Comments by "Charles Eye" (@TheCharleseye) on "Wanting Gun Control Instead Of Prayer Is 'Lining Up With Terrorists'" video.

+tetapunui Military killing machines? Really? I love it when people who know nothing about a topic insist on speaking with self-proclaimed authority on said topic. This mindset would be adorable if it wasn't so toxic. Come back when you can tell me the difference in lethality between an AR15, a Ruger Ranch Rifle and a Mossberg 500. The truth might just shock you.
1
+Elite 1984 A) I never commented about military vs civilian guns. In fact, I didn't even list any military guns B) I never said anything about knowing the difference between ARs, bolt guns and shotguns. I spoke of the lethality of the three I listed. Furthermore, I didn't list any "bolt guns." A Ruger Ranch Rifle is semiautomatic. C) You're wrong. When making claims about which guns to ban and which ones to keep, a working knowledge of firearms is extremely important. Otherwise you just come off as some kind of an idiot who wants to ban things based on looks instead of capabilities. Especially if you want to ban a type of rifle that is neither more lethal, nor more used for crime than another.
1
+Elite 1984 Now you're simply putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about whether he was allowed to have an opinion about violence. I called him out on his BS statement about "military killing machines you can buy from a gun show stall in America." It's a false statement unless he's talking about current military grade handguns or antique surplus rifles, which are the only kinds of military weapons we can buy. Given the fact that nobody has ever mentioned having a problem with 1911s, Sig Sauers, etc or Mosin Nagants, SKSs, etc, I have to assume that he's one of the masses of uninformed media slaves who thinks guns like the AR15 are military firearms. They're wrong. The military has never and will never issue AR15s to any of their service men or women. Furthermore, civilians do not have access to the M4s, M16s, etc that the military uses.
1
+Elite 1984 And the fact that you imply that without select fire an AR15 is anything more than a neutered rifle, not fit for anything more than personal defense (since it fires a sub-par round for effectively taking any large game consistently) is just as laughable. It's just a home defense rifle and people are losing their minds over it. My .308, 30-30 and 12 gauge are devastating firearms. My .223 is an afternoon of fun at the range and an effective way to stop a threat without too much over penetration. It's no more effective in a mass shooting scenario than a pistol carbine or even a couple of handguns. That's just a fact. Now, for the last time, I don't give a damn about his political views or his ability to voice them. I never questioned his political views or mentioned them in any way. I called him out on a BS statement because I can't stand people who talk about things they don't understand. To clarify, that would be the guns themselves. Not the violence. Not the politics. The guns. I can't possibly make myself any clearer on this point so if you still don't get it, that's your problem.
1
+Elite 1984 Are you friggin kidding me? How are you not getting this yet? HIS VIEWS ABOUT THE GUNS THEMSELVES ARE TOXIC! THE FACT THAT SO MANY IDIOTS KEEP IMPLYING THAT THESE CIVILIAN RIFLES ARE SOMEHOW MORE DEADLY THAN OTHER CIVILIAN RIFLES IS TOXIC! THE IDIOCY SURROUNDING THE IDEA THAT GETTING RID OF CERTAIN RIFLES BASED ON COSMETICS WILL SOMEHOW SOLVE ANYTHING IS TOXIC! How is this not obvious to you? You seem otherwise intelligent, yet you keep letting my point go right over your head.
1
+Elite 1984 Whatever you need to tell yourself to feel justified in your little tirade. There are these really cool things in the English language called inference and implication. You might want to study up on them. Knowing what they are and learning to recognize them is the difference between understanding what someone is saying beyond their written/spoken words and having to take everything at face value. I'm just kidding. I'm quite sure that you know full well what the underlying implications of his statement are and you're just looking for an excuse to give me a hard time. You found a tiny bone to pick and gave it your best shot. In other words, you're no better than I. Way to raise the bar...
1
+Elite 1984 There's no back pedalling to it. I do know what I said. I do know what I meant. I explained clearly what I meant, repeatedly. You're the one who is still having a hard time understanding. You tried to claim I was attempting to nullify his general opinions by countering a specific absurdity he made about firearms availability in the US. You ignore the fact that I haven't made a single claim against anything else he said. You don't like the fact that your argument makes no sense, so you're (yet again) trying to claim that I meant something other than what I said and meant. I'm sorry if everyone who has knowledge about firearms doesn't fit nicely into your little narrative but that's life, bud. But please, feel free to continue to misinterpret my clearly written statements. It is your right to be as ignorant as you want to be. Some children find it helpful to put their fingers in their ears and sing "LALALALALA" to avoid hearing things they don't like. This obviously won't work for a text based conversation but I suppose you could just close your eyes really tight and stomp your feet. That will sure show me.
1
+Elite 1984 You could have saved yourself a lot of keystrokes by just saying "Nuh uh, that's you!" Using more words doesn't make it a better argument. You're wrong. Deal with it and move on. You're not helping yourself by continuing to argue because you're still arguing against a position I never took. Rather than accepting that and moving on, you feel the need to try to convince me that I meant something that I didn't. This tactic is never going to work. If you're not going to leave it alone, you could at least try to argue against my actual statement. Otherwise you really are just arguing against your own misperceptions. A person's positions and statements don't change just because you want them to. You're not nearly that important. Now, do you have anything to say that doesn't involve you claiming you know my motives better than I do?
