Discussion: The Second Amendment IV

[Handsome Rob]

Actually you said "should we" (not should he). The answer is exactly as I said it, and yes this is a false equivalency. These groups already get such dismissal by the right wing media.

Whether it's "he" or "we" doesn't change the definition of a false equivalency, and it doesn't change your being wrong on it.

Now, back to discussing the 2nd Amendment:

Firearms Companies Restricting Sales to Government Agencies in Areas That Restrict Gun Rights

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwy...s-restricting-sales-government-agencies-areas

A growing number of firearm and firearm-related companies have stated they will no longer sell items to states, counties, cities and municipalities that restrict their citizens' rights to own them.
According to The Police Loophole, 34 companies have joined in publicly stating that governments who seek to restrict 2nd Amendment rights will themselves be restricted from purchasing the items they seek to limit or ban.

Why should the government be held to a different standard than the citizenry?

 

[Kelly]

The problem with that is, government agencies will then buy from companies that WILL sell to them and hike up the price, and we the taxpayers foot the bill.

 

[Hotwire]

The problem with that is, government agencies will then buy from companies that WILL sell to them and hike up the price, and we the taxpayers foot the bill.

That was the first thing I thought when I read that. I'm certain that there's at least a few manufacturers that just read that article and though, "Cool! More money for us!" That's just how the system works. If some are going to refuse to sell to the government, others are going to simply welcome the increase in business, and thank their competitors with every sale they make.

 

[Kable24]

[YT]jafkVM-jnbE[/YT]

I'm not a fan of Democrats, but I like Joe. He's like the GWB of the Democrats.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

He's one of those crazy anti gun nuts who thinks anyone who owns a gun just wants to kill others and feels all guns should be confiscated.

Right, an you single him out so you'll have an extreme to fight. That's pretty f---in' silly if you ask me.

 

[Kable24]

Right, an you single him out so you'll have an extreme to fight. That's pretty f---in' silly if you ask me.

What the Hell are you talking about? I haven't singled anyone out on here and it's plain to see just by his posts he's an anti-gun extremist. Although, I still think he's just trolling everyone with the weird BS he says.

 

[wiegeabo]

Right, an you single him out so you'll have an extreme to fight. That's pretty f---in' silly if you ask me.

There's no need to single him out. He's singled himself out. He has literally said those things.

 

[Paradoxium]

The problem with that is, government agencies will then buy from companies that WILL sell to them and hike up the price, and we the taxpayers foot the bill.

Hopefully, unreliable expensive guns for taxpayers to pay.

 

[wiegeabo]

The problem with that is, government agencies will then buy from companies that WILL sell to them and hike up the price, and we the taxpayers foot the bill.

Which means the taxpayers should put pressure on the politicians.

Which, hopefully, forces the politicians to work with the gun industry rather than try and dictate (ineffective policies) to it.

 

[dnno1]

Whether it's "he" or "we" doesn't change the definition of a false equivalency, and it doesn't change your being wrong on it.

Now, back to discussing the 2nd Amendment:

Firearms Companies Restricting Sales to Government Agencies in Areas That Restrict Gun Rights

http://cnsnews.com/blog/gregory-gwy...s-restricting-sales-government-agencies-areas


Why should the government be held to a different standard than the citizenry?

You said we and that would mean all of us (even me) would have the chance to make that decision. These groups have been dismissed in the media (part of we) and don't have as much leverage (excepting maybe Mothers Against Drunk Drivers) as the NRA and the Gun Industry. That's your false equivalency there. You try to make it seem like gay and lesbian groups have as much leverage as the gun lobby, when they don't. Stop holding you head in shame.

To answer you question about the government, if the aforementioned have a contract with the supplier, then said supplier is obligated to honor it. Sure, six small gun companies might have refused to cater to the government (be it state and local), but there are certainly thousands of other gun manufacturers that are more than willing to contract with them for the money.

 

[Handsome Rob]

You said we and that would mean all of us (even me) would have the chance to make that decision. These groups have been dismissed in the media (part of we) and don't have as much leverage (excepting maybe Mothers Against Drunk Drivers) as the NRA and the Gun Industry. That's you false equivalency there. You try to make it seem like gay and lesbian groups have as much leverage as the gun lobby, when they don't. Stop holding you head in shame.

To answer you question about the government, if the aforementioned have a contract with the supplier, then said supplier is obligated to honor it. Sure, six small gun companies might have refused to cater to the government (be it state and local), but there are certainly thousands of other gun manufacturers that are more than willing to contract with them for the money.

Sweet cheeks of Buddha.

I never . . . NEVER . . . said that any of those groups has as much leverage as any other of those groups. I never even used the word leverage. The importance of their groups is irrelevant. I merely said that they all lobby to further their interests, and I then asked fanboii if we should dismiss any of these group's opinions simply because they have a bias towards what they are lobbying for. You still don't understand the concept of a false equivalency, either. Saying that one group has as much leverage as another isn't a false equivalency. It could be false, but that's it.

Now, here's a false equivalency: "GLAAD and the NRA are both lobbying groups. NRA promotes guns, while GLAAD promotes gay rights. So, if you support the NRA for their firearms promotion, you should also support GLAAD for their gay rights."

The false equivalency is saying that you have to support both GLAAD and the NRA, because the goal of one is equivalent to goal of the other. They aren't the same goal, thus the false equivalence.

THAT is a false equivalency, dnno1. Please use it correctly in the future.

I've made my final post on the matter--I'm not going to repeat myself 50 times.

 

[Schlosser85]

false equivalency

 

[dnno1]

Sweet cheeks of Buddha.

