Not a spelling error. Just a typical liberal gun confiscating unknowing knee jerk politically motivated reactionary statement not based upon any facts.
......
It just takes a tiny sprinkle of catalyst to bring the American culture wars boiling to the top.
Doesn't take much these days, does it ?
For some reason, I remembered a goof that I wanted to do back in the day but never did when I ran a plaza on the Ohio Turnpike. I wanted to superglue a quarter to the terrazzo floors in the plaza and watch all the people try and pick it up. It was only a thought. I never got bored enough to actually ever do it though.
Not a spelling error. Just a typical liberal gun confiscating unknowing knee jerk politically motivated reactionary statement not based upon any facts.
......
It just takes a tiny sprinkle of catalyst to bring the American culture wars boiling to the top.
Amy Klobuchar offered the closest thing to disagreement when she said she would “begin with” voluntary gun buybacks. But even that implies a threatened second step that goes beyond “voluntary.” When you offer voluntary buybacks followed by mandatory buybacks, the "voluntary" part is a bit less voluntary. So the gun “buybacks” at play here are simply compensated confiscation. This is a terrifying premise.
Hedging herself with 'begin with" is not a real disagreement. It just makes her even more disingenuous, slimier and dangerous in my mind.
Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth
Posted:
Sep 14, 2019 - 7:03pm
kurtster wrote:
I guess that you do not understand the format in place. It was a formal debate, where candidates generally challenge each other's positions in order to differentiate themselves. The topic of gun control is a red hot issue. I have already seen other democrats in Congress call this a bad turn of events after the fact, but no one on stage did. They all had the opportunity to do so. The ones on stage are the ones who matter. As I said before, the time and place to disagree was then and there, during the debate.
LOL. Guess you still don't get the argument from silence. Must be why you keep using it so often. "I see group X hasn't posted about this very important event in the forum, therefor it means this or that!"
I guess that you do not understand the format in place. It was a formal debate, where candidates generally challenge each other's positions in order to differentiate themselves. The topic of gun control is a red hot issue. I have already seen other democrats in Congress call this a bad turn of events after the fact, but no one on stage did. They all had the opportunity to do so. The ones on stage are the ones who matter. As I said before, the time and place to disagree was then and there, during the debate.
Just had to call out what you accuse everyone else of ... whataboutism and using a false equivalent in the process no less.
LOL. Guess you still don't get the argument from silence. Must be why you keep using it so often. "I see group X hasn't posted about this very important event in the forum, therefor it means this or that!"
Since I haven't seen you criticize Trump's ridiculous notion, I am just going to assume you believe windmills cause cancer...
I fail to understand your avoidance to answer the question directly. You have no dog in this hunt, so to speak.
And, if I recall correctly, neither have you. (Unless the chronic lack of wall has compelled you to buy an AR15/AK47 so you can help stop the impending doom of the invasion!)
Your argument from silence (while misrepresenting the importance a TV debate) is just that:
I've not seen you condemn your rapey President, therefor you (and the rest of The Party) probably condone it. Or worse...
Just had to call out what you accuse everyone else of ... whataboutism and using a false equivalent in the process no less.
I don't think a mandatory buy-back for semi-automatic rifles is the way to go in the US, I do think their sale should be banned and a voluntary buy-back put in place. High-capacity magazines should be banned. Owners should be banned from carrying them in public places or using them for hunting (if you can't drop that deer with a shot, don't take the shot). They shouldn't be allowed to fire them on private property unless lives are in imminent danger. Gun ranges should be allowed to acquire a license to have semi-automatic rifles for use only on site, and should be inspected regularly to ensure they are in compliance and the guns are tracked (hey, they are fun, I get it.).
I'm sure there are a few more details to be worked out like maybe limiting the amount of ammunition allowed, and perhaps allowing family members to inherit your arsenal.
I don't think a mandatory buy-back for semi-automatic rifles is the way to go in the US, I do think their sale should be banned and a voluntary buy-back put in place. High-capacity magazines should be banned. Owners should be banned from carrying them in public places or using them for hunting (if you can't drop that deer with a shot, don't take the shot). They shouldn't be allowed to fire them on private property unless lives are in imminent danger. Gun ranges should be allowed to acquire a license to have semi-automatic rifles for use only on site, and should be inspected regularly to ensure they are in compliance and the guns are tracked (hey, they are fun, I get it.).
I'm sure there are a few more details to be worked out like maybe limiting the amount of ammunition allowed, and perhaps allowing family members to inherit your arsenal.
And this is how you engage in social discussion. Yes, this is where the conversation starts and the other side of the argument should present their position and we work from there. This is called intellectual honesty. Some people are just too intelligent to understand this simple notion.
I don't think a mandatory buy-back for semi-automatic rifles is the way to go in the US, I do think their sale should be banned and a voluntary buy-back put in place. High-capacity magazines should be banned. Owners should be banned from carrying them in public places or using them for hunting (if you can't drop that deer with a shot, don't take the shot). They shouldn't be allowed to fire them on private property unless lives are in imminent danger. Gun ranges should be allowed to acquire a license to have semi-automatic rifles for use only on site, and should be inspected regularly to ensure they are in compliance and the guns are tracked (hey, they are fun, I get it.).
I'm sure there are a few more details to be worked out like maybe limiting the amount of ammunition allowed, and perhaps allowing family members to inherit your arsenal.
I fail to understand your avoidance to answer the question directly. You have no dog in this hunt, so to speak.
And, if I recall correctly, neither have you. (Unless the chronic lack of wall has compelled you to buy an AR15/AK47 so you can help stop the impending doom of the invasion!)
Your argument from silence (while misrepresenting the importance a TV debate) is just that:
I've not seen you condemn your rapey President, therefor you (and the rest of The Party) probably condone it. Or worse...
That's because I prefer showing your dishonesty, instead of taking your bait.
No bait. Just citing on the record fact. The terms are on the record and presented in their proper context.
"Official" is valid because these terms "take" and "mandatory buy back" were used without objection by anyone present during their actual uttering during an official, sanctioned Democratic party function. It was unanimous. If there was a time to object in any meaningful way it has come and gone. It is official by default and cannot be ignored as such. To take this as anything other than at face value is foolish by those who legally and lawfully own guns in the USA.
I fail to understand your avoidance to answer the question directly. You have no dog in this hunt, so to speak.
Dude, with all due respect, it is September 13, 2019 and this was said yesterday, September 12, 2019 during the nationally televised Democratic debate and without challenge or objection by any of the other 9 candidates on stage.
Try and undistort this, please. .
I can see what the original news item (and the candidate) said. And I can see how you distort it like a Trump. Pretty simple really.
