|
joether -> RE: Obama and Gates Created Hurrican Sandy (6/24/2014 12:12:57 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: RottenJohnny
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
You have been on this board long enough to know the 'types' that would support Alex Jone's rants: Conservatives with Guns! Since we both have seen the threads using 'prisonplanet' and 'infowars' to support a lame argument. And its a fair argument to make that many tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of conservatives hang off this guy's B.S. on a daily basis.
I wondered how long it would take you to make that claim. You don't know jack-shit about conservatives with guns other than using them as an excuse to spread the fear you always claim they're responsible for.
Here is that conspiracy nut your defending, stating it was the President and Facebook that false flagged one of those shooters that killed two police officers and one CCW Holder....
There are two groups of conservatives when it comes to firearms. I've stated it in the past: Gun Owners and Gun Nuts. Gun Owners are for the most part, sensible people, that believe responsible firearm ownership starts with the individual. That when the individual is compromised, kids obtain firearms and go on shooting sprees. Gun Owners are not the completely idiot or psychopathic individuals that 'Gun Controllers' (the political opposites of 'Gun Nuts' in my view) make them out to be. They are in favor of some reasonable firearm control measures like background checks, waiting periods, criteria that would keep certain kinds of individual from obtaining firearms (the mentally/emotionally ill, criminals, illegal immigrants, etc.)
Gun Nuts, want Americans to think they are Gun Owners (Gun Owners do not want Gun Nuts in their ranks....EVER). Gun Nuts want as free access to firearms as possible; the consequences of this 'foolish thinking' be damned! Their chief supporter, the National Rifle Association (NRA), has made it abundantly clear they are against reasonable control measures. If anyone in this nation could undermine the 2nd amendment, its the Gun Nuts. As we saw with those that shot two police officers dead (and one CCW Holder) a few weeks previous.
As I mentioned, Gun Controllers are the exact opposite of Gun Nuts, yet, Concern Citizens share many commonalities with Gun Owners. They can recognize the desire/need/want for a firearm in certain conditions, and many are good friends and relatives of Gun Owners. However, unlike Gun Owners, Concern Citizens are growing ever more worried about firearms used to injure, threaten, and kill their fellow Americans. That reasonable 'checks and balances' are not in place, thus, creating the likelihood of further mass shootings in the nation. Gun Owners nor Concern Citizens want another 'Sandy Hook'. There does exist concern conservatives that are 'Concern Citizens' and 'Gun Controllers'; just as there are those with liberal viewpoints that are 'Gun Owners'. 'Gun Nuts' that are liberal tend to be libertarian.
I believe my understanding of 'conservatives' with 'firearms' is pretty well thought on. More so than many of the posters on this forum. Since I am not writing a book here, I've kept the groups to just four, rather than many (which would be a more accurate spectrum on the topic).
I also find it funny that you focus solely on firearms as the primary issue of this thread, when the reality is Mr. Jone's 'argument' that the President Obama and Mr. Bill Gates created Hurricane Sandy and/or failed to stop it; without ever giving an ounce of actual evidence to support the argument. Imagine if we had the technical know-how to construct systems to control the weather. Texas and California would not be suffering from droughts. Nebraska would not be hit with freakish storms that produce tornados and baseball-sized hail. The East Coast would not have to worry about hurricanes; nor the Midwest all those horrible tornados. But such technology does not exist, nor the knowledge to shape powerful forces of nature on Planet Earth. Mr. Jones is an example of a person being irresponsible with power. It more 'worrying' than' humorous' that he's accusing someone that is held accountable to their words/actions, when he himself is held to none.
Where am I defending him other than in your imagination? All I did was point out that you're a hypocrite.
All you did was make a bluff, and I called you on your bullshit. And you don't have the decency to 'man up' to it. I'm not a hypocrite for desiring firearms to be in the hands of "A well regulated militia..." rather than crazy nut cakes like Alex Jones and his followers.
|
|
|
|
