I think I read more pages of OT in a single day than ever before.
The discussion highlights the real issue in that people with opposing opinions refuse to understand the other side’s perspective and work towards reasonable solutions. People would rather just point out the other side’s flawed thinking, tell them they’re wrong for thinking that way, and the only solution is to think their way. The problem isn’t guns, religion, liberal, or conservative. It’s people refusing to listen, empathize, and work together in a reasonable fashion.
That’s all I’m offering on the subject and prefer not to debate my views on the forum. I’m going back into my hole and worry about things that truly affect ME.
OT 12: Pew Pew Pew
- Melon
- Trollistrator
- Posts: 10884
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 10:09 pm
- Drives: Blue things, Orange thing
- Location: 2' Underwater
Same fucking brain man.
I was out in the field all day (I'll post a selfie shortly) and I got back to the office, Dubshow's and I were talking guns, and we don't see eye to eye 100%, but my main issue was how we can't even have these discussions, because they need to be had. It's so polarized, and instantly .
I have a 9mm S&W M&P, I enjoy it, but, I'm not a gun nut, I don't know the ins and outs of all the laws. Gun control debates are an area I don't know enough about to offer meaningful insight, but, the conversation needs to be had.
Anyway, let's make today a good day.
Got it wap, he's just too dumb to turn away I suppose. Fair point.
Quick question on the gun debate. Don't want to start it again but I'm curious to hear from people.
What are the arguments against banning high capacity magazines for which their is no constitutional right?
Again, I'm not going to debate the points, just want to see peoples opinions.
And yes, I have Google.
What are the arguments against banning high capacity magazines for which their is no constitutional right?
Again, I'm not going to debate the points, just want to see peoples opinions.
And yes, I have Google.
- Johnny_P
- Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
- Posts: 40514
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:52 am
- Drives: Blue short bus
- Location: Philly
Isn't that the problem with just about every disagreement there is today? People thinking they're right and that's that? The idea of compromise and small steps towards progress is lost on a lot of people.
- Johnny_P
- Chief Master Sirloin of the Wasteful Steak
- Posts: 40514
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:52 am
- Drives: Blue short bus
- Location: Philly
Pretty sure it's just the thought that civilians should have access to military grade weaponry. A "militia" is more effective with military grade weapons than they are with bolt action rifles. For the day that China invades California. That, and, if the bad guys have it you should be able to have it to protect yourself.KYGTIGuy wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:02 am Quick question on the gun debate. Don't want to start it again but I'm curious to hear from people.
What are the arguments against banning high capacity magazines for which their is no constitutional right?
Again, I'm not going to debate the points, just want to see peoples opinions.
And yes, I have Google.
My guess at least.
- goIftdibrad
- Chief Master Soft Brain
- Posts: 16746
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:01 am
- Drives: straight past the apex
I did a report on revolutionary war & civil war weapons in grade school, its one of the things i remember clearly cause it shocked me...it was maybe two. paper cartridges. Its why they had firing lines and what not. and would go toe to toe in a field.....it took so long to reload and was nigh on impossible to do on the run.wap wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:32 pmIDK, I'd be willing to bet it's a bit more than 2. The Baker rifle was around 2 and it was notoriously difficult to load quickly.Big Brain Bradley wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 6:35 pm
more like 2.
but its not about the power...its about the common man having access to infantry grade weapons.
Wap, i know you have you opinion and its yours to have... but really... you should be better educated on this issue if you are going to have such strong feelings on it. When you get basic firearm facts wrong it makes you look ignorant and most people will just begin to ignore you as another liberal anti gunner.
Like says NO ONE wants to see dead kids and there fore are open to reasonable ways to stop it. But when the left goes straight to gun bans it SHUTS DOWN the conversation.
brain go brrrrrr
- goIftdibrad
- Chief Master Soft Brain
- Posts: 16746
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:01 am
- Drives: straight past the apex
that was also not a common infantry grade weapon, it was an experiment.dubshow wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:43 pm Or thomas jefferson bad ass air rifle!
https://www.ammoland.com/2014/06/look-a ... ult-rifle/
http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/ ... air-rifle/In fact, these assault weapons were .46 caliber, military, magazine fed, rifles with high capacity magazines capable of firing 22 shots in 60 seconds.
They even came with four, 22 round speedloaders.
The Founding Fathers not only knew about assault weapons, they did not exclude them from the Second Amendment.
brain go brrrrrr
- goIftdibrad
- Chief Master Soft Brain
- Posts: 16746
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:01 am
- Drives: straight past the apex
- datgrundle
- First Sirloin
- Posts: 6487
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 6:49 am
- Drives: Tits and ass to the DFD
- Location: Magnolia/Princeton
it was a progression of weapons tech. The founders specifically did not limit them. The idea for semi and fully automatic was there. And just 60 years later they had serious fire power with the cartridge which solved loading. next? automatic crank fire....Big Brain Bradley wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2018 8:44 amthat was also not a common infantry grade weapon, it was an experiment.dubshow wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 5:43 pm Or thomas jefferson bad ass air rifle!
https://www.ammoland.com/2014/06/look-a ... ult-rifle/
http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/ ... air-rifle/
the point is they knew tech would constantly progress and did not hinder or limit it in the constitution. If we need to re-write the constitution, by all means. Gather the states.
Last edited by dubshow on Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
What makes you seem ignorant if referencing "antique guns" and how seemingly ineffective and hard to use they were. I'm saying there was a lot of innovative technology being progressed in europe and around the world. The ideas for cartridges, rifling, capacity and faster rates of fire were in place. They were actively being pursued. The founders NEW technology would progress beyond the current state.
