Bigbrog

Agreed...very difficult to maintain focus reading that. And agree. I always said, you can't make something you don't like stop, by doing the exact same thing to the people you think are doing that thing to you. Example...I want there to be no oppression and for ALL people to be treated equally, but you can't make that happen by oppressing people who historically weren't oppressed and treating them unequally.

Agreed!

Hate Trump, but this is terrible...ugh!

This is so typical of some people in an argument. I also love when you ask someone why they hate a certain political candidate and their policies (cough cough Trump) and the response is "OMG...there are so many...if I have to tell you it isn't even worth debating with you!" Direct quote from one of the closest people in my live who I love unconditionally...I just laughed...that really pissed him off. LOL By the way, I can't stand Trump as all the bad that comes with him outweighs any of the good policies he had. I keep waiting for that candidate to come along that runs on HIS/HER own ideas and thoughts and not those of one particular party or the other. I won't hold my breath...lol

Man...so disappointed as you started off commenting and seemed to be level-headed and someone who could add to this debate but then you dropped this gem..."GOP hadn't kinda stolen SCOTUS" . Anyway, I think you missed my point...well know you missed it...the constitution is being interpreted by HUMANS! Fallible and flawed humans with biases, narratives, and other influences. But the overall principals and concepts hold true today. And the people that wrote the constitution were flawed as well (YOU brought up slavery), but again the overall principals and concepts are what set us apart as a country. You can define your freedom; however, you chose to define it as, and use other countries as an example and twist it to meet your narrative...all fine to do...you have that freedom to do so. All, I and others can do is to point out where it may be flawed. I'll leave the private prison conversation for a different time and I'll address something you covered in one of your other posts to me...Australia and their gun laws...I'll start by the glaring inaccuracy...or I should say INCOMPLETE thought and analysis done by you. Their gun laws are not the one solution that sets them apart from us in terms of less "mass shootings" (quotes were not meant as a way to minimize them in any way). This is a talking point often used by those that want to limit law abiding citizens in the US. Astralia has a completely different culture, history, sociatal norms, constitution (or whatever them call it there), etc. than the US. Taking on law and trying to make it stand on its own to push your point and narrative is...well...silly really. The problem is people like Plasmodium and Mikey boy jump up and down in your corner pointing and saying "SEE!! SEE!!!" It is comical really. For the millionth time, I will say again, if any sort of gun ban, gun registry, limiting law abiding citizens 2nd amendment rights would stop school shootings, or the crazy MF'er in Vegas I would be first to vote for it...but 99.9% of the time those legislations are not well thought out, purely written with only emotion and no logic, contain no correlative data, and hence don't and won't ever get passed. You want real change, stop trumpeting (no pun intended) the talking points you hear in the media, start thinking through the full issue and start demanding more from the stupid politicians you support.

Because there were muskets when it was written. It's all about the muskets! I wonder if muskets were considered an "assault rifle" back in the day? Back to being serious...love your post...it hits the nail on the head.

Oh man...ditto...I am a huge baby watching movies and it has moved on to commercials.

So you can't define it or explain it...got it. Seriously, if you read a definition written for anything else that you aren't 100% against, or you were actually honest with yourself, you know that definition is a joke and essentially doesn't explain or define anything. You know why...because there is no such thing as an "assault rifle". It is a fabricated word to play on the emotions of those that know nothing about guns and who want to completely disregard the 2nd amendment for political reasons.

If YOU can't clearly articulate your stance on something, how is it you feel you have a good argument?? You have shown that YOU are unable to describe, show a picture of, explain in plain English, what it is YOU consider an "assault weapon/weapon of war", and how it differs from what YOU think are the "common" rifles used for deer hunting. We will continue to wait.... In the mean time, I think we all can rest on common ground that we all would want nothing more than these senseless shootings to stop. I can also guarantee, that if I thought for 1 second that banning any sort of gun would stop these from happening I would support it and vote for it. There is ZERO evidence, logic, data, and/or facts that support banning any gun will stop the shootings from happening.

