LA Grant

...You're... welcome... ? Congrats on the cum.

I'd like to see fewer mass shootings. You don't want to be inconvenienced.

It sounds like you pissed yourself which yeah is not a good sign. Hopefully you had an adult diaper or those pants might be ruined.

Your brain does not work and I wish there was some kind of mirror where you could see it. Take an IQ test or talk to a doctor. The synapses are not firing correctly. No. See you next year. The good thing about you is you will wear your dumb badness openly, so thanks for being honest anyway.

Oh you know, just doing a little bit of banging my head against the wall. Expand background checks. DMV-like testing & classes & annual registration process. Restrict access. Preventative measures. The previous 10 pages & previous 10 years of this argument.

I just find it amusing that you think this is the grown-up's table. Hahahaha. How do you make that conclusion, Joe? Are you suggesting PPP is full of thoughtful, respectful discourse, philosophically engaging in comparative arguments on the value of ideas? lol WHERE?? Every other thread is a bunch of conservative snowflakes in a bubble agreeing with each other as B-Man shares conservative memes & links from often incredibly dubious sources and the rest of you do your tired schticks to each other. There must be 200,000 posts on PPP with "Hillary" in there somewhere and that might be a conservative estimate. This is the polar opposite of the grownup table. This is a tree-fort for Old Conservative White Men With Bad Opinions. It is a collective man cave for politics. It's why you don't see me here. It's why I'm not interested in debating every stupid issue like this, because it is almost certainly futile. It's not a group known for their listening skills. Ok? I know all of this going in. If this was real life and I tried the gun debate in an "enemy territory" bar, I'd be dogpiled, just as I was here, except in real life, I'd also be assaulted or shot or something. The nice thing about message boards is that sometimes its possible to deliver messages you don't want to hear. If this happened in real life, you would've punched me or whoever the messenger would be if they spoke this directly to you. That should be comforting to you, I think? I would not have been able to get, like, 10% of this into your ears before getting kicked out or literally kicked. Because of that, I appreciate PPP's existence. And in your own way, you did listen, at least somewhat — I could've been stopped earlier by a mod but I wasn't, which is commendable. Well. Maybe. I mean that also means that's exactly why PPP is also a place where people can just be straight-up hateful in a way that they would never be to someone's face (ie., your other posts in the other threads), necessitating an equally aggressive response. And that's where the conversation has to start just to engage. But that's more of a cultural thing, and it is what it is. You guys made the rules, and the rules are bad. That's kind of the whole point. So, you know, Go Bills, hahah. I don't care about your specific position because this isn't about you. It's not about me, either, as much as you want it to be.The fact that you think it is is also why you are unable to understand any of the previous 10 pages. I'm tired of repeating myself. This isn't the first time the debate's been had. Get a damn clue.

loooool the amount of cognitive dissonance here... omg. "Horses are just really big dogs" = "Guns are never the problem, we cannot and should not change anything about the status quo. It is impossible." "You !@#$ing idiot" = "People overwhelmingly disagree and there are no shortage of options, but they all involve some form of additional restrictions on gun purchases which will necessitate lawful, non-violent gun owners being inconvenienced to provide necessary security measures. It is an either/or. You either agree there is a problem or you do not. You either agree that guns are part of the problem or you do not; if you do not, be aware that people overwhelmingly disagree with you & the status quo you're benefiting from being maintained by lobbyists. You either agree that reform is necessary & guns are part of the problem/solution, OR, you are merely advocating for products over people. If you have another solution to mass shootings (which you don't because any other solution involves higher taxes or you being inconvenienced in some way) we'd all love to hear it." "Wow interesting how you choose to attack me instead of engaging my argument in the marketplace of ideas." = "How dare you! Rude! Boorish! Meanie!"

