Collector1337 wrote: I guess my hope of this being a better and safer place with better tolerance was too high.

tolerance for what? people that place things on a higher pedestal than people? you're the one that said gun issues are more important to you than gay or women's rights:

Collector1337 wrote:Still, gun issues are much more important to me because they affect me much more directly. We are talking one of my main hobbies that I do almost every weekend or every chance I get for that matter. Something that affects me, almost daily, is much more important than something that doesn't, or at least very little.

SwampGrouch wrote:

Collector1337 wrote:To be honest,

That implies you haven't been.

No, the phrase "to be honest" does not imply previous dishonesty.

Alice has invited Bob for dinner. They enjoy pleasant conversation on a range of topics. Sometimes the discussion gets a bit intense but remains respectful. At the end of the evening Alice asks Bob how he found the meal. As it so happens, Bob found the soup to be over-salted. So prompted by Alice, Bob could lie to remain in Alice's good graces. The lie is all the more tempting if it so happens that Alice is in a position of affecting Bob's future happiness (e.g. she's his boss, or he's hoping for romance). Or Bob could be honest and announce that he is self-consciously being honest by prefacing his assessment of the soup with "to be honest..." It is not a recognition of previous dishonesty but a recognition that social graces or self-interest might elicit a dishonest appraisal but that the person saying "to be honest" has opted for honesty instead.

I'm the guy who upon being asked and finding that your soup was oversalted, your hair does not look nice, your attire does make you look fat, etc. will just tell you as much. (Yeah, that has led to difficult moments with my wife. Her (back from the hairdresser): "Does my hair look nice?" Me: "No" because that's exactly what I thought. But what she hears is "I don't love you anymore", which leads to the silent treatment and a whole bunch of complications. Being dishonest is ooooooh so tempting.)

Collector1337 wrote:Did I say I was voting for Willard?

NO I DID NOT!

rolandson wrote:

Collector1337 wrote: ...Your comments is what you should be saying to hardcore right-wingers, not me...

The content and quality of your posts suggest that you and they are one in the same.

If that's how you're going to treat one of your own, then I might as well vote for Willard. What's with the condescending and disrespectful nature? I've done nothing of the sort to anyone here....

You are not one of my own collector, you are merely a participant on a forum. A forum that is open to everyone regardless of their political affiliation and philosophy...as long as they behave themselves.

There is nothing condescending or disrespectful in observing that your posts suggest that you are what you are...you wrote them after all. If that is not what you intend for them to imply I encourage you to proof read more thoroughly.

As is the case in most of the world, you get what you give. If you are not happy with the way others respond to what you have to say, you can complain about it or you can reevaluate what you say, or you can say it somewhere that others might agree with you. That is entirely up to you.

SwampGrouch wrote:

Collector1337 wrote:And here I was foolish enough to think that this forum would have much more class and not be so disrespectful like so many right-wing forums are.

I guess I was wrong.

I guess if you want to be on the same level as them, that's fine.

I guess my hope of this being a better and safer place with better tolerance was too high.

Even more sad, it's the mods that are being so disrespectful, not just average Joe forum member.

Translation: "I've been exposed as a poser and pwned."

If you want to be respected, don't claim academic status or professional licensure ("clinical psychologist") that you do not have.

(I'll stop now.)

You do not know me. You are lying and have zero evidence to back up such a wild allegation. Calling you disrespectful is an understatement.

You are even worse than the right-wingers on other sites. You should be ashamed of yourself. You are on their level, or even lower.

Please don't respond to any of my posts or communicate with me in any way. You are nothing but a partisan. You have nothing to contribute to the conversation. You're assumptions without any facts to back it up proof of this.

AmirMortal wrote:Wow, although I can't say that I agree with Collector 100%,I think he definitely has a point in that y'all are coming down on him pretty hard, and I can't say in truth that I think it's fully warranted. Go easy on the new arrivals, eh? Give him/them a chance to get the feel of the forum before jumping down their throats.

Gay rights are very important to me personally too, but as he said, this is a gun forum, and there is a general presupposition that conversations will be gun-centric. He is a competitive shooter, and that clearly plays a large role In his life. I read his posts in this thread, and again, I don't agree with everything he's said, but that's life. We won't always agree, but civility is the rule here. We're liberals. Not everyone sets their priorities alike, and that doesn't necessarily make them bad people. I fully understand the importance of certain topics for many of us, but don't just write someone else off because they don't immediately line up in your first interaction. A lack of 100% devotion to your causes don't make someone your enemy. Please get that.

+1000

AmirMortal wrote:Wow, although I can't say that I agree with Collector 100%,I think he definitely has a point in that y'all are coming down on him pretty hard, and I can't say in truth that I think it's fully warranted. Go easy on the new arrivals, eh? Give him/them a chance to get the feel of the forum before jumping down their throats.