I never . . . NEVER . . . said that any of those groups has as much leverage as any other of those groups. I never even used the word leverage. The importance of their groups is irrelevant. I merely said that they all lobby to further their interests, and I then asked fanboii if we should dismiss any of these group's opinions simply because they have a bias towards what they are lobbying for. You still don't understand the concept of a false equivalency, either. Saying that one group has as much leverage as another isn't a false equivalency. It could be false, but that's it.

Now, here's a false equivalency: "GLAAD and the NRA are both lobbying groups. NRA promotes guns, while GLAAD promotes gay rights. So, if you support the NRA for their firearms promotion, you should also support GLAAD for their gay rights."

The false equivalency is saying that you have to support both GLAAD and the NRA, because the goal of one is equivalent to goal of the other. They aren't the same goal, thus the false equivalence.

THAT is a false equivalency, dnno1. Please use it correctly in the future.

I've made my final post on the matter--I'm not going to repeat myself 50 times.

You asked if we should dismiss them (them being GLAAD and the green lobby)... as if we could dismiss the NRA or the firearms industry (they are always at the table when it comes to gun control). The fact of the matter is that you can dismiss the former group because they do not have as much leverage. The are dismissed all the time on cable TV and radio (even in Congress). That is why it is a false equivalency since GLADD is not as powerful as the gun lobby. A false equivalency is when one attempts to make one thing seem like the other when they are not. I know the definition (Schlosser85) but I wonder if you even do.

 

[Kable24]

 

[dnno1]

For any of you interested, there is a Senate hearing on the assault weapons ban going on right now. You can watch it here or at NBCnews.com

 

[Handsome Rob]

NH Gun Store Depicts Obama as "Firearm Salesman of the Year"

http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/03/01/nh-gun-store-depicts-obama-as-firearms-salesman-of-the-year/

MERRIMACK, NH (CBS) – One of the posters in the front window of a New Hampshire gun shop depicts President Obama as “Firearms Salesman of the Year.” Below the president are two AK-47 rifles.

More deserved than his Nobel Peace Prize, no doubt! Congratulations, Mr. President!

Oh, and one of the two guns in the photo noted by the reporter isn't an AK-47.

 

[Handsome Rob]

Katelyn Francis. 13 years old. Awesome.

I hope this is my niece in a few years. She very well could be. The very idea a girl like her exists probably makes the anti-gun-nutters soil themselves with rage . . . and fear! t:

[YT]By_u5kmvq9o[/YT]

 

[Webfoot Hero]

That Chuck Mower guy is a total *****e. The real reason he's complaining about it is because it doesn't agree with his political view. People are so quick to get offended by stuff like this when it doesn't jive with their views, no matter how stupid or petty they are. It's the owner's business so he can put up anything in there as long as it's not indecent for the general public.

 

[The Question]

Katelyn Francis. 13 years old. Awesome.

I hope this is my niece in a few years. She very well could be. The very idea a girl like her exists probably makes the anti-gun-nutters soil themselves with rage . . . and fear! t:

[YT]By_u5kmvq9o[/YT]

1: Nutters? What do you mean by that?

2: Why do you think the idea of a girl like this existing would make anyone angry or fearful?

 

[Super Kal]

Katelyn Francis. 13 years old. Awesome.

I hope this is my niece in a few years. She very well could be. The very idea a girl like her exists probably makes the anti-gun-nutters soil themselves with rage . . . and fear! t:

[YT]By_u5kmvq9o[/YT]

that was awesome.

 

[Victarion]

Cool, is that some kind of competition shooting?

I define nutters as people who let their emotions govern them more often than not. In Rob's case, he probably made that statement because there are some vocal opponents to certain gun rights that treat the weapons as if they are pure evil. Pure evil in the hands of an innocent child and all that.

Again, that would be a nutter's perception.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Cool, is that some kind of competition shooting?

I define nutters as people who let their emotions govern them more often than not. In Rob's case, he probably made that statement because there are some vocal opponents to certain gun rights that treat the weapons as if they are pure evil. Pure evil in the hands of an innocent child and all that.

Again, that would be a nutter's perception.

It's a 3-gun competition (AR, shotgun, and pistol.) They're pretty popular shooting competitions in the US right now.

 

[Handsome Rob]

1: Nutters? What do you mean by that?

2: Why do you think the idea of a girl like this existing would make anyone angry or fearful?

Mr. Wooden Alligator nailed it--see his response.

 

[Handsome Rob]

http://cbs12.com/news/top-stories/stories/vid_5530.shtml

In my neck of the woods, a man walked up to a daycare and told the adminastration that he was there because God told him to take the kids. When they called 911, it took the cops 40 minutes to show up.

Borrowed from a thread in Community. See, it's stories like these that make me laugh whenever gun control advocates tell me I don't need a gun, "because that's what the police are for."

 

[dnno1]

http://cbs12.com/news/top-stories/stories/vid_5530.shtml

In my neck of the woods, a man walked up to a daycare and told the adminastration that he was there because God told him to take the kids. When they called 911, it took the cops 40 minutes to show up. WTF????? I mean, I know that the local cops here are incompetent, but this is absolutely uncalled for. The Sheriff's department claims they were in the middle of a shift change, which is why it took so long. Bull, in this county, we have cops that are on call, 24/7, and they can even bring their patrol cruiser home with them!

Borrowed from a thread in Community. See, it's stories like these that make me laugh whenever gun control advocates tell me I don't need a gun, "because that's what the police are for."

So are you trying to suggest that we arm the people at the day care so that they could blow away a delusional man with a coffee cup when it was just as easy to escort him out of the facility and then call the police? How much do you want to bet that the police would have been there a lot sooner if there was actual shooting?