LA Grant

Because the links are almost always to memes and incredibly dubious sources? That's worth ridiculing.

You & LAz doing the "la la la I can't heaaaaaaar you" bit would be farce if it weren't tragedy. Gotta say, it's pretty crazy to watch the conservative "selective perception" happen in real time.

Also, I did define store for him. I was even willing to entertain his hypothetical about the "illegal drug store." His point was that it's just as easy to buy illegal heroin as it is to buy a legal gun. I asked him to prove it. When you ask for conservatives to prove something... you get this thread, with these responses. Nice to meet ya, Busey.

HAHAHAHA. You're done, b*tch. Topic is gun control. Has been for 25 pages. If you have something to offer besides "making it all about you," you lonely ass fool, then put it out there. Unless you're an "intellectual coward," you should have no issue making whatever point you're trying to make. If you can't contribute to the conversation without me going into another of your rabbit holes, then spare us, Tasker. Said it before, will say it again, I'm not interested in any more of your holes. They're dark, smelly, and unproductive. If you ain't gonna contribute, then go ahead & take a bow, because we've seen all of your "TakeYouToTactics" and now the show is over. Curtains. Done. Learn a new routine before you sign up again.

FTFY Hahahahahahha. Oh Tasker... dammit man, I knewwwwwwwww this was you, I knewwwww it, knew it, knew it... and you just had to go and prove it, didn't you? You just couldn't be a three-dimensional human being capable of rational thought, could you? Ugh, Tasker, I had such hopes. But you had to be this ridiculous stereotype, moments away from saying "Antifa" or something. Here's the deal. You are pretending you've made a point by... not making a point. You're pretending that I haven't made a point, despite being the only one making points. You have not, in reality, put forth any argument. You have not engaged in intellectual debate. You have not tested any ideas. You have steadfastly refused to make your point about slavery, because you don't have any point. You didn't have any point when you doubled down on your 2A argument, either. Would you like to know why? Because you're pretending. You can only argue semantics. You have only empty tactics, nothing of substance. I told you before and will tell you again — I saw through this nonsense from the beginning. Your playbook isn't new. Ya ain't got sh*t on sh*t, and your fedora doesn't make you look smart. Just sweaty. HAHAHAHHAHA YOU WENT AND SAID "ANITFA" WHILE I WAS TYPING IT YOU ARE GOLD

I like the way that you respond to the observation that "one of us talks ideas, one of us talks individuals" by... immediately focusing on the individual. I was almost going to put that prediction in the post but felt like it was too baiting. But look at you go. "All facts are equal! If you get to believe something, why isn't what I believe equally valid? Oh, just because what I've chosen to believe has nothing that supports it besides me yelling? Well, so much for the tolerant left. And another thing, you're mean, and, you're the one arguing feelings, not me! I'm on the side of personal responsibility! It's just in this specific case, and every other specific case, I personally am not responsible." Being a conservative must feel like being a fan of the Washington Generals.

hahahahahhahaha.... dude.... I'm sure you get this a lot, but you are dumb as f***. —we regulate cars, because they are dangerous but necessary —the regulations & standardizations provably make roads, drivers safer —guns are more dangerous, and less necessary (go ahead and try to argue that a gun is more necessary than a car, in your own individual life, bc of 2A & freedom) —we do not regulate guns, even though it is a virtual certainty that doing so would make society safer from gun violence Btw, just in the week or so that you've been unsuccessfully arguing an unwinnable position, the outside world continues to burst your fantasy with real life.

HAHAHAHAHAHA You might as well just post a photo of you in your Glenn Beck fedora at this point, Tasker. It's becoming unbearably clear exactly what kind of loser you are.

So sensitive!! "Sorry, kids, there's simply nothing we can do to solve this. We were close, once. LABillzFan actually had the perfect idea. Unfortunately, LA Grant was rude online, that LABillzFan had no choice but to pocket the solution. Anyway, here's your books and your kevlar, welcome to middle school." Correct, as Tasker has shown, you will not find any logical counter-argument to gun control. The question of it is "how & when." The questions "does the problem exist? should there be a solution" — there is no arguing that any longer. Now, if you have a better idea than UBC, instead of some garbled excuse of why we can't do it — I'm all ears for that. Similarly, the same applies for climate change. The science is settle; the only questions are "what can be done, how, and when?" (I bring up climate change only because you've brought it up twice now.) What's it like to be part of the worst generation in American history, btw? Assuming you're somewhere around the Boomer/Gen X age, you inherit a country of massive wealth and utterly, selfishly blow it... I'm sure you'll tell me how none of it is your fault specifically, or your generation's fault, or your party's fault. Where is this "personal responsibility" from conservatives & Republicans for getting so many social issues wrong over the years and selling us out? We're seeing teenagers, the same generation that eat Tide Pods, articulating more coherent arguments for social policy than the recliner right. Whaaaaaaaat a country. Regulating guns like we regulate cars does make a lot of sense, actually. Good idea!

