Ducks Attack Message Board Forum

Duck24 wrote:I'd vote for whichever candidate supported a full ban on guns. There isn't one compelling nor logical reason as to why someone needs a gun. They don't make you safer, we don't need well armed militias, you can hunt with bows and arrows and amendments can be amended (hence their name). Yes I know someone could stab me to death rather than shoot me and we aren't banning knives but I haven't seen any recent knife attacks in night clubs killing 49 people. Violent crimes will always happen and it sucks that law abiding citizens have to pay the price for the the criminals but that is reality. I'm all for mitigating the amount of damage a violent criminal can do which is what a gun ban would do.

Google Jim Jeffries Gun Control if you want a humorous yet valid argument against guns. If you can get past the cussing and his Aussie accent, he makes a surprising amount of sense for a comedian.

Tray Dub wrote:I understand not liking Hillary, but saying she's as bad as Trump is pretty ridiculous to me. Trump is a new breed of awful, the most dangerous candidate in our country's history.

greenyellow wrote:

Duck24 wrote:I'd vote for whichever candidate supported a full ban on guns. There isn't one compelling nor logical reason as to why someone needs a gun. They don't make you safer, we don't need well armed militias, you can hunt with bows and arrows and amendments can be amended (hence their name). Yes I know someone could stab me to death rather than shoot me and we aren't banning knives but I haven't seen any recent knife attacks in night clubs killing 49 people. Violent crimes will always happen and it sucks that law abiding citizens have to pay the price for the the criminals but that is reality. I'm all for mitigating the amount of damage a violent criminal can do which is what a gun ban would do.

Google Jim Jeffries Gun Control if you want a humorous yet valid argument against guns. If you can get past the cussing and his Aussie accent, he makes a surprising amount of sense for a comedian.

So you'd vote to make a well-proven self-protection device illegal then while not adequately assuring said criminals disarm as well? Are you going to tell people who are armed due to having protection orders against domestic abusers, stalkers, or other threatening people they need to get rid of their weapons? Are you going to tell farmers and others who have livestock they can no longer shoot predators who wish to harm their animals? Are you going to tell people who live far from police or in bad neighborhoods that they can no longer protect themselves from criminals? If you can say yes to any of those questions, then you and other anti-gun people are just plain foolish and unrealistic.

Phalanx wrote:It's funny - you use words like 'overwhelming consensus' (which is a fallacious argument anyway, appeal to majority), and then when I point out a specific example of a 30-year professor of Meteorology at MIT who doesn't seem very overwhelmed, you launch into your insulting tirade. I know what the majority of scientists say. I also know who controls the funding gateways for most science in this country and that grants are not given to those who deviate from the narrative. It is funny though, how you are able to argue around in circles without ever dealing with the material point, that the earth simply hasn't warmed, that the climate hasn't changed to any significant degree. The MIT guy states that pretty plainly. I'm not sure how you could have missed it.

When I was a lad growing up in Oregon, we were shown fear-filled videos that insisted we were heading into another ice age within a few decades. Now the story is global warming. Through all of it, the temperature has remained the same, going through normal ebbs and flows. The echo chamber in the publicly-funded scientific world can shift gears on a dime, while still retaining the same arrogance and snobbery. It never ceases to amaze. Polling suggests that most people in the U.S. have taken a 'wake me up when something actually changes' approach. Most of us want to avoid pollution not because we think it causes volcanic eruptions and the north pole to boil over, but because we like clean air and less pavement and smokestacks in general. A lot of people hold to these views in spite of rude people like you rather than because of them.

Save your breath. Libtards need to hear the "popping" sound. And I'm not talking about the report of a firearm.

You can evaluate a candidate any way you want. As I say, I don't like Trump either. I do value the people, my neighbors, though who are voting for him this time. They are more significant to me than some narcissist on the internet who loves to go around insulting everyone and casting them as somehow sub-human. Even your own family members...now that is class. It's funny how the product of this supposedly enlightened scientific education is so often contempt for ones own family, the people who raised you. And for what? A warm feeling of being smarter than everyone? This is really sad. I'd say you have bigger problems than whether or not the temperature goes up another half degree in the next century.

nogerO wrote:

Tray Dub wrote:I understand not liking Hillary, but saying she's as bad as Drumpf is pretty ridiculous to me. Drumpf is a new breed of awful, the most dangerous candidate in our country's history.

Hillary is a self-serving egomaniac who will do anything or say anything to get elected. I don't think she's ever told the truth in her life. "I don't recall..." If you think the country is headed in the right direction, then by all means, vote for the fake. Just ask yourself this question- Can I vote for a person who blatantly has broken law after law after law and gotten away with it. Even now our king, er dictator, oh wait El Presidente has endorsed a candidate who is being investigated by his own FBI and his own Inspector general stopped just short of calling for her head on a plate because of the BS she pulled while secretary of state. I'll take Drumpf any day. At least he speaks what's on his mind and doesn't lie every time he opens his mouth.

maxduck wrote:

nogerO wrote:

Tray Dub wrote:I understand not liking Hillary, but saying she's as bad as Drumpf is pretty ridiculous to me. Drumpf is a new breed of awful, the most dangerous candidate in our country's history.

Hillary is a self-serving egomaniac who will do anything or say anything to get elected. I don't think she's ever told the truth in her life. "I don't recall..." If you think the country is headed in the right direction, then by all means, vote for the fake. Just ask yourself this question- Can I vote for a person who blatantly has broken law after law after law and gotten away with it. Even now our king, er dictator, oh wait El Presidente has endorsed a candidate who is being investigated by his own FBI and his own Inspector general stopped just short of calling for her head on a plate because of the BS she pulled while secretary of state. I'll take Drumpf any day. At least he speaks what's on his mind and doesn't lie every time he opens his mouth.

True, not every time. It generally it runs about 80% of his statements are incorrect.

FlDuckFan wrote:I'm not a fan of either but to say Trump doesn't lie every time he opens his mouth just means you're not paying attention. They both lie but Trump is the one who consistently contradicts himself repeatedly even during the same sentence. He speaks what's on his mind but that doesn't make the statement any better when it's racist .

oregontrack wrote:i didn't make a distinction between handgun or rifle so i'm not 100% sure where your first sentence is coming from.

but you did bring up a valid point later on. i myself have never understood why we as a nation have a mental health vs. guns mentality. it's seems pretty obvious to me that we have a gun problem and we have a mental heath problem. why is it so hard for both sides to admit that? people aren't getting proper care in this country, and access to unnecessary guns is crazy easy. seems like a pair of issues if i've ever seen 'em. i don't get why we can't try to tackle both, and neither side will budge until their cause wins out.

as for "the only way to prevent crime is to eliminate all laws", sure. that's technically true, but it's also a stupid mindset. if anyone ever says to you "ban all guns, all shootings will end" kick them in the kidney for me. the problem we have is that the left likes to use an argument similar to that, and the right throws up their hands and says, "gun restrictions won't stop all crime, so there's no point doing anything." both sides are RIDICULOUSLY stupid. there's still going to be evil people doing evil things, but consider me confused as to why one side of the aisle is so gung-ho on a do-nothing mindset. okay, okay. i know why they don't want to do anything. but still. if tighter restrictions still allow the fine folks of the NRA to sell guns, and even one mass shooting is prevented because one douche with a bad agenda can't figure out how to get his hands on something... what's the issue again