1
+Elite 1984 So....you DON'T have anything to say other than to try to argue against statements I never made. Fine. Every comment I've made is still here. If I said something having to do with something other than his statement about the guns themselves, feel free to point it out. If not, you don't have an argument. It's really that simple. No more vague claims or double speak. Quote me. Post exactly what I said that speaks to anything other than his ignorance of firearms or firearms ignorance at large. Just think, if you can do so then you "win" or whatever.
1
+Elite 1984 To the first part: How is it so hard for you to realize that I wasn't "trying" to disregard the rest of his statement? I didn't comment on anything else he said because I don't take issue with anything else he said. Is that really so hard for you to wrap your head around? Are you really so polarized that you can't possibly comprehend that there are people in the world who aren't definitively "Left" or "Right" on every, single sentence spoken in this world? To the second part: You're cherry-picking and you know it. Troll harder. Now, if you don't have a point of your own to make, I don't see how this conversation has anywhere to go. The really funny part is that you obviously have way more interest in discrediting me than he does and he's the one I called out. Are you his mother or something? I've got news for you lady; if you don't want your kid getting picked on, you shouldn't let him play on the Internet...or anywhere public.
1
+Elite 1984 This isn't a disagreement. I made a statement. You completely misunderstood that statement. You've been humping my leg about it ever since. It's really that simple. Make all of the claims in the world and it doesn't change. But please, keep wasting your time trying to prove your point. The sheer number of keystrokes you've wasted at this point makes the whole thing hilarious at this point. Please, type up ten more paragraphs about how my statement about guns wasn't REALLY about guns. Tell me more about my political views because clearly you know me better than anyone on earth, including myself. In fact, I'll bet you could even tell me who I'm voting for in the next election, since you're such an expert on all that is Charles. Come on, let's see your next novel. I'll bet it'll be just as funny as all the rest.
1
+Elite 1984 Come on, can't you do better than that? You essentially just repeated your previous drivel. Are you getting tired or just out of new ways to say, "You may have said one thing but you really meant something completely different and I'm right because...um....reasons"? Come on, you can do it. Well, probably not, since you don't actually have an argument but it's not like you've let that stop you so far. Tell me more about the things I never said, hero.
1
+Elite 1984 Except that I said A and openly admit to saying A. You claim I said B and have yet to provide any evidence of me saying B, so you resort to trying to claim that I meant B when I said A. I don't blame you. You're far from the first person to try to change the argument when they don't have any ground to stand on. Nor are you the first to resort to weak insults as a defense mechanism. It's okay, you don't have to keep trying. Everyone reading this knows you've got nothing.
1
+Elite 1984 Holy cow. You really are simple, aren't you? Okay, one more time. Slowly. - I called him out on his ignorance of GUNS, not gun violence because I disagreed with his statement about GUNS. - FOR THE RECORD (again): I do not take issue with ANY other claim in his comment. How many times have I reiterated this? I AGREE with every other statement in his comment. - His views on GUNS are toxic. I said it because it's true. It's the same garbage that every other unaware person is spewing about these rifles and it is false. It's a fear tactic used to make the general public fear these guns more by making people think they are capable of more than they are. I don't care what the topic of conversation is. When people attempt to perpetuate this misinformation, I'm GOING to call them on it. That's right, you've done absolutely nothing to stop me from doing so. - Your case is closed because you never had one. You came here looking for a fight so you did your best to twist my statement because when you tried to counter my initial and ACTUAL claim, I made quick work of you. You clearly don't like being wrong so you made up an argument about my intent because you can't technically lose an argument where neither side can provide a source link. All you have is your ability to claim I'm lying. That's it. Nothing more. The problem is that your claim that I'm lying is no more valid than my claim that I'm not and since your claim is the accusation, the burden of proof (not opinion, PROOF) lies with you. You didn't pick a winnable fight. You picked a stalemate at best. I would strongly recommend petitioning your school to start a debate team. You desperately need the practice. "Nuh uh, you meant something else" is a terrible argument no matter how many times and different ways you say it.
1
+Elite 1984 That is exactly the closing argument I expected.
1
Wait, let me word that properly for you: "The NRA is stopping the Federal Government from taking Rights away from thousands of people who the FBI has never even CHARGED with a crime, let alone got a conviction. Nobody currently on the terrorist watchlist has ever carried out an attack, yet a couple who wasn't on the list did." So, let me see if I can understand. You folks want to ban a specific type of rifle that is responsible for less than 1% of all gun crime in the US. Ban magazines that, again, are used in less than 1% of gun crime. And take Rights away from American citizens without due process, because someone at the FBI decided to put their name on a list. Yeah, that's insane. Please stop with the emotional, knee-jerk reactions. A quick question: Can anyone tell me what the process is for getting put on the watchlist? I'd love to know because the FBI sure is playing that one close to the vest. Do you have to be directly involved with terrorism? Do you have to be friends with someone who is involved with terrorism? Do you have to have spoken to someone who is involved with terrorism? What is the minimum requirement? By the way, if you honestly feel that the 20,000 people on the list are a real threat, WHY AREN'T YOU MAD THAT THE FBI IS ALLOWING 20,000 DANGEROUS PEOPLE TO WALK THE STREETS?! If they're that bad, why do they have access to the public? Why can they buy everything they need to build explosives and also be allowed access to schools, malls etc? You're mad that they have access to guns? If they're really terrorists then I'M mad that they have free access to my children's school!
1