TakeYouToTasker

Honest answer? It starts with the break-up/societal disintegration of the nuclear family. Fatherless homes-> abuse or hyper feminization-> mental illness-> social isolation-> anti-depressants-> desensitization to/normalization of extreme violence coupled with dopamine hits for executing simulated violence-> radicalization in social media echo chambers.

Address my points please. This is a No True Scotsman fallacy. (a logical fallacy) You've presented an assumed point, attempted to insert it without validating through argument; and then asserted that anyone who opposes this assumed point isn't a law abiding citizen. This is not an argument. Address the points I made, and then we can continue.

https://www.businessinsider.com/clauvino-da-silva-found-dead-after-failed-prison-escape-2019-8

Because she's a child molester who wants to ***** little kids. It's not about "finding a date". It's about "she's a predator".

Tell me what you think of these realities: There are more guns in the United States than people, and the people who own the guns are overwhelmingly against everything you've proposed, as what you propose is a violation of their rights. Guns have the unique property of lending themselves to the protections of rights which others try to violate. Trying to remove guns from the hands of individuals who believe you are violating their rights by trying to take them away will lead to the largest, and ongoing, amount of gun violence in the history of the country. More than half the country would likely become felons under your proposal. The people you would be charging with confiscation and enforcement are overwhelmingly pro-Second Amendment gun owners themselves. There are many more tangential points, though I'd like you to respond to these first.

I'd like you to clarify which poor argument you're making, in order to take it apart for you. Are you arguing that the High Law of the Land is not the Constitution itself, but rather that Constitutional Lawyers are? Or is your argument that the SCOTUS is incapable of making improper, unconstitutional decisions? Or maybe it's that the extremely narrow language used in Heller is actually overly broad, and all encompassing, meaning that any bill passed by Congress and signed into law by the President intended to regulate gun ownership supersedes the Second Amendment's explicit decree "shall not be infringed"? Or perhaps your argument is that the current or future Courts cannot overturn prior rulings which run afoul of Origionalism?

This guy is tremendous. I’ve had the pleasure of interacting with him multiple times. Truly a decent man. Important edit: interacted with him OUTSIDE of a courtroom setting.

Let me preface this by saying I’m not trying to insult you: That’s an argument which appeals to illiteracy. Sentence structure is essential to understanding the meaning of the written word. Diagram the sentence you’re appealing to please.

Remember who Mika’s father is.

100% unConstitutional. Can’t be done by law. ”Shall not be infringed” Start there. Learn how to Amend the US Constitution. Then, when that’s failed, pound sand.

PsyOps: Read the tweet, then read the linked reference. This is how TDS is stoked. Intellectually lazy confirmation bias reads the headline, skips the link.

This is the type of delusional TDS honest dialogue is up against.

Amend the Constitution, and then come try to take them. You want to know what mass casualty events really look like? Start trying to criminalize certain types of guns, and trying to seize them. The GOP is representing the interests of these constituents, and upholding the Constitution. That’s their job. It’s why they were elected.

Prefacing this by saying please feel no obligation. I’m spreading this as far and wide as possible. Santana is doing very well in his recovery. Please send your continued prayers. https://www.gofundme.com/f/love-for-lucci

I don’t think it needs to be an either/or proposition. Reasonable people should be able to agree that mass shootings resulting from mental illness and online radicalization are problematic, but so to are the thousands of murders a year by violent gang members like MS-13, as well as the thousands of children sex-trafficked across our southern border.

Mass shootings are not “acts of terrorism”. Words have meanings, and it’s dishonest to attempt to massage and manipulate the meanings of words because it comports well with your personal politics. Its also absurd to attribute these crimes to a specific race, cause, or ideology; these crimes have been committed by whites, blacks, Arabs, Asians, etc. they have been committed by registered Democrats and registered Republicans. The common themes seem to be mental illness, and cultlike radicalization in social media echo-chambers.

Thank you, sir. That means the world.

Update: Santana is recovering well, and is still stable. He’s not out of the woods, but the doctors believe they have corrected the problem. Continued prayers are deeply appreciated. Thank you, all, for your concern.

Update: Santana is recovering well, and is still stable. He’s not out of the woods, but the doctors believe they have corrected the problem. Continued prayers are deeply appreciated. Thank you, all, for your concern.

You’ll notice that in addition to the usual suspects coming after the Second Amendment in the wake of tragedy, this time they’re also coming after the First Amendment. They’re doing so in a targeted way, attempting an expansion of tech censorship, seeking to silence Conservative viewpoints and discussion; most specifically targeting the outlet which helps disseminate Q related topics.

Did I really just read someone making the case that white people are racially predisposed towards violent ideologies? Please stop the Earth. I want to get off.

He is through his surgery, and is responding well so far. Too early to know much. Thank you for your continued prayers.