Gay rights are very important to me personally too, but as he said, this is a gun forum, and there is a general presupposition that conversations will be gun-centric. He is a competitive shooter, and that clearly plays a large role In his life. I read his posts in this thread, and again, I don't agree with everything he's said, but that's life. We won't always agree, but civility is the rule here. We're liberals. Not everyone sets their priorities alike, and that doesn't necessarily make them bad people. I fully understand the importance of certain topics for many of us, but don't just write someone else off because they don't immediately line up in your first interaction. A lack of 100% devotion to your causes don't make someone your enemy. Please get that.

Thank you for that, I appreciate it.

I am glad to see that there are reasonable people here.

It's appalling that on a "liberal" gun forum when "liberals" claim to be so tolerant, civil, and understanding, that the second my priorities are a little different, I'm thrown under the bus and called a liar.

This is how right-wingers operate. Is that how some here really want to behave?

Collector1337 wrote:I am glad to see that there are reasonable people here.

It's appalling that on a "liberal" gun forum when "liberals" claim to be so tolerant, civil, and understanding, that the second my priorities are a little different, I'm thrown under the bus and called a liar.

This is how right-wingers operate. Is that how some here really want to behave?

We are tolerant and civil. No one is screaming for your head. I don't think much of your viewpoints as you have expressed them and I have made that clear through my posts. You act as though that is the end of the world. Liberals, generally, are open to the notion that arguing positions by presenting ideas and evidence is how we arrive at the right place and is one of the ways we learn from each other. That is a common mode of discussion on this board.

I think the fact that you are engaged in a heated debate with several people, including two moderators, and nobody is thinking about banning or warning you about anything unless you actually violate the TOS points out just how different we are from some places.

Other items on my agenda:

1) Do you have a response to any of my earlier posts?
2) That metaphor about someone being thrown under the bus doesn't mean what you think it does.

Well, I think it was a stupid move for Obama. And it will probably cost him at least 2-3 points. The Democratic party has obviously decided to drop this hot potato, to pursue other issues. Now, he's just brought it back front & center.

He was somewhat moderate in his response, and Romney's 2nd amendment track record isn't great. But I just can't see why Obama wouldn't have dodged this bullet better. Fuck.


Either way (Romney or Obama), no assault weapons bill will pass. So, I'm keeping my toys. Honestly, I think he blew Romney away in the debate. But this one response will likely reverse the bulk of any progress he made, This election is just too close to deal with this bullshit. And yes, I like my guns. But even if Obama wins (I hope to God he does), the Democratic party just doesn't have enough of a charter to go after guns. This issue is currently off limits. So why the fuck wouldn't he skirt it? Are there any undecided voters that he thinks the assault weapons issue will sway? Strategically, it was a very stupid move. And my gut tells me it will cost him 2-3%... fuck.

ErikO wrote:I'm voting for him for teh 98% of the rest of the Platform that he is running on. That last 2% is an ongoing project.

Exactly. When there are two parties and one wants to cut education, i vote for the other one. If neither wants to, then it changes priorities.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

I'd like to take this opportunity to say that I really like bananas and peanut butter. Oh man, bananas and peanut butter on cinnamon bread! mmmmmmmm

Now that I've gotten the non sequitor out of the way, so should yall!


I do a facepalm any time Obama talks about AWB. He IS from Chicago after all. So even though he's a highly educated and extremely intelligent individual, he may in fact not realize how utterly stupid an AWB is and that it's a ban on cosmetic and ergonomic features and nothing more.

I maintain nonetheless that yin-yang dualism can be overcome. With sufficient enlightenment we can give substance to any distinction: mind without body, north without south, pleasure without pain. Remember, enlightenment is a function of willpower, not of physical strength.

Wait. Sorry about that. What I meant to say was:

I maintain nonetheless that only one candidate has a proven track record of enacting gun bans and gun control: Romney.

For all the noise about guns, this election will be won or lost on the economy. American voters are afraid and what they are most afraid for is their wallets. Frankly, most voters took neither candidates' statements on an AWB during the last debate very seriously. This time around, like last time, Americans will fall into line behind the presidential candidate who holds the promise of prosperity.

And the fine American tradition of voting for the lesser of two evils marches on....

Calm tones folks.

Wurble wrote:I'd like to take this opportunity to say that I really like bananas and peanut butter. Oh man, bananas and peanut butter on cinnamon bread! mmmmmmmm

Now that I've gotten the non sequitor out of the way, so should yall!


I do a facepalm any time Obama talks about AWB. He IS from Chicago after all. So even though he's a highly educated and extremely intelligent individual, he may in fact not realize how utterly stupid an AWB is and that it's a ban on cosmetic and ergonomic features and nothing more.

