DiscussMormonism.com

A common tactic of gun worshipers is to gunsplain. The gun fanatic will likely be aware of much more technical detail regarding firearms than any critic of gun policy and will use this knowledge to try to establish a broad credibility. If you begin to question defending assault rifles, the discussion is quickly shunted off onto the technical definitions of "assault", "rifle", "military", etc. Questioning large magazines or silencers receives similar treatment. In fact, critics in general are often labeled "hoplophobes".

Is the gun critic converted by this Tom Clancyish display? Uh, no. They feel insulted, dismissed, ignored. They often feel that the message is "Shut up and die."

This won't continue this way. Try gunsplaining to a mother of a murdered child. You'd better have your gun ready.

But don't some statements need some gunsplaining?

"If you ban them in the future, the number of these high-capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won't be any more available." Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colorado).

Black Moclips wrote:But don't some statements need some gunsplaining?

"If you ban them in the future, the number of these high-capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won't be any more available." Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colorado).

Phil Hendrie did a show where one of his "guests" was requesting money for Palestinians, to buy more rocks, and import them... so they can throw them at the Israelis becasue they had thrown them all at them and were running out.

There were people calling in arguing against this guys motives, believing they had actually run out of rocks?

For those of you that don't know who Phil is, take the time to go to his website and listen to some of his shows...the show I mentioned is somewhere in his archives.

by the way, I had never heard the clip you pasted...but hey, she was only a congress person in charge of gathering votes on this issue, why should she have to understand what she was talking about?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mxtu228bYFw

Maybe a person with all the technical knowledge should have explained to her clips are re-loadable.

Priceless. And people wonder why am cynical about politicians.

Would the creators of the second amendment have included it if they know that muskets would be replaced by high firing guns?

Black Moclips wrote:But don't some statements need some gunsplaining?

"If you ban them in the future, the number of these high-capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won't be any more available." Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colorado).

The idea is sound. Once a ban goes into affect, the number of large clips will start to drop for many reasons, and there can be easy programs put into place to help drop that number even faster, so arguments that a ban would not work are just false.

Markk wrote:Phil Hendrie did a show where one of his "guests" was requesting money for Palestinians, to buy more rocks, and import them... so they can throw them at the Israelis becasue they had thrown them all at them and were running out.

He also had a "guest" on who was in America recruiting suicide bombers because they were running out of Palestinians.

Themis wrote:

Black Moclips wrote:But don't some statements need some gunsplaining?

"If you ban them in the future, the number of these high-capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won't be any more available." Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colorado).

The idea is sound. Once a ban goes into affect, the number of large clips will start to drop for many reasons, and there can be easy programs put into place to help drop that number even faster, so arguments that a ban would not work are just false.

Kind of proves the idea that sensible gun control is not about stripping Americans of their 2nd amendment rights is false as well.

Maxine Waters wrote:Kind of proves the idea that sensible gun control is not about stripping Americans of their 2nd tenement rights is false as well.

While I'm sure you're an expert on tenement rights, we're actually talking about something else. But don't let that stop you.

Regulating is not infringing. You don't get to have a flame thrower or your own TOW missile launcher. You don't need them. You don't have a 2nd amendment right to anything that can kill. You can bear arms, just not stuff that sensible people consider unreasonable. Sorry you don't want to be part of that group.

Maxine Waters wrote:Kind of proves the idea that sensible gun control is not about stripping Americans of their 2nd tenement rights is false as well.

It doesn't prove that at all. You are just asserting bs you want to believe as an excuse to stop sensible gun control.

Riddle me this. Why did the states of Pennsylvania, Ohio and Massachusetts explicitly write in their State Constitutions that their citizens had a right to bear arms for their own individual self defense? These State Constitutions were ratified well after the 2nd amendment which automatically applies to all states, so what is their reasoning unless it was understood at the time that the 2nd amendment didn't guarantee that specific right?

https://www.english.illinois.edu/-peopl ... s/guns.pdf