Criticizing a President for excessive use of executive orders is not the same as criticizing him for leading. I hope this fact is obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence, regardless of political opinions.Rhazakna
[QUOTE="Netherscourge"]Not to mention the fact that that almost everyone on that channel looked depressed and on suicide watch the night of the election when it was clear Romney had no chance of winning.FreddyJeffery
On TV, not on the FOx news site, and that's because having people of REp and DEM views are the only ones taken seriously on TV. Plenty of articles of different views on the election on the website which you guys ignored so you can claim Fox news is biased.
Let's put it in a way you can understand (or rationalize). You are Fox News and the rest of the Gamespot users are the "Lamestream Media". Comprendes?
Okay, then explain to me why it's reasonable to ban AR-15s and their aesthetic components.
A weapon is going to be deadly regardless of what kind of magazine is inside of it. That's why it's pointless to worry about the magazine size.
WhiteKnight77
As I said I don't f*cking care. Just telling you your argument is subjective and law makers have precedent on their side. If you took that argument to court you'd get laughed out. It's bad. Make up a new one. Is it subjective that more murders and firearms accidents happen with handguns compared to rifles of any sort?
That is true, but it is also equally true that most massacres are not caused by handguns but rather automatic weapons.
I'm an advocate for gun ownership, but why would you have need for a semi-automatic rifle?
airshocker
To shoot it...? That's what a rifle is for.
I thought that was what a pistol was for. Weird. Are you telling me that you can shoot with both!?
That makes them interchangeable (in your logic). Thus, whenever you want to complain about not having the right to own an assault weapon, go and buy a basic pistol. They both shoot. Thererfore they are the same (in your twisted logic).
The shooting was a tragedy. There is no doubting that.
Were guns involved? Yes.
Are they an issue that needs to be dealt with? Of course.
Will trying to one-up each other on the issue by exploiting past and present occurences solve anything? No. It only causes each side to further cement their flawed and incomplete views on a subject instead of allowing them to come to a concensus.
WiiCubeM1
I know that. I was satirizing the previous thread.
This goes for the pro-gun side too. Guns are legal, accidents happen. Guns are banned, accidents still happen, and not just with guns too. The world is spinning, people die, people do stupid things, people have their moments of glory or stupidity, etc, etc.
dave123321
I recognize that. I was just pointing out how easy it is to find cases online that use pathos to support a person's point. Through satirizing the previous thread, I was also pointing out the hypocrisy in some of the members reactions. I personally, believe that assault weapons should be banned,background checks should be comprehensive, and the "gun show loophole" should be closed. I do believe guns are a right, but I believe that it is a limited right.
False flag
*ding ding* we have a winner! (or somebody who actually pays attention to gamespot threads...)
This goes for the pro-gun side too. Guns are legal, accidents happen. Guns are banned, accidents still happen, and not just with guns too. The world is spinning, people die, people do stupid things, people have their moments of glory or stupidity, etc, etc.
leviathan91
I recognize that. I was just pointing out how easy it is to find cases online that use pathos to support a person's point. Through satirizing the previous thread, I was also pointing out the hypocrisy in some of the members reactions. I personally, believe that assault weapons should be banned,background checks should be comprehensive, and the "gun show loophole" should be closed. I do believe guns are a right, but I believe that it is a limited right.
Log in to comment