Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Moderator
They'd all be reasonable if he replaced the word "liberals" with "some idiot on the internet". Simply saying "liberals" implies the number of people saying those things that belong to the group being labeled is a significant amount, and it's not.
As it is, it's just Rush Limbaugh style idiocy, him proclaiming himself a democrat is meaningless, the claims themselves are what matter.
When someone intentionally and knowingly adds words or changes the meaning of "I agree with some of X" then you don't get to claim that "So you agree that all X is X?" and then pretend it is not a strawman.
You do know what a strawman is and so do I.
Now now, let's not make stuff up.
Now, before the screenshot, you said, "That isn't what you stated."
Here is a screen shot for you:
(please log in to view the image)
Try as you might, you still can't libel me. You are very bad at that so you may want to stop.
That is what I stated word for word.
Nice try, but you need to troll harder to get me to say something else.
Now, you have made a very big assumption. What is that assumption?
The assumption is what I meant by "change my mind".
This is not a case of me blaming anything on misunderstanding, this is you specifically making up meanings.
As that post was, it was not clearly defined what I meant by "change my mind". One could assume I meant "side with Zimmerman" or one could assume a whole bunch of things in-between because I had not yet clarified.
However, and this is why you failed so horribly to troll me:
I did clarify exactly what I meant by "change my mind".
Here it is again for you:
Now, at that point, you should have done this in your head: "OH! That's what dadudemon meant by 'change my mind'. He means that he will see Zimmerman's story as having a bit more credibility. Clearly, he did no say Zimmerman would be exonerated, innocent, or completely in the right. He just meant that all of Zimmerman's claims are suspect until evidence backs it up."
But, nope! You concluded something entirely different specifically because of you agenda to rage at me.
COME AT ME BRO!
Okay. I agree and concede that point. He obviously was fed up with what he perceived as liberals. I will note, as I have noted to SC, that he never said "all liberals" as he is a liberal, himself.
And I despise Rush Limbaugh. Part of me thinks Rush is just putting on an act and he doesn't really believe half of that idiocy he spews.
When reading over this case and searching comment sections and forums about this topic, it has not once come up.
Granted, I did not search specifically for "trayvon gun control" in google search. I was approaching the topic from a general "news" portion and did not read anything that could address this case even better.
BRB, I will research that.
Troll harder.
__________________
Last edited by dadudemon on Apr 3rd, 2012 at 09:40 PM
It may simply be a geographical thing. Canadians tend to see our stance on guns as being more enlightened than yours, so when people get shot in America, it is very quickly brought up.
Though, idk, is the "stand your ground" law really considered "gun control"? Like, would Americans see something like repealing "concealed carry" as specifically "gun-control", even if access to guns isn't being restricted at all? idk, you guys have weird stances on guns...
But the article seems to be ... more humorous than serious. "Right to buy skittles and tea without being shot". WTF?
But about the case: if some dude approached me "flashing" a gun, I would definitely not back-talk, mouth off, or try to punch the dude.
Did Zimmerman flash a gun? Some people would have you believe he did. Some would have you believe he pulled it out of his pocket while Trayvon was showing him what's what.
Who is correct?
I really do think that distinction is very important to this case. If Zimmerman approached the situation with the gun out, that could have provoked a more hostile response from Trayvon (I could cite a study that shows our thoughts are more violence focused when a gun is about). It is also threatening to start out a convo with a gun. The 9-1-1 call does not seem show Zimmerman as having started the convo with the gun out at least from my experience when thugs (or not thugs) start a convo with a gun.
Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Huntington Beach, CA
Moderator
You have a point about the lack of major conversation in regards to gun control and how it relates to this case. I personally think there's great effort being taken right now by the gun loving conservatives to try and avoid that discussion at all costs, which is why you're seeing various irrelevant topics being raised by the right, like trayvon martin's possession of pot and what not, they really don't want that topic to be brought up because this case could really damage our lenient gun laws, I think.
Americans a very pro gun, probably even moreso than Europe and Canada realize. Currently the only states that are not required to issue CC permits are New Jersey, California, Massachusetts, and New York. Those are probably the four most left leaning states in the entire country.
