Do you gun law people also believe we should ban cars?

[Ricter]

Quote from DirkDigler:

I have no idea. Again how is that relevant?

That was the Romney campaign. An example of a group being impervious to facts. [Even celebrating it.]

 

[DirkDigler]

Quote from Ricter:

That was the Romney campaign. An example of a group being impervious to facts. [Even celebrating it.]

So it's not relevant to this discussion.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from DirkDigler:

So it's not relevant to this discussion.

Then neither is this: "THIS is indicative of a much larger problem. Critical thinking in this country has become nearly non-existent IMHO. In any case there certainly seems to be less evidence of it lately."

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

>>Quote from Ricter:

Logically you may be correct, but should you continue to push it you are going to lose politically. <<

Excuse me, but I believe your side just lost.

It appears that "democracy" got in the way of the gun grabbers agenda, not the freedom agenda.

This is typical of liberal arrogance. obama just gets handed the biggest asskicking of his regime, and WE are the ones who should compromise. Why would we want to give up any ground? Isn't that just losing incrementally? If we "compromised" on this, would antigun activists say ok, that's settled, we won't be going after any more gun regulation? of course not. They would just pocket our stupid concession and move on to the next item in their never ending agenda.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Quote from Ricter:

Win a little lose a little, or lose big, your choice.

I'm not in politics. I could give a shit. I choose to stick to my principles.

What your "lose a little" doesn't take into account is that is just the beginning. Once gun control advocates get even a single win, they'll go full press for everything.

You lost the vote, get over it.

 

[DirkDigler]

Quote from Ricter:

Then neither is this: "THIS is indicative of a much larger problem. Critical thinking in this country has become nearly non-existent IMHO. In any case there certainly seems to be less evidence of it lately."

Perhaps I'm not following your logic, let me try to paraphrase what I think you said. If a statement you made about an EX politicians platform - having nothing to do with gun control - is irrelevant then a statement I made about the lack of logic employed by CURRENT politicians is therefore also irrelevant. Is that what you're trying to imply?

 

[pspr]

Quote from Ricter:

An example of a group being impervious to facts. [Even celebrating it.]

The anti-gun group? We finally agree on something.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Ricter:

Democracy has a way of screwing up a fringe group's agenda, doesn't it?

Constitutionalists are a "fringe" group?

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Tsing Tao:

So you're saying I should compromise my principles because the majority of the public lacks the IQ or desire to understand the issue?

No.

Same here.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from Ricter:

Gun advocates may have all the facts on their side and still lose.

We DO have most if not all the facts on our side. And if we lose, the whole country loses. You're just too fucking stupid to see it.