Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

zephyp wrote:

gunderwood wrote: Today just became a bad day...

Why is that?

You disagreed with Dems4guns. It's only a good day (his definition) when you agreed with him.

gunderwood wrote:

zephyp wrote:

gunderwood wrote: Today just became a bad day...

Why is that?

You disagreed with Dems4guns. It's only a good day (his definition) when you agreed with him.

Oh...well, disagreement is not disrespect, racism, an insult, un-American, unruly, antisocial, or any other synonyms of those....

Still the troll avoids my question. He must not be able to provide ANY evidence of any gun control measure that has been proven to be effective!

Since he keeps referencing other people's "Mama's", and a perceived lack of respect for his illogical and asinine arguments, I offer this:

zephyp wrote:Regarding your notion that there is nothing wrong with representative government deciding what the general welfare clause means is a dangerous one indeed for this is the very idea they use to further restrict our rights...gun rights in particular.
Your arguments are baseless and not well thought out. You are an anathema and pose a real conundrum to our collective beliefs.
If you truly and honestly want to retain and enjoy what gun rights and freedoms we currently have I strongly recommend you check your other beliefs and make some serious changes....not trying to insult you just being as honest as I can...

I am always willing to listen and learn. I don't hear anyone willing to listen and learn here, yet.
Learning requires being open to another way of looking at issues and listening to some new things about guns and gun laws and Democrats and Liberals. But most everyone here is so filled with extreme prejudice, belief in generalizations, with fixed positions based on fundamentalist faith in absolute gun rights, that they are unwilling to even listen, much less learn anything new.

"Anathema" huh? Well, no insult is too extreme, is it?
Decorum is clearly needed, but no one cares to take up the challenge. Maybe some will listen, but it has to start with decorum, manners, neighborly conversation, and polite discussion, otherwise it just escalates into insults and namecalling and fundamentalist rhetoric.

Dems4Guns

zephyp wrote:Oh...well, disagreement is not disrespect, racism, an insult, un-American, unruly, antisocial, or any other synonyms of those....

Disagreement is disagreement. Insult is insult. They are not the same. I encourage discussions where we disagree. I discourage insults and those that use insults and namecalling and "classification" as a means to disagree and poison the potential for decorum.
Dems4Guns.

Yarddawg wrote:Still the troll avoids my question. He must not be able to provide ANY evidence of any gun control measure that has been proven to be effective!

Yarddawg, your invitation is a trap. I can see it from 100 yards away.
I am not willing to engage in a discussion or debate with you because you have not signed up to polite discussion and a promise to not use namecalling or insults or an excuse to bash me or my ideas. If you want to promise fair-play, I will consider it. But from what I have seen in your posting, you never learned good manners or how to have a polite conversation, or if you did, you don't have it in you to do so.

Perhaps I would have to have a bigger arsenal before you would be polite to me?
Dems4Guns

This is getting to be asinine! You're up for discussion, but refuse to discuss and consider any disagreement a trap or un-American.

You respond to an argument by attacking the poster. You're not open minded to anything as you already decided that we're fundamentalist blinded to your enlightened thoughts. Yet you won't discuss those enlightened thoughts because we question there soundness.

gunderwood wrote:This is getting to be asinine! You're up for discussion, but refuse to discuss and consider any disagreement a trap or un-American.

You respond to an argument by attacking the poster. You're not open minded to anything as you already decided that we're fundamentalist blinded to your enlightened thoughts. Yet you won't discuss those enlightened thoughts because we question there soundness.

Frustrating isn't it?

Now you know how I feel because I can't get you and your kind to behave like gentlemen and with sufficient decorum.

Dems4Guns

Frustrating isn't it?

Now you know how I feel because I can't get you and your kind to behave like gentlemen and with sufficient decorum.

Dems4Guns

Really?

Dealing with lib/progressives is like dealing with many females, they choose and make the rules as they go along, for as long as it suits their current position. Reasoning with these individuals is impossible, it's like grabbing a ball of mercury.
Like females, when they know they are wrong and they know you know they are wrong, they will accuse you of bullying, abusive behavor and change the rules.
Give them all the respect they deserve and ignor them.

Jim

arkypete wrote:Dealing with lib/progressives is like dealing with many females, they choose and make the rules as they go along, for as long as it suits their current position. Reasoning with these individuals is impossible, it's like grabbing a ball of mercury.
Like females, when they know they are wrong and they know you know they are wrong, they will accuse you of bullying, abusive behavor and change the rules.
Give them all the respect they deserve and ignor them.

Jim

Hey hey hey! Now I will be the first to say that (as a female) I find that many females are catty--but at least we had no choice about the gender we are. For our emotions we have the plausible excuse of our hormones getting in the way of our better judgement. If you don't believe me--ask my husband, about my emotions with/without a baby in the oven. People (like dems4guns) choose whether or not to be democrats/liberals, right? Or are we now saying that they can't help it they are "born that way"?

I honestly think Dems is just one of you having fun.

Hey hey hey! Now I will be the first to say that (as a female) I find that many females are catty--but at least we had no choice about the gender we are. For our emotions we have the plausible excuse of our hormones getting in the way of our better judgement. If you don't believe me--ask my husband, about my emotions with/without a baby in the oven. People (like dems4guns) choose whether or not to be democrats/liberals, right? Or are we now saying that they can't help it they are "born that way"?--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think they prefer to call it the Weiner waver.

Jim

Weiner

dems4guns wrote:

gunderwood wrote:This is getting to be asinine! You're up for discussion, but refuse to discuss and consider any disagreement a trap or un-American.

You respond to an argument by attacking the poster. You're not open minded to anything as you already decided that we're fundamentalist blinded to your enlightened thoughts. Yet you won't discuss those enlightened thoughts because we question there soundness.

Frustrating isn't it?

Now you know how I feel because I can't get you and your kind to behave like gentlemen and with sufficient decorum.

Dems4Guns

Frustrating? Not really. I find it amusing how you accuse everyone of doing the very thing you in fact are doing the very post you make the accusations. I've tried to engage you in discussion, but you won't have any of it. The ignorance you have put on display really astounds me though.

Kreutz wrote:I honestly think Dems is just one of you having fun.

dems4guns wrote:Yarddawg, your invitation is a trap. I can see it from 100 yards away.
I am not willing to engage in a discussion or debate with you because you have not signed up to polite discussion and a promise to not use namecalling or insults or an excuse to bash me or my ideas. If you want to promise fair-play, I will consider it. But from what I have seen in your posting, you never learned good manners or how to have a polite conversation, or if you did, you don't have it in you to do so.

Perhaps I would have to have a bigger arsenal before you would be polite to me?
Dems4Guns

What "trap" would that be? It is an honest question! Go ahead, cite just one piece of effective gun control that has ever been enacted. I know that this might be tough for you, but cite the evidence of its effectiveness as well. (based on your previous posts, I don't think that you are capable of citing any reputable sources, but I am willing to give you a chance!)

I have not committed anywhere near the name calling or insulting that you have in your short time here. Please, do not even begin to talk about promising "fair play". I, and the others here have been more than fair to you!

Your problem is that you come to a gun owners forum and spouting off about "reasonable gun control" and you wonder why we are offended by it! We have heard that same line of crap too many times to count! Do you really believe that you are the first to think of "reasonable gun control"? C'mon dude, use your head for something other than a hat rack!

Yarddawg wrote:

dems4guns wrote:Yarddawg, your invitation is a trap. I can see it from 100 yards away.
I am not willing to engage in a discussion or debate with you because you have not signed up to polite discussion and a promise to not use namecalling or insults or an excuse to bash me or my ideas. If you want to promise fair-play, I will consider it. But from what I have seen in your posting, you never learned good manners or how to have a polite conversation, or if you did, you don't have it in you to do so.

Perhaps I would have to have a bigger arsenal before you would be polite to me?
Dems4Guns

What "trap" would that be? It is an honest question! Go ahead, cite just one piece of effective gun control that has ever been enacted. I know that this might be tough for you, but cite the evidence of its effectiveness as well. (based on your previous posts, I don't think that you are capable of citing any reputable sources, but I am willing to give you a chance!)

I have not committed anywhere near the name calling or insulting that you have in your short time here. Please, do not even begin to talk about promising "fair play". I, and the others here have been more than fair to you!

Your problem is that you come to a gun owners forum and spouting off about "reasonable gun control" and you wonder why we are offended by it! We have heard that same line of crap too many times to count! Do you really believe that you are the first to think of "reasonable gun control"? C'mon dude, use your head for something other than a hat rack!

Hey I think I have one he can use. During the "Assault Rifle Ban", not one crime was committed with a bayonet attached to the bayonet lug of a rifle, the ban must have worked.

Oh wait a minute, there weren't any committed before or after either. So much for helping him out...

grumpyMSG wrote:Oh wait a minute, there weren't any committed before or after either. So much for helping him out...

For the record, I thought the assault weapon ban was unnecessary. Although I do think machine guns should be regulated. There was a very good reason for the machine gun tax....gangland shootings were out of control.

Dems4Guns

dems4guns wrote: For the record, I thought the assault weapon ban was unnecessary. Although I do think machine guns should be regulated. There was a very good reason for the machine gun tax....gangland shootings were out of control.

Dems4Guns

So you believe the AWB was unnecessary. Here is an 2 year old article from ABC News:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=6960824&page=1

"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.
Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.

By my recollection, Attorney General Holder was appointed by President Obama and answers to the President. He was confirmed by a Senate that had a large Democratic majority. Two years ago, he was making these statements about re-implementation of the AWB, pointing out how it would assist the fighting Mexican drug/gun problem. Now we are hearing about Operations "Gunrunner" and "Fast and Furious". The questions are:
Did Attorney General Eric Holder know about, or even possibly encourage those operations?
Does believe he "the ends justify the means" and will this help get the ban reinstated?
Does he have a set of values similar to G. Gordon Liddy, that allowed him to believe that some crimes are justifiable, especially if they are for political motives?