Compared to the American right, who thoughtfully engage in the comparative value in ideas? lol. Yeah, you contain multitudes. It just must be somewhere else, right? At least you're being funny again. What you're seeing in this discussion is — I'm talking about ideas. You're talking about individuals. The playbook for the modern American right is on full display here: if you don't like the idea, do whatever you can to make it about the individual. Conservatives don't like ideas. Conservatives like safe spaces, with self-serving norms that protect themselves and their group. They promote division by design to maintain these norms. Progressives stake out appropriate cultural norms, find the best idea, and wait for society to catch up. Sometimes Progressives are off the mark, but the intentions are for genuine improvement, for ideas that make sense. Change happens when the Progressive cause becomes equal with a failing Conservative one. It's why we are seeing gun control happen now, but not before. Conservatives will stay in their position until it is absolutely, utterly untenable. Opposing gun control is basically at that point. Incorrect. Gun ownership is not monopolized by the right. The reason it feels like the right are defending the NRA is because the right always chooses to attack those who criticize the NRA, rather than the NRA. (See: Georgia Lawmakers punishing Delta, so far, hearing nobody on the Right concerned about this case of gov't interfering with the private sector) You often complain about being unfairly lumped in to a position you don't support, but you also are reluctant to advocate for anything. Instead, you do the exact thing you claim you don't want — everything in your second line, you also do that, dude. Here. In PPP. Frequently.

Oh sweetie, as LA Grant has repeatedly stated — if you have any solutions you'd like to propose, we're all ears. In this thread we have heard, aside from gun control, approximately.... 0 solutions. 25 pages. Countless illogical counter arguments of why we simply can't, we simply musn't do anything! anything! we can't! think of the guns! That, and nonstop crybaby whining that I'm being too mean. Zero solutions. In all likelihood, to this post, like the others before it, where I specifically invite you to suggest a solution, you will suggest approximately 0. Because when you decide to go "mental health" you have no actual policy to follow up, as that would necessitate some version of higher taxes. Unless you say "mental health AND personal responsibility" in which case, I'd love to see some proof that you, personally, are taking some responsibility and helping in some way. This would be extremely surprising, but it would be welcome. It would be surprising because you can't even take personal responsibility for gun violence in America. Not your kids. Not your problem. Don't restrict your guns. Not your responsibility. Such it is with conservatives across the board. A feint. A joke. It quite literally doesn't matter if a neighbor says to you — "Would you be willing to take a background check & renew a license to buy a gun, if it helps prevent gun violence?" — with supporting data & evidence. You're such a ridiculous shell that, somehow, your response is a choked out NRA talking point — "no! guns! freedom! Hillary!" But then when it's pointed out to you that you are valuing products over people, you overload, shut-down, and reboot back to the usual supplied talking points. You even brought up climate change earlier, as though that somehow serves your point, and the Women's March. Absolutely hilarious. If you ever had any ability to think for yourself, you have clearly surrendered it for the comfort of tribalism. Or — let's hear it. PS: You seemed to have questions about climate change earlier, getting frustrated by the terminology and the 'science being settled'. Here ya go. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/climate/what-is-climate-change.html Great point. Go ahead and list all of the school shootings these things have caused, since those are all the same thing as guns. The other thing is that we do limit things when they make sense, and we're all quite happy to do so. We limit the amount of alcohol you can have in your system before driving a car, for example.

Yeah, that's probably it. Here jmc, a thought exercise: Define what is & is not "speech." Then define what is & is not "arms." Before you get your crayons, you may want to go out onto the world wide web and see what others have had to say about these definitions — including real live members of the United States gubbamint! And remember to keep the crayons in your hands and not your mouth. What do we say about crayons, jmc? They're not for eating.

jmc, to call your comprehension skills "childlike" would be a disservice to children. Children are capable of learning eventually.

