A firearm question for you LeftiesFollow

Quiet, you. Gbaji needs this.

Edit: Seriously? Firefox had "quirt" as a word?

Edited, Jan 11th 2013 5:19pm by Jophiel

The NRA also suggested a national database of all people with mental illness (but vehemently opposes any attempts of the same for gun registry, because that's just a danger waiting to happen). And also blamed over the top games like Bulletstorm for the gun violence. Because a game focusing on futuristic space androids, fighting off a planet filled with mutants, and using over-the-top weapons to kill an evil army commander is very realistic. Really he just said that game cause the name was... BULLETSTORM! and people would react to the name alone.

Yeah, I already looked it up. But for the number of more "normal" words I've put in and had FF red-flag, I wouldn't have expected to get burned on "quirt"

I'll admit that Bulletstorm made me want to punch someone. Like the guy who made "Bulletstorm". Man, that game sucked.

Edited, Jan 11th 2013 5:34pm by Jophiel

That would not be a backpedal though. That would be a completely bizarre interpretation of what was written. I don't think Joph was saying that it wasn't idiot pundits saying this, but was *instead* the NRA saying this. I think he was saying it was *also* the NRA saying this.

I'm assuming that Joph viewed my statement that there's nothing wrong with the NRA recommending armed guards at schools, but just not as a means to prevent mass shootings, as a backpedal from my earlier statement about those idiot conservative pundits recommending armed guards at schools. But since my original statement about idiot conservatives also included the caveat about preventing mass shootings, it's not really a backpedal at all. Both statements were consistent.

Since I don't know at all the context of the alleged NRA statements Joph is talking about, I can't say if theirs *also* are being made for the same stupid reasons. But if they are, then they are also stupid. Not sure what the problem is here. I don't think that armed guards at schools is a good solution to the problem of mass shootings. Period. Doesn't matter if some pundit says it., or the NRA, or the voices in your head. It's a poor solution to the problem.

Trust me. I don't know what discussion you're talking about, but I'm 99.999999% positive I didn't abandon it out of a fear that someone might accuse me of backpedaling.

#1 google result for "law abiding citizen".

Put very simply, and I'm sure Gbaji will scramble to insist this wasn't the case, Gbaji tried to imply that "Armed guards in every school!" was some marginalized and minority opinion from a couple "idiot pundits".

In reality, it's a majority opinion among the pro-gun sect. One being promoted by one of the largest and most powerful lobbying organizations in the country. It's not some fringe idea or concept held by "idiots", it's what a whole lot of people promote. In fact, when the NRA announced it, they tried to get ahead of the blowback with the usual ham-handed conservative remarks of "Oh, I know the media will say..." but then offered a full-throated defense of the idea including details about including armed volunteers and retired law-enforcement and military in every school. This is their plan.

Gbaji almost certainly had no idea of this which is why he implied it was some fringe concept. Upon learning that the NRA is promoting it, he's trying to reframe it. That's fine but the initial posts speak for themselves.

I don't know, I personally think he absolutely loves playing devil's advocate therefor he does it with anything regardless what it may be. He uses the wall-o-text in an attempt to hide that he doesn't know what he is talking about and as a way to confuse posters from figuring out what he is saying. Unfortunately for him, most of us can see through the smoke screen and catch him when he messes up. Is he a republican? Probably. Does he truly believe half of what he posts? I doubt it.

Remember there wouldn't be quite as much discussion in the Asylum if everyone was agreeing with each other on subjects. Gbaji decided to take up that burden of being the voice of argument. I just wish he wasn't so wrapped up in the concept of being so anti-everything and tries to meet us in the middle.

I think Alma is much more devils advocate then Gbaji.

He has tens of thousands of posts. I think it's a bit past the 'benefit of the doubt' stage.

I dunno, I've seen Alma agree with people before, even if he often makes no sense in the process. I don't think I've ever seen Gbaji agree with anyone about anything, even Alma.

Don't blame me for your lack of understanding. The problem, especially in this site, is that people want one sentence answers and many times one or two sentences isn't long enough to express a coherent and logical position. When presented a long thought out post, it is ignored or skimmed at best. Then people become confused.

However, when presented something concise and to the point, instead of assuming the logical connections, the most ignorant straw-man theories are assumed. So, either way I lose. So, I decided to try to keep my posts short in the belief that it will at least be read. Then I simply attack the ignorant straw-man assumptions as they come along. The downfall with that is, the conversation often goes into tangents in which I take the blame for.

If you have any question on any of my positions, just ask. I have given a position on every topic discussed. I was going to make a comprehensive list of my positions, but I fear that will just derail the topic.