There is an actual guide for gun control advocates to follow when debating.

[DMC]

I argued against the basis of your points.

No you didn't. Saying you did doesn't make it so.

You are arguing whether or not the two ships are red or green and I am arguing that there are more than two ships and that nobody needs be on a ship in the first place.

Another poor analogy made without so much as an attempt to address the points I made. Just interject and take it whichever way you feel fuzzy about.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I've got no dog in this hunt. My sole purpose in this debate is to mock the likes of TSA for being an emotional Obama/California gonna steal my guns propaganda pussy.

You are the dog in then hunt. You're the one barking. You cannot attack from a neutral position. Not sure you realize that, maybe you don't have the key data.

You come up with a poor analogy. He does not have to be an advocate of either policy direction to make fun of those that are advocates. This should be obvious. My making fun of Michael Jackson does not make me a Prince fan either.

Parroting me does not change the fact that he does not need to have a particular viewpoint (red boat) to make fun of someone who has a particular viewpoint (blue boat).

All you are trying to do is characterize his motive as if you have any basis for doing so ie saying it does not make it so.

[DMC]

Parroting me does not change the fact that he does not need to have a particular viewpoint (red boat) to make fun of someone who has a particular viewpoint (blue boat).

All you are trying to do is characterize his motive as if you have any basis for doing so ie saying it does not make it so.

You cherry picked a starting point in your quotes as if that's where the conversation started.

I never addressed his motive. I said he's not neutral, regardless of his motive. Neutral parties don't attack. He thinks is silly for TSA to be zealous about gun ownership and paranoid about the government's drive to remove that right. That's a position, that's a dog in the hunt.

[Th'Pusher]

You cherry picked a starting point in your quotes as if that's where the conversation started.

I never addressed his motive. I said he's not neutral, regardless of his motive. Neutral parties don't attack. He thinks is silly for TSA to be zealous about gun ownership and paranoid about the government's drive to remove that right. That's a position, that's a dog in the hunt.

So this point that you wanted addressed so badly was acknowledgement that I did in fact have a dog in the gun control debate in that I ridicule people who feel passionately about the gun control debate . that was worth it...

As I clearly stated, I actually do have a dog in the hunt. I take issue with the gun lobby suppressing research on the effects of guns and gun violence which prevents us from making better informed policy decisions.

[johnsmith]

Parroting me does not change the fact that he does not need to have a particular viewpoint (red boat) to make fun of someone who has a particular viewpoint (blue boat).

All you are trying to do is characterize his motive as if you have any basis for doing so ie saying it does not make it so.

I haven't read this thread, but rather just the past few posts....while I agree that you don't have to pick a side to make fun...I also think that people that do that are generally pussies....pick a side for God sake.

[DMC]

So this point that you wanted addressed so badly was acknowledgement that I did in fact have a dog in the gun control debate in that I ridicule people who feel passionately about the gun control debate . that was worth it...

Not necessarily the gun control debate, but then that's not what you're arguing about. Whatever you're arguing about, you have a dog in the hunt. It's dishonest to claim neutrality while attacking someone for their position. It's cowardly as well.

As I clearly stated, I actually do have a dog in the hunt. I take issue with the gun lobby suppressing research on the effects of guns and gun violence which prevents us from making better informed policy decisions.

So then you have a dog in the hunt. Grow a pair and stop hiding in the shadows of neutrality when you're obviously not neutral.

[johnsmith]

Also, my opinion is almost completely based on sports. I ing hate when someone that doesn't care about either team in a game and will just try to get under the skin of anyone in the room.


Usually this is done by women who claim to be "real sports fans".

[DMC]

Then you have the "I don't have a dog in the hunt" followed by "I actually do have a dog in the hunt".

Kerry supporters.

[Th'Pusher]

Not necessarily the gun control debate, but then that's not what you're arguing about. Whatever you're arguing about, you have a dog in the hunt. It's dishonest to claim neutrality while attacking someone for their position. It's cowardly as well.

So then you have a dog in the hunt. Grow a pair and stop hiding in the shadows of neutrality when you're obviously not neutral.

I had commented extensively on the suppression of research. Wy were you suggesting I was attacking from a point of neutrality?

Originally Posted by DMC
That's all done on paper for a reason that you wouldn't get

try me, bubba.

Seems you owe boutons an answer...

[DMC]

I had commented extensively on the suppression of research. Wy were you suggesting I was attacking from a point of neutrality?
Seems you owe boutons an answer...

I've got no dog in this hunt. My sole purpose in this debate is to mock the likes of TSA for being an emotional Obama/California gonna steal my guns propaganda pussy.

I explained it already.

Seems you're confused.

[Th'Pusher]

I explained it already.

Seems you're confused.

Now you're just talking in circles. Either answer boutons questions or be on your way oh elevated one

[TSA]

You've had the whole weekend online, still haven't found anything similar?

I'll look. No guarantee there is one online.

So you don't think pro gun groups compile debate guides?

[DMC]

Now you're just talking in circles. Either answer boutons questions or be on your way oh elevated one

I did. National database/right/ad nauseum.

You should worry about deciding if you've got a dog in the hunt.

[DMC]

Ever heard of FOPA?

Probably not.

[DMC]

Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926

No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

[DMC]

You've had the whole weekend online, still haven't found anything similar?

He's right though. We lean heavily on the Bill of Rights.

[Th'Pusher]

Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926

No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.

thank you for providing an example of the type of laws that the gun industry successfully lobbied for and had enacted to suppress the type of data necessary to perform the research necessary to make better informed policy decisions.

Now explain why said law is necessary. I'll see you at the bottom of the slippery slope where you claim a national registry will lead to confiscation.

[TSA]

I'll see you at the bottom of the slippery slope where you claim a national registry will lead to confiscation.

Are you claiming it won't? Do you trust your government? Do you think your government will not abuse it's powers?

[scroteface]

lmfao "registry doesn't lead to confiscation"

seriously, what are you a naive 2 year old?

[ChumpDumper]

You've had the whole weekend online, still haven't found anything similar?

You think I've been looking for this?

[TSA]

You think I've been looking for this?

You said you would and I took your word for it.

[TSA]

lmfao "registry doesn't lead to confiscation"

seriously, what are you a naive 2 year old?

Th'Pusher is obviously okay with his Government spying on it's citizens as well.

[ChumpDumper]

You said you would and I took your word for it.

I looked after I said I would. Found the same one that was posted. The mere volume of talking point sites made up for the lack of a 180 page pdf.

[TSA]

I looked after I said I would. Found the same one that was posted. The mere volume of talking point sites made up for the lack of a 180 page pdf.

The same one that was posted contained data and facts, and was nothing like the fear mo getting manual I posted. I see why you didn't mention it yourself.

You can just admit you couldn't find a similar manual and be done with it.

[ChumpDumper]

The same one that was posted contained data and facts, and was nothing like the fear mo getting manual I posted. I see why you didn't mention it yourself.

You can just admit you couldn't find a similar manual and be done with it.

I already said I didn't think I could find one online. It's simply stupid to think such do ents simply don't and could never exist with all the gun lobbyists out there.