Jefferson also knew "the mind would progress and expand". Both valid points. As the constitution stands, we should be able to have guns freely. The same guns as the military. Arms specifically. Did You know there isnt too much regulation on nuclear bombs? You can actually import them since the ATF doesnt have the correct paper work, yet you can notify them of your actions? The prohibitive part is usually the cost and why that controlled device is on the market.
My point in all this is that our laws are cumbersome at best and do little to protect people.
Also fun side note. We didnt get any gun laws on the books until the .gov created a massive black market which crime flourished and private citizens were better armed than police. Think on that for a second. People had thompsons. If you could afford it ($20-30) you could have some fully auto bad ass gun that was better than mil/police. No issues with that until the blackmarket dumpster fire of prohibition... The other early gun laws? To keep the blacks from being armed and making sure they were kept oppressed.
ie maryland. Oldest guns laws around. Can't have the black folks getting armed and uppity.
Before you laser focus on guns, work on breaking down the blackmarket.
TL;DR. fuck you the gov created lots of problems, go read.
Last edited by dubshow on Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:24 am, edited 2 times in total.
- Melon
- Trollistrator
- Posts: 10884
- Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 10:09 pm
- Drives: Blue things, Orange thing
- Location: 2' Underwater
Overlooked post is no longer overlooked.
- goIftdibrad
- Chief Master Soft Brain
- Posts: 16746
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:01 am
- Drives: straight past the apex
oh this is a religion thread now?SAWCE wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 9:56 pmI’m saying that until you can prove yours without a shadow of a doubt, you have no room to call me an idiot for what I believe. I don’t care what you believe, I don’t think you’re an idiot for it. My personal belief has never and will never personally effect you.troyguitar wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 9:54 pm There's always an element of uncertainty in scientific pursuits. What's your point? Do you have an idea that fits the current research better than what the scientific community has to offer? Where can I read it to verify your claims?
Gravity is a theory too (because we have not detected gravatrons yet) but your ass aint floating off into orbit.
brain go brrrrrr
so ye olde
Had other important things to do. Like play scrabble with wife and clean my military grade rifles from days goneby.
- goIftdibrad
- Chief Master Soft Brain
- Posts: 16746
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:01 am
- Drives: straight past the apex
CorvetteWaxer wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 10:48 pmI've told you before, but this is the last time.troyguitar wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2018 10:42 pm That's you, bro. You've never been wrong about anything in your life. I can't think of much that I believed 10 years ago and still believe today. Almost everything I've done in the past 20 years has been wrong.
How can there possibly be this much resistance to the idea that feelings are not facts?
You are a fucking moron when you assume to know anything about me and make these comments.
Everyone here knows you have serious issues with communication and comprehension, including yourself as you have stated it many times in your poor me posts.
That's why I really didn't say anything all day and I just watched you spaz out on many topics like a fucking drug fiend.
brain go brrrrrr
hell to da no.[user not found] wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:27 am Sooooo... why don't we move this gun discussion over to the punchbowl.
THIS IS O... TTTTTTT...
-kicks zil down bottomless cavern-
go moderate the thread or something.
- goIftdibrad
- Chief Master Soft Brain
- Posts: 16746
- Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2016 9:01 am
- Drives: straight past the apex
x10Calvinball wrote: ↑Tue Feb 20, 2018 12:28 amWell, this highlights my point. You often call people out for saying things that expect an assumption on the reader’s part. Say what you mean and be clear; that is a frequent counter argument of yours. So I can’t hold you to that same standard?troyguitar wrote:
You're right, I should have been more clear but tried to be brief-ish instead. That was a bad idea.
God forbid I assume that we all agree on the obvious: Some people are able to grow up with religion and think critically about some subjects. Some religious people are able to make rational decisions sometimes.
The fact that I needed to clarify that is kind of upsetting - You really think that little of me to assume that I wouldn't acknowledge the above?
It’s a forum, written communication only. Subtext/context is sometimes lost. The thing is when others are guilty of such assumptions your first reaction is to call people idiots.
This is an example of you being on the other side. Keep it in mind with future exchanges.
I don’t think little of you. I don’t think little of anyone on here. I try, not always successfully, to just stay out of the bickering that happens here on occasion.
However, like said, you have often talked about communication issues. I’ll say again, an Internet forum isn’t an ideal setting, but why not use it as practice. When my dad was on jeopardy Trebek commented on his watching the show all the time at home and playing along. My dad’s comment to that was “that was target practice, this is combat.” But he went on to win. Point being, if communication is an issue, you’ll have to work at it to improve. An Internet forum isn’t a perfect setting, but I think this particular forum has at least proven to have a thick enough skin to be a good target range. You gotta take a third party view of conversations though.
Meaning, identifying when things derail and not just considering the other party as in the wrong but taking a step back and putting yourself in their shoes. It’s the only way it works. The science is out there; if you come at an anti-vaccer saying they are wrong and here’s the facts, then they just double down on their beliefs.
If you want to have productive conversations and not just back and forth pointless arguments, you have to learn how this aspect of psychology works. Otherwise you’ll always just butt heads and make enemies.
Finally, this stuff is a feel-it-out process, sometimes you put yourself in someone else’s shoes and realize...I should just stop right here cause ain’t nothing there.
Sent from the Beer Depository
brain go brrrrrr