LA Grant

Actually, you're right. Climate change is unprovable or it's a hoax, and all of the counter-arguments seen in this thread are logical. Guns give me freedom, the earth is flat, and the white man is simply genetically superior.* *Sorry to imply you're racist, I know how triggering that can be to some conservatives. I'm sure in real life you are very popular with many POC friends who love you. The implication comes from flipping your flip — "if you believe this, then you must believe this." Now I do also believe in what you apparently perceive to be a ridiculous argument, that human-caused climate change is clearly real, and moreover I think it's ridiculous that you think that's the ridiculous thing. Perhaps you also believe what I perceive to be a ridiculous argument, that white men are genetically superior, and it's simply too shameful for you to publicly admit. Or maybe I'm simply being unfair in a more unfair way than you were being unfair, even though, in fact, you were being fair, unintentionally — similar when you tried the Women's March flip before. Unfortunately the degrees to which you may or may not be ridiculous are too exponential to calculate precisely in the time here, and so, a joke was made. Deepest apologies.

Tasker. Accept my request, please. I don't care to play. You have been deceptive and evasive more than once, so sorry, but you don't get the benefit of the doubt here after getting caught plagiarizing earlier. That said, I am listening, so whatever point you think you're making with slavery, to what "priori" I'm appealing to, daring to invoke Kant without having any understanding of what you're even arguing, whatever you think makes your best point here — just go ahead and take the swing. Because I'm pretty sure the point you're trying to make is "guns are a natural right, to be without unfettered access to guns is to be without unfettered access to basic freedom" which is so absurd that I'd like to see you state your own position in your own words. The floor is yours.

The only flaw with that is there's no way to absolutely know if they are separate ideas or not, except in how you interpret it, just like the rest of the Constitution is continuously reinterpreted to fit changing context. Again, the host of restrictions on 1A are proof that "we" can and should clarify & reinterpret, from time to time. So the argument of what was intended or not is debatable. If we interpret it exactly as the Founders interpreted it, then we also need to decide which Founders and when. Tasker & I already went through all of this, because there's the question of a number of different contextual elements that could point one way or another, and then it's assumptions about assumptions. http://theweek.com/articles/487160/constitution-what-founders-intended But let's say, despite the context of militias at the time, that you're right and the Founders intended for it to mean two different things, including the individual citizen's right to bear arms without regulation. Most of the precedent throughout US history interpreted it differently: https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856 This changed in 2008 when the Supreme Court applied the NRA's interpretation into federal law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller One of the dissenting judges, Breyer, made the case that applying a literal interpretation doesn't make sense, or fit what the Founders intended: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/12/breyer-founding-fathers-allowed-restrictions-guns.html As we've already established that "what the Founders intended" is debatable, here's a gun propaganda website that basically takes the Fox News story & adds "uhh look at this idiot" angle — without actually countering what he's saying. Maybe written by LABillzFan, I don't know. http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/12/robert-farago/supreme-court-justice-bryer-the-founding-fathers-never-intended-guns-to-go-unregulated/ Here is their best counter, essentially: "it is, therefore it must." Unfortunately, the links that supposedly provide their argument don't go anywhere. One is literally broken and the other is a seller for a bow & arrow, which I'm guessing is their version of making the point "what's next, banning bows & arrows?" aka "what is an arm?" which, as Breyer pointed out, that 'slippery slope' cuts both ways. Why not unfettered access to grenade launchers? The answer, obviously, is the law should be nuanced. A law that allows for Nikolas Cruz to legally purchase an AR-15, despite countless red flags, is not nuanced. Now. Change of course is not necessarily bad. You might argue, the Heller case was something the Supreme Court got right. You could posit that the '08 Court upheld the law correctly, fixing previous mistakes. If you do make this case, you should also include the rates of gun violence before & after 2008. Aw hell, here, I'll do it for you. http://www.vpc.org/press/u-s-gun-death-rate-jumps-17-percent-since-2008-supreme-court-district-of-columbia-v-heller-decision-affirming-right-to-own-a-handgun-for-self-defense/ So, unless we were hoping the overall gun death rate would go up, maybe it wasn't such a great decision. And because I've already posted this 10,000 times already, why not 10,001... https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/10/upshot/How-to-Prevent-Gun-Deaths-The-Views-of-Experts-and-the-Public.htm That NY Times article is no longer entirely accurate, though, as it's from last January — the article says Trump doesn't support gun control measures and of course, he flipped on that yesterday.

