Comments by "ncwordman" (@ncwordman) on "Trump Supporters PROVE How Dumb Their Talking Points Are" video.

Great point Ben Gleib made there, which I've never thought of: Random killing and torturing of animals as children is a sign that the person is mentally unstable. But when they grow to adults, then it's suddenly okay. As for hunting, if you have no access to money, or groceries stores at which you can spend that money, then maybe you need to hunt and kill an animal to survive. But then you'd need to pay for the gun and bullets. And where would you buy them, given that you supposedly don't have access to a grocery store? We are not a hunter/gatherer society anymore. We don't need to follow the elk or bison through the seasons. That's done. It's over. But, okay, sure, you want to do that, and who am I to say you can't. I'm not saying you can't. Okay? I'm saying using that lame excuse to keep the government from legislating new laws to make it harder for psychopaths to get guns...is pretty psychotic too. So if you're willing to let innocent people (or animals) die, just so psychopaths can get guns, then maybe you're a psychopath.
6
Do they have to hunt so they can eat, as in otherwise they wouldn't eat? Okay. So they can't afford to buy groceries, or don't have access to a grocery store? How can they afford to buy guns and ammunition? And what kind of guns? As others pointed out, hunting with assault weapons won't give you the meat you claim hunters need.
4
@Boe Jiden "Doesn't surprise me that" you're here trolling again.
3
@jamieparker8362 He addressed that he eats meat, and is therefore (in his words) still responsible for the deaths of those animals. So he's not a hypocrite. As for "Most hunters eat what they take while hunting": There isn't much meat left when you kill the animal with an AR-15. And what percentage is "most"? Even if half the hunters killed food to eat, because they have no other way of feeding themselves, that would leave the other half which is killing because...what? Yeehaaa, ride 'em cowboy? Still, all of that would be fine, even if killing innocent animals as children is a sign of psychosis, but somehow thought okay if done as an adult, EXCEPT the main thing we're talking about here is that such hunters make it so psychopaths can get guns easily, by fighting legislation. (Whew, long sentence.) And therefore "hunting" is just an excuse to stockpile arms, to do mass shootings, or (more likely) for people who sell guns to make a ton of money from paranoid psychopaths.
3
@rumdog117 "What is an assault weapon?" Why is that always the go-to cliche response? Seems like a distraction from the conversation: a way to deflect and get bogged down in semantics. I assure you the definition for "assault weapon" would be in the bill, when it comes time to ban them. The OP doesn't have to define it, because they aren't writing the bill.
2
@rumdog117 "I was just asking if you knew anything about guns....Also I already knew you couldn't define an assault weapon, because there is no such thing with a definition." Then you weren't "just asking." Were you? You were doing just as I said: hoping to deflect the conversation with semantics, ready to refuse whatever anyone said to you. In short, trolling. You're really obvious, dude.
2
@rumdog117 "name calling" I didn't call you any names. I said you were trolling, which you are obviously doing. You said you were just asking questions. Just innocent questions, right? Wrong. You said there was no definition. So if someone gave you a definition, you'd reject it. If they didn't give you a definition, you'd claim they didn't know what they were talking about, just as you did for me here: "So you don't know what you want to ban, you don't know who will decide what you want banned, but in order to do something about a subject that you know nothing about, you are certainly for someone doing it." That's what trolling is. And now you want to spin it some more, to drag along our conversation, and stall any real conversation. You're obvious. And I'm muting you.
2
@jamieparker8362 Thank you. :)
2
How many is "most"?
1
"retard" Ad hominem. You lost all credibility right there. You wrote another comment about hunting with your children. But didn't mention your children at all here. And it seems odd to me that a responsible parent, who hunts with their daughter (as you claimed), should end their post with "LOL" in all caps, followed by 5 emojis.
1
@bigpappa642 "Aww poor thing. But my kids are well rounded and educated my oldest has won a Selver Star and Purple Herat in service to this Country and you!" That's great. Good for you. Now what about the people aren't responsible, who are in fact psychopaths? Can we not do something about them having easy access to guns? That's the main point here.
1
How many is "most"? Even if half the hunters eat what they kill, that leaves the other half who doesn't. And do those "hunters" need to hunt to eat? Can they not afford the grocery store, but they can afford guns and ammo? And, what's most important, is that percentage of responsible hunters who fight against gun legislation; not all do, but some do. "Hunting" really then becomes an excuse to have guns, and kill things. Which, again, is...whatever. But allowing psychopaths to have easy-as-pie access to guns, so some know-nothing bozo can shoot prairie dogs with his AR-15 is--itself--psychopathic.
1
@jamieparker8362 "He is a hypocrite, complaining about hunters while eating meat that is farmed." I said the he spoke to this. Granted my post was rather lengthy. Did you miss that part? And he admitted he was still responsible for the deaths of those animals. That's not the kind of thing a hypocrite says. But, by calling him a hypocrite, you can dismiss his point. Right? Which is odd, because you seem to agree with his point. "99% of the people that I know that hunt eat the game they hunt. We were raised that if you are killing an animal for sport, you are not a hunter but just a killer." True, just a killer. As for 99%, do you mean "most or some," or have you calculated the statistics? (Sorry, pet peeve of mine.) "...of the people I know." Anecdotal evidence then. What about the people you don't know? And do the people you know NEED the meat to survive? Would they have nothing to eat any other way? One thing about this video, the guy doing it opened a whole other can of worms by bringing up hunting. The conversation about gun legislation gets splintered enough with gems like, "Guns don't kill people." But now he got the hunters riled up. The main point here is that "hunting" is used as an excuse for no gun legislation.
1
Not much edible meat left when shot with an AR-15.
1