits the states as it does the federal government, but I think there is room for states to do more than the federal government might be able to.

I could get into a fight with you about the “dastardly 14th Amendment”, but I won’t.

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

If an automatic rifle fires bullets that are capable of killing, how would you remove the power to kill from them exactly?

Just curious what you meant.

Why do the bullets need to have the power to kill is my question.

Like, rubber bullets?

Listen, I’m not a gun person so I’m not incredibly knowledgeable on the topic to the point where I can provide a good

This is exactly why I feel we pro-gun control people need to learn more about these things.

Um okay then? Are you telling me there is a reason why guns at shooting ranges need lethal power? If so, I’d love to hear it.

no that is not what I was saying.

Then, respectfully, what the hell were you saying?

merely that we pro-gun control people need to better understand guns and gun terminology. At the very least, doing so would make us more effective in debate against the other side. You yourself admitted to not being incredibly knowledgeable on the topic to the point where you can provide a good solution. Therefore, get more knowledgeable.

We’re not in a high school debate class lol. There’s no scoring points here.

ffs

lol

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Warbler said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

DominicCobb said:

Dek Rollins said:

If an automatic rifle fires bullets that are capable of killing, how would you remove the power to kill from them exactly?

Just curious what you meant.

Why do the bullets need to have the power to kill is my question.

Like, rubber bullets?

Listen, I’m not a gun person so I’m not incredibly knowledgeable on the topic to the point where I can provide a good

This is exactly why I feel we pro-gun control people need to learn more about these things.

Um okay then? Are you telling me there is a reason why guns at shooting ranges need lethal power? If so, I’d love to hear it.

no that is not what I was saying.

Then, respectfully, what the hell were you saying?

merely that we pro-gun control people need to better understand guns and gun terminology. At the very least, doing so would make us more effective in debate against the other side. You yourself admitted to not being incredibly knowledgeable on the topic to the point where you can provide a good solution. Therefore, get more knowledgeable.

We’re not in a high school debate class lol. There’s no scoring points here.

ffs

lol

I see nothing funny.

Mrebo said:

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

darth_ender said:

Mrebo said:

After reviewing the last few pages, I gather facts about guns don’t matter, effectiveness of policies are either beyond our comprehension or don’t matter, and Frink’s mom is one happening lady.

Also, I like Collipso’s new avatar.

darth_ender said:

Since banning guns entirely will never be likely, I’m interested in more feasible solutions. For instance, the rubber bullets idea is actually a fairly reasonable solution: it may not be 100% effective, but I guarantee 17 people wouldn’t have died on Valentine’s Day if the perpetrator only had access to rubber bullets. The same enjoyable aspects of guns would remain, while the lethal aspect would be drastically reduced.

Like I said earlier, all guns should be registered with something like a title following every transaction. Definitely in order to own, but even better would be limiting the ability to shoot without training and a license renewed every three or five years. No training without a permit certified by a particular licensing agency. No gun purchases to anyone under 21. No training for anyone under 16. I mean, guns and cars are both potentially quite lethal–the two are quite comparable, only fewer people shoot than drive. A police officer should be allowed to see a man with a gun and ask him to produce his license to own.

You are an exception! I think states should have greater leeway to implement gun control laws, because a “well regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State.” States should be able to implement rules to that end. This should be especially true under a state’s general police powers. Because of the dastardly 14th Amendment, the Court said the 2nd Amendment limits the states as it does the federal government, but I think there is room for states to do more than the federal government might be able to.

I could get into a fight with you about the “dastardly 14th Amendment”, but I won’t.

A fight over the 14th Amendment would probably be fisticuffs.

It would also be rehashing old debates.