Hillary En Fuego

Thirty Bills Unpaid

unsung wrote:

We shouldn't have even been there in the first place. Let these animals burn their countries to the ground on their own.

While I agree with your first sentence, your second sentence is kind of harsh.

With all your talk on needing weapons to arm against foreign or domestic threats, Unsung, something tells me you might not exactly embrace a foreign presence perceived as a threat. Would that make you an animal?

pjl44

JimmyV wrote:

From Rand Paul's lips to his daddy's flock's ears.

Liberty!

So the guy who argues for vague concepts of gun control and acknowledges a misunderstanding of basic terminology is accusing others of not being free thinkers. Got it.

JimmyV

pjl44 wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

From Rand Paul's lips to his daddy's flock's ears.

Liberty!

So the guy who argues for vague concepts of gun control and acknowledges a misunderstanding of basic terminology is accusing others of not being free thinkers. Got it.

Still don't have an answer as to why anyone needs an assault rifle, do you?

gimmesometruth27

BECAUSE IT IS OUR GOD GIVEN RIGHT, silly...

unsung

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

unsung wrote:

We shouldn't have even been there in the first place. Let these animals burn their countries to the ground on their own.

While I agree with your first sentence, your second sentence is kind of harsh.

With all your talk on needing weapons to arm against foreign or domestic threats, Unsung, something tells me you might not exactly embrace a foreign presence perceived as a threat. Would that make you an animal?

I believe in a non-intervention foreign policy. I don't approve of funneling arms to Libya, Syria, or Mexican drug cartels. Hillary is now on the record as saying that arms are not being sent, it'll bite her in the future.

JimmyV

Hillary will be fine. Someone will be bitten in the ass by their performance yesterday though...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2 ... n-tragedy/

"However, Rand Paul’s desire to score points and show himself to be a ‘tough guy’ serves only to reveal how incredibly unprepared and unqualified he is to be holding elective office as a County dog catcher let alone considering a run for the highest office in the land."

pjl44

JimmyV wrote:

pjl44 wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

From Rand Paul's lips to his daddy's flock's ears.

Liberty!

So the guy who argues for vague concepts of gun control and acknowledges a misunderstanding of basic terminology is accusing others of not being free thinkers. Got it.

Still don't have an answer as to why anyone needs an assault rifle, do you?

Because it's a question with a logical pitfall. My general answer was "protection, sport, and recreation." You don't feel that's adequate and there are a couple million people who agree with you. However, if I was asked the same question by my buddy Joe and gave the same response he would find my answer entirely adequate. As would a couple million other people. So now what?

You can't make laws based on what people like and don't like. That's how we arrive at things like prohibition, a war on drugs, and states refusing to recognize same sex marriages. If you want to advocate for particular gun regulations you have to identify an outcome that you hope to achieve and evidence that your regulations will achieve that outcome. Both things which were entirely missing from our conversation no matter how many times I asked you.

JimmyV

pjl44 wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

pjl44 wrote:

Still don't have an answer as to why anyone needs an assault rifle, do you?

Because it's a question with a logical pitfall. My general answer was "protection, sport, and recreation." You don't feel that's adequate and there are a couple million people who agree with you. However, if I was asked the same question by my buddy Joe and gave the same response he would find my answer entirely adequate. As would a couple million other people. So now what?

You can make laws based on what people like and don't like. If you want to advocate for particular gun regulations you have to identify an outcome that you hope to achieve and evidence that your regulations will achieve that outcome. Both things which were entirely missing from our conversation no matter how many times I asked you.

Admittedly, our past conversation does not rank high in my memory. Not a slight against you, it is just that I have had many such conversations on this issue.

But that said, was "protection, sport, and recreation" your general answer? I thought you were the one who told me I did not deserve an answer (paraphrasing) because I did not have a detailed plan for the removal of assault rifles? (Am I confusing you with someone else? Are you confusing me with someone else?)

