[MediaArtist]

Why is it that liberals think they can simply evoke the dead children at Sandy Hook to support their viewpoints anytime the word "gun" comes up, instead of discussing "effective" legislation that would actually punish irresponsible and criminal negligence and usage of a firearm, instead of a blanket punishment across the board?

I feel the left today is just as bad as their Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones counterparts when it comes to sensationalism. There's very little logical thought and approach to their arguments, disregarding any data that doesn't support their viewpoint, and in general just making emotional appeals as their main points.

[MisterSkiMask]

We need to stop calling them Liberals, they are among the least liberal people in our society.

[MediaArtist]

Like this argument:

but I cannot possibly imagine that someone's attachment to their AR-15 being as strong as a parent's attachment to their 6-year old daughter, so the really have less "excuse" to respond as irrationally or emotionally.

What does someone's love for a child have to do with their desire to own a firearm and their ability to give a LOGICAL response to the gun legislation debate?

That's a total appeal to emotion, just like the people who post pictures or discuss the dead children at Sandy Hook. Total sensationalism, and strawman. It doesn't help to address the point about what is effective legislation for gun ownership. It's basically "You love kids more than guns, right? Right?"

What a crock. This thread has become tiresome.

[Templar]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

People toss "strawman argument" around quite liberally, and yet I'm being asked if I know what a flash suppressor is. WTF?

Two different people in the thread. If you can, stay focused on one thing at a time.

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

For the record, I do know, although I cannot claim to have personally used one myself. Totally unclear as to the relevance of that question. Lets say I didnt know what it was (which is what I'm sure you were hoping for). Would it somehow refute my suggestion that it's a disgraceful reflection on the gun laws that Ms. Lanza couldnt be charged with much of anything if she were still alive today?

For what it's worth, you initially didn't say she should have been charged (if she were alive). All you said was that she was a responsible firearms owner. It wasn't until after the fact that you decided to say "well the point I was trying to make was..." I'm sorry I wasn't able to read your mind.

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

These tangential obfuscations are really becoming quite bizarre. Richard Dawkins engaging the Pope himself about the existence of God would yield more productive talking points.....

I'm not going to reiterate things that have been said over and over again. Read them whenever you decide to. MediaArtist is right, this back and forth has grown tiresome. It'd be nice if we can talk about facts and not emotional response that is almost always illogical.

As for being all over the place, your "argument" has gone a long way and mutated quite a bit from your first post in this thread...

[MiddleAgedAl]

LOL at people suggesting I'm some super left wing liberal.

Haven't spent much time reading most of what I've written in the Politics and religion thread, huh? Talk about people whose opinion has credibility issues....

[MiddleAgedAl]

Originally Posted by MediaArtist

That's a total appeal to emotion, just like the people who post pictures or discuss the dead children at Sandy Hook. Total sensationalism, and strawman.

You think the NRA doesnt use the fear, sensationalism, and emotion to motivate their own people and swell membership ?

Seriously ?

One side uses the emotional fear of losing your own child (despite the insanely low risks) to motivate them. The other side uses the threat of mass gun confiscation and the inevitable resulting government tyranny (despite the equally low risks) to motivate them.

The difference is, the number of recent mass shootings at schools is not zero. The number of recent tyrannical government takeovers in places without an armed populace is zero. This suggests that a LOGICAL response would be to say that one risk is in fact lower than the other, at least today.

If you must compromise 1 to respond better to another, the lower risk position should give more ground. It's pretty hard to find logical fault with that axiom.

[MediaArtist]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

You think the NRA doesnt use the fear, sensationalism, and emotion to motivate their own people and swell membership ?

Who cares about the NRA? Is anyone here representing the NRA?

Another straw man.

[bosstones]

Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl

Haven't spent much time reading most of what I've written in the Politics and religion thread, huh? Talk about people whose opinion has credibility issues....

I tend to lurk there but rarely post since there are a few persons that typically tend to get the threads closed. Lots of both extremes and not so much in the middle in P&R. Except for some of the gun control topic, I tend to agree with you and I would agree that you are not a liberal. If nothing else, though, you are at least able to debate/exchange viewpoints without jumping to extremes, profanity, and/or name calling. Thank you for that.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by bosstones

I tend to lurk there but rarely post since there are a few persons that typically tend to get the threads closed. Lots of both extremes and not so much in the middle in P&R. Except for some of the gun control topic, I tend to agree with you and I would agree that you are not a liberal. If nothing else, though, you are at least able to debate/exchange viewpoints without jumping to extremes, profanity, and/or name calling. Thank you for that.

If i had to guess i would say that Al is fiscally conservative and some what liberal when it comes to social issues, but still close to the middle socially.

And yes, civil debates from different view points is typically what opens minds that have a tendencies to be closed. It is appreciated.

[Nate4641]

Originally Posted by MP0WER

And yes, civil debates from different view points is typically what opens minds that have a tendencies to be closed. It is appreciated.

Now lets see if we can get the media on both sides of the issue to do the same. I hate watching the news where they poll people on if they want more gun control and the only answers are yes and no. It isn't that simple. Yes I want some new regulations or laws, but certainly not all of them. It isn't that cut and dry and if thats how the law writers will treat it, then we will get some good and some bad laws out of this when they throw everything in the pot at the same time.

[Nate4641]

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...ional/W2KLT6t8

Get your vote in.

[bimmerjph]

Sen. Greg Ball summed it up perfectly, "We haven't saved any lives tonight, except one: the political life of a governor who wants to be president."

[ZJP]

Steve McLaughlin is one of the very few intelligent people we have left in NY.

[Team Plutonium]

Originally Posted by ZJP

Steve McLaughlin is one of the very few intelligent people we have left in NY.

Thanks for sharing this. This law is utterly ridiculous; it simply boggles my mind. Yeah, let's ban them, and sell them across state lines instead... which if you live around NYC is about 10 minutes away.

[montreal red]

this just means law abiding citizens who follow the rules will have less bullets to fight the thugs who wont give a shit about what the 'legal' bullet count in NY is.

[solefald]

Originally Posted by ZJP

Steve McLaughlin is one of the very few intelligent people we have left in NY.

They are allowed 2 15 minute slots to make their point. Here is the first one:

[sjk9671]

Originally Posted by solefald

They are allowed 2 15 minute slots to make their point. Here is the first one:

He spoke at the rally in Albany on Sat. He was great.

Another great one to look up is Sen Greg Ball.