In case there was any doubt as to Democrats real views on the 2nd amendment...
- Thread starter IDontWannaLargeFarva
- Start date
I am relying on you tiger...go get em! You could be missing some nuance in that exchange...probs not your strong point.
Is Twitter a place for twits to tweet, or does Twitter cause people to tweet like twits? Either way, Twitter is full of tweeting twits. The dude tweeting about war is a twit and the Representative tweeted like a twit in response. Really, twit? War with the government over gun control? Really Representative twit? Nukes?
Social media has made many people into uncivil idiots, or it has exposed the uncivil idiots that were already among us. Look at this place - posters anonymously post insults to anonymous people like total assholes. Out here in the real world we traditionally don’t interact with people that way, but it is becoming more common - especially when it comes to politics. I think social media deserves a lot of blame for that. Of course you might think uncivil discourse and behavior is awesome and you might give credit to social media for that.
My opinion is that someone that posts like an asshole here most of the time is most likely a normal-seeming, non-confrontational person out here in the real world because t’s hard to function in society as an asshole all the time. If you wouldn’t behave like an asshole face to face when you routinely do it anonymously on social media, you are little more than a cowardly asshole.
Social media has made many people into uncivil idiots, or it has exposed the uncivil idiots that were already among us. Look at this place - posters anonymously post insults to anonymous people like total assholes. Out here in the real world we traditionally don’t interact with people that way, but it is becoming more common - especially when it comes to politics. I think social media deserves a lot of blame for that. Of course you might think uncivil discourse and behavior is awesome and you might give credit to social media for that.
My opinion is that someone that posts like an asshole here most of the time is most likely a normal-seeming, non-confrontational person out here in the real world because t’s hard to function in society as an asshole all the time. If you wouldn’t behave like an asshole face to face when you routinely do it anonymously on social media, you are little more than a cowardly asshole.
Please, explain the nuance so I can take apart your argument (and his).
The nukes is him being flipoant but the message is, "I will take your guns and if you do not comply, I will use the full power of the government to kill you if you do not comply."
Now he brings up nukes as to say that there is no way that people with AR-15's could stand up to the U.S. military. And in many respects, he is correct. Problem though, it would not be a straight up and fair fight. It would be IED's and shooting high value targets in the back. People like Swallwell would have to live behind walls with gobs of protection just like the green zone in Iraq. "Well not everyone who owns a gun is going to go all crazy and fight the government..." Agreed, at first. But enough of them would to be problematic. And when you start killing people's family members over this stuff, you tend to create more enemies. That is Insurgency 101.
Swallwell is an idiot. Anybody who supports him is a far left, totalitarian idiot. And I would tell you that to your face.
There must be some context missing here. Because nothing in Swalwell's tweet says anything like what is getting people all up in arms here.
Last edited:
Some reinforcement for you.
Tweeting and trolling are easy. Mastering the arts of conversation and measured debate is hard. Texting is easy. Writing a proper letter is hard. Looking stuff up on Google is easy. Knowing what to search for in the first place is hard. Having a thousand friends on Facebook is easy. Maintaining six or seven close adult friendships over the space of many years is hard. Swiping right on Tinder is easy. Finding love — and staying in it — is hard.
That’s what Socrates (or Thamus) means when he deprecates the written word: It gives us an out. It creates the illusion that we can remain informed, and connected, even as we are spared the burdens of attentiveness, presence of mind and memory. That may seem quaint today. But how many of our personal, professional or national problems might be solved if we desisted from depending on shortcuts?
That’s what Socrates (or Thamus) means when he deprecates the written word: It gives us an out. It creates the illusion that we can remain informed, and connected, even as we are spared the burdens of attentiveness, presence of mind and memory. That may seem quaint today. But how many of our personal, professional or national problems might be solved if we desisted from depending on shortcuts?
Swalwell’s response wasn’t particularly uncivil. The person he was responding to was engaged in outlandish and dishonest hyperbole. In his message Swalwell expresses an openness to debate on issues that matter. The person he was responding to revealed no such mindset.
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
Very strange response about the nuclear weapons. Bottom line is confiscating weapons from law abiding citizens is not the answer. If you outlawed all guns we would still have guns in this country, but only the criminals would have them. Chicago is an example of this. Since guns are illegal in the city then they shouldn't be in the city right? If guns were outlawed in America every criminal would go about bringing them into this country. Therefore the law abiding would be scared and the criminal would be secure. You have to flip the script. There has to be a way to keep them out of the hands of criminals whereas allowing the law abiding to keep theirs.
Hell, you can conceal carry in Chicago. In fact Chicago’s gun laws are not all that strict compared to many other cities including NYC
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
You have to be certified correct? How hard is it to get certified? It's a lot of hoops that a lot of people can't go through or won't go through. I would argue that they have no right to make certification so hard. You would think that the same people who say it's too hard for people to get a photo id to vote would not want to make other things like owning a gun for protection so hard. If certification was easier then a lot of good people would be able to protect themselves from crime in the city. I remember a story some years ago where an old man was tired of being robbed. He got a gun and scared off some robbers who tried to get through is window. The police came and confiscated his weapon. Was this right in your opinion? Why make it so hard to get certified, qualified etc?
Why make it a little hard? Because it’s a ****ing gun! It should be at least as hard as it is to get a drivers license. In 99% of the country it isn’t.
Oh, and Chicago no longer has a registration or permit requirement to own a gun. You don’t need to be “certified” or take a class, etc. So maybe you should consider verifying that at least some of what you post is not complete BS. Is that too much to ask?