Anyway, my point from the very beginning and long before Sandy Hook is that all assault weapons should be banned. I know, I know, there are loopholes that allow some weapons which are quite clearly assault weapons to slip through without being classified as such. Those loopholes should be closed.

Protection...fine, although arguing you need an assault rifle to protect you or your family is a stretch.

Sport and recreation...that is where these guns become nothing more than toys.

Less assault weapons in the country = less access to assault weapons = less Adam Lanza's being able to commit mass murder in minutes. That is what a ban would achieve. I don't think that is vague at all.

pjl44

JimmyV wrote:

Admittedly, our past conversation does not rank high in my memory. Not a slight against you, it is just that I have had many such conversations on this issue.

But that said, was "protection, sport, and recreation" your general answer? I thought you were the one who told me I did not deserve an answer (paraphrasing) because I did not have a detailed plan for the removal of assault rifles? (Am I confusing you with someone else? Are you confusing me with someone else?)

Anyway, my point from the very beginning and long before Sandy Hook is that all assault weapons should be banned. I know, I know, there are loopholes that allow some weapons which are quite clearly assault weapons to slip through without being classified as such. Those loopholes should be closed.

Protection...fine, although arguing you need an assault rifle to protect you or your family is a stretch.

Sport and recreation...that is where these guns become nothing more than toys.

Less assault weapons in the country = less access to assault weapons = less Adam Lanza's being able to commit mass murder in minutes. That is what a ban would achieve. I don't think that is vague at all.

Sorry, man...I already sent your thread here way off topic, so my final point and I'll back off:

You can't ban "assault weapons." You're creating loopholes by using a vague term that can have multiple meanings. If you have an understanding of what you're advocating to take away from people and how it can be effectively done, you are failing to demonstrate that with your language. If you're not able to make the foundation of your points within the scope of reality, nothing you say following that makes any logical sense.

Educate yourself on definable attributes of firearms that can be regulated (auto vs. semi-auto, actual classifications, magazine capacities, types of ammo, accessories, etc.) and see if you can find instances where those regulations have decreased violent crime in a given municipality.

JimmyV

pjl44 wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Admittedly, our past conversation does not rank high in my memory. Not a slight against you, it is just that I have had many such conversations on this issue.

But that said, was "protection, sport, and recreation" your general answer? I thought you were the one who told me I did not deserve an answer (paraphrasing) because I did not have a detailed plan for the removal of assault rifles? (Am I confusing you with someone else? Are you confusing me with someone else?)

Anyway, my point from the very beginning and long before Sandy Hook is that all assault weapons should be banned. I know, I know, there are loopholes that allow some weapons which are quite clearly assault weapons to slip through without being classified as such. Those loopholes should be closed.

Protection...fine, although arguing you need an assault rifle to protect you or your family is a stretch.

Sport and recreation...that is where these guns become nothing more than toys.

Less assault weapons in the country = less access to assault weapons = less Adam Lanza's being able to commit mass murder in minutes. That is what a ban would achieve. I don't think that is vague at all.

Sorry, man...I already sent your thread here way off topic, so my final point and I'll back off:

You can't ban "assault weapons." You're creating loopholes by using a vague term that can have multiple meanings. If you have an understanding of what you're advocating to take away from people and how it can be effectively done, you are failing to demonstrate that with your language. If you're not able to make the foundation of your points within the scope of reality, nothing you say following that makes any logical sense.

Educate yourself on definable attributes of firearms that can be regulated (auto vs. semi-auto, actual classifications, magazine capacities, types of ammo, accessories, etc.) and see if you can find instances where those regulations have decreased violent crime in a given municipality.

Feel free to hit me up in one of the gun threads as it is an interesting discussion.

JimmyV

fear4freedom wrote:

This administration is hiding something BIG and if the facts were all out, im sure there would be some major firings or Impeachements!