ahahaha "Tiring rude and boorish" — Have you read your posts here?? You just spent the last however many pages trotting out every NRA and Glenn Beck talking point you could think of to argue in favor of mass shootings as acceptable collateral damage over any restrictions on gun access. You argued against common sense reform in favor of strict adherence to the Constitution. Now your unwillingness to defend all Amendments equally plainly reveals your "intellectual dishonesty." If it's acceptable to redefine & reinterpret 1A for things the Founders could not have foreseen, its acceptable to redefine & reinterpret 2A for things the Founders could not have foreseen. How did you put it? You've explained multiple times why mass shootings in America are acceptable & necessary, but the line for you is that I'm rude. Once again proving the point that it's all about your personal convenience above all else. Do you understand that's why we're having the conversation here, on your turf? It wouldn't happen otherwise. You've shown more sympathy for the shooter than the victims. You're so desensitized to what's actually happening that you've made it completely acceptable with all the stupid blather from before just to justify the madness. Defending unrestricted gun access is crazy, as crazy as defending a pedophile's right to own child porn. But that's the argument you've made. Yesterday You explains your reasoning why you feel this way, since it seems like you forgot: You don't care a whit about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or defending the Second Amendment. If you did, you'd be interested in defending the First Amendment from the same types of "infringements" upon our freedoms. You aren't. You're just grateful that you have this crap to hide behind to avoid dealing with the corpses you're piling up to avoid being inconvenienced. (Also — you never did respond to multiple invitations to share your 'solutions' or even identification of 'the problem') Why, just a moment ago, we were hearing about the importance of defending every inch of our inalienable rights the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights at all costs, by all means necessary, collateral damage be damned. Now you want to... restrict my speech? Whahaahahahahaa I have to say, on top of everything, feeling earnestly victimized for "libel" of all things after doing this performative condescending history professor BS & vehemently defending strict adherence to the Bill of Rights is pretty funny. Wish you could see why. http://www.newseuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/topics/freedom-of-the-press/libel-defamation/ IN CONCLUSION: There is no honest argument against the gun reform laid out in page one, post one. The problem and solution are simple. Expand background checks. Increase regulation. Restrict access. Apologies to the Lawful Gun Owners who may be mildly inconvenienced by these obviously necessary measures, but, get over it.

Oh you poor child, I'm not staying, you have grossly misunderstood my intentions — and the attractiveness of this board. I've visited here before. I only come to PPP when I want to find Old White Conservative Men With Bad Opinions. They grow 'em here. Insults on PPP? Clutch your pearls!

Indeed we are, because you have nothing. You had multiple invitations to offer your solutions that would not involve restricting guns, or paying more taxes, or you personally inconvenienced. As that leaves you with no ground left to argue, all you have left is trying to weasel out. You said it yourself: the Bill of Rights are absolute. The government should not modify their meaning unless specified by an additional amendment. Am I misunderstanding your position, Tasker? If you support no limitations on the Second Amendment, then logically you'd also support no limitations on the First Amendment, which means, your argument in favor of guns is also in favor of child pornography. Congratulations, Tasker, this is the endgame of your argument. Unless you'd agree that preventing child pornography is a necessary restriction on the Bill of Rights? You seem horrified by the mere mention of the crime, whereas you were gleefully putting on your professor cosplay to explain to us why children being murdered is acceptable and necessary. So, do you agree that that restriction is necessary or do you not, Tasker? If you don't agree — and based on your previous arguments, you do not support those restrictions — then clearly you are in favor of owning child pornography. This logic should be simple enough even for you. In boxing, this is called rope-a-dope, thank you for playing the dope, you set yourself up beautifully. Now it's over. "Crybaby snowflake can't handle being challenged in his safe space. Needs to try to insist that he won the argument despite retreating." I'm sure we can find a participation trophy for you. How about some of those brain supplements on InfoWars, is there an NRA discount, or...? Best of luck in the future.

Exactly what it was meant, eh? Because I cannot legally own a military-tech drone, a live mine, or a missile, even though I need those weapons to protect my family from a tyrannical government. Why shouldn't a grenade launcher count as arms? Why can't I bear those, Tasker? Are you similarly upset that the First Amendment is not also absolute, Tasker? Sure, we what we call "free speech," but not if that speech includes incitement, obscenity, false statements of fact, and a host of other restrictions including child pornography. Since you're advocating strict interpretation of an amendment written back in the 1700s, you must clearly want that same interpretation extended to all amendments. It's for this reason I can only assume that you are also pro-child-pornography. Maybe that should be your new tagline under your handle? TakeYouToTasker "This Man Supports Child Pornography" Anyway, still awaiting you, re: solutions to mass shootings. Are you perhaps busy on another part of the internet? ...Pervert.

lol. You are so stupid on every subject

You're right! We should de-regulate traffic laws to match gun laws. Any 18 year old with a face who hasn't been to jail should be allowed on the road. And we shouldn't have police patrolling traffic until after there have been accidents. Just like guns, we should take as few preventative measures as possible. The only thing that can stop a bad driver in a car is a good driver in a car. Right? You moron.

The bullying was addressed. The players were separated. Richie was punished by the NFL and Martin got a fresh start. Incognito is a scumbag for many reasons, but even with his bullying of Martin, he has nothing to do with Martin's actions here. He did not make Martin buy a shotgun or post that image with those words.

Wait, lol, why is the idea so weird? Most successful businesses that I can think of seem to fit the mold of focusing on making a quality product over trying to win over customers. But you're right, it's a mindset. "Focusing on quality product" is a confident mindset. "Trying to win over customers" is an insecure one. As we get more abstract I feel like I might need to say: obviously you need customers. I guess I'd say, as a customer, my preference is for a quality product over being personally catered to. For folks who say 'never again' to the NFL re: protests, they'd prefer to be catered to. (That said, the NFL game product itself could & should be much higher quality but that's an entirely separate discussion)

Aw that's adorable. Can you even see this reply if you have me on ignore, precious snowflake? I'll even give you a participation trophy to help you feel better. Burrow burrow into the bubble, baby boy.