I maintain nonetheless that yin-yang dualism can be overcome. With sufficient enlightenment we can give substance to any distinction: mind without body, north without south, pleasure without pain. Remember, enlightenment is a function of willpower, not of physical strength.

Wait. Sorry about that. What I meant to say was:

I maintain nonetheless that only one candidate has a proven track record of enacting gun bans and gun control: Romney.

The funny thing is I am also from Chicago. The whole 'from Chicago = hates guns' things is - to borrow from Uncle Joe - a bunch of malarkey. I think he knows that there is a segment of Dems that wants guns to just disappear and that is the group that gets placated with noise and fury over an AWB and gun show loophole nonsense.

I would like to push the notion that gun rights are civil rights. In that light, LGBT stuff, woman stuff, minority stuff--all the stuff that is not white, straight, rich, male stuff--all that stuff should be fair for us to defend.

The right wing prefers everyone to be the same. This is why when the left visits the right, we get slammed for being "different."

I'm glad I'm "different." Collector is different also. Touchier than I, but a guy who should be given an opportunity to make bold statements without fearing reprisals for being "different."

So-called "assault weapons" also are "different" from the bolt guns I love. I don't have them merely for matters of taste--my son (30's), though, is not as enamored of bolt guns as I and has a few--but I still will defend someone's right to buy one.

Enter the discussion (return to) about a proposed AW ban.

I think there are maybe seven spineless dems out there in the electorate who won't vote for O because they think he's flipped over to a pro gun stance--they needed to see his AW statement. I think personally he still does not care for guns, but I also believe he is an astute politician who sees that no longer can he count on the majority of dems to be against guns. Maybe most dems don't own one, but I think now they accept the Second. Begrudgingly...

Now, a proposed so called AW ban is red meat to those seven spineless dems. I think the proposal came from poor ol' DiFi, who most likely will retire after she wins her seat again this time, and with her retirement will go the last senator in favor of the ban. I don't think it will surface again.

What has happened in California as regards so called assault weapons is instructive.

We "all know" ;-) the term assault weapon means the weapon has a fully automatic feature, so even calling the the semi autos assault weapons is fake. Nonetheless, what happened in California is that manufacturers began to make semi auto rifles that did not have the "banned" features for California. This resulted in a huge amount of these weapons coming to my state. Almost everyone I know (the 'tasteless ones' ;-) ) has a couple of these. And a dozen or so ten round magazines. All perfectly California legal. Folks must note how few zombie attacks we've suffered since we banned so called AW's...

But I have to admit that a few of my friends still live in terror of the eleven member outlaw biker gangs...

No AW ban will get to the Big Desk.

CDFingers

CDFingers wrote:I would like to push the notion that gun rights are civil rights. In that light, LGBT stuff, woman stuff, minority stuff--all the stuff that is not white, straight, rich, male stuff--all that stuff should be fair for us to defend.

That bears out from the location of Firearms on the Platform.

I agree with CD.

Gay rights, abortion rights, gun rights, etc. should all be considered civil rights and unalienable, or "God given" if some prefer.

Sidebar:

SwampGrouch wrote: Translation: "I've been exposed as a poser and pwned."

Let point out that you've used the term "pwned" in a gun forum, which probably puts you at around 17 years old and not even legally allowed to own firearms.

Collector1337 wrote:Sidebar:

SwampGrouch wrote: Translation: "I've been exposed as a poser and pwned."

Let point out that you've used the term "pwned" in a gun forum, which probably puts you at around 17 years old and not even legally allowed to own firearms.

Dude. You're using leet speak in your forum name. Just wanted to point that out. Carry on.

JoeW1911 wrote:

Collector1337 wrote:Sidebar:

SwampGrouch wrote: Translation: "I've been exposed as a poser and pwned."

Let point out that you've used the term "pwned" in a gun forum, which probably puts you at around 17 years old and not even legally allowed to own firearms.

Dude. You're using leet speak in your forum name. Just wanted to point that out. Carry on.

You have a point there.

while maybe interesting, internet gaming language has nothing to do with the AWB...let's at least try to keep the thread close to topic okay?!

73h 4w8 w45 57up1d 15 57up1d 4nd 41w4y5 w111 83 57up1d

JoeW1911 wrote:

Collector1337 wrote:Sidebar:

SwampGrouch wrote: Translation: "I've been exposed as a poser and pwned."

Let point out that you've used the term "pwned" in a gun forum, which probably puts you at around 17 years old and not even legally allowed to own firearms.

Dude. You're using leet speak in your forum name. Just wanted to point that out. Carry on.

When did I ever say it was this "leet speak" that you speak of?

let it go collector...it's not important.

AmirMortal wrote:

JoeW1911 wrote: Dude. You're using leet speak in your forum name. Just wanted to point that out. Carry on.

You have a point there.

I'm glad someone noticed.