Hogg Slam Opponents as Old People Dying Off on the 'Wrong Side' of History

[Midnightrider]

Days later. But that's ok...

Same question mo

 

[Gilligan]

Same question mo

ooo!..ooo!..I know, I know...they are hiding how badly they've been traumatized behind all the smiles and laughter.

 

[This_person]

So we agree they are victims.
If they want counseling they should receive it.
Who are you to judge what they can and can not understand?

:shrug: I said some were victims in a previous post.

I am able to judge based on understanding the issue, and listening to their viewpoint. Their viewpoint is grossly misinformed or uninformed.

I have typed into these threads that I believe there are reasonable restrictions to arms-keeping and -bearing. I am not a "nuke in the backyard" kind of person (actually, I am, but I know that would go nowhere, so I don't push that thought process). But, the types of restrictions they are seeking are far beyond what anyone would call reasonable, and the approach of, "your parents are too stupid to operate their cell phone so we are going to take over the government" is not exactly what I would call a reasonable thought process.

The fact is, IF they are victims, then they are not going to be reasonable on the subject. It's simple psychology - you can't be objective if you are too closely involved in a situation. IF they are victims, it is only reasonable that they recuse themselves unless and until they receive the counseling needed to become healthy again after their victimhood, or a significant amount of "cooling off" time passes to allow for a reasonable reflection on the actions.

 

[Midnightrider]

ooo!..ooo!..I know, I know...they are hiding how badly they've been traumatized behind all the smiles and laughter.

As expected, you can’t answer

:shrug: I said some were victims in a previous post.

I am able to judge based on understanding the issue, and listening to their viewpoint. Their viewpoint is grossly misinformed or uninformed.

I have typed into these threads that I believe there are reasonable restrictions to arms-keeping and -bearing. I am not a "nuke in the backyard" kind of person (actually, I am, but I know that would go nowhere, so I don't push that thought process). But, the types of restrictions they are seeking are far beyond what anyone would call reasonable, and the approach of, "your parents are too stupid to operate their cell phone so we are going to take over the government" is not exactly what I would call a reasonable thought process.

The fact is, IF they are victims, then they are not going to be reasonable on the subject. It's simple psychology - you can't be objective if you are too closely involved in a situation. IF they are victims, it is only reasonable that they recuse themselves unless and until they receive the counseling needed to become healthy again after their victimhood, or a significant amount of "cooling off" time passes to allow for a reasonable reflection on the actions.

That’s like saying all of us gun owners should have to recuse ourselves because we can’t be reasonable about the subject. The reality is that both owning guns and being a victim of gun violence gives us standing to have an opinion. The subject directly affects both groups.

 

[Sapidus]

As expected, you can’t answer


That’s like saying all of us gun owners should have to recuse ourselves because we can’t be reasonable about the subject. The reality is that both owning guns and being a victim of gun violence gives us standing to have an opinion. The subject directly affects both groups.

Well said.


That Person clearly only sees things from one side of the fence but your point that if a victim has to recuse themselves then so should a gun owner is well taken.


That is why we need to find a middle ground.

 

[This_person]

That’s like saying all of us gun owners should have to recuse ourselves because we can’t be reasonable about the subject. The reality is that both owning guns and being a victim of gun violence gives us standing to have an opinion. The subject directly affects both groups.

Absolutely not! That's why I said "or a significant amount of 'cooling off' time passes to allow for a reasonable reflection on the actions." I fully believe that one can be punched in the face by someone and later, much later, be reasonable to discuss that situation. But, shortly after it occurred? Of course not!

Same with these kids - if they are truly "victims", they need counseling, and they need time to reflect. Just a few weeks have passed, and that is not time to maturely reflect on the situation when you're still a minimum of 7 years from your brain fully maturing.

I am happy to talk with these kids after they've received the counseling they need, and at least a couple of years has gone by for them to reflect and comprehend the magnitude of the situation. I'm not going to pull a guy out of a burning car and ask him about traffic safety, and I'm not going to yank someone out of third period class in the same school quarter someone got shot in their school to ask about school safety. That's unreasonable.

 

[Sapidus]

Absolutely not! That's why I said "or a significant amount of 'cooling off' time passes to allow for a reasonable reflection on the actions." I fully believe that one can be punched in the face by someone and later, much later, be reasonable to discuss that situation. But, shortly after it occurred? Of course not!

Same with these kids - if they are truly "victims", they need counseling, and they need time to reflect. Just a few weeks have passed, and that is not time to maturely reflect on the situation when you're still a minimum of 7 years from your brain fully maturing.

I am happy to talk with these kids after they've received the counseling they need, and at least a couple of years has gone by for them to reflect and comprehend the magnitude of the situation. I'm not going to pull a guy out of a burning car and ask him about traffic safety, and I'm not going to yank someone out of third period class in the same school quarter someone got shot in their school to ask about school safety. That's unreasonable.

As is your response.


Give up all your guns and then a year later we can discuss gun control if your criteria is going to be applied across the board.

 

[This_person]

As is your response.


Give up all your guns and then a year later we can discuss gun control if your criteria is going to be applied across the board.

The government does not have the right to remove guns from people, though.

Do you have anything of value to add to the discussion? If you believe my answer is unreasonable, discuss my answer.

 

[Sapidus]

The government does not have the right to remove guns from people, though.

Do you have anything of value to add to the discussion? If you believe my answer is unreasonable, discuss my answer.

I have repeatedly which you have dismissed. Please see my other thread on the subject.


In my opinion the well regulated portion is just as important as the rest of the 2 amendment and that portion can be used to require safety and training courses.


Why would you be opposed to that? It would lower incidences of accidental death and injury thus showing anti gun people that guns are not as big a threat and would do nothing but help your cause.

 

[Midnightrider]

Absolutely not! That's why I said "or a significant amount of 'cooling off' time passes to allow for a reasonable reflection on the actions." I fully believe that one can be punched in the face by someone and later, much later, be reasonable to discuss that situation. But, shortly after it occurred? Of course not!

Same with these kids - if they are truly "victims", they need counseling, and they need time to reflect. Just a few weeks have passed, and that is not time to maturely reflect on the situation when you're still a minimum of 7 years from your brain fully maturing.

I am happy to talk with these kids after they've received the counseling they need, and at least a couple of years has gone by for them to reflect and comprehend the magnitude of the situation. I'm not going to pull a guy out of a burning car and ask him about traffic safety, and I'm not going to yank someone out of third period class in the same school quarter someone got shot in their school to ask about school safety. That's unreasonable.

You don’t get to decide when it is reasonable for someone else to have an opinion.

The corollary would be that gun owners don’t get to have an opinion for months or years after they hear about new gun control measure

 

[Gilligan]

In my opinion the well regulated portion is just as important as the rest of the 2 amendment and that portion can be used to require safety and training courses.
.

Fortunately or the rest of us, your interpretation is incorrect and the requirements you wish for will not happen, for the most part.

MAryland's HQL requirement is an aberration, but then the rest of MD's restrictions are too.

 

[This_person]

I have repeatedly which you have dismissed. Please see my other thread on the subject.


In my opinion the well regulated portion is just as important as the rest of the 2 amendment and that portion can be used to require safety and training courses.


Why would you be opposed to that? It would lower incidences of accidental death and injury thus showing anti gun people that guns are not as big a threat and would do nothing but help your cause.

I am not opposed to the militia being well regulated, as the second amendment and Article One Section Eight call for. I am not opposed to the laws that regulate the militia today.

I am opposed to infringing upon the right of the people (not the militia, the people) to keep and bear arms to be able to form that militia.

The "well regulated militia" part IS as important as the rest of the 2nd amendment, as a way of suggesting one of the many reasons to have the restriction on government from infringing upon the people's right to keep and bear arms.

 

[GURPS]

pawns, Nazis, liars ......

yeah fine YOU call them attacks I'll call them observations ... by hey its ok for Camera Hogg to Attack Rudio and follow up with

Attacks on Rubio Are Not ‘Provocative Enough’

He previously referred to pro-second amendment lawmakers as “pathetic f***ers” and said “they could have blood from children splattered all over their faces and they wouldn’t take action because they all still see those dollar signs.”


and yes the Fab 5 have repeatedly lied ... even CNN Admitted so ...

they are pawns of Everytown, Debbie Washerman Shultz, PPH and other progressive media groups

and yeah act like a little fascist get categorized as a Fascist

 

[Midnightrider]

yeah fine YOU call them attacks I'll call them observations ... by hey its ok for Camera Hogg to Attack Rudio and follow up with

Attacks on Rubio Are Not ‘Provocative Enough’

He previously referred to pro-second amendment lawmakers as “pathetic f***ers” and said “they could have blood from children splattered all over their faces and they wouldn’t take action because they all still see those dollar signs.”


and yes the Fab 5 have repeatedly lied ... even CNN Admitted so ...

they are pawns of Everytown, Debbie Washerman Shultz, PPH and other progressive media groups

and yeah act like a little fascist get categorized as a Fascist

Deerrrrrrrp


Two wrongs......


You suck down a lot of propaganda.