You wouldn't have no customers, you just wouldn't have those customers. Similarly, the NFL is fine without the fans upset by the protests. If the product is good, then you will have a business. If the barista is aggressive to customers while preparing or delivering the product, that's one thing; they're obstructing the product, and then should be disciplined or fired. Kneeling during the protests does not fit 'aggressive to customers,' imo. That would be, like, players on the sidelines saying to camera "Hey all the fans are stupid and we hate you." Like Sammy's thing with the little jobs IG post. That's more of a fit than the kneeling, which is more like 'customers don't like barista's face/shirt/social media/whatever they're doing besides making & handing them coffee' — in which case, those customers can go somewhere else. Ideally.

Lennon was mocking gun culture in that song, you simple fool. Similarly with Bungalow Bill. AND HE WAS MURDERED WITH A GUN THAT WAS PURCHASED LEGALLY. http://www.syracuse.com/celebrity-news/index.ssf/2015/12/john_lennon_mark_david_chapman_legal_gun_ny.html You are so impossibly dumb. Oooo THAT is a hoot. Y'all seem to enjoy sarcasm on this board, just not when it's against you. Attaboy. The only possible explanation is I must be craaaaazy. Burrow, then. Burrow back into your bubble. It's safe and warm there, in your happy place where guns are always good, and you are always right.

In the line quoted, I'm speaking about my opinion (IMO), about what should be, not what "is." You brought up the perspective of the business, right? Because you'd be right, there's more to the product that matters, in their opinion. If it's a confusion of semantics, I'll clarify. In my opinion, the company should only be concerned with the product. The game is the product. The players themselves are not the product. The players playing the game is the product. From the NFL's perspective, the product includes the players, including players standing for the anthem. In my opinion, that definition is wrong. An analogy: If a barista wears a "Blue Lives Matter" shirt, and then some customers decide to protest and stop going to the coffee shop, obviously the owners of the coffee shop will want to do whatever they can to get the customers back. But, in my opinion, if the barista is still performing their responsibilities & delivering the product, then that loss of revenue is not the fault of the employee — even if those lost customers are blaming the employee. From the perspective of the coffee shop, any profit-driven company will always be "customer is always right." In my opinion, the customer is not always right. The employee is sometimes right. I don't like to see employees punished if they haven't done anything to prevent/hurt the product, just because of customers disagreeing with the individual employee on a non-product related issue. The NFL may view the players are the product, that they own them outside of when they're playing the game, that they can & should regulate their behavior outside of the game. I strongly disagree with that view.

Well, we're not missing that point — that's why Kim Pegula is doing outreach, to protect the business interests. Exactly right. You and I definitely don't have the same platform as the NFL players do, and we have less leverage. But that's also why what the players are doing is important, from the labor perspective, and why I hope they stay unified, so that it's harder to single them out like they were able to do to Kaep.

I get that, I hear that. It's a fair point!! But I disagree for a couple reasons. —NFL players aren't working at Starbucks or an insurance company, and, I don't think they should be viewed as just bodies in a uniform. They are in a different position — they're role models, whether they like it or not, for no better reason than they're part of the #1 most popular TV show ever. The NFL encourages this by having players do scheduled community outreach and so on, which is great and lovely. So if the players do it by speaking up for things that would make a corporation squeamish to address (like, systemic police corruption/violence), then I believe that is both equal and just. In other words, the players/employees should have as much right to decide what they stand for as the company does. Now, if the players were halting the game, or interfering with the "work getting done" then I think it's maybe more of the "company time" problem. Since the protests have been entirely respectful and unobtrusive, there isn't any issue (to my mind.) —More broadly, or ideally, I don't want to give that much power to the bosses/owners/companies. If you want to use your company car to run an errand to the sex store, my take is — sure, go for it. I understand that companies want to maintain their branding (not wearing uniform to the bar example) but I also feel like, who cares? I get the company's position. I just don't respect it. Generally speaking, I think corporations have way overstepped their bounds into our lives. Most of us who work full-time work more than 40 hours per week. Many of us have worked at places where we have been expected to do other people's jobs on top of our own, to take one for the team. The reality is that we are largely at the mercy of these corporations, assuming we want food & shelter & medicine. More than ever, winning battles against corporations is incredibly difficult, because people are expendable to companies— one of the critical downsides to capitalism. Rather than address this issue, I find that many people will generally side with the company over the individual, which I think is perverse. All that should matter to the company is "is the work is getting done?" So if the football games are still being played, if the athletes are still performing on the field, my personal belief is that should be all that matters. IMO.

Before I dig into responding, I haven't double-checked Wayne LaPierre or Glenn Beck today -- