They should build a wall.
...................Take a long moment and think real deep about that before you reply.
What Mexico needs is more guns, duh
- Thread starter UsualName
- Start date
...................Take a long moment and think real deep about that before you reply.
Wow... I can't see the messages from the OP because I have him blocked. But there's actually someone who is arguing that if you ban guns in one country, drug cartels and criminals simply won't find other suppliers for their weapons and this will curb their criminal activity?
I normally don't make comments like these, but... "What a fucking moron."
If only Colombia had that idea during Pablo Escobar's time. They could've simply prohibited the production and distribution of cocaine in their country and they would have lessened the consumption of the drug in the US and erradicated the problem with the drug and all the violence that came with it! Those dumb Colombians!
Oh wait...
Then unblock the OP?
This whole "blocking people"- thing is the ruin of forums like this. It kills conversations! Oi!
I had a policy of not blocking anyone for that reason during the first years I posted here(I actually wrote that this was "my policy" in one of my posts.)
Unfortunately, I realized I was wrong about this. There are some people who simply aren't able to discuss politely and when not being able to defend their ideas with reasoning, they try to change the focus of the conversation from the topic to their counterpart. There is no point in arguing with people like this.
Typical example is the analogy that I made with drugs. Whoever(I assume there's a high chance that was the OP) argued that banning guns in the US would make any difference in the acquisition of guns by drug cartels with Mexico would have to see the absurdity of their premise when reading what I wrote. But the OP will never do that, because he is the typical example of someone incapable of arguing with reason and logic, because he wants to believe in something, no matter what the facts are. All he does is always run in circles and try to change the subject. If he hasn't blocked me as well, you can be sure that he will never directly adress the analogy I made, because he knows he's fucked if he tries.
If I remember correctly, I have engaged in discussion over the same topic before with him and I asked him several times: "How are you going to make people who are willing to break the law by killing and stealing obey a "lesser law" that prohibits people from simply buying or carrying a gun?" He could never answer this, but kept running in circles, avoiding the question and trying to change the focus of the discussion from the topic to me. To talk to someone like that is simply a complete waste of time and it's better to simply ignore the crap that he/she posts. But that's just me. As I said, I had a different policy in the past. Maybe someday I'll change my mind again.
And what you do not understand is that you blocking a person, or someone else blocking you, causes a cascading effect of thread devolution, where the context of the conversation breaks down to the point where everyone can get confused with the context.
I cannot point you to any examples to discuss, because they have me, well, blocked.
And when you get multiple people blocking common friends on the forum? Fugheddabouddit.
Oh, I do understand. I simply don't care. To me, there is benefit in the ignore function. I see that now, even though I used to hold the same opinion as yours in this subject. Maybe you will see things my way too someday, maybe never... That's just how it is. But I agree you have valid points and I think you're right to act accordingly. Just as I do.
Wow... I can't see the messages from the OP because I have him blocked. But there's actually someone who is arguing that if you ban guns in one country, drug cartels and criminals simply won't find other suppliers for their weapons and this will curb their criminal activity?
I normally don't make comments like these, but... "What a fucking moron."
If only Colombia had that idea during Pablo Escobar's time. They could've simply prohibited the production and distribution of cocaine in their country and they would have lessened the consumption of the drug in the US and erradicated the problem with the drug and all the violence that came with it! Those dumb Colombians!
Oh wait...
This poster is like the rest and didn’t read the article before opining on the article.
Again, no one in the article is proposing banning guns in America. You can always tell the kool aid drinkers because you can clearly state no one is talking about banning guns and they argue “but you want to ban guns.”
The truth is what we need is registration on firearms in America. If anyone bothered to read the article the majority of the guns going into Mexico from the US are assault style weapons purchased by straw man buyers.
This is not only how illegal guns end up in Mexico but on the streets in America. There is no accountability for these weapons after purchase.
Guns need to be registered like cars and reported when missing. This will add accountability and stop strawman purchases.
Last edited:
Legalize drugs, i.e. end the monopoly.