You've got it entirely backwards, again, but whining and stomping your feet does not change reality. It's very simple. As has been demonstrated repeatedly, no logically sound counter-argument exists against "there should be stronger gun control in the US." Every counter, down to the last hold of "b-b-but 2A... f-f-freedom...," is filled with contradictions or baseless fantasy, each of which can be broken down. Only one side here has been providing supporting empirical evidence, and it's not the one you've decided to choose, apparently.

Uh yeah weapons would be confiscated to put people into the camps, but were weapons confiscated from everyone? No "Good Guy with Guns" neighbors standing up for freedom? I keep hearing how citizens owning guns (without restrictions) is what keeps the rest of us free. I thought guns were the reason we could never have internment camps from a totalitarian regime?? If it makes so much sense to keep guns unrestricted, you'd think there wouldn't be so many contradictions to that position. It's just arguing from the lunk-head fantasy — previously seen from Trump, or Mark Wahlberg — that unprovable claim, "well, if I were there, it wouldn't have happened." "Wah wah wah, wahhhhh, wah." You've had multiple opportunities to engage on several different points, you chose not to because you're able to recognize an unwinnable position, so this drivel is all you have left. Boring and LA-z. Well, no, I don't know what you're saying. You quoted 2A, including that it's intended for "well-regulated militias" to bear arms. I'm advocating for regulation. Seems like we agree. Or are you insisting on the NRA's interpretation, that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" means arms should never be regulated under any circumstances?

You quite literally have no idea what you're talking about, nor does it surprise me that you've "never met" anyone who agrees with my position, aka the majority of Americans. The insulation is the problem. Logic and ethics lead to sensible laws. Our current laws, which you continue to insist are doing enough and could simply not do any more, are not sensible, nor are they enforced sensibly. This must change. You continue to advocate against change. Your justification continues to be that you fear gun restrictions lead to whatever you feel like that means. We literally had internment camps in the United States during World War II — was 2A not in effect during that time? Your stupid fantasy does not f***ing work. You are arguing blind faith, again and again, in spite of overwhelming evidence that your conviction is not correct. This is also what's preventing you from seeing that "you" do not need to necessarily be these dumb beliefs. You're free to separate yourself, but you can't see it, you insist that you are shackled, not seeing that it is entirely self-imposed. Whatever point you're driving to with your slavery example, go ahead and make whatever your point is, and what you think my position is, rather than drawing it out. Whatever point you think you have, go ahead and please illustrate how the U.S. somehow didn't need new laws to prevent institutional slavery. Oh interesting, didn't realize the Parkland shooter was in a well-regulated militia. Should we thank him for necessitating the security of our free State? He was a Lawful Gun Owner, was he not? You dumb f***.

Whose rights, Sir Thomas? "All of our rights, you *@!^*!(^ idiot!" Sorry, no, bumper sticker rhetoric isn't doing it any longer. Your BS is getting called out. The "rights" you're advocating for are simple — the unfettered access to weapons for all gun hobbyists. You are not advocating for the rights of students, of gun violence victims. In fact, you're not advocating for anyone's rights except those you "feel" you are personally entitled to. You demonstrate this constantly. You need to learn to uncross your silly little arms — and listen & read. Incorrect. What you are advocating for is subjugation of logical ethical reasoning in favor of Unquestionable Higher Authority. Logic and ethics are the only thing that stands between man and chaos — you are advocating for continued chaos. Your view is either, at best, destructively ignorant, or at worst, knowingly dishonest.