Pretty f***ed up that you think that for about a ....million reasons. Hard to say if it's worse that what you just said is provably untrue (if you'd just managed to read even merely the dates of the links I posted), or that you want it to be true. Messed up! Hi! 100% of what you just babbled is tribal lunacy. You even managed to end on "Hillary." Tribal. Lunacy. Don't know you at all but I can tell you with certainty that you are a sucker to defend the NRA. They're not defending you and they're not defending our rights. You're kidding yourself if you think it's about anything other than money. Since you put the !!! for "mental health," let's be clear that it's not some impossible problem with no solution. Universal health care. Single payer. Higher taxes. Easy. Done. The reason it's an impossible solution is, oh right, you don't like that either, do you? So then I guess it's... nothing? Yeah. Nothing. We have laws against drunk driving. Specifically because of those laws, drunk driving rates have gone down. Regulation works. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/30/drunken-driving-rate-falls-to-new-low-federal-data-show/?utm_term=.1ac37c81c7b9

This is f***ed up. https://www.npr.org/2018/03/01/590076949/depth-of-russian-politicians-cultivation-of-nra-ties-revealed More: 1) McClatchy DC - FBI investigating whether Russian money went to NRA to help Trump 2) CBS - Trump Jr. met with man with close ties to Kremlin 3) Bloomberg - Mobster or Central Banker? Spanish Cops Allege This Russian Both 4) New York Times - Operative Offered Trump Campaign ‘Kremlin Connection’ Using N.R.A. Ties 5) House Intelligence Committee - Fusion GPS Testimony The Russian strategy here is a pure chaos play, right? I guess we can't know for sure until the end of the Mueller investigation, at the earliest, which is going to be the g*ddamn series finale of America at this rate. It seems like for Trump, it's the money laundering that Mueller will press (and who knows; Trump is sloppy enough & Mueller is basically Joe Friday). I think for Putin, bagging Trump and him winning was a bonus. Putin gets pissed at US for Ukraine, vows revenge, then just looks for weaknesses that could be exploited to basically throw a wrench into vulnerable systems and hope for the best— kinda like Osama bin Laden's strategy. The US is too dangerous to take on directly, it's why enemies go for less conventional asymmetrical methods, looking for any break in the armor to slip a knife. Our enemies literally use Revolutionary War tactics against us, successfully, partly because our own citizens have instead interpreted our victory in that war to mean 18-year-olds need AR-15s. Damn. I have no guess on what the US response will be to Russia after the investigation. More sanctions? Looks like the NRA is going to keep getting pressed on all sides. Good. F*** the NRA, treasonous f***s. https://www.npr.org/2018/01/29/581424557/alleged-link-between-nra-and-russia-becomes-fodder-for-the-left https://everytown.org/press/everytown-launches-new-interactive-website-on-ties-between-nra-russia-and-trump-world-as-fbi-investigates-whether-russian-money-went-to-nra-to-help-trump/ Except thank goodness the NRA had the foresight & funds to buy half of Congress to do bulls**t like this: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/03/02/590149921/georgia-lawmakers-punish-delta-air-lines-over-nra-feud (I saw some reference to "MOAB" — not sure if that's earnestly referring to the Q-anon theories, hopefully not, hopefully that is clearly fantasy BS)

The NRA is disgusting. The idea of giving money to an organization this undeniably corrupt makes absolutely no sense. The NRA is Scientology with diabetes and camo shorts. https://www.npr.org/2018/03/01/590076949/depth-of-russian-politicians-cultivation-of-nra-ties-revealed Will this matter? Not to the cult's base, I'm guessing. Facts can't do much if they're ignored. "pfft, NPR?? Go sip a latte from your tote bag, Fake News!" He was literally posting everything he was doing on Twitter. The whole thing is like Watergate but 1000x more stupid. "Yeah? So? What's the problem? It's just Russian gangsters funnelling money to the NRA to protect our inalienable 2A rights from the libtards! Hillary! Emails!" — an argument some doofus will make, probably. Honestly, the NRA was plenty monstrous enough before, but this.... just ridiculous. Corrupt. As. Hell. Bond villains have more subtlety than these f***ers. Always good to bring this back up with the NRA — Here's a fun game. Spot the difference: NRA ad vs. Jihad propaganda. But the NRA is just dedicated to protecting freedom, right? More: 1) McClatchy DC - FBI investigating whether Russian money went to NRA to help Trump 2) CBS - Trump Jr. met with man with close ties to Kremlin 3) Bloomberg - Mobster or Central Banker? Spanish Cops Allege This Russian Both 4) New York Times - Operative Offered Trump Campaign ‘Kremlin Connection’ Using N.R.A. Ties 5) House Intelligence Committee - Fusion GPS Testimony

Agreed. This bites for Price but he is now a luxury pick. Surely there must be other interior OL talent available who could play this season.