Last edited:
So it's not illegal to own a gun in Chicago now? Earlier you said it was. Were you wrong or lying?
Your Post No. 8 says, "Chicago is an example of this. Since guns are illegal in the city then they shouldn't be in the city right?". When you were called out, you then changed in your Post No. 12 above to say, "You have to be certified right? How hard is it to get certified?"
Do you realize "illegal" and "certified" are mutually exclusive"? No wonder no one listens to you on religion or political matters.
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
Doesn't Illinois state law say you have to take so many hours of classes? Why would Chicago be exempt from that? Also when exactly did Chicago change their city laws? I can't find it online. I am not arguing with you, just asking for you to tell me when this happened.
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
It's illegal if you are not certified. At least that is what I believed. Noodle says you don't have to be certified anymore. I don't know when this changed. Also Illinois law says you have to be certified by taking so many hours of classes. Now this is reasonable. You want people to be able to operate the gun if they are to own one.
If you’re not arguing with me then why did you follow this post with one in which you once again falsely claimed that you had to take a gun class in Illinois?!?
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
I got this from Wiki To legally possess firearms or ammunition, Illinois residents must have a Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card, which is issued by the Illinois State Police to any qualified applicant. Non-residents who may legally possess firearms in their home state are exempt from this requirement.The state police issue licenses for the concealed carry of handguns to qualified applicants age 21 or older who pass a 16-hour training course. However, any law enforcement agency can object to an individual being granted a license "based upon a reasonable suspicion that the applicant is a danger to himself or herself or others, or a threat to public safety".
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
Just one other thing. When did Chicago change their own city law? I really could not find it online. Again, not arguing. Let's be friends here Noodle. We both love IU. We got a lot in common.
Good for you, but what’s your point. The FOID card requires no training, classes etc. It basically indicates that you are eligible to own guns (no felonies, etc.).
It was overridden by state law, I believe in 2013.
And I don’t love IU. Never have.
I should also mention that about 25 states do not even require any training to obtain a concealed carry permit. That is outrageous in my opinion.
So earlier you were just wrong but now you are lying. Glad to clear that up.
Saying the USG might use nukes against US citizens isn’t outlandish and dishonest hyperbole? Really?
He was responding to hyperbole. The original hyperbole was "this means war!" He responded to that with his own hyperbole showing why the idea of war was silly. His response was identical to responses countless others have given over the years, including in discussions right here on this forum about the purpose of the Second Amendment. And he included with his response the hope that the two sides could reach an understanding on the issue, further cementing his own self-awareness of the hyperbolic nature of the discussion. There was absolutely nothing wrong with his response.Saying the USG might use nukes against US citizens isn’t outlandish and dishonest hyperbole? Really?
Have you ever been to the Purdue general discussion board? It’s an absolute mess.
Actually, you might fit right in over there.
And for the record, I do not hate or even dislike IU. Just don’t love IU
The Purdue mods automatically permaban all IU fans that post. Which is a shame, because you are right, Farva would definitely find a home over there.
VanPastorMan
Hall of Famer
I agree with that. And why don't you love IU? I thought everybody here loved IU as I mumble down the road talking to myself.
As Goat already said, he wasn't suggesting that. He was responding to the absurd notion that citizens could effectively take up arms against a military giant like the United States. That was the underpinning for the hyperbole he was responding to.Saying the USG might use nukes against US citizens isn’t outlandish and dishonest hyperbole? Really?
Swalwell's looking for solutions to an obvious problem, a problem that the gun lobby enables by finding insurmountable obstacles in each and every proposal presented to address the problem (thus predictably leading to inaction to address the obvious problem). In that context, Swalwell rejects all that bad faith behavior and offers up one possibly effective response ... though one which would be hard to legislate (though more sane than doing nothing). His point, it appears, is that we should include all options and argue among those instead of taking all options off the table as the gun lobby would prefer. That's a function of effectively counter-anchoring the currently skewed debate. In response to his reasonable effort to drive more action and more complete debate, the gun lobby zealots throw a complete tantrum. Predictable.
Last edited:
His hyperbolic response is completely logical in the context of what this psychotic wingnut is talking re: starting a war against the US Govt.
As a US Rep he should probably have not said it, but it's not the least bit inaccurate.
That is exactly my point - answering dishonest hyperbole with dishonest hyperbole is part of the problem and why the Representative is also a teeeting twit adding to our uncivil discourse.
I remember a story where some guy with a gun killed defenseless little kids in an Amish grade school.
I remember a story where some guy with a gun shot defenseless students at a school in Florida.
I remember a story where some guy with a gun shot defenseless people from a hotel in Las Vegas.
I remember a story where some guy with a gun shot defenselesd people at a church in Texas.
I remember, I remember, I remember, I remember, I remember.
And all you give us is religious hypocrisy and the Second Amendment which is actually your paramount object of worship.
The Second Amendment is as archaic a Constitutional provision as the Three-Fifths Compromise. The Second Amendment today serves everything to give criminals and nuts access to guns and does nothing to arm militias and thwart invasion by King George III. Nothing in American society today justifies the Second Amendment's application as the gun nuts apply it.
Really? “We can nuke you Americans” isn’t dishonest hyperbole? We must be living in different worlds. This is the problem.
I already explained it above. And no, it’s not dishonest hyperbole.
And if we’re living in different worlds, it’s because your party has run a bad faith propaganda machine to achieve it.
