U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 05-22-2009, 05:29 AM
 
Location: In a house
5,227 posts, read 4,791,299 times
Reputation: 2469
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
When you used "wildly left wing" and "media howling" in your OP to a thread, you're a fine one to complain about the biggest problem that "I" have.

If you don't like being lumped in with the gun nuts, politely complain to the gun nuts, not to me. They are making a really bad name for firearms owners, just like speeders and road hogs give car drivers a bad name.. If you are not a gun nut, why are so offended when I call people that? Or is it your view that there is no such thing as a gun nut?

Define gun nut for us. From your postings it would seem that anyone who owns a gun & is against further restrictions is a gun nut. Would that be about right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-22-2009, 05:33 AM
 
Location: NY
2,007 posts, read 2,279,839 times
Reputation: 886
I love how the hopolophobes ignore the testimony of the experts as to the non-use of so called "assault weapons" and how difficult it actually is to convert semi-auto to full auto. If it doesn't fit their narrow definitions, it doesn't exist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2009, 08:20 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
38,739 posts, read 35,885,429 times
Reputation: 28569
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeepejeep View Post
I love how the hopolophobes ignore the testimony of the experts as to the non-use of so called "assault weapons" and how difficult it actually is to convert semi-auto to full auto. If it doesn't fit their narrow definitions, it doesn't exist.
Wait a minute. How can someone become an "expert" on the non-use of a so-called thing?

(Do you realize how childish all your smack and rolleyes icons are, which you invariably affix to every single post? Have you ever wondered why the US Congress and Supreme Court do not put smack and rolleyes at the end of their speeches and arguments and legislative bills?)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2009, 09:35 AM
 
Location: vagabond
2,610 posts, read 3,298,716 times
Reputation: 1226
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
How many times do I have to say that the central issue addressed by the video is essentially correct, and I never said nor implied that it was not...
you actually did imply that it was not truthful; it was the eye roll that accompanies a discussion when someone pulls out a liberal or conservative biased news source.

i'll remind you of what you said since you seem to have a hard time hitting the page back button.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
Sorry. "Excellent Videos" are not entitled "The Truth About . . . " That is an absolute tipoff that the person who financed the production of the video has an interest in the selection of what is true and what is not true. If the video is "the Truth About" anything, they won't need to use that in the title.

Go to YouTube and search using the term "the truth about". You will get 203,000 hits. Imgaine how much "truth" you will know after watching them all.
yes, the specific mention in the beginning was that it was just a nonexcellent video, but your ending statement lumps it in with all of the rest of the wackaloon videos out there.

that specifically implies that it is not trustworthy. luckily we had you there later to attest to its veracity, otherwise i am not sure that we "trolling, raging, gun fetishists" could have figured it out on our own.

Quote:
...and is information that I already knew,
nice of you to admit it, even if it is after the fact.

Quote:
and the only reason I wasted ten minutes watching it was so I could tell a bunch of trolls,
and somehow you are perplexed by your lack of positive reception on these boards? you never studied causality in school did ya?

Quote:
Originally Posted by NVplumber View Post
The biggest problem you have in participation in this forum is that you tend to use terms and phrases that are offensive to firearms enthusiasts...
it's not just gun control that he gets this ridiculous about; he seems to reeeeally dislike when people don't conform to his opinion. not as bad as some europeans we've discussed it with, but...

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88
who asked me over and over again, that I wasted ten minutes watching it, in order to get the little magic icon that validates my participation in this forum, and proves that I, too, am now a genius, since I now know the truth about one of 203,000 things.
this is what i am talking about. you debate with us, someone provides a link to some info that doesn't support your liberal viewpoints, and you condescend and whine and complain.

Quote:
How come Great Debates is populated mostly by third-graders?
the kind that can't hold a discussion without insults, tantrums, and deflections?

Quote:
If you are not a gun nut, why are so offended when I call people that?
because that is the base–along with the illegally toting criminal–that you and your buddies are using to describe us as, and using to justify your desire to take away rights that we lawfully and responsibly enjoy.

it is the equivalent of the uber right claiming that gay marriage is bad because homosexuals are pedophiles.

tin asked a good question (which he has repeated for you so nicely), that i am very interested in hearing the answer and reasoning to.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker View Post
So, are you for or against stronger restrictions on assault weapons?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Wait a minute. How can someone become an "expert" on the non-use of a so-called thing?
that's not quite what he said. nice deflection. or i suppose i could give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you didn't understand the sentance.

