Guns, Guns, Guns.
POSTED BY: FREMDFIRMA
UPDATED: Monday, June 30, 2025 05:56
VIEWED: 46757
PAGE 41 of 44
Niki: Okay. How have I backed Anthony up when I have precisely no idea about what laws exist, what laws could exist, what are the proposed regulations on various gun features I'm unfamiliar with, and I also don't actually CARE one way or another?
Please explain where you think I am BIASED, and also show anyplace in this thread where I've proposed or argued for a solution.
You might be surprised to find I haven't, but that I have stated I have no idea WHAT to do SEVERAL TIMES.
You are imagining a bias. And no, I'm either biased or I'm not, so no, you can't take each post on a case by case basis on whether I'm biased or not. I am not a gods damned pendulum, so please don't swing me around.
You don't deserve to be called liars, but your side of the argument is making it REALLY hard to defend you sometimes.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh BYTE- "I hear ya, NIKI2" on the part about Frem and him calling everyone who disagrees with him a "liar". Staying out of whatever is between you and and NIKI2- haven't kept up with the back-and-forth on that.
That is all. 
*backs out slowly*
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just to clarify, though, damn, people's interest in actually reading other people's words and understanding them in this thread are verging on nil: I wasn't saying that laws are useless or meaningless, only that they're not where social change starts. Laws, to my mind are something like the marriage cerimony of social evolution and people act as if they're the engagement or even the first kiss. I was simply saying they are no place to start. No one wants to be proposed to on the first date.
Weirdest thread EVAR.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Oh BYTE- "I hear ya, NIKI2" on the part about Frem and him calling everyone who disagrees with him a "liar". Staying out of whatever is between you and and NIKI2- haven't kept up with the back-and-forth on that.
That is all.
*backs out slowly*
You're okay, I knew what you meant. I am just frustrated that I'm being ascribed a pro-gun bias when in fact I honestly don't know enough to have an opinion, and that my being anti-traditional-gender-role is being treated as pro-gun bias. The two arguments are not the same thing.
I should also apologize to Niki too, I've been trying to be more even-keeled and not let anger and irritation get the better of me. In fairness, in a thread like this, I should expect that unrelated arguments might get pulled into the main argument, and that people might see me on one side or the other.
If Niki thinks I'm on the pro-gun side of the debate, then it is because I haven't made my ambivalence clear. And so that is on me I suppose.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Eh, that just the if you're not against them you must be for them thing. I understand your stance.
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
my being anti-traditional-gender-role is being treated as pro-gun bias.
It's a front stance.
failed martial arts joke
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Just to clarify, though, damn, people's interest in actually reading other people's words and understanding them in this thread are verging on nil: I wasn't saying that laws are useless or meaningless, only that they're not where social change starts. Laws, to my mind are something like the marriage cerimony of social evolution and people act as if they're the engagement or even the first kiss. I was simply saying they are no place to start. No one wants to be proposed to on the first date.
Weirdest thread EVAR.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
Well... I still agree, I was just hinting that I kinda take it a step farther than you do. But everyone knows that too.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
TONY...
There are at least five pages in this discussion that I haven't read due to time constraints.
If you would be so kind, can you please enumerate for me the gun controls you would be OK with and the ones you wouldn't?
Hello,
I have spent pages discussing my views in this thread and the one you started. I even responded to a bulletpoint list Niki gave out. Forgive me for saying so, but if you don't know what I think by now it's because you can't be bothered or aren't particularly interested.
As an aside to Niki: In claiming to desire the outlaw of semiautomatic weapons, you are essentially calling for a return to the weapons technology of the late 19th century, post-civil war era.
--Anthony
Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
TONY, I'm trying to get a specific sense of where your "line" is in terms of gun control, so I just posted a rather long list of gun laws from another country to see which ones trip your meter. I just scrolled all the way thru the DO-OVER thread looking for a specific suggestion for gun control, or a specific response to a suggestion. I saw only one substantive suggestion on your part .... using 12-gauge guns as Taser dart-throwers.
Also, you don't think that people should be "required" to carry guns.
Now, did I miss anything in that thread???
---------------------
Now, in this frelling thread, would you be so kind as to at least tell me which PAGE your bullet-point list is??? Please, don't make me have to scroll thru page after page of venting just to find that information, because I won't.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello Signy,
I experience no end of frustration.
I said that the civilians and constabulary could both disarm to employ less-lethal weapons almost exclusively, with exceptions for hunters, sportsmen and SWAT team members in using manually actuated shotguns, rifles, and handguns.
As for Niki's bulletpoints, I cared enough to respond at length. She responded to my responses. You missed it all, and no I'm not going to find the correct page for you.
--Anthony
Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I saw only one substantive suggestion on your part .... using 12-gauge guns as Taser dart-throwers.
Hello,
This is why I get frustrated. Because I can go into a lot of detail in a thread you started in order to discuss this. A thread you presumably cared enough to monitor, on a topic you claim to care about.
And you isolate one thing and make it my whole statement.
--Anthony
Quote:
Hello,
The British model is good with two caveats.
1) I believe that even their limited use of lethal force could be further reduced. Knowledge of an armed assailant is not in itself enough of a reason to bring in the killers. A robust selection of nonlethal options may allow for effective nonlethal responses to lethal threats.
2) The citizenry have no practical tools of defense whatsoever.
So I am basically proposing the British model with an accommodation for second amendment rights.
The arms that the people keep and bear can be mostly a variety of effective less lethal weapons, rather than firearms.
Hunters could retain bolt-action/lever-action rifles suitable to their craft.
Sports shooters could possibly enjoy simple revolver style handguns or limited capacity target pistols and have marker ammunition available to them should they like to fire at some targets or tin cans.
Firearm equipped police, when RARELY required, could use the full gamut of nonlethal weapons in addition to hunting rifles/shotguns and revolvers. In most cases, I suspect tasers and stunning devices will subdue the lethally armed adversary without need for lethal response.
People fearful of tyrannical government will feel secure knowing that their constabulary is so limited.
People fearful of weapons of mass murder will feel secure knowing that nobody has such things. Not ordinary civilians. Not half-a-million police officers.
People fearful of robbers and rapists will be able to defend themselves against attack.
I think this solution would solve virtually everyone's problems.
--Anthony
Note to Self:
Raptor - woman testifying about birth control is a slut (the term applies.)
Context: http://tinyurl.com/d6ozfej
Six - Wow, isn't Niki quite the CUNT? And, yes, I spell that in all caps....
http://tinyurl.com/bdjgbpe
Wulf - Niki is a stupid fucking bitch who should hurry up and die.
Context: http://tinyurl.com/afve3r9
“The stupid neither forgive nor forget; the naive forgive and forget; the wise forgive but do not forget.” -T. S. Szasz
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME