Patriots Local News:

SOURCE:Yahoo! Sports


SOURCE:Patriots.com


SOURCE:Yahoo! Sports


SOURCE:Yahoo! Sports


SOURCE:Providence Journal


SOURCE:NESN


SOURCE:NESN


SOURCE:Boston.com


SOURCE:WEEI


SOURCE:WEEI


SOURCE:Tom Brady w/Jim Gray


SOURCE:Tom Brady w/Jim Gray


SOURCE:Boston Sports Journal


SOURCE:Boston.com


SOURCE:ProFootballTalk.com


SOURCE:NESN


SOURCE:NESN


SOURCE:USA TODAY


SOURCE:CBS Boston


SOURCE:Patriots.com


SOURCE:NFL.com


SOURCE:WEEI


SOURCE:NESN


SOURCE:NESN


SOURCE:Yahoo! Sports

Patsfans.com


Upcoming Opponent:
Next Up: Steelers
Sun
Dec 16th
Right Now At PatsFans.com:
Shocking Ending
Sunday's loss in Miami was shocking and will likely have the Patriots doing some second-guessing this week.


Current Patriots Twitter Feed:

OT: Shooting at Madden Tournament in Jacksonville

Discussion in 'The PatsFans.com Pub' started by Joey007, Aug 26, 2018.

  1. AndyJohnson

    AndyJohnson PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    43,804
    Likes Received:
    4,407
    Ratings:
    +25,164
    Why don’t you explain to me why people take driving tests. Then you can tell me if you think there should be gun ownership tests and what you think they should entail.
     

  2. AndyJohnson

    AndyJohnson PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    43,804
    Likes Received:
    4,407
    Ratings:
    +25,164
    Everything I said is accurate.

    I did.
    Your argument is flawed because you are arguing a lack of evidence can prove a point while saying your point, lacking evidence is correct.

    I would consider your failure to be a waste of time too if I were you.
     
  3. AndyJohnson

    AndyJohnson PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    43,804
    Likes Received:
    4,407
    Ratings:
    +25,164
    Please show me where I said you are talking out your ass.

    You are acting like a child. That’s not a personal insult, it is describing your behavior. The “I’m not going to answer the question and pretend I did” approach. How is that NOT childish?

    Note I am the one trying to discuss the topic and you are the one saying a question is an answer.
     
  4. JackBauer

    JackBauer Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    24,706
    Likes Received:
    1,261
    Ratings:
    +6,413
    For the last time: no.

    What I’ve argued (actually argued, not your distortions thereof) is that adapting behavior based on a near-zero probability event for which there is no evidence of intent is stupid, and only stupid people would do such a thing, or argue in defense of it.

    By your logic, the people who argue that Hillary had Seth Rich killed are not only reasonable, but MORE reasonable than people who bought guns and ammunition because they thought Obama was going to take theirs away. Of course, when your prime directive is simply to argue without regard to logic or sense this is often where you end up.
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  5. AndyJohnson

    AndyJohnson PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    43,804
    Likes Received:
    4,407
    Ratings:
    +25,164
    That would have been a good argument but it doesn’t fit the facts because there is no evidence to support your belief either.

    That’s the point.
    People who say if Obama was allowed to go unchecked they believe he would take away their guns are not fools because you think I’d that opportunity presented itself he wouldn’t.
    It’s an opinion and yours is no better than theirs because he has never had that opportunity. Unless you are him you do not know what he would do with that opportunity.

    Your arrogance is that since you think he wouldn’t anyone who feels differently is foolish.

    You are calling people foolish for forming an opinion without facts while you are doing the exact same thing.
    You literally have no fact to dispute the belief that if Obama had the opportunity to do so with no fight back that he would ban guns. He has y had that opportunity.
    Other countries have done so, so a gun advocate would be correct to worry it’s possible and there is nothing that proves Obama would fight against that idea.

    It’s really pretty simple.

    Near zero probability is your, heavily biased, opinion that many disagree with.
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2018
  6. JackBauer

    JackBauer Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    24,706
    Likes Received:
    1,261
    Ratings:
    +6,413
    You repeating back your inaccurate version of my argument was superfluous and unnecessary. I’m aware of what you think I’m arguing.

    Apparently you believe that any belief is legitimate even if there is no evidence to support it. And I love how you dismiss the opportunity dimension of my argument as if it was ancillary rather than fundamental to my reasoning.

    Again:

    There was no evidence Obama wanted to ban guns
    Even if he did, he wouldn’t have been able to do it

    That’s really all there is to it. Your position is an absurd one akin to Cheney’s One Percent Doctrine. You have no evidence Hillary wasn’t involved in Seth Rich’s murder and unlike Obama, she would’ve had the opportunity. Ergo, by your logic, it’s a reasonable position. But good luck finding any reasonable person who would agree with you.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  7. AndyJohnson

    AndyJohnson PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    43,804
    Likes Received:
    4,407
    Ratings:
    +25,164
    I’m sure you weren’t trying to put forth an ignorant argument but you nonetheless did.
    And it continues.
    Where is the proof that the opinion of what an unchecked Obama would do is foolish? You are calling opinions foolish because they have no proof yet your opinion has none either.

    There was no evidence he didn’t want to.
    The lack of opportunity proves neither point can be confirmed which is EXACTLY my point

    That isn’t even close to similar.
    You are trying to say your opinion is fact and anyone who disagrees with you is folly and your opinion is equivalent to evidence in a murder trial.
    That could be the dumbest thing you have said yet.[/quote]
     
  8. JackBauer

    JackBauer Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    24,706
    Likes Received:
    1,261
    Ratings:
    +6,413
    Um, because Obama was checked and there was no chance whatsoever that he was ever going to be unchecked. You know, in the reality we all (or most of us, anyway) live in. Ergo, it's foolish. There's also no evidence to support the notion that he'd do what you claim if unchecked. Ergo, doubly foolish.

    My opinion does have proof. The fact that you find it inconvenient is immaterial.

    There's more evidence that he didn't want to than there was that he did (none).

    On the contrary, the lack of opportunity proves my point.

    No, I'm saying that my opinion is supported by the evidence while yours is not. Quite simple.

    Your argument is that opinions based on no evidence are reasonable as long as there's a non-zero chance they could be true, or occur. The rest of your statement re: Seth Rich is nonsensical, which really you should know considering his murder is unsolved and therefore there is no murder trial in which to present evidence.
     
  9. PP2

    PP2 Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    8,627
    Likes Received:
    2,218
    Ratings:
    +8,609
    Very simple- to determine if they're competent enough to drive.

    The same thing can be done to determine if a person is competent enough to own a gun.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. PP2

    PP2 Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    8,627
    Likes Received:
    2,218
    Ratings:
    +8,609
    This is just to show you that you function on a double standard. You don't think you are insulting me, yet you are whining to Jack Bauer about insults. Your insistence that I'm acting like a child is just sidetracking from the subject at hand. We are at this point, long past discussing gun control and getting lost in the rabbit hole of technicalities which has been your MO from day one.

    You can backtrack to find out where you were insinuating that I was talking out of my ass.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. AndyJohnson

    AndyJohnson PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    43,804
    Likes Received:
    4,407
    Ratings:
    +25,164
    That has absolutely zero to do with whether he wants to take guns away.
    In the real world there is resistance to the idea. Take away the resistance and you create the opportunity.
    You are arguing those that support guns rights and wee concerned that if they did not fight Obama could try to take away their guns is foolish. That is wrong.

    Not a scintilla of it.


    Wrong again. You can’t deyermine what he would do given that opportunity when the opportunity does not exist.
    Same as the Canada analogy. If we chose to make ourselves defenseless would Canada attack? There is simply no evidence to make that determination because that situation has not existed. You can have an opinion but no ones opinion is foolish because there are no facts to dispute it.



    No. You have no facts and my argument is you have no facts.
    My argument is solely that you are full of crap making claims you cannot back up and arrogantly spewing that anyone who does t share your liberal slant is wrong no matter what the say.

    That is not my argument. In fact my argument is the EXACT opposite.
    YOUR opinion, the one that calls people with a differing opinion foolish, is the unreasonable non-zero argument. You have no facts whatsoever to back it up. You know no better than anyone else whether Obama would, given the opportunity, take away guns. You argue that since he didn’t take away guns when he couldn’t that non-zero proposition is proof he wouldn’t if given the chance and anyone concerned that he would is foolish.

    You are literally making an argument against your own point of view and you are so self-absorbed you don’t even know it.

    Time to move on.
     
  12. AndyJohnson

    AndyJohnson PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    43,804
    Likes Received:
    4,407
    Ratings:
    +25,164
    No you are acting like a child.

    So you know I didn’t say it, gotcha.
     
  13. AndyJohnson

    AndyJohnson PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    43,804
    Likes Received:
    4,407
    Ratings:
    +25,164
    Was that so difficult?
    Couldn’t you say that 50 posts ago? It was your opinion, not mine.

    Ok so that opens up the issues, which as I have said I do not really have a side.

    If gun ownership is a constitutional right do you feel confortabke giving a test for a right?
    What about abuse? What about the deeper intent of the second amendment, allowing citizen to arm to prevent a racist, militaristic takeover of the government. Couldn’t that facilitate abusing the testing protocol?
    We have already deemed voter tests unconstitutional why would this right be different?

    Obviously there is the just stop murder argument in the other side, which I am swayed by, but from a constitutional basis and preservation of right I see imposition on those rights in a testing procedure. And as with every law in this country the opportunity of the government to control citizens with it has to be a concern
     
  14. JackBauer

    JackBauer Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    24,706
    Likes Received:
    1,261
    Ratings:
    +6,413
    Of course it does. The fact that he can’t take guns away means his non-existent desire to do so is largely irrelevant.

    Can’t take away the resistance. That’s, uh, kind of he point.

    Nope. I’m arguing that those who hoarded guns and ammo on the belief that Obama was going to take them away were foolish because it wasn’t going to happen.

    You can make all the assertions you want, but they matter not a whit if you’re wrong, which you are.

    You can determine though that the opportunity would never exist.

    Not all opinions are created equal, and there’s vastly more evidence to support the opinion that Canada wouldn’t attack than there is to support the opinion that they would. Therefore, as far as evidentiary basis is concerned, the former is “worth” significantly more than the latter.

    Not true, no matter how many times you insist on repeating yourself.

    Good for you?

    Now you’re just repeating yourself with another gish gallop of unadulterated nonsense.

    My argument is a high probability assertion that ended up being true. Your argument is a low probability assertion that ended up being false.

    Please do. Your “contributions” won’t be missed.
     
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  15. PP2

    PP2 Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    8,627
    Likes Received:
    2,218
    Ratings:
    +8,609
    You claim that you are not insulting me when you describe me as acting like a child because you think it is a fact.

    But when Jack Bauer states a fact, you think he is insulting you.

    For example, he said that your username is used as a verb on the main board. And your response was this:

    Yet, he IS telling the truth. He is stating a fact. Your username IS used as a verb on the main board. For example here:
    You don't see it because I think you have that poster on ignore. It's not one, not two, but plenty of posters who understand what that means.

    You can't have it both ways. That is a double standard. Jack Bauer was simply stating a fact and you are accusing him of insulting you.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2018
  16. PP2

    PP2 Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    8,627
    Likes Received:
    2,218
    Ratings:
    +8,609
    You are just dragging this off into another direction, trying to go down another rabbit hole as usual.

    A competency test for gun ownership is not my opinion. It has been proven to work in countries like Japan.

    No competency test is perfect. It will not stop anyone from taking a gun any more than a mandatory driving test stops a unlicensed individual from driving a car. But it has its uses and is beneficial in its own way, because we continue to administrate driving tests.

    That, along with mandatory nationwide background check that includes mental health evaluations, and a little common sense, such as outlawing bump stocks and the AR-15 will go a long way.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  17. AndyJohnson

    AndyJohnson PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    43,804
    Likes Received:
    4,407
    Ratings:
    +25,164
    No. I am discussing the merits or detriments of a test system.

    It’s the issue you raised for discussion.

    Depending upon the nature of the test, there is no disputing it would have positive effects. But there are also issues, particularly constitutional ones that it creates as well.

    Again those things open up rights issues.
    Do the rights being usurped not matter because of your personal feelings about the value of those rights?
    If it were voting rights and we required a mental health examination would that be ok?
    Of course mental health evaluations to qualify for rights given in the constitution seem like an unconstitutional impairment to the right, and can be extremely subjective.
    Is the right afforded in the second amendment a right that we have no issue trampling on?

    These are the issues.
    Are comfortable limiting or taking away constitutional rights in the name of disagreeing with the right? It opens up a lot of questions. Castrate child molestors? Require an IQ test to vote? Abolish religions that are contrary to mainstream beliefs?
    It’s a Pandora’s box if you look at it from that angle.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  18. AndyJohnson

    AndyJohnson PatsFans.com Veteran PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    43,804
    Likes Received:
    4,407
    Ratings:
    +25,164
    If you can’t see the difference it’s really not worth my time.
     
  19. Actual Pats Fan

    Actual Pats Fan PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    May 26, 2016
    Messages:
    5,596
    Likes Received:
    1,437
    Ratings:
    +4,566
    That's a compliment.

    Right?
     
  20. PP2

    PP2 Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2012
    Messages:
    8,627
    Likes Received:
    2,218
    Ratings:
    +8,609
    You are trying to turn this into a philosophical question, and complicate this debate every which way. The premise is fairly simple. A gun is a dangerous weapon so it makes sense to have a competency and mental health fitness test before issuing ownership.

    The constitutional issue is bullshit.

    We are not talking about molesters, we are not talking about religion, we are talking about gun rights. Stop changing the subject.

    There are a number of basic, common sense things that we can do such as banning bump stocks and the AR-15. Both are absolutely useless in ANY endeavor except mass murder.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1

Share This Page

Search For Links: - CLOSE
For searches with multiple players
add commas (Ex: "Brady, Gronkowski")