Trying to find common ground and understand people that have a differing viewpoint is the entire point of these political discussions, is it not? Nobody wins when discussion stops and we just attack each other. My own political ideology has changed over the years because of having civil discussions and I have never seen anyone change viewpoints when they are ignored and only mocked.I’m pretty dead set against a political philosophy with unicorn in the recipe.
It just seems to me that you are trying to reason with certain posters’ articles of faith. Nobody wins.
Having been here for a while, it has been to my benefit to identify the sealions and simply click on by. (Though I do engage at times, and there is usually post-debauch guilt.)Trying to find common ground and understand people that have a differing viewpoint is the entire point of these political discussions, is it not? Nobody wins when discussion stops and we just attack each other. My own political ideology has changed over the years because of having civil discussions and I have never seen anyone change viewpoints when they are ignored and only mocked.
I am not sure if you have ever heard of Daryl Davis, but I can't think of a better example. A black man wanted to have conversations with members of the KKK to be able to change their position and give up on hate, doubt there was an honest interlocutor at the beginning.Having been here for a while, it has been to my benefit to identify the sealions and simply click on by. (Though I do engage at times, and there is usually post-debauch guilt.)
I’m all for civil discussion with those of other viewpoints. As in your case, it has at times pushed me to revise my ideology. That requires an honest interlocutor however.
But the sealions are here to sealion, and then “the only way to win is not to play”.
View attachment 5241554
I agree that there are times and places where it can be transformative. Best however to identify those who wield their opinion rather than submit it. I’ve not found many who (are sane and) actually enjoy the game of mutual abrasion.I am not sure if you have ever heard of Daryl Davis, but I can't think of a better example. A black man wanted to have conversations with members of the KKK to be able to change their position and give up on hate, doubt there was an honest interlocutor at the beginning.
side note: I have had to google more words to understand their meaning from your posts than ever before. Never would I have guessed I would be learning more about the english language on a cannabis forum. I appreciate it.
So do you believe that it would be reasonable to have either a background check or mental health evaluation before someone is able to purchase an assault weapon? Instead of ranting about the wealthy and all the other stuff, convince me why you couldn't stop an assault or home invasion with less than five pieces of ammunition before needing to reload. With mass shooting events on the rise, the discussion on gun control is minding our own business, and the problems governments face is not a "To Do List" that can just be completed, there will always be new problems that arise.If the government of the United States outlaws firearms, I believe it should be ALL firearms, including all private security for the politicians, government officials, EVERYONE. Nobody is any more special than anyone else and fuck the cocksucker who thinks they are. No guns for a single person. Fuck the political rich assholes. If the general public can't shoot some assaulting or home invading piece of shit, then nobody in government gets that right either. Let's see the Hollywood and elite fucks enjoy that. Until that time, you do you, I do me, I will never ever give up my firearms, EVER!
While we are in the business of tellingnother people what to do, while we do whatever we want and justify it with some enlightened greater good, why dont you give up your fast expensive cars, loose some weight you fat ass, you make all our insurance rates go up, start eating correctly. Get rid of your cellphone, all you do is text, talk and drive, i see thousands of people on the road doing that. Don't take risks, let government determine what you can and cannot do and what you can or cannot have. Why should these rich elites talk about carbon bullshit and then own multiple huge homes, jet all over the place, attend wasteful dinners, purchase $5000 shoes, etc. All a waste. Could give that money to others.
MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS!!!
Normal people don't go on rampages and shoot people. Deranged fuckheads who deserve to be hung from the bridge are the ones who do that. Try and figure out why and maybe then I will believe that someone actually gives a shit.
Ban guns.....a coward solution that doesn't fix the problems, but then again NOBODY in my government wants to actually fix the problems, otherwise they don't have a platform.
The home invasion scenario is a toughie. Stipulate four assailants and a messy firefight around corners. The shot/hit ratio is gonna suck. Granted, it’s a minority scenario, but it is one that calls for several detachable ten-shot magazines.So do you believe that it would be reasonable to have either a background check or mental health evaluation before someone is able to purchase an assault weapon? Instead of ranting about the wealthy and all the other stuff, convince me why you couldn't stop an assault or home invasion with less than five pieces of ammunition before needing to reload. With mass shooting events on the rise, the discussion on gun control is minding our own business, and the problems governments face is not a "To Do List" that can just be completed, there will always be new problems that arise.
Both Commando and John Wick were good movies, but if anyone is up against four armed individuals in a home invasion and doesn't thwart them with 5 rounds, being able to squeeze off 20 or 30 shots is not going to be much help. Having grenades would be better for around corners, but no reasonable person is arguing we should all be able to carry grenades around.The home invasion scenario is a toughie. Stipulate four assailants and a messy firefight around corners. The shot/hit ratio is gonna suck. Granted, it’s a minority scenario, but it is one that calls for several detachable ten-shot magazines.
I disagree about hit ratio. If I’m facing four armed and determined adults in Kevlar (realistically, I’m already fucked.) I need to assign several rounds per individual to make sure one or two connect per opponent. It’s a consequence of having to perform while scared somewhere well past shitless.Both Commando and John Wick were good movies, but if anyone is up against four armed individuals in a home invasion and doesn't thwart them with 5 rounds, being able to squeeze off 20 or 30 shots is not going to be much help. Having grenades would be better for around corners, but no reasonable person is arguing we should all be able to carry grenades around.
it’s a great moment to review life choices.If four people wanna jump you, you are probably fuck out of luck
Nationwide, domestic shootings are the leading cause of (nonsuicide) gun death. So there is real merit in reducing the number of guns in public.I see no issue with high cap magazines. I agree with background checks. I agree with doing whatever we can to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and mentally insane up to the point that you strip me of my freedom. In Chicago one weekend I remember over 100 shootings. Every weekend we have double digit shootings. Almost exclusively gang related criminal violence. Until that stuff is fixed, the only thing liberals will say is get rid of the guns. The PEOPLE and their BELIEFS are the problem.
Good to see we have some common ground on the background checks, and I would also agree that a shotgun with any kind of shot would be the most useful for home defense for the vast majority. We'll have to agree to disagree about the high capacity magazines though, the amount of harm they have contributed to vs legitimate reasons for civilians to have them is not justified in my opinion.I see no issue with high cap magazines. I agree with background checks. I agree with doing whatever we can to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and mentally insane up to the point that you strip me of my freedom. In Chicago one weekend I remember over 100 shootings. Every weekend we have double digit shootings. Almost exclusively gang related criminal violence. Until that stuff is fixed, the only thing liberals will say is get rid of the guns. The PEOPLE and their BELIEFS are the problem.
You seem to have stopped checking to see your beliefs are true.I see no issue with high cap magazines. I agree with background checks. I agree with doing whatever we can to keep firearms out of the hands of criminals and mentally insane up to the point that you strip me of my freedom. In Chicago one weekend I remember over 100 shootings. Every weekend we have double digit shootings. Almost exclusively gang related criminal violence. Until that stuff is fixed, the only thing liberals will say is get rid of the guns. The PEOPLE and their BELIEFS are the problem.
It could be that the he was saying he had no problem with banning high capacity magazines.Good to see we have some common ground on the background checks, and I would also agree that a shotgun with any kind of shot would be the most useful for home defense for the vast majority. We'll have to agree to disagree about the high capacity magazines though, the amount of harm they have contributed to vs legitimate reasons for civilians to have them is not justified in my opinion.
Strongly disagree with "the only thing liberals will say is to get rid of the guns", but it strays from gun control. I believe people adapt to their communities environment.