Post removed

[jeff47]

1. No, we can't.

When the argument against regulation degrades to "you said 'clip' instead of 'magazine'!" there is no interest in an honest debate.

[Duckhunter935]

2. Are you saying those

Things said in that post rate the same as a correction of terminology? It really helps both sides to know what they want to ban or control. Words have meanings. Do you agree with that post?

[jeff47]

4. No, I'm saying dismissing a position for using vernacular instead of technical terms

demonstrates a lack of desire to have an honest debate. Despite claims to the contrary.

If you'd prefer a more inflammatory statement, I apparently love rapists and murderers because I support universal background checks.

So we'll just leave it to the extremists. They've got the energy for this Sisyphean battle. And yes, they will come up with all sorts of unpleasant statements in the meantime.

You made your bed. Enjoy it.

[Duckhunter935]

7. Well I am for UBC

And also opening up NICS to private sales. I Really do not care if you use clip or magazine. It just would be nice to know the correct term if want to ban something.

[jeff47]

13. You only need the legally correct term if you are drafting legislation

and even then, "magazine" would not be sufficient. Gun manufacturers could just start calling it a farfegnugen.

Again, this tactic has never been used as "btw, it's really called a magazine". Instead, it's "You don't know the right terms, so shut up".

Enjoy your outrage.

[GGJohn]

3. Really? That's what offends you?

Not crap like this?

The gungeon is celebrating the defeat of the Vermont bill. It takes a special kind of sick bastard to celebrate wife beaters having guns but there seems to be no shortage them. Oh well, I guess death by gunshot is less painful than being beaten to death.

[jeff47]

5. Nope. Try reading.

You will not find the word "offend" or any synonym in my post.

Instead, I point out that dismissing the opposing position for using vernacular indicates there is no desire for an honest debate.

[GGJohn]

6. No, that's not dismissing, that's called educating.

But it's very telling that you don't say anything about the constant insults hurled at gun owners on this site, things like gun humper, gun fetish, gun lovers, etc.

[jeff47]

9. No, it's an irrelevant aside. Everyone in the conversation knows what you are talking about.

And it's not used as "btw, it's actually called a magazine". Instead, it's always used as "You don't know the right words so you have to shut up".

But it's very telling that you don't say anything about the constant insults hurled at gun owners on this site, things like gun humper, gun fetish, gun lovers, etc.

And you don't have anything to say about my love of rapists and murderers for supporting universal background checks.

Again, there is zero desire from your position for an honest debate. Instead, there is nothing but outrage. There's no point in having a debate with an outrage factory.

Btw, there is also plenty of outrage on the gun control side. Since there's no hope of progress, there's no reason to try to reduce that.

Y'all have fun getting more and more outraged at each other.

[Duckhunter935]

15. "You don't know the right words so you have to shut up".

I call bull on that

And you will find out most of us here agree with UBC and reasable gun laws that actually do something and are not about cosmetics and bans that will do nothing.

[GGJohn]

16. ...

Let's take this one at a time.

And you don't have anything to say about my love of rapists and murderers for supporting universal background checks

I don't even know how to respond to this nonsense, but here goes.
I do support UBC's, and I haven't seen ANYONE here equate those that support UBC's to rapists and murderers.
Fact is that the majority of us here do support UBC's, it's been stated many times.

Again, there is zero desire from your position for an honest debate. Instead, there is nothing but outrage. There's no point in having a debate with an outrage factory.

Pot, meet kettle.
I have a burning desire to have an honest debate on gun control with those on the other side of the issue, I'll be willing to bet there are laws both you and I would agree on, but it's hard to have that honest debate when we're accused of being gun humpers, gun lovers, gun fethishes, blood of children on our hands, NRA talking points, etc.

[jeff47]

17. Sorry, no. Attempting to have an honest debate with your side has

resulted in nothing but getting burned.

So you're gonna have to put up with our crazies yelling at you. You wanna change that? Lovely. You start pushing for legislation. We'll be sitting over here waiting for you to actually so.

[Duckhunter935]

8. So do you say that post helps?

Why do you not rebuke that bullshit that was posted?

[jeff47]

10. Why do you think I want to help?

Tell you what, you manage to get Ted Cruz and Elizabeth Warren to agree on economic policy. Then I'll help.

[NYC_SKP]

11. No. "convicted wife beaters..." is already a sexist and bigoted divisive phrase, so, NO.

They got no arguments to make and don't even understand that Vermont will probably issue a more reasonable bill soon.

It's all about emotion, not reason, with them.

[Duckhunter935]

12. and that host of banaslot doubles down on that insult

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=162377

[krispos42]

14. Of course we can't

It is similar to the Vermont law that was defeated by resident gun bullies.

See? If we get what we want, we're bullies. Of course, we're not making them buy guys or own guns or keeps guns in their houses. But when they get what they want, which forces us to spend more money, waste more time, reduces our privacy from the government, fill out piles of paperwork, and sharply reduces the types of guns we can own and the features it has. But hey, that's not bullying, right?