In fact groups like the NRA (though I'm not sure of the NRA in particular) tend to see even shall-issue laws as excessive. These are laws that say "so long as you have qualities X, Y, and Z the states is required to give a CC license". Its the X, Y, and Z that get people angry. Finger printing is a way to build up a data base for oppression. Gun safety classes are paternalism. Age limits are probably the only thing you could get a majority of Americans to agree are reasonable and even then maybe not.
Wikipedia has a nice map of this. Gun laws have gotten progressively less restrictive. Since the 80s no states has gone from "shall" to "may" or "may" to "never".
Honestly its one of a few issues I find myself to be very right leaning on.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
woah, so in most states, CC isn't even this special thing that people have to apply for? Its just a rubber stamp essentially?
thats strange. So, saying you couldn't bring a gun to a playground would be seen as, specifically, a 2nd amendment issue rather than a public safety issue?
I'm to the right certainly of where Canadian gun laws are, but I'm not sure, in a practical sense, about things like CC. In a perfect world, sure, people should have the right to defend themselves, and if they aren't hurting anyone nobody has the right to stop them, but we don't live in anything close to a perfect world, and I can think of few situations that are made better if more people were armed.
The Swiss system is cool, though I'm not sure how I feel about mandatory military service.
Could you sum up Canada's gun system and the contemporary social position on it? You say you are to the right...so Canada must be really far to the left. But I thought Canada had way more guns per capita than the US?
So I R confused and I do not want to spend an hour reading about it.
basically, anything that is a hunting rifle or similar shotgun requires a fairly standard licence, hand guns require an additional licence, and anything that can fire more than one bullet with a single trigger pull is prohibited. It is possible to get a licence to own a prohibited weapon, but in practice it is nearly impossible. They generally exist only to allow people who owned these weapons before the laws came in to continue to own them, and there has been talk that the government doesn't want people to be allowed to "grandfather" the licence after they die, so the guns would have to be destroyed.
We have a registry of ever legally owned handgun, and I assume all other restricted/prohibited weapons. The Liberals, years ago, tried to implement the same thing for shotguns and rifles, but it became a billion(s) dollar nightmare and was recently scrapped.
In general, gun politics are a regional thing. Cities are against them and in a place like Toronto any gun death is widespread news (there were [EDIT: whoops, 52] gun deaths one year and it was dubbed the "year of the gun"). You would have a very difficult time running in Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Quebec, Vancouver, Winnipeg, and maybe to a lesser extend Calgary or Edmonton [no, now that I think about it, no ****ing way, you couldn't win there either], with a policy that wanted to allow people to carry guns in public. In the farm land, there would be no real support for more access to restricted or prohibited guns, but this is where resistance to the long-gun registry came from. Because hunting and farming were just sort of a way of life, they resisted the idea of needing to be on some "government list"
is that left? idk, because it is such a political non-issue here (handguns/restricted/prohibited) we really don't have a left/right spectrum to it. I think it is a little draconian in terms of what I as a citizen should be allowed to own and what I can do with it, I just can't really say I'm in favor of there being more guns in public places. I've met people, they are assholes.
Cool! Thanks for explaining that. I now know more about Canada's gun laws and gun control.
In the US, right wingers want less gun control and left wingers want more.
However...technically, the further left you go, the more rights a person has. So if we go far enough left, eventually we leave the part where "gun control" is an issue and we hit "no gun control/anarchy".
But that's how it rolls here in the US.
But, yes, it might have been Michael Moore's movie that made me think Canadians had plenty of guns.
thats actually sort of what I meant. I get that its a Dem/Rep thing, and in terms of like the long-gun registry, our left/right split was like that too, I just mean, you could see an argument from either side supporting more gun freedom.
Registered: Jun 2005
Location: Southern Oregon,
Looking at you.
When I was in high school (70s), there were kids who brought their rifles on the bus so they could take shooting class after school. They were not loaded, and no one freaked out. Guns are not the problem, it is a cultural problem. So, I disagree. With this culture, everyone having guns would be a disaster. However, I am not saying that guns should be banned, but both extremes are equally bad.
Apr 3rd, 2012 07:29 PM