Quote:
(Do you realize how childish all your smack and rolleyes icons are, which you invariably affix to every single post?
i agree with that; i hate emoticons and lol-speech (remembe the pet peeves thread?). luckily, this is a human problem, not a jeepjeep problem or a gun owner problem. again, nice deflection. if you don't want to answer our questions, just say so. we'll stop bugging ya.

Quote:
Have you ever wondered why the US Congress and Supreme Court do not put smack and rolleyes at the end of their speeches and arguments and legislative bills?)
actually, i equate the antics of some of our leaders to just that: emoticons and lolspeech. ever listen to gwbush, hillary clinton, or any of the others?

in the mean time, you have any answers to the questions posed?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2009, 10:02 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
38,739 posts, read 35,885,429 times
Reputation: 28569
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
How many times do I have to say that the central issue addressed by the video is essentially correct, and I never said nor implied that it was not...
you actually did imply that it was not truthful; it was the eye roll that accompanies a discussion when someone pulls out a liberal or conservative biased news source.

i'll remind you of what you said since you seem to have a hard time hitting the page back button.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 http://pics3.city-data.com/forum/ima...s/viewpost.gif (broken link)
Sorry. "Excellent Videos" are not entitled "The Truth About . . . " That is an absolute tipoff that the person who financed the production of the video has an interest in the selection of what is true and what is not true. If the video is "the Truth About" anything, they won't need to use that in the title.

Note that I said "excellent" video. Excellence is a difficult standard. Just because the basic premise of a video is true, that does not make it "excellent". Furthermore, simply calling a video "The Truth About..." implies, to me, that the person who paid for the production of it was less than willing to take into equal account the subjective positions not in conformity with his own. The fact is, it was not an excellent video, no matter how correct it was about its central point. This video is an "excellent" way to get that information only for a person who has reading comprehension disabilities.

Go to YouTube and search using the term "the truth about". You will get 203,000 hits. Imgaine how much "truth" you will know after watching them all.
yes, the specific mention in the beginning was that it was just a nonexcellent video, but your ending statement lumps it in with all of the rest of the wackaloon videos out there.

Yes, because the producer of the video chose to lump himself in with everybody else who believes their video gains authority by self-declaring its truth

that specifically implies that it is not trustworthy. luckily we had you there later to attest to its veracity, otherwise i am not sure that we "trolling, raging, gun fetishists" could have figured it out on our own.

Quote:
...and is information that I already knew,
nice of you to admit it, even if it is after the fact.

I admitted it after the fact of watching the video. One of my faults. Actually, I think I admitted it as soon as ChrisC posted a summary of its points.

Quote:
and the only reason I wasted ten minutes watching it was so I could tell a bunch of trolls,
and somehow you are perplexed by your lack of positive reception on these boards? you never studied causality in school did ya?

When several posters kept asking me the same question after I had already answered it, all my years studying causality bore fruit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NVplumber View Post
The biggest problem you have in participation in this forum is that you tend to use terms and phrases that are offensive to firearms enthusiasts...
it's not just gun control that he gets this ridiculous about; he seems to reeeeally dislike when people don't conform to his opinion. not as bad as some europeans we've discussed it with, but...

I have never posted simply because people disagree with me. There is an allowance in my world for people who disagree. I object to people who make statements I disagree with, without supporting them with anything except assertions of my deficient character.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 http://pics3.city-data.com/forum/ima...s/viewpost.gif (broken link)
who asked me over and over again, that I wasted ten minutes watching it, in order to get the little magic icon that validates my participation in this forum, and proves that I, too, am now a genius, since I now know the truth about one of 203,000 things.
this is what i am talking about. you debate with us, someone provides a link to some info that doesn't support your liberal viewpoints, and you condescend and whine and complain.

The only link offered (the video) did support my viewpoint, liberal or otherwise, and I said it did as soon as I knew the contents of the video. I said right off that the summary by ChrisC appeared to indicate that the video was correct in its basic premise, and that I already knew those facts to be true without needing to watch the video.

Quote:
How come Great Debates is populated mostly by third-graders?
the kind that can't hold a discussion without insults, tantrums, and deflections?

And whom did I insult? Your entire post is nothing but a deflection, not addressing the OP issue, but my personal behavior on the board.

Quote:
If you are not a gun nut, why are so offended when I call people that?
because that is the base–along with the illegally toting criminal–that you and your buddies are using to describe us as, and using to justify your desire to take away rights that we lawfully and responsibly enjoy.

it is the equivalent of the uber right claiming that gay marriage is bad because homosexuals are pedophiles.

