14 Jul 23
@vivify saidOK, he said that and I agreed. What is it with you libs pounding sand? I think that I am saying, follow me here, that we need registration, but, that Jon has offered no solution to stopping the killings by people with guns.
You keep repeating that Jon offered no solutions when that's clearly false. Jon brought up background checks and registration
Say, yeah, you have a point Joe, I just flew off the handle.
14 Jul 23
@vivify saidWhat did he say, he was pandering for libs in front of cameras. I could have done his ingerview for him in 4 minutes. There is a problem, what would be a solution. How about registration and background checks? That. is about it, all the other stuff was fluff and showman stuff. Look at it again, Jon asked a question and then actually reached up and aimed his right ear at the gun guy. A true smart ass. Gun guy was a gentleman. So watching these gay antics was a distraction to hearing what Jon said of any substance.
Av, you obviously agree with the GOP Senator, except for registration, which the Senator opposes.
Was there anything Jon said that you agreed with?
You trying to pick a fight over something so obvious.?
16 Jul 23
@vivify saidAgreed. Unfortunately logic and fairness, is first victim of tribal affiliation, where reasonableness and consideration for fellow citizens, gets twisted into government overreach and an assault on personal liberty.
That would be a shame because he goes out of his way to be as fair as possible here.
@kmax87 saidYou're right, and it applies to vivifies assessment of the interview, which was hostile and smarmy. It's an old interview and within days there were a dozen rebuttals up,
Agreed. Unfortunately logic and fairness, is first victim of tribal affiliation, where reasonableness and consideration for fellow citizens, gets twisted into government overreach and an assault on personal liberty.
Does anyone need more links to more vids?
Nope? Didn't think so.
- Joined
- 30 Dec 04
- Moves
- 97437
16 Jul 23
@vivify saidCan you give me one reason that I should not be allowed to own guns? If I am a law abiding citizen and I have passed all of the background checks required by my state I have the right to bear arms guaranteed to me in the 2nd amendment. I would agree that non law abiding citizens who wish to commit crimes should not have the right to own guns. The problem with that is that criminals do not follow gun laws, they don't follow any laws, thus the reason for me to be able to protect myself and my family from them. I live in an area of my state where the police are 10-15 minutes away from me on a good day. Do I tell someone trying to do me or my family harm with a gun that they have to wait for the police to arrive to protect me? No. It is up to me.
An excellent segment from Jon Stewart with an Oklahoma state Senator on gun safety and the 2nd Amendment.
This is a serious interview: no comedic bits, no gotcha questions, just pure common sense:
[youtube]tCuIxIJBfCY[/youtube]
16 Jul 23
@vivify
They clearly don't give a rats ass how many children die from gun violence, they WANT zero restrictions so some idiot 18 yo can buy an assault rifle and shoot up their school. No big deal since the right to own guns is WAY higher on the scale of importance than any kid dying from gun wounds.
You don't even want the age limit to go up to 21, going, well at 18 they can get drivers licenses, join the military and the like so what is the problem running that age to buy up to 21?
- Joined
- 30 Dec 04
- Moves
- 97437
16 Jul 23
@sonhouse saidWhat would running up the age to 21 accomplish? Why is 21 a number that works for you?
@vivify
They clearly don't give a rats ass how many children die from gun violence, they WANT zero restrictions so some idiot 18 yo can buy an assault rifle and shoot up their school. No big deal since the right to own guns is WAY higher on the scale of importance than any kid dying from gun wounds.
You don't even want the age limit to go up to 21, going, well at 18 they ...[text shortened]... rs licenses, join the military and the like so what is the problem running that age to buy up to 21?
@sonhouse saidinstead of your usual rant, always saying the same things, can you say something constructive. Why so angry? Have a beer. Tell us what you are trying to tell us, and please don't say we don't give a rats ass how many die.....really boring.
@vivify
They clearly don't give a rats ass how many children die from gun violence, they WANT zero restrictions so some idiot 18 yo can buy an assault rifle and shoot up their school. No big deal since the right to own guns is WAY higher on the scale of importance than any kid dying from gun wounds.
You don't even want the age limit to go up to 21, going, well at 18 they ...[text shortened]... rs licenses, join the military and the like so what is the problem running that age to buy up to 21?
You will get more of us to support your logical, common sensical, rationale ideas.
17 Jul 23
@vivify said'We' who decide? Who is this 'we' you speak of. We are part of society but we're all individuals, a society does not have a collective mind to decide anything. A society is not an entity, it's a collection of entities. So 'we' did not agree on anything. I'd like to think you're just ignorant of this fact rather than making a claim on a whole lot of people that did not agree.
If we as a society have agreed that people under 21 are not responsible enough to consume alcohol, why then would we let them have guns?
@vivify saidA more accurate way of putting it is: Some control freaks and busy bodies (part of society) agreed that they're prepared to use goobermint thugs to force their dream feelings on a bunch of people (also part of society) that did not agree.
If we as a society have agreed that people under 21 are not responsible enough to consume alcohol, why then would we let them have guns?
I suggest you use this correct language in future, because now that you're aware of it if you were to continue with your previous false speech that would be lying.
17 Jul 23
@vivify saidVivify, please explain to me, then, why schools are forbidden to give tylenol to children, but they do not have to include parents in the trans-goings-on? Like, the school has power over the parents about sex or gender decisions.
If we as a society have agreed that people under 21 are not responsible enough to consume alcohol, why then would we let them have guns?
Why will you not answer this question? I smell hypocrite.
17 Jul 23
@wajoma saidViv and friends are f'n socialists, it is the only way that they can think. They do not understand free thinking and independence. They are even scared to be alone.
'We' who decide? Who is this 'we' you speak of. We are part of society but we're all individuals, a society does not have a collective mind to decide anything. A society is not an entity, it's a collection of entities. So 'we' did not agree on anything. I'd like to think you're just ignorant of this fact rather than making a claim on a whole lot of people that did not agree.
17 Jul 23
@averagejoe1 saidThat has nothing to do with this thread. Schools can't make any "gender decisions" for a child so I don't know what you're talking about.
Vivify, please explain to me, then, why schools are forbidden to give tylenol to children, but they do not have to include parents in the trans-goings-on? Like, the school has power over the parents about sex or gender decisions.
Why will you not answer this question? I smell hypocrite.
The drag-show question was at least relavant to the Senator's priorities regarding his alleged claim of protecting children but this is off topic. I'm not going engage you further on trans issues here.