LA Grant

Sniping?! On... PPP?! Clutch your pearls. This is a forum that celebrates "sniping at retards from the balcony." Is it because I don't have a Muppet avatar? By the way. Why do conservatives who think they're funny always try to adopt cartoon characters? Muppets, Tweety Bird, Taz, any of the Looney Tunes, Betty Boop, lol seriously what is up with that. Grow up! Anyway. I think you're mistaking "trounced" with "outnumbered." There is no argument against the common sense gun restrictions that have been pitched for years, for decades. I will award your mental gymnastics a 6.5, though. Make it about me as much as you want. Ignore the issue as long as you can.

This thread is about gun laws. That might be clear from the title which includes both "law" and "gun." You are providing a distraction tactic to avoid the stated topic. Separate issues, separate threads. But we can agree that you are deranged, rhino.

Just doing some good ol' hunting and sniping in PPP, baby.

This thread is about gun laws. That might be clear from the title which includes both "law" and "gun." You are providing a distraction tactic to avoid the stated topic. Separate issues, separate threads. But we can agree that you are deranged, rhino.

Yeah, dude! Get that kid! Get 'im!

Or you, my friend. As Tasker once said, it takes a village. How do you not see that you're just looking for any distraction to avoid talking guns? The sheriff/deputy/police incompetence should be clear evidence that adding MORE guards & guns to schools is not the solution. It does not work. You are not hearing from teachers or veterans in support of this madness. Look who you're agreeing with, you are only hearing this idiocy from crazy people like JMC, Trump, Fox, InfoWars, and the NRA. You seem too otherwise rational to be this thick.

Does the First Amendment protect us and our basic liberties? Is it vital? Why is it OK for restrictions there, but not on the Second Amendment? Even someone as dull as you has to be making this connection by now.

Gahhh you're so dumb. So you're attempting to say that you alone know the Founders' intent, then? How do you know what they considered "free speech" and what wasn't? How do you know what they considered "arms" and what wasn't? Arms in 1700s were very different from our present day, just as free speech was very different. How do you know the Founders considered school shootings acceptable, but not child pornography? Is the second amendment more important than the first? I'm sure it is, to you, because you're only arguing NRA talking points, and the second amendment is the center of the universe to the NRA. That's why the fundamentalist argument doesn't work in general, and certainly not as sloppily as you attempted to use it. You're not arguing about the Bill of Rights at all. You're arguing "I like guns and I don't want to be inconvenienced getting guns."

Oh my lord. I can't make your busted brain work for you, you dumbass corncob. You're going to have to fire those little synapses on your own, too. You are telling me the Founders intended for 2A to be immutable, but not for 1A to be immutable. This is a contradiction. A contradiction is a combination of ideas that are opposed to one another. You don't want an argument with contradictions in your logic, because logic requires validity. Logic cannot be valid if it is contradictory. Your argument is built on contradictory logic, which is what we consider "a bad argument," of which you are the proud owner. Many happy returns, you sick stupid mutant.

Have you been in a coma? What level of consciousness are you in? Better question: why am I still bothering with you? You're aware this thread was started because 17 children were murdered, right? And we have 15 pages of people defending the necessity of their murder, including you. If you think child pornography is vile, just wait until you hear about children being murdered because we don't have it in us to restrict psychos from getting guns — and that many of the posters on PPP, including you, are willing to fight for those psychos to keep getting unfettered access. Then this is checkmate. If you support restrictions on one amendment, but not another, then your reasoning that the Bill of Rights must be immutable does not work. As with Tasker, this is the endgame of the fundamentalist argument. Thanks for playing.

Then you agree the Amendments need restrictions and should not be interpreted strictly literally if it means protecting people/children & agree that the Second Amendment can have similar restrictions.

Wow!! So it's both, then!?! You support citizens' rights to own child pornography as an inalienable right AND you think the Founders drafted the Second Amendment with the anticipation that school shootings would be an inevitable necessity?? Good. To. Know.

a) Are you able to differentiate between "ban" and "restriction"? If so, please explain the difference, because you continue to use the terms interchangeably when they have vastly different meanings. b) Ahhh, "what the founders intended." Interesting. Just a moment ago, you were advocating for strict adherence to the letter of the law. Now you're arguing "intent." Here, JMC, this is easy: you're either arguing for your liberty to own child pornography, or you're arguing that the Founders intended for school shootings as a necessity for a free country. Which is it? Ahahaha. You would think so, but not this time, surprisingly.

Check out his exchange with me somewhere around page 11 where he talks about cumming in his pants based on one of my posts.

a) The reason the "gun control won't work in the US" doesn't fly is because it has literally never been tried. Not on a national level, not comparable to preventive measures similar to DMV, etc etc etc, I've said all this already. Page one. By the way, your response to this will be "What about Chicago" so let's save us both a step and refute you now: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/glanton/ct-met-gun-control-chicago-dahleen-glanton-20171003-story.html https://www.npr.org/2017/10/05/555580598/fact-check-is-chicago-proof-that-gun-laws-don-t-work b) The "shall not be infringed" does not work because it's already infringed. You can't own a land mine, which is an Arm. You can own a grenade launcher, but you need background checks, license, registration. If you agree that's a necessary limitation for grenade launchers, it should be easy to agree it's also a necessary limitation for all Arms, assuming that you agree mass shootings are a problem (I know you personally do not, you've already said that you consider those to be acceptable casualties, but if 'you' were reasonable, you might agree it's a problem). If you think there should be no limitations on any Amendments, then you also think there should be no limitations on the First Amendment. This would mean you disagree with the Supreme Court's decisions to ban all sorts of speech under 1A, including child pornography, libel, slander, etc. Therefore, your arguments that guns should not be restricted also means you are arguing that child pornography should not be restricted. If this is your belief, then you should state it as such. If it is not your belief, you should try to untangle this contradiction in your mind and figure out what it is that you actually believe. Try to do better than "i like guns, they keep me free, don't tread on me." Understand? Of course you don't. You're just parroting catch phrases. I'm arguing with a parrot.

Haha don't sweat 'im. The right doesn't really "get" jokes; you have to first have a basic understanding of logic before you can play with it, and the entire "conservative philosophy," if you can even call it a philosophy, is so full of holes and contradictions that it's clear logic isn't their strong suit. It's why there's no funny Republicans and the best attempts at conservative humor are the horrible memes B-Man posts in other threads, Mike Huckabee's nonsensical twitter, and LABillzFan randomly saying "Hillary."

I'm sorry your friend was embarrassed but it doesn't make his argument work better. Post count might beat logic in the other PPP threads, so my apologies for not falling in line. BS is BS, plain and simple.

It is definitely tiring repeating myself, but what can I do? Your learning disability necessitates it. The majority supports stronger control measures: https://morningconsult.com/2018/02/22/support-gun-control-following-florida-shooting-matches-las-vegas-aftermath/ https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/20/voters-support-tougher-gun-control-after-florida-shooting-quinnipiac-poll.html https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/11/gun-control-vegas-polls-243647 Because there's tons of data https://www.vox.com/2015/10/3/9444417/gun-violence-united-states-america https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/15/so-america-this-is-how-you-do-gun-control And we've known it for decades https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3591&context=uclrev But 'round and 'round we go on the carousel of needless gun violence, because people like yourself simply refuse to consider the NRA maybe doesn't actually have society's best interests in mind. Maybe — juuuust maybe — they're advocates for loose gun laws for a selfish reason?? Nah. Couldn't be!

Mm, not quite. Sure, the sentiment of the right accusing the left of being disingenuous is "consistent" but that doesn't mean stealing the phrasing and structure isn't "plagiarism." Look, it's not like I'm expecting you're going to admit that you've been merely parroting the NRA's position. You couldn't admit that your argument was dismantled. Hell, you can't even admit to yourself what your own position is. It's funny: the only things that bother you are the things that directly, personally affect you. You're more horrified at being called names than mass shootings because one affects you and the other doesn't. I know the word "libertarianism" sounds cool & smart but that's the core of your dumbass beliefs. Back to the plagiarism thing, the issue that's really got you bothered. Go ahead & show me "one whit" of evidence of that quote, that you passed off as your own thought, being used before LaPierre said it. "Sources or GTFO."

Is a landmine not 'Arms' because it doesn't shoot? Seems like it fits the definition. arms ärmz/ noun 1. weapons and ammunition; armaments. "they were subjugated by force of arms" synonyms: weapons, weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, artillery, armaments, munitions, matériel Maybe you're thinking of "firearms," which a landmine is not. But the Second Amendment quite clearly says "Arms" so land mines do fit. Perhaps you want to restrict the definition of "arms"? Well, that's very troubling. Tasker or other fundamentalists would tell you any restriction is the slippery slope to tyranny. But okay, let's just keep it to things that can shoot as "arms." Why can't I own a grenade launcher? A mini-gun? A fire launcher? Do you know? Because the answer is I could, actually. Those are legal if you really want one. https://www.online-paralegal-programs.com/crazy-weapons-that-are-still-legal-in-the-us/ They're just a little more difficult to get than AR-15s as they require background checks & licenses & registration. Would you prefer that an 18 y/o like the Parkland shooter be able to buy one of these as easily as he did an AR-15? Or is the more logical solution to require similar background checks & licenses & registration? EDIT — The shooting victims are exploited... by the right, who ghoulishly use the grieving to punt on the discussion, to avoid discussing solutions. When the victims who survived speak out in the way that the right doesn't want them to, then the tactics are all about discrediting them & shutting them up. Somehow the kids who were in the school being shot at are "Fake News" crisis actors, scripted, whatever InfoWars nonsense. It's perverse and horrible. You see these exact same tactics every time the right receives a message they don't want to hear (see: player protests & liberal veterans), but because the right's base is so easily tricked, they falsely assume the rest of us don't see through that crap.

You realize that not all people who own guns oppose restrictions, right? Gun restrictions clearly work. See: a mountain of evidence, already posted in this thread by me, multiple times, data that's been established and available for years. You. Just. Don't. Want. To. Hear. It. Another common & very lame excuse. The same stupid logic works the other way. If AR-15s can be bought as long as you're 18 w/ no convictions, why can't the same kid also buy a grenade launcher or a land mine? Why can't I bear those arms? I need them for hunting and to protect my family. See above. There's a million reasons this is incredibly stupid — go ahead and list all of the mass killings perpetrated with ice picks. Also, those other tools have other utility besides murder. Guns can't open your mail. Well, not efficiently, anyway.

Way ahead of you, as always. Already did this on page 8. But sure, if you want to be shamed again, sure. Here's you from page 8. Below is Wayne, a few hours earlier. I'm sure it's just a coincidence, right? hahaha. '"The elites don’t care not one whit about America’s school system and school children,” he said to a favorable reception at the conservative event. “If they truly cared, what they would do is they would protect them. For them it’s not a safety issue, it’s a political issue. They care more about control and more of it, their goal is to eliminate the Second Amendment and our firearms freedoms so that they can eradicate all individual freedoms.” http://www.newsweek.com/wayne-lapierre-nra-cpac-guns-816294 Revising this previous estimate. I think it might just be 20,000 posts of LABillzFan mentioning Hillary. It's sad. Ah yes, here again comes the idea that these mass shootings are orchestrated media events. Plants! George Soros! Crisis Actors! Anything, anything but guns.

The majority of Americans support stronger gun control. You want to prevent the majority because of your niche interests and a flawed understanding of our society and the world we inhabit. It's not up for debate. The whole point of this thread is that there is no debate, not a logical one. Every accusal from the right always ends up being a confused confession. The weirdo hardcore right anti-gay guys always end up being closeted homosexuals or with Roy Moore literally pedophiles. The right loves to pretend that the gun-control argument is "emotional" without awareness that their entire argument is based on emotion. They like the feelings of comfort a gun provides. As I said before, I don't even want to outlaw the AR-15 necessarily, I understand the argument of why its popular, I just want to make it harder to get. Of course then the question is why stop at AR-15? Why can't I own a grenade launcher? Why is that not an arm I can bear? Why can't I have a landmine on my front lawn to prevent burglars from trying to steal my grenade launcher? I need it for hunting and to protect my family from a potentially tyrannical government. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/20/voters-support-tougher-gun-control-after-florida-shooting-quinnipiac-poll.html https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/11/gun-control-vegas-polls-243647 https://morningconsult.com/2017/10/11/republican-support-gun-control-growing-polling-shows/ https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/13/16468902/gun-control-politics-intensity It's not really even up for debate, not any kind of honest debate. There is no counter-argument anymore. The debate is over, and it has been. The question is not "should it change." The question is when is it going to change, and who is preventing it and why? By the way, your argument — "Guns are never the problem & we cannot/should not change gun laws or policy in any way" — includes preventing research into gun violence, repeatedly blocked by the NRA, preventing even clearer evidence. Tasker literally plaigarized Wayne LaPierre as part of his argument. Even the most hack political cartoonists would think that would be a way too on-the-nose version of "the NRA controls you like puppets" except there was no irony or self-awareness in it.

Didn't say Tasker was a pedophile. Just that, as his argument supports the necessity of mass shooters for 2A, it also supports the necessity of pedophiles for 1A. On the other hand, your previous post did say that one of my posts made you literally cream in your jeans. If someone said that to you or your wife or child, even though it was just a failed joke, what would you label that? Because I don't know what other word there is for that but pervert. Do you think that telling a stranger that their post made you involuntarily orgasm is not perverted? Then I guess it would be fair to call you a pervert, no? Just based on your actions in the last 5 minutes? In conclusion, Tasker is not a pedophile, his argument just strongly supports their freedom to own child pornography provided they did not make it. And 3rdnIng is either the world's worst joke teller, and/or a pervert with clear sexual predator tendencies. This is just based on your posts in this thread. Who knows how much worse you are outside of it. But you can keep going, if you like.

https://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp http://www.pewresearch.org/topics/gun-control/ https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/09/gun-control https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/4/16418754/gun-control-washington-post