Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Hunters Rights Forum' started by pintail21, Jun 28, 2003.
I can always count on you for a laugh, Tom*. It's just that sometimes I wish there were more.
DGH, have you ever hunted a day in your life? I have never heard anything concerning hunting from you. It is always hate and discontent and the DEMS ARE GOOD AND REPS are bad. The same old song and dance. I am beginning to suspect that you have alterior motives...
Suspect away, my boy....I just don't buy into the NRA's bullsh*t. This has nothing to do with Dems vs. Reps and instead has to do with discerning reality from myth using a bit of common sense. It's frustrating for people who are trained to follow blindly without thinking things through for themselves to listen to me, I am sure. But, as mentioned, suspect whatever you like. I think, too, that if you don't like reading my posts...don't. It's your choice.
If anyone believes that the senators that I mentioned are not ultimately targeting ALL firearms, then I do believe that those folks have their head in the sand. I really don't care what they say publicly.
So what you are really saying is that you will believe whatever you want to believe no matter what the reality might look like? Then you accuse someone else of sticking their head in the sand? That's as rich as it gets.
Prove what you say is true. Prove these senators have this agenda. Or better yet, tell me how you can believe something that you have absolutely zero factual evidence to support? Tell me how that makes any kind of sense at all.
Fact is the idea is so politically unpopular, none of these senators (or any other) would ever propose doing it, then, now or in the future. Fact is, they don't want to. And that's a fact. Again, if it is otherwise, it should be simple show it.
Why do any of you bother to debate DGH on gun control? The only "facts" he cites to support his contentions are his own opinions, but he always demands everyone else show him hard evidence.
Cue DGH for insult laden reply.
Yep we know, Penns
To quote a wise American Poet
Friends say he's tryin too hard
and he's not Quite Hip
But in his own mind, he's The, He's The Dopeist Trip!
Just in case it comes up in the future
You are a smart enough guy, PW, to know how a civilized debate works. Someone else made a statement that, so far, and in the absense of proof, meets the definition on an opinion.
I challenged that opinion by requesting some objectively verifiable proof to substantiate that opinion. Since I am not very good at disproving negatives, the person making the statement challenged as an incorrectly held opinion has the burden to prove it otherwise. The burden of proof does not rest with those who claim that the left has no agenda to remove from us our hunting guns, it rests with those who claim that they do. If someone makes the argument, "such and such is the case," and a second person comes along and says, "there is no proof that such and such is the case, therefore it is reasonable to assume, until evidence shows otherwise, that such and such is not the case," it's unreasonable for the first person to respond with, "where is your proof that such and such is not the case?" without first presenting evidence to support the prior claim...in which case the exchange is over.
This has, miraculously, been the NRA's position all along: "There are unicorns." But we have seen no convincing evidence of unicorns, therefore it is reasonable to assume that unicorns do not exist. To respond with the argument: "Oh, well, excuse me, but where is your proof that unicorns do not exist?" is nonsense. I am asking for something more than ambiguous hoofprints, droppings, and unidentified rustlings in the forest as 'proof' of unicorns.
I do not see it yet. The issue is an outright ban on hunting shotguns and rifles. Something tangible. A single fact.