Is It Time For At Least Some To "Woman Up And Disarm"?

[kochman]

That is exactly my point. You seem to want far more people "banned' from owning guns merely because some arbitrary person thinks they are not fit in a wide enough dragnet to catch two people who apparently showed no real outward signs of violence before they committed mass killings.

These aren't arbirtrary signs.
And you want EVERYONE banned from owning whatever models someone tells you are scary... so, let's keep it honest.

You keep suspect people from owning them... not suspect people for owning them.

Anyhow, I'm sure you'll completely support whatever cockamamie ban Obama puts in place regarding magazine size and body style... as if that will stop mass shootings.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I'm "sure" I'll actually find out what it is before claiming he is violating the Bill of Rights, much less agree or disagree with it.

 

[kochman]

Haven't you already stated you don't see it as a right?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Owning assault weapons clearly isn't a "right". Again, if it were the assault weapon ban would have been declared to be unconstitutional, much less the myriad other measures which have been taken to restrict ownership over the years.

This is much of the problem. You and many others don't even understand the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Or even how controversial the Heller decision was, and why it took reactionaries placed on the Supreme Court by the last 3 Republican presidents to even make it possible.

 

[kochman]

Owning assault weapons clearly isn't a "right". Again, if it were the assault weapon ban would have been declared to be unconstitutional, much less the myriad other measures which have been taken to restrict ownership over the years.

This is much of the problem. You and many others don't even understand the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Or even how controversial the Heller decision was, and why it took reactionaries placed on the Supreme Court by the last 3 Republican presidents to even make it possible.

"Clearly"... if it was "clearly" it wouldn't be allowed, now would it?
It's not so "clearly" viewed by many people.

You think I don't understand the Bill of Rights... great. Glad you voiced your opinion on what I understand, as if you have any idea what you are talking about.

Reactionaries...

Lot's of name calling and insulting in your post... no substance. Not a surprise. Go check wikipedia for your next opinion.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Are you actually "insulted" that I correctly identified reactionaries aka ultraconservatives appointed to the Supreme Court? Do you even know what the word means? Why would it even be "insulting" to them or anybody else?

 

[kochman]

Are you actually "insulted" that I correctly identified reactionaries aka ultraconservatives appointed to the Supreme Court? Do you even know what the word means? Why would it even be "insulting" to them or anybody else?

You would label anyone on the right a reactionary, merely pointing that out. Yet you stand silent when Obama does reactionary items and then yell back, well look at Bush, as if that validates your guy. Total hypocrisy.

Why are you scared the US military is going to install a Right Wing/Reactionary Christian government?
And, when that day comes, don't you want the people to be able to resist it with their weapons as per the 2nd Amendment?

 

[Formaldehyde]

Only I obviously don't, and that is clearly just yet another absurd straw man of my views.

Why are you being so "insulting" for merely accurately describing many of the views of the Supreme Court appointees made by the last 3 Republican presidents? Is it because they reflect many your own views, and you agree with them to a great extent? Or do you disagree with their clearly ultraconservative views on numerous topics, including gun "rights"?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

You would label anyone on the right a reactionary, merely pointing that out. Yet you stand silent when Obama does reactionary items and then yell back, well look at Bush, as if that validates your guy. Total hypocrisy.

You must have missed about 5 thousands posts where Formaldehyde's been critical of Obama.

 

[kochman]

Only I obviously don't, and that is clearly just yet another absurd straw man of my views.

Why are you being so "insulting" for merely accurately describing many of the views of the Supreme Court appointees made by the last 3 Republican presidents? Is it because they reflect many your own views and you agree with them to a great extent? Or do you disagree with their clearly ultraconservative views on a myriad of topics?

I don't even begin to allow you to start classifying what is conservative or not, since you don't even have your own ideas that you are willing to discuss...
Such as your idea that you think the US military top brass allows racist groups to plot in their efforts to take over and install a right wing christian government...

When you're ready to discuss your own ideas, we can talk about what is and isn't conservative... until then, there's no point to discussing because you won't even back up your own statements, but instead fall back into "strawman" mode (which is really code for... I have no reasonable argument, so I'll throw out "strawman" for the umpteenth time in a row).

 

[kochman]

You must have missed about 5 thousands posts where Formaldehyde's been critical of Obama.

I must have. Care to point me to them?
I've seen him condemning Bush for the same acts but remaining silent on Obama on every occasion I've asked.
I'd love to see that there wasn't blatant hypocrisy, it would be a most welcome bit of news.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

He regularly knocks Obama over drone strikes, wiretapping and many other Bush-era issues. As for not giving you what you wanted when asked, it may have to do with things like this:

It's telling you let a comedian do your opining for you...

It can be exceedingly difficult to have a conversation with you. At the first sign of percieved disagreement, this is the kind of thing you post. The sad part is that I find you to be a pretty moderately-minded fellow.

 

[kochman]

As for my posting style... rather than providing your commentary every day, why not just select "ignore user", or restrain yourself without doing that, and just ignore me if it bothers you so...

I see you have no specific thread you can point to in your defense of Formy... we just should take your word for it.

OR, Formy can prove me wrong right now.

Formy, do you think that the following Obama moves are bad?
1) Drone missile strikes
2) Indefinite detention of US citizens without trial
3) Support of Patriot Act

That's pretty easy stuff...

 

[illram]

Moderator Action: Hobbs and Kochman, enough. Stop discussing each others posting style. This is really clogging up this thread and others. Final warning.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Formaldehyde]

Formy, do you think that the following Obama moves are bad?
1) Drone missile strikes
2) Indefinite detention of US citizens without trial
3) Support of Patriot Act

You mean other than the numerous times I have clearly stated so, essentially whenever they come up in the discussion?

 

[kochman]

You mean other than the numerous times I have clearly stated so, essentially whenever they come up in the discussion?

If you have, I'll take your word for it, because you are saying you disagree with those things now just by saying you have. I haven't seen it, and yes it has been numerous... but perhaps that was my oversight. No matter!

I'm satisfied with that answer and am genuinely glad to know that you aren't hypocritical on these topics.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Apology accepted.

 

[Akka]

I was born and raised into gun culture in the middle of the South. I was shooting guns regularly by the time I was 8 years old. Everyone I knew owned a gun if not several.

Not once as a kid did we have school shootings, people killed with the touch of a finger, or enhanced agressiveness w/illusions of power.

Why was that do you ask? We were taught to respect the gun and what it can do; and we were also taught to respect authority.

We've had guns for a long, long time now. These mass shootings are a relatively recent phenomenon. So whats changed? Hasnt been the guns.

I still don't see how anything you say actually counter my point.
A gun is still a lethal weapon able to kill with extreme ease (the only reason it was actually invented in fact), it gives power to the ones using it, and considering it has no place in a home is a perfectly reasonable request. You may disagree with it, but we can disagree with things and still admit they are reasonable.

 

[MobBoss]

I'm "sure" I'll actually find out what it is before claiming he is violating the Bill of Rights, much less agree or disagree with it.

Haven't you already stated you don't see it as a right?

My what a circular web of logic we weave.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You mean what absurd straw men you continue to promulgate, while not even understanding yourself that the Second Amendment gives you no "right" to own assault weapons?

How about you? Would you be willing to admit that Americans should be able to own assault weapons so they can overthrow a tyrannical government, as Kochman has done?