Hating Obama is one thing. Casually tossing around calls for impeachment is something else. The man has been duly elected twice by a majority of American voters. He shouldn't be impeached because his politics do not match your own.

blackredyellow

JimmyV wrote:

fear4freedom wrote:

This administration is hiding something BIG and if the facts were all out, im sure there would be some major firings or Impeachements!

Hating Obama is one thing. Casually tossing around calls for impeachment is something else. The man has been duly elected twice by a majority of American voters. He shouldn't be impeached because his politics do not match your own.

Exactly... and I haven't heard one republican member of congress suggest that he be impeached either, and they have much more access to classified info than any the people claiming that the administration is "hiding something BIG".

It's easy to throw out accusations with absolutely no proof, or do it in the asinine "just asking the question..." form that the talk radio hacks do.

pjl44

JimmyV wrote:

Feel free to hit me up in one of the gun threads as it is an interesting discussion.

I will. There are certainly no shortage to choose from.

JimmyV

pjl44 wrote:

JimmyV wrote:

Feel free to hit me up in one of the gun threads as it is an interesting discussion.

I will. There are certainly no shortage to choose from.

Prince Of Dorkness

Rand Paul is an embarrassment to carbon-based lifeforms. An attention whore, a cry baby, a bratty entitled little shit who has never really had a job he didn't suck at doing.

The ultimate snobby boob who thinks having a rich and well-known daddy makes him qualified to do things he isn't qualified to do.

Hillary would be totally within her rights to take off her shoe and hurl it at him.

JimmyV

Prince Of Dorkness wrote:

Rand Paul is an embarrassment to carbon-based lifeforms. An attention whore, a cry baby, a bratty entitled little shit who has never really had a job he didn't suck at doing.

The ultimate snobby boob who thinks having a rich and well-known daddy makes him qualified to do things he isn't qualified to do.

Hillary would be totally within her rights to take off her shoe and hurl it at him.

It is unfortunate that I will never be able to vote against Ron Paul's baby boy.

aerial

Hilary had four months to rehearse her act.....She did very well with her performance....GOP dropped the ball just like Romney did in the debates.....I do not know why the GOP does not ask questions that need answering....Where did Rice get her information? Where were you when this was happening?...when did you find out it was not about a protest? Why was the ambassador there? Who gave the order to stand down?
It's all BS..... both sides putting on an act as if they care. :x

JimmyV

aerial wrote:

Hilary had four months to rehearse her act.....She did very well with her performance....GOP dropped the ball just like Romney did in the debates.....I do not know why the GOP does not ask questions that need answering....Where did Rice get her information? Where were you when this was happening?...when did you find out it was not about a protest? Why was the ambassador there? Who gave the order to stand down?
It's all BS..... both sides putting on an act as if they care. :x

You don't think Hillary cared? I thought her emotion was very genuine.

JimmyV

I am somewhat of an Andrew Sullivan fan and was curious why he did not blog about the hearings yesterday. He explains:

"Just to remind readers who asked why we didn't cover the hearings yesterday, even though they had some great TV moments: we don't cover non-stories. We have covered the legitimate issue that there was not enough security in Benghazi, that there should have been, and that the State Department failed in its foresight and planning. But we are not going to cover a spectacle created entirely by a fake cable news network as a way to save a losing election campaign. Hillary's face yesterday said all we needed to."

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com ... ghazi.html

Yes, that sounds about right.

callen

unsung wrote:

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

unsung wrote:

We shouldn't have even been there in the first place. Let these animals burn their countries to the ground on their own.

While I agree with your first sentence, your second sentence is kind of harsh.

With all your talk on needing weapons to arm against foreign or domestic threats, Unsung, something tells me you might not exactly embrace a foreign presence perceived as a threat. Would that make you an animal?

I believe in a non-intervention foreign policy. I don't approve of funneling arms to Libya, Syria, or Mexican drug cartels. Hillary is now on the record as saying that arms are not being sent, it'll bite her in the future.

The Mexican cartels buy their guns from republican owned gun shops in Texas so if one is for unrestricted gun sales in the US, one is supporting guns for Mexican cartels.