So part of why we disagree is just because you've been sneaky and dishonest, but part of it is also that we just fundamentally disagree on the role of government. Because in the alternate universe where child porn is only illegal through state law, then it's probably also legal in certain states, right? Would it also follow that you'd then also support gun restrictions as state law, just simply not on the national level? (Either way, I assume that your view of Dick's or Wal-Mart making changes to how they choose to sell guns is also acceptable, yes?) If so, then that is at least consistent. It wouldn't be the most practical solution to either problem. But it would at least be consistent.

No need to apologize, for one. The debate has been going for years & I'm sure we've all been through versions of this multiple times. Instead, thank you for talking specific measures and offering your position honestly. This is the conversation that's most fruitful: what can be done, how, and when? I'm not even sure that I personally am in favor of banning the AR-15, or banning anything. I have seen compelling arguments that the AR-15s prominence is because it's a versatile, quality weapon, rather than it being uniquely dangerous to other available firearms, and that banning AR-15s would not do much to curb mass shootings, but it would piss off Lawful Gun Owners. I think that Chicago's high rate of gun violence, despite local laws banning handguns, also shows that bans don't work, because guns still come in from out-of-state. A lot of the Chicago blackmarket is supplied by guns purchased legally in Indiana, as it turns out. Now as much as I concede these points to "gun bans don't work," I'll also represent the other side, which is that we don't know how much worse Chicago might be with gun violence without the ban. The current laws are not enough, and the rate of mass shootings & overall gun violence is proof. Maybe the guard could have done more, maybe not. Instead of hoping for Super Soldier Guards any place a mass shooter may want to strike, would it not make more sense to restrict access to guns? Universal background checks will not stop all gun violence, but it is incredibly likely that it could dramatically reduce it. The idea that he would have found another way anyway— maybe; we can't know. But we don't need to make it so easy, do we? If he wants to try to build a bomb, or pull that sh*t with a samurai sword, then I like the security guard's chances better, because the psycho kid isn't armed with an infantry weapon. In terms of "where do you draw the line?" or how does it work in practice? Compare it to the DMV or to applying at Wal-Mart. Buying a gun should be that difficult and that simple. For a Lawful Gun Owner who isn't going to go shoot up a school, this is a mild inconvenience. For the Parkland shooter, he wouldn't have been able to get it; his red flags would have mattered. There are two bills proposed right now that include strengthening background checks. One of them actually does it, and the other only kind of does it. The one that Trump specifically mentioned is, unfortunately, the weaker proposal. This lays out the differences between the two bills: https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/26/politics/chuck-schumer-background-checks-parkland/index.html Politically that means Democrats are either accepting another half-measure, or they're opposing gun legislation. It's the kind of double-bind that the Republicans have perfected, so, hooray for winning. If only the half-measure bill is passed, it may perhaps help, but it will still not be the common sense solution that most people support; instead, it will be pointed to, like Chicago, as evidence that gun control doesn't work. But maybe Chuck Schumer's bill gets another shot after the mid-terms, who knows. It's never surprising to see Democrats blow "a sure thing" for their own incompetence, although in their defense, they haven't been working as hard at gerrymandering as the other guys. This is why our politics are garbage in this country, it's nothing but games and charades to score fantasy points.

The strict constitutionalist argument would say you should be able to buy a bazooka or a fully automatic gun, with unregulated access even, as those are arms which would therefore be a guaranteed right under 2A. Right? Most of us are glad that's not the case (although you can legally buy grenade launchers or other artillery in certain places, actually; they're just highly regulated). Furthermore, 2A has been interpreted differently multiple times over the years, depending on which judges are deciding. Until recently, the common interpretation was that 2A guaranteed arms only to militia, not ordinary, non-law-enforcement citizens. But even if we interpret 2A the way the NRA prefers, that every Joe Schmo has the right to own arms (which to be fair, is the law of the land, as of the '08 Supreme Court decision), including the Parkland shooter, then the strict constitutionalist argument against gun control is still contradicted by the restrictions on other amendments, notably 1A. The Amendments have been interpreted & limited several times throughout US history, for both "left" & "right" reasons, correct? If the strict constitutionalist argument says that all interpretations are invalid without an additional amendment stating the change, that instead, the Bill of Rights should be followed to the letter of the law, then they're just as much advocating for the citizens right to own child pornography (a necessary restriction on 1A) as you are for citizens to own infantry weapons (a theoretical restriction on 2A). Or if the strict constitutionalist argument says we must only follow the Founders intent, then this also brings problems: there's a clear case to be made that 2A was drafted with militias in mind, as in local militias would be the only chance to oppose a strong national army. Once you get into intent, then comes the whole thing of "well maybe you should only be able to buy muskets, cannons, and 1700s arms." Bottom line, the strict constitutionalist argument is mostly bunk and provides no practical solution to the problem of modern gun violence. Our government must be contextual and current. The Bill of Rights, including 2A, are principles that we live by. The principles must be applied to the modern context, as that's a little easier than trying to force reality to fit the document, yeah? The Founders were not wizards. They could not have envisioned problems like pornography being free speech, and then child pornography obviously not being free speech. They also probably did not envision Nikolas Cruz, a kid with more red flags than a Chinese parade, legally buying an AR-15 a block from his school and then using it on his classmates. To suggest that the Founders did intend that is to suggest that they intended the United States to be chaotic and fearful, which of course they did not. It is more likely that they hoped for a citizenry that could debate & solve problems following their example. "Doing nothing" is not a solution, and there's not any compelling argument in favor of it, other than to make some dark assumptions about how we're "supposed" to be living. As to what laws are being suggested — universal background tests/registration for all sales on arms going forward, aka the "common sense gun reform" that most Americans already agree about. For more, see this post from a page or two back:

Not true on either point. "Wouldn't make a difference" is not what any of the data suggests to us — the most likely outcome is reform would lead to a tangibly positive difference, by almost all metrics. In fact, your own position isn't even that "it wouldn't make a difference" because if it were, what would be the harm in trying? Why oppose if there will be no difference? As national gun restrictions have never been attempted in the US, we can state with absolute certainty that we definitely do not know that it "wouldn't make a difference." Correct me if I'm wrong but it's more likely that your actual position is "It would make a difference, but I don't believe it would lead to the desired outcome." Which then begs the question, what does lead to the desired outcome then, and how? The other point is also incorrect. Count them up. I've gone down a great number of rabbit holes from others, including previous holes from Tasker. If he has a valid point, I'm sure The Smartest Man in the Room is more than capable of articulating himself but I am tired of Tasker asking me to go in his hole, and I don't know how else to tell him I am not interested. ?

Actually, all I'm asking for is the same courtesy I've shown to be returned. Questions on 1A to make a point on 2A were rhetorical, plus I explained my point. I've made the case with tons of links, data, supporting evidence — almost none of which has been engaged with. And I've gone down virtually every rabbit hole or tangent thrown at me to show that the argument has depth. If someone has a valid counter-argument, the least they could do is make their case with that same courtesy, rather than simply saying "here's yet another rabbit hole, but if you go down it, I promise this time I will reward you with an actual case," as Tasker is currently doing. It's not asking for much. Then again, the common sense reforms proposed aren't asking for much either, and here we are.

You're correct in detecting irony there, but it is by design. I am intentionally using the same "answer the question!" intimidation tactic Tasker was employing back at him.

Tasker: I've stated, many times in this thread, that it's about restricting guns. That there is no argument against doing so in the US. Indeed, all other arguments have been thoroughly deconstructed. I can see through your sh*t here, dude, I can see where you're going with this. I do not trust, or frankly, respect you enough to go down a useless path of debating what is a priori, or a posteriori, or what "is" is, for one thing. For another, I want you to make the point I think you're trying to make on your own. If you're looking to earnestly explore the question you pose, then by all means explore it, here, in the grand marketplace of ideas. There are only a few possible answers to that, from anyone, so it shouldn't be so hard for you to explore on your own. Why are you afraid of doing this? Because if you state it plainly, then you won't be able to pretend "I didn't say that," as you tried before? Stop playing "chicken," be a big boy, and use your own words. Or, don't. My bet is you won't, but will try to claim "winning!" anyway. You may not be able to prove the facts wrong but you do have an opportunity to prove me wrong about your character.

It's really not a cop out, I'm just not going to make your ridiculous point for you. You've once again set yourself up for a fall here. Your question is — "What priori are you appealing to when you declare slavery to be wrong?" Now, Tasker, as you must surely realize, there are only a limited number of reasonable answers to this question. I encourage you to explore those you think would be relevant to this discussion, then relate it back to the topic of guns, the stated topic. In other words: make a point or STFU. If you refuse to make a point, you are free to award yourself victory while saving yourself the trouble of having your ideas vetted for merit through argument and the process of logic. But your style isn't impressive thus far. If an argument is worth making, then it's worth testing it's integrity. That you won't simply state yours and allow it to be tested says everything I need to know about it. Or, you could simply state your argument. You previously supplied us all with an air-tight argument in favor of pedophile rights, so I can't wait to see where your brain is taking you this time. Use your own words, if possible.