No its not. It like saying pedophiles are bad, and their participation in the debate reflects poorly on the legitimate issues that they espouse. Now who is deflecting?

tin asked a good question (which he has repeated for you so nicely), that i am very interested in hearing the answer and reasoning to.

I do not see Tin's questions, he has been on ignore for months. I had a good reason for doing that, but I don't recall now what it was. Thank you for reposting it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker View Post
So, are you for or against stronger restrictions on assault weapons?

Generally, I am for restrictions on some assault weapons, on a case by case basis, because I believe overall the public interest is better served by some restrictios. If a central authority had the tools to track the movement of firearms, there would be less risk of them falling into the wrong hands, and then, less restrictions would be necessary. I'm making this answer very short. We can discuss this further if you like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Wait a minute. How can someone become an "expert" on the non-use of a so-called thing?
that's not quite what he said. nice deflection. or i suppose i could give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you didn't understand the sentance.

I had nothing to go by but the post itself, which inarticulately directed itself at me.

Quote:
(Do you realize how childish all your smack and rolleyes icons are, which you invariably affix to every single post?
i agree with that; i hate emoticons and lol-speech (remembe the pet peeves thread?). luckily, this is a human problem, not a jeepjeep problem or a gun owner problem. again, nice deflection. if you don't want to answer our questions, just say so. we'll stop bugging ya.

Quote:
Have you ever wondered why the US Congress and Supreme Court do not put smack and rolleyes at the end of their speeches and arguments and legislative bills?)
actually, i equate the antics of some of our leaders to just that: emoticons and lolspeech. ever listen to gwbush, hillary clinton, or any of the others?

in the mean time, you have any answers to the questions posed?

There you go.

Last edited by jtur88; 05-22-2009 at 10:10 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2009, 11:25 AM
 
Location: On the Ohio River in Western, KY
3,322 posts, read 3,024,051 times
Reputation: 3051
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark6052 View Post
registration of anykind, dental or guns can be misused. there are anti-gun nuts that state the fact there end game is total confiscation. so far theres no conspiracy to collect my teeth, whats yer point. I shouldnt be afraid of registering my guns because they havent confiscated my teeth? with all the things we can list that are controlled, and continue to get more. you dont see anything wrong with that? little by little we have given up way to much of our rights for some really stupid reasons. I cant own a gun because a puke tail punk has misused one? let me shoot the varmit, problem solved.
Mark, I agree 110%!

Registration is a form of tracking, tracking is a form of control, control is a form of restriction. It's all baby steps towards total control, and tyranny.

Dental records are a form of tracking, which can be used in a good way of course (like if you are maimed beyond recognition w/o fingers to print, etc...) but with the ability to do good, there is also room to go bad, and misuse that power, which I believe does happen more than not.

Why are my husband and I (both stand up citizens, that are both prior service with honorable discharges, BTW) not allowed to purchase certain types of firearms? For control, nothing else.

If some feel that my opinions make me a nut; that's on them. I personally feel that I am a Constitutionalist and a Patriot more than anything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2009, 11:54 AM
 
Location: On the Ohio River in Western, KY
3,322 posts, read 3,024,051 times
Reputation: 3051
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
I repeat my original challenge, now for the third time. Give me one example of something that the US government first registered, and then confiscated.
Only 2 or 3 pop off at the top of my head right now.

Alcohol, pot, opium, oh and the tommy gun, lol.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2009, 12:05 PM
 
Location: Victoria TX
38,739 posts, read 35,885,429 times
Reputation: 28569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cav Scout wife View Post
Only 2 or 3 pop off at the top of my head right now.

Alcohol, pot, opium, oh and the tommy gun, lol.
Sorry, you're wrong. Government never registered them. They just banned them and confiscated them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2009, 12:12 PM
 
Location: I think my user name clarifies that.
8,294 posts, read 13,692,296 times
Reputation: 3652
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
Sorry, you're wrong. Government never registered them. They just banned them and confiscated them.
Big difference.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2009, 12:49 PM
 
Location: In a house
5,227 posts, read 4,791,299 times
Reputation: 2469
Quote:
I do not see Tin's questions, he has been on ignore for months. I had a good reason for doing that, but I don't recall now what it was. Thank you for reposting it.
Cute aint it? He/she had a good reason, just dont know what it was. Sounds familiar, people often forget why they do something when theyre given to knee jerk reactions.
If anybodies interested I remember, its because I reacted in kind when called a derogatory name.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top