Plasmodium...how do you not see that you have no idea what you are talking about? You have consistently spewed false ideas of what is a military weapon and an "assault rifle". Your "definition" of an assault rifle was first based off of a military weapon/weapon of war, then it was based on a definition from a website that is about as vague as it can get and describes about every long rifle out there. Then spew fallacies that the AR15 was made purely to kill a lot of people...which again is completely false and has been shown and proven to you that it is false. My guess is you really have no interest in learning something new or opening your mind to truly understand the very things you are talking about and having opinions on. I can respect someone who is open and honest but have a hard time discussing things with someone who chooses to be ignorant about the things they are discussing.

I would agree for the most part in terms of your take on BP...however, he did lose me on his rant about intellect and the regurgitation of "talking points" while turning around and regurgitating the other sides "talking points"...and then trying to lecture people and thinks his opinion holds more water because he is older. Anyway, I suppose both sides play the "talking points" game when they don't agree with someone else's opinion.

I remember my dad giving me a dollar to go pay for the gas he put in the car (~4 gallons), then said grab a bag of ice, I said don't I need money, he said its just frozen water and water is free, so I proceeded to steal a bag of ice from the store.

Agree with your first sentence in reference to my opinion on the matter too. Could get on board with most of what you wrote; however, I am not sure how you define "assault rifle" as there is no such thing. Some rifles look different aesthetically, but by all accounts are the same as a majority of hunting rifles in terms of how fast they can shoot and ability to shoot multiple rounds. Sorry to burst your bubble but there are no such thing as "assault rifles". This is a made-up label the media and politicians created to scare people who don't understand guns. People think because guns look different, they perform, or are used differently. What you want to ban is what my dad has used gun hunting for probably 10 years. My .270 probably could do more damage than his AR. Also, I disagree with the minimum age of 21...at 18 you are an adult and thus should be able to purchase a gun.

By the way @Plasmodium ...I do enjoy this back and forth even though we clearly disagree on some things. You have done a very good job at not turning to the argument practice of trying to insult me personally (like some on here like to do). I have no problem when someone disagrees with my opinion, or take on things, and can have a well-intended conversation. I sure hope I have not made any personal insults towards you, and if I did I apologize.

So question...do you think we should just get rid of the 2nd amendment, and it no longer holds water in today's society because the government has way more advanced weapons then we do? This isn't a trick question. And at the same time, one of your reason is because someone who wants to do bad things to innocent people won't have access to a LEGAL gun so there won't be any more school shootings, or shootings of innocent people period? I think you and I, and probably 99% of the people in the US would agree, someone who wants to do bad things to innocent people should be stopped from doing so. Am I safe to assume your solution to it is to ban guns? My supposed solution is WAY more complicated than that...but can comfortably say we should NOT ban guns. Rabbit hole warning....whether people want to believe it or not, our free society was built around it's private citizens being able to arm and defend themselves both on a personal level and against governmental tyranny. My point is you can't pick and choose what works and what doesn't work (constitution) when it ALL worked together in order to make us the best country and most free country in the world. I see you didn't address the emotional thing when making decisions and opinions?? And by the way...you are lying to yourself to even begin to assume you know how I feel when there is a school shooting or what I will feel if there is another one. That is an absolutely silly and ridiculous comment to make. I am desensitized to NO killing of an innocent person! Bottom line...you don't like guns, then don't own one...period. It is my right and will always be my right to own one...period. And it is your right to make your decisions and opinions based purely on emotion and it is my right to use both emotion, logic, FACTS and DATA to make mine.