First, I'm sorry that you lost a friend. Second, yes, that viewpoint is selfish. You are advocating a belief that products are more important than life. You are advocating concepts over people, and have demonstrated no flexibility in your thinking. This is the definition of a zealot. Your argument suggests that the Gods, Founders, and Authorities Greater Than Our Ability To Reason, intended for us to live in fear of each other. You're suggesting that there is no solution to children being gunned down attending school, unless we introduce more fear & weaponry into their lives. Simply put, here is the view we are advocating: Is There A Gun Violence Problem in America? Yes. Data overwhelmingly suggests it is unique to our country. Should Gun Violence Be Addressed? Obviously. How? Preventative measures, the most effective of which will be restricting access of weaponry to those who will use them irresponsibly. When? ASAP Who Is Preventing This? The gun lobby, and those addicted to feelings of fear. Why? The gun lobby benefits financially from unrestricted gun sales. Those addicted to fear believe their way of living should be the way of life for all. Here is the view you are advocating. Is There A Gun Violence Problem in America? Maybe. It's debatable. Should Gun Violence Be Addressed? Violence can be addressed, but you can not address "gun violence" because violence can occur without guns, so guns aren't the problem. How? We need a healthier society overall, one that holds no capacity for human violence. When? When humans discard the capacity for chaos and violence, or, when humans strengthen themselves enough through arms to dissuade any violence against another because of mutually assured destruction theory. Who Is Preventing This? Individual bad actors, or perhaps Satan, who corrupts the souls of the weak. Why? My interpretation of the Founders intentions is that they viewed guns & gun violence as either good or simply necessary, and because it is good or necessary, a tool cannot be bad, only a person. Because some people will just be bad, and we cannot solve "bad" in the universe, so to punish those who are "good" for those who are "bad" is paradoxical. Therefore, there is no gun violence problem — there is a problem of bad people. Feel free to correct if that is not an accurate description. Tasker. Please provide any example of Legal Gun Owners defending "freedom" for anything other than the "freedom" to purchase guns without inconvenience. You don't get to use military, as we all agree the military should have firearms, because they are trained to do so. Legal Gun Owners defend themselves from burglars or attackers, ok fine (though could they not defend themselves in most instances with a blunt weapon instead of a firearm?). But this preposterous idea that Legal Gun Owners defend "freedom" — please provide some specific examples. Ideally, there would be more examples than there would be counterexamples of Legal Gun Ownership in fact causing far more societal harm than good, but let's start with just any specific examples of Legal Gun Owners defending freedom — again, not the freedom to own legal guns without inconvenience, but capital-f Freedom.

Backwards again. It's not about "my feelings" at all, as much as you keep trying. I don't care about you caring about my feelings, lol. If it were, then the "mockery" from "anybody" (anybody who's anybody!) here would matter. It's about solving a problem. It's a question of logic and ethics. The side arguing for "there is no problem, don't do anything" boils down to "it doesn't affect me, so the problem may as well not exist." This is is the side arguing from the point of emotion. "I feel any gun control might be a slippery slope to totalitarianism. I don't have anything that backs that up that isn't provably bunk, exactly, but let's say I do to justify the feeling." or "I feel guns give me freedom, so I don't want to hear any pesky facts or data about how guns are bad, how could a gun be bad? And besides, the Constitution." or "I feel like gun control wouldn't work in the US. yeah yeah it works everywhere else but I just feel like I know my country, ok? And it wouldn't work." It's a side of myopia to the point of solipsism. Let's point out that you do give a **** about feelings, though — not mine, no. But you are very considerate with the feelings of the poor helpless guns, and the entirely innocent NRA. It's a value choice to put products over people. Anti-social misanthropy makes for a cute schtick, but you're not doing schtick. You're arguing for that as social policy, essentially.

Close!! But you have the order mixed up just a little here. —The facts are facts. Overwhelmingly, the facts are the facts. If we were to run a tally of who here is posting facts, data, links, supporting evidence — it's mostly just me, here, doing those things. The facts are there. Engage with them, or, prevailingly, don't. —I am outraged, though I'm not suggesting anyone else here isn't, unless they ascribe themselves to be. "This is outrageous. The problem is obvious, the pattern is clear. Solutions are available. Pick one. Or suggest something better." —It's entertaining because in making the above two points, over and over, with logic, and facts, and links, and data, and supporting evidence, ad nauseum, I'm dunking on dummies defending an indefensible position. I'm certainly open to having nuanced discussions relating to the facts, links, data, supporting evidence, the comparative value of ideas, but the conversation mostly is not that. The conversation is mostly BS, bumper stickers, borrowed ideas, lazy assumptions... just overall garbage reasoning, for any counter-argument, is the truth of it. Because at this point, the question isn't even "should something be done to address gun violence," though that continues to be pointlessly argued, here at least; the question should be "how & when will gun violence be addressed, and who is preventing it & why?" It's an overall societal question. The 'bad apple' cart is broken. So if it's going to be policy, wouldn't it be fun if it also made practical sense?

The problem is you think it's the same thing, like it's equal crazy because it's on the other side. I'll happily take these ladies in silly costumes, making good-spirited jokes in the service of making a good and valid point. At the very least, who are they harming? People who are uncomfortable with vagainas? Who cares? "Well why couldn't I do it with dicks" you could! Go for it! I mean, there's gay pride parades. Arguably, military parades. And so compare the harmlessness of women in p*ssy costumes to some apocalyptic death cults? I'll give the church credit for having better production design than the girls here who could've put a little more effort into it. The sign on the right looks weirdly photoshopped also but maybe it's just a bad picture. Not saying the left doesn't have crazies. But it's not even in the same ballpark compared to the numerous amounts of wings of crazy people on the right. The right is the side with literal human Nazis, for chrissakes. But that's the same because the left has people with the wrong kind of sexy costumes. In public!

Ooh here's another fun bumper sticker that makes no sense if you think about it for, oh, two seconds. In what specific way are gun owners defending my freedom of expression? You don't get to cite soldiers here — obviously that's what you were thinking. Apologies for bringing logic to a rhetoric fight. The reason that doesn't work is nobody is opposing the military use of firearms. What we do oppose are non-military citizens easily buying weapons legally, and then using them to murder other citizens, when there are obvious corrective measures that could be taken. These measures are opposed by the NRA for some mysterious reason (what, oh, what could it possibly be?). So, as we agree that the conversation is about potentially restricting the Lawful Gun Owners — who you claim are actively defending my freedom of expression — please give me any example of this. Please tell me how are these activists defending anybody but themselves. I'd love to know what to thank them for, if you don't mind providing a specific example. Please tell me, Azalin.

You have a skewed view on who is "a lot" and who the "smaller people with the loudest megaphones" are. As has been shown, very nearly as many times as you've posted about Hillary — a lot, in other words — the majority of Americans oppose the NRA's stance on gun legislation. By the way, how many posts would you estimate you've made about the "p*ssy hats" after the Women's March? Just saying, as someone who clearly enjoy laughing at ridiculous hats, you're going to love these guys....

Yeah, that sounds about right. But you can feel comfortable that the rest of us are mocking your dogma. https://twitter.com/i/moments/968970136299294720

Well, if it's easier, then prove it. Koko, I will save us both the time — you can't. Gun stores are on Yelp. Where can I find this "drug house store" where it's so easy to buy heroin, as you imagine? Offer stands. If you can find one within the same radius from the school from where the Parkland shooter purchased his legal gun, I'll buy you some heroin for your troubles. Btw, good point on paperwork — what did the Parkland shooter need to fill out to make his purchase? Seems like it was pretty hassle-free for him to get. Legally. You're correct that the comparison is really stupid, Koko, and in case you're in a haze and forgot how we got in this sandbar: you brought the conversation here with your absurd theoretical point. I'm showing you why it's stupid, fool.

LOL. Thank you. "Define store." Well, listen — how about, to keep it simple, "store" means... "store"? The Parkland shooter bought his gun legally from a store, like, what you would assume I would mean if I said a store. A place where you can legally trade money for goods or services. S-t-o-r-e. "Store." To your more absurd philosophical question — you're still free to prove to me that he could find an illegal "drug house store" for heroin as easily as he could have purchased a legal gun from a legal store. That was your counterargument, if you're forgetting.

Correct on all counts. I can see two ways the NRA can be challenged — one is voting out officials who are taking their bribes as campaign donations. This is incredibly difficult, though not impossible, due to, above all, the horrible gerrymandering and the entire electoral map being rigged to benefit the Republican Party makes this incredibly challenging (you'll also never hear the Right complain about this, despite even having the last two Republican presidents winning without the popular vote; when the system benefits them personally, then the system is good). The other, simpler, more effective way is for Lawful Gun Owners to stand up to the NRA. The NRA has a huge amount of members, and a lot of them pay dues, right? The capitalistic approach then is "voting with your dollar" and finding a way to be a Lawful Gun Owner who isn't also supporting lobbying for huge corporations. We're seeing the second approach happen in some ways already — with Dick's, Hertz, and other businesses cutting ties — but it will take some of the NRA members individually also challenging the organization.

The parenthetical comment was for context, for the benefit of other readers, to make it clear what the conversation was, you overly-sensitive snowflake. "Moving the goalposts." Koko how can you be so ridiculously devoid of self-awareness?... What do you think we're discussing? Gun laws, fool. The Parkland shooter bought his gun legally a block or two away from the school. "Heroin" came in because he could not have purchased that so easily, now could he? Except you say he could. I'll even move toward your goalposts: What you're really suggesting is that the Parkland shooter could have acquired his gun illegally anyway, as easily as he purchased the gun legally. You say he could have also just as easily purchased heroin illegally. Your challenge is to show me where & how he could've acquired heroin just as easily (which you're attempting in order to disprove the idea that regulations provide any kind of preventive measures). Which would mean in a store, blocks away from the school. Those are the goal posts. Happy hunting.

Indeed. Furthermore, most Americans overwhelmingly support this plan. Yet somehow this entirely rational course of action is shouted down with the most emotional logic-less histrionic bluster imaginable. "Shut up" is the only dish the Right can serve in return, with some "don't tread on me, not my responsibility" NRA talking points as garnish. Oh you don't like me? Woe is me. Doesn't change the fact that gun restrictions make sense & there's no logical counterargument to it. If you're able to rub brain cells together enough to provide a response with some kind of substance, we're all ears. If not, get out of the way.

Gun violence, yes, not guns themselves. I know we can "never blame guns" themselves, perish the children before we perish the thought, my goodness. You're free to go back to the other thread to read why this counter (with the aim to prevent any research into the subject), does not work. Get bent, loser. Oy. On & on & on & on: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/10/upshot/How-to-Prevent-Gun-Deaths-The-Views-of-Experts-and-the-Public.html -- if you're out of free NYT articles and need me to copy/paste, LMK. "Misidentified the problem." Then what is the problem, dearest Joe? What other pattern would you like to point to besides the strikingly obvious one? "Mental health?" "Family?" Wonderful, I agree these are problems. I suppose you agree we should have better health services available to the public. Or no? Because that would mean you're paying higher taxes. So not that? Then you personally are going on a missionary trip to provide those services because it shouldn't be policy? Or no? If you have a solution — Let's hear it.

My position is nothing if not incredibly consistent. The reason the conversation is "all over the map" is because you've thrown out every excuse you can think of to avoid discussing the problem and solution. "Come back next week" is, finally, the most plainly stated version of your actual beliefs, which boil down to "I don't want to talk about it & I don't want anything done about it."

The Right's arguments are like a Russian nesting doll of bumper-sticker excuses that just get weaker & more pathetic. Now rather than discussing a policy for improving society, it must be that we "hate Amuhrica!!!" Sorry, who said mass shooting? Does this not count as "school shooting"? Or are do we need to go down yet another rabbit hole defining terms? What this data suggests is that adding weapons to school is a dangerous proposition. So, then the argument changes to a new position — "Ok so, maybe don't give teachers guns. Hire trained guards." — well, Parkland had a trained guard and that didn't work so well, but maybe you'd prefer if it was Christopher Dorner standing around a school all day with an AR-15? How many dumb things like this do we need to try before we the obvious solution? Again and again and again, the logic just ricochets off of the Right's helmet-head, as they try to make it about anything other than the common sense answer. Here's the thing I also don't get about this — Why couldn't we just try national restrictions? Would it be impossible to agree to putting the proposed measures in place, say for 10 years, and then revisit? The reason, I suspect, is because the Right knows that they will work, and then they won't have the hypothetical doomsday scenarios to point to for why they could never work. Then the only argument remaining is the fundamentalist 2A one, which has more holes in it than Trump's golf calendar. Are you showering with your gun? (This was your response to me saying "True. But you can't buy heroin in a store two blocks from the school, k?") Yeah, I do want to bet. Go ahead & show me a store where my 18-year-old can buy legal heroin, please. If you can, I'll happily buy you an ounce, or whatever measurements heroin comes in, as a finders fee.

Fantasy: More guns, not fewer! Arm the teachers! Reality: https://apnews.com/e962f3205cb74c04b910fe6fde638194

Yeah! Good thing we have much better leadership here in the States.... ??????? Uhhhhhhhhh. This is why your posts have to be pithy one-liners, because the underlying ideas never work past that. You're a meme dealer high on your own supply. Yes, correct, because I was showing you why the logic in the argument you presented doesn't actually work. Just because there are restrictions for 1A & restrictions for 2A does not mean the restrictions need to be uniform for both. The law can & should be be nuanced. It is presently not.

Because the DMV led to "the government" "rounding up" all of our cars? "The government is going to prevent our freedom of movement!" "They're going to make laws that I shouldn't beat my wife?? What is it the government's concern what I do in the privacy of my own home???" And yet, we're glad to have these in place. Every societal change could be looked at as some radical nightmare compared to what came before. Not to mention, gun owner lists already exist in different forms. NRA membership, for one. https://www.concealedcarry.com/law/are-guns-registered Despite these lists already existing in some forms, there has been no "dystopian nightmare" in terms of guns being taken away — the dystopian nightmare is that armed citizens are fighting an irrational position literally provided to them by the gun lobby (remember when you quoted Wayne LaPierre in earnest?): https://www.nraila.org/articles/20110125/no-surrender You bumper-sticker-quoting doofus.