Quantcast
The Official US Politics OT

Forums - Politics Discussion - The Official US Politics OT

SpokenTruth said:
KLAMarine said:

"Yep, awesome.  We can also ban them all and it;s all good."

>But wouldn't that then strengthen the unregulated firearm black market?

I'm starting to think you missed the point.  I'll start over.

The NRA loves to state the following rhetoric to the point it has become a mantra for many, "Guns don't kill people, people do."

The converse then must also be true, "Guns don't protect people, people do."

The end sum of each of these statements suggests the cause of death and protection against death is people and the gun is therefore irrelevant in either case.  

The point is that if you proclaim that people are the problem (not gun), then you must also claim people are the solution (not gun). It's basically a nullification of the NRA rhetoric.

The problem is that the strong don't need weapons, but the weak do. It's why weapons were invented in the first place. The weak can't naturally beat the strong, so they create something to help that will. What do you do when you're the strong person who's now the weak one because you're up against a gun? You get yourself a gun or make something even stronger. 

The only real way to completely fix this is to make everyone and everything 100% equal, which you can't do. Until then, weapons of any kind will be used and will be seen as a solution and a problem.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

Around the Network
EricHiggin said:
SpokenTruth said:

I'm starting to think you missed the point.  I'll start over.

The NRA loves to state the following rhetoric to the point it has become a mantra for many, "Guns don't kill people, people do."

The converse then must also be true, "Guns don't protect people, people do."

The end sum of each of these statements suggests the cause of death and protection against death is people and the gun is therefore irrelevant in either case.  

The point is that if you proclaim that people are the problem (not gun), then you must also claim people are the solution (not gun). It's basically a nullification of the NRA rhetoric.

The problem is that the strong don't need weapons, but the weak do. It's why weapons were invented in the first place. The weak can't naturally beat the strong, so they create something to help that will. What do you do when you're the strong person who's now the weak one because you're up against a gun? You get yourself a gun or make something even stronger. 

The only real way to completely fix this is to make everyone and everything 100% equal, which you can't do. Until then, weapons of any kind will be used and will be seen as a solution and a problem.

To face palm or not to face palm?

You just missed the whole point just as KLAMarine did. 



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

EricHiggin said:
SpokenTruth said:

I'm starting to think you missed the point.  I'll start over.

The NRA loves to state the following rhetoric to the point it has become a mantra for many, "Guns don't kill people, people do."

The converse then must also be true, "Guns don't protect people, people do."

The end sum of each of these statements suggests the cause of death and protection against death is people and the gun is therefore irrelevant in either case.  

The point is that if you proclaim that people are the problem (not gun), then you must also claim people are the solution (not gun). It's basically a nullification of the NRA rhetoric.

The problem is that the strong don't need weapons, but the weak do. It's why weapons were invented in the first place. The weak can't naturally beat the strong, so they create something to help that will. What do you do when you're the strong person who's now the weak one because you're up against a gun? You get yourself a gun or make something even stronger. 

The only real way to completely fix this is to make everyone and everything 100% equal, which you can't do. Until then, weapons of any kind will be used and will be seen as a solution and a problem.

Sometimes a solution can be worse than the problem. I mean what kind of things have guns in civilian hands actually fixed?

You can actually draw a really great parallel here to the middle east. Remember when shipping lots and lots of guns to a fragile region did not solve anything and instead fucked up everything for everyone forever? Same can be seen in the US.

Notice how the effort currently is to de-arm everyone to fix the problem that was introduced by guns? The US hilariously gets really furious when it doesn't manage to de-arm other countries. But yeah, self reflection and noticing big fat irony is not a strong suit of the men in power.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

SpokenTruth said:
KLAMarine said:

"Yep, awesome.  We can also ban them all and it;s all good."

>But wouldn't that then strengthen the unregulated firearm black market?

I'm starting to think you missed the point.  I'll start over.

The NRA loves to state the following rhetoric to the point it has become a mantra for many, "Guns don't kill people, people do."

The converse then must also be true, "Guns don't protect people, people do."

The end sum of each of these statements suggests the cause of death and protection against death is people and the gun is therefore irrelevant in either case.  

The point is that if you proclaim that people are the problem (not gun), then you must also claim people are the solution (not gun). It's basically a nullification of the NRA rhetoric.

And I completely agree with you that both statements nullify each other: guns don't kill/protect people, people do. But then why pursue a ban? If I want a gun, don't get in my way! The gun is not a difference maker or in your words, "irrelevant in either case".

It's like pursuing a ban of plastic bags because insurance fraud exists. Why? Plastic bags are a non-factor, clearly.

In conclusion, an NRA member might actually agree with you that the statements cancel each other out. People are the problem, not guns.



EricHiggin said:
SpokenTruth said:

I'm starting to think you missed the point.  I'll start over.

The NRA loves to state the following rhetoric to the point it has become a mantra for many, "Guns don't kill people, people do."

The converse then must also be true, "Guns don't protect people, people do."

The end sum of each of these statements suggests the cause of death and protection against death is people and the gun is therefore irrelevant in either case.  

The point is that if you proclaim that people are the problem (not gun), then you must also claim people are the solution (not gun). It's basically a nullification of the NRA rhetoric.

The problem is that the strong don't need weapons, but the weak do. It's why weapons were invented in the first place. The weak can't naturally beat the strong, so they create something to help that will. What do you do when you're the strong person who's now the weak one because you're up against a gun? You get yourself a gun or make something even stronger. 

The only real way to completely fix this is to make everyone and everything 100% equal, which you can't do. Until then, weapons of any kind will be used and will be seen as a solution and a problem.

If you're weak, get strong.  Isn't that what conservatives like to tout anyways?



Around the Network
KLAMarine said:
SpokenTruth said:

I'm starting to think you missed the point.  I'll start over.

The NRA loves to state the following rhetoric to the point it has become a mantra for many, "Guns don't kill people, people do."

The converse then must also be true, "Guns don't protect people, people do."

The end sum of each of these statements suggests the cause of death and protection against death is people and the gun is therefore irrelevant in either case.  

The point is that if you proclaim that people are the problem (not gun), then you must also claim people are the solution (not gun). It's basically a nullification of the NRA rhetoric.

And I completely agree with you that both statements nullify each other: guns don't kill/protect people, people do. But then why pursue a ban? If I want a gun, don't get in my way! The gun is not a difference maker or in your words, "irrelevant in either case".

It's like pursuing a ban of plastic bags because insurance fraud exists. Why? Plastic bags are a non-factor, clearly.

In conclusion, an NRA member might actually agree with you that the statements cancel each other out. People are the problem, not guns.

If we go by this logic then why do we have any laws at all?



Paperboy_J said:
KLAMarine said:

And I completely agree with you that both statements nullify each other: guns don't kill/protect people, people do. But then why pursue a ban? If I want a gun, don't get in my way! The gun is not a difference maker or in your words, "irrelevant in either case".

It's like pursuing a ban of plastic bags because insurance fraud exists. Why? Plastic bags are a non-factor, clearly.

In conclusion, an NRA member might actually agree with you that the statements cancel each other out. People are the problem, not guns.

If we go by this logic then why do we have any laws at all?

Nailed it.

People are the problem for all issues when you really boil it down.

That being said, laws are designed to attempt to alleviate the issues that people have. They will never be perfect, but that doesn't mean the law just shouldn't exist.

Murder will always be a thing, but we should still have laws against murder.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

Paperboy_J said:
KLAMarine said:

And I completely agree with you that both statements nullify each other: guns don't kill/protect people, people do. But then why pursue a ban? If I want a gun, don't get in my way! The gun is not a difference maker or in your words, "irrelevant in either case".

It's like pursuing a ban of plastic bags because insurance fraud exists. Why? Plastic bags are a non-factor, clearly.

In conclusion, an NRA member might actually agree with you that the statements cancel each other out. People are the problem, not guns.

If we go by this logic then why do we have any laws at all?

So you can punish behavior that is undesirable. Murder is undesirable hence we have laws against it.



KLAMarine said:
SpokenTruth said:

I'm starting to think you missed the point.  I'll start over.

The NRA loves to state the following rhetoric to the point it has become a mantra for many, "Guns don't kill people, people do."

The converse then must also be true, "Guns don't protect people, people do."

The end sum of each of these statements suggests the cause of death and protection against death is people and the gun is therefore irrelevant in either case.  

The point is that if you proclaim that people are the problem (not gun), then you must also claim people are the solution (not gun). It's basically a nullification of the NRA rhetoric.

And I completely agree with you that both statements nullify each other: guns don't kill/protect people, people do. But then why pursue a ban? If I want a gun, don't get in my way! The gun is not a difference maker or in your words, "irrelevant in either case".

It's like pursuing a ban of plastic bags because insurance fraud exists. Why? Plastic bags are a non-factor, clearly.

In conclusion, an NRA member might actually agree with you that the statements cancel each other out. People are the problem, not guns.

So you get the point and then talk about things that are not the point.  Why? 

It has nothing to do with everyone having a gun or banning all guns.  It is merely a nullification of NRA rhetoric.  You first decided to use the nullification tangentially as a means to suggest we should all have guns (which was not the point).  I retorted that your logic equally meant we could ban guns (also, not the point).  I never said we should ban them.  It was a continuation of your own logic based on the nullification. Banning them or arming everyone has nothing to do with the point.

Oh, and your plastic bag / insurance fraud analogy?  That's a non-sequitur.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:
KLAMarine said:

And I completely agree with you that both statements nullify each other: guns don't kill/protect people, people do. But then why pursue a ban? If I want a gun, don't get in my way! The gun is not a difference maker or in your words, "irrelevant in either case".

It's like pursuing a ban of plastic bags because insurance fraud exists. Why? Plastic bags are a non-factor, clearly.

In conclusion, an NRA member might actually agree with you that the statements cancel each other out. People are the problem, not guns.

So you get the point and then talk about things that are not the point.  Why? 

It has nothing to do with everyone having a gun or banning all guns.  It is merely a nullification of NRA rhetoric.  You first decided to use the nullification tangentially as a means to suggest we should all have guns (which was not the point).  I retorted that your logic equally meant we could ban guns (also, not the point).  I never said we should ban them.  It was a continuation of your own logic based on the nullification. Banning them or arming everyone has nothing to do with the point.

Oh, and your plastic bag / insurance fraud analogy?  That's a non-sequitur.

"It has nothing to do with everyone having a gun or banning all guns. It is merely a nullification of NRA rhetoric."

>And I think you actually strengthened NRA rhetoric: the gun as a non-factor means banning guns will achieve nothing with regards to deaths. You stated earlier

"The point is that if you proclaim that people are the problem (not gun), then you must also claim people are the solution (not gun). It's basically a nullification of the NRA rhetoric."

>If I were an NRA member, I'd add "Yes! I will happily claim guns are neither the problem nor solution: they're a non-factor! So leave guns out of this topic! Don't even bring them up!"

"You first decided to use the nullification tangentially as a means to suggest we should all have guns (which was not the point)."

>When did I suggest we should all have guns? Could you copy-paste the exact point where I suggested such a thing?