Me - ten-foot pole - topic of thread

I have no idea what your first few sentences mean?? Anyway, again, somewhat agree with the first couple of sentences in your second paragraph but then lose me again. Emotions are absolutely necessary to help people make decisions in life and should be part of the Freedom we expect out of our society...I am merely pointing out that it is ridiculous to use ONLY emotions to make decisions and/or opinions. Also, I am not sure how you have come to the conclusion that we "are becoming anesthetized" and "the shootings are normalized"? In my opinion, the problem is a portion of our society and politicians make shootings into a circus by instantly blaming and inadement object. Instead of understanding all the underlying things that lead up to it and also refusing to do the "hard things" to truly try and make an impact on making this less common than it already is. People get caught up in the tiresome arguments on both sides leaving no discussion or conversations about what really would help the problem. In my opinion, we as a society are losing the ability to hold people accountable...everyone else and everything else is to blame for one's actions. More importantly, we as a society stopped teaching our kids self-accountability and taking responsibility for their actions. Just one poor mans opinion.

If Wisco only could have been able to keep Burwick....oh wait....

Holy mountain out of a mole hill thread.... @Jason Bryant was spot on in his post.

Agree....EXCEPT...I just have to point out that in an argument you instantly lose credibility regurgitating the tiresome "the founding fathers had muskets and not AR15's". You do realize that when the 2nd was written, EVERYONE had muskets, which includes the government, military, and the British?? That incorrect argument you just spewed only holds water if our military still only had muskets. Our military has FAR more advanced weapons than the general population, so an AR15 is something that we SHOULD be able to own as a private citizen to uphold the intent of the 2nd amendment...especially considering an AR15 is no different than most other rifles except how they look...and people like to use AR15's as a talking point due to ignorance about guns and as an emotional heart tug when the facts are not convenient to them and their narrative. People would be more sincere, if they just said they don't understand or have guns and just don't like them.

I agree that one school shooting is to many. However, you fall short by blaming an inadamant object. People kill people...people who want to kill people will find a way to kill people. The root cause to the problem is not ban guns, but fix people. The problem with that, is it is EXTREMELY complicated thing and nearly impossible to do instantly. Not to go down another rabbit hole but to me the root cause is parenting and societal norms. Anyway, back to the gun debate...I am a gun owner, I believe in the 2nd amendment and not the basterdized emotional nonsense about it that the media and political talking heads try and twist what it says and means; however, I am also for sensible gun laws and background checks...not that I think it will reduce gun violence but it is a great responsibility to own one and it should be treated as such. Our great FREE country was founded on these principles (the consititution) and we wouldn't be the best country in the world without sticking to them. Do we have problems as a country...ABSOLUTELY...do we have a troubling and disturbing past...ABSOLUTELY...but we always have learned, adapted, and gotten better....hence we are still far and above the best country in the world. And the great thing about our country is you can come and go as you please...and I don't say that with the attitude "if you don't like it hear get out of the USA"...I say it as how great it is that we have that FREEDOM! Funny how people want to take some of that away. Anyway, again back to the topic, people tend to be WAY to emotional and uneducated (in terms of guns) to be able to have an open and honest discussion about it.

Your take is fair. Just saw it differently then you is all. And I am not necessarily a PSU fan...it's more of I just don't dislike them I guess. But I will admit I do not like the Hawkes (more so the Brands)...but do some of their wrestlers, like Lee.

Perfect Analysis!

Why would people expect Lee to get a standing O? I am a huge Lee fan, but I wouldn't have gave a standing O to Lee but rather to the backup of the backup who didn't get pinned.

I found it ironic that the "yell stalling every two second Hawkey's" were the ones stalling in almost every match. People can try and put lipstick on this pig, but Iowa stalled to keep this dual close...PSU clearly is the better team...period. Lee is my favorite person to watch wrestle and even he shouldn't let that match go to tech fall to a backup of a backup. Brands stalled to a close decision...and while the score may have been "close" he was NEVER close to winning that thing and stalled the whole time...so did about 3 other Iowa wrestlers. What I noticed having watched a lot of college wrestling, including Iowa, is they wrestled last night not to lose as opposed to wrestling to win, which I have never seen an Iowa team do before...well except in the NCAA tournament.