Assualt weapons

[_ludwigm]

No worries, ludwigm.

I've never ever worried. An officer never falls back.

Ceeboo and I already know that we are evil transgressors.

I am in a good club of ours.

I think the important thing is that it sounds like Shades is offering a way out of hell for you. Take it.

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=40133&p=933393#p933393

I took it.
- http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... 13#p933413 -

[_RockSlider]

I do realize I'm just a selfish old man, with some super good memories.

Let me tell on myself for a similar concept where my generation had it wild and free in our youth and yet I know it needed to change for the good of all and future generations.

The wild and free four-wheeling and dirt biking I did all over Utah. Long before any recreational licensed vehicles, designated trails etc.

Of course licensing/regulation costs money which is passed onto the consumer, if they can afford it.

But of course it needed to happen for the good of all. But now we get into all the politics, lobbying etc.

The same battles happened between Sierra Club (leftist gun critic) and the evil recreational vehicle lovers (nra)

If millions of dollars and years of ugliness, just like we see in this thread, did not occur, one or the other may have gotten cheated in the final solutions. At least in Utah, a pretty happy medium has been obtained in this matter. And yet these solutions are not final, there is constant bickering between these two groups to hold their existing ground.




do you give up yet Ceeboo?


I'm guessing Mak's a tree hugger.



A Spotted owl I picked off with my AR-15 ... hmmmm umm good

[_maklelan]

Maybe not http://vehicle-fatalities.findthedata.com/l/45/Utah

Note the difference between belted and non belted!

It's pretty clear you don't have the foggiest idea what's going on in this discussion.

[_maklelan]

And is by the way, the reason I have not carried over all these years. I have the license to try and maintain my right to do so now or in the future.

It is only of late, with the likes of France and CA and what seems an ever increasing odds that I will find myself in that situation.

But you've also pointed at the dropping rates of gun-related homicide. Are the odds you'll need your gun dropping or rising? You can't have it both ways. Which is it?

And these numbers/odds continue to increase at some point in the future ... I want my rights to protect myself preserved for use if/when ever called for.

No, you're just rationalizing your desire to have guns around you, and you're doing a laughable job of it.

[_maklelan]

if you are going to let me keep all my guns, not banning any of them and maintain the right to carry them and use them freely (not range only, hunting only, under supervision etc. etc rules) This whole thread is mute.

I think you mean "moot," but no, it's not, since your uneducated and belligerent refusal to listen to reason regarding gun control contributes to the failure of our government to enact meaningful gun control legislation. It's your ideological outlook that enables the NRA to completely undermine our attempts to save lives.

[_Ceeboo]

since your uneducated and belligerent refusal to listen to reason regarding gun control contributes to the failure of our government to enact meaningful gun control legislation. It's your ideological outlook that enables the NRA to completely undermine our attempts to save lives.

Hey my friend Mak!

Do you think it's possible that you're being a little to hard on our friend Rock? for what it's worth - I do!

You might consider the hostility and combative nature that exists throughout this entire thread. If you were looking from 5 miles away, I think you could see the ideological rhetoric that is splattered are over this thread.

Why are you singling out Rock?

Could it be that your personal political views are driving your posts? Is rhetoric neatly woven in your contributions?

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Kevin Graham]

Could it be that your personal political views are driving your posts? Is rhetoric neatly woven in your contributions?

Yes, this clearly only applies to those whose political views differ from yours and your friends. The rest of you are perfectly polite, objective, and never get personal. Good call there Ceeboo.

[_maklelan]

Hey my friend Mak!

Do you think it's possible that you're being a little to hard on our friend Rock? for what it's worth - I do!

You might consider the hostility and combative nature that exists throughout this entire thread. If you were looking from 5 miles away, I think you could see the ideological rhetoric that is splattered are over this thread.

Why are you singling out Rock?

Could it be that your personal political views are driving your posts? Is rhetoric neatly woven in your contributions?

Peace,
Ceeboo

HI, Ceeboo! I would suggest that the appeal to moderation is not necessarily the best approach in this kind of discussion. It is simply a fact that pro-gun rhetoric has facilitated the deaths of thousands and thousands of innocent Americans. As I've shown, where gun control if effective and strong, far fewer people die gun-related deaths, while in places where the kind of rhetoric Rock promotes has held sway, and gun control has been impeded, far more people die gun-related deaths. This is not a question of theological or academic propriety, this is a question of ideology that kills. There is a right and a wrong here. The facts unilaterally support stronger gun control. There are no facts to which Rock can appeal to support his ideology. All he can do is appeal naïvely to emotive rhetoric, to widely discredited pseudo-scholarship, and anecdotal evidence to defend his glorification of gun culture. That is simply wrong and demonstrably harmful, and I will not yield to or give deference or respect to rhetoric that literally kills.

[_Kevin Graham]

Regulations and safety features, both things the NRA belligerently and dishonestly blocks.

Maybe not http://vehicle-fatalities.findthedata.com/l/45/Utah

Note the difference between belted and non belted!

WTF?

I love how Rock floats these silly ideas out there without any level of clarity as to what it is he is saying, as if he expects us to connect the dots and make an argument where he cannot. First he floats this conspiracy theory without explaining any evidence for it and then denied that it was he who argued for it. And now he is implying that his link above somehow refutes what Mak just said about safety regulations dramatically reducing car related deaths. Dare I ask him to explain what the hell he is talking about? Nah. I'll probably get yelled at, tag-teamed, accused of being mean, and maybe even told I was the one who argued this in the first place.

[_Ceeboo]

Could it be that your personal political views are driving your posts? Is rhetoric neatly woven in your contributions?

Yes, this clearly only applies to those whose political views differ from yours and your friends.

First - I really wish you would refrain from constantly suggesting what my personal political views are - you don't know them!

And - I consider Maklelan and Rock to my friends. Both of them. (Sadly, I know that you don't understand how that could be possible)

The rest of you are perfectly polite, objective, and never get personal. Good call there Ceeboo.

Is it possible that you have reading comprehension struggles?

What part of "the hostility and combative nature that exists throughout this entire thread" are you having difficulty understanding?

And why would you choose to believe that my blanket statement of the entire thread excluded Ceeboo and his perfectly polite and objective friends?

I am fairly confident that I know the answers to all of my above questions - but I thought it would be fun to ask them anyway.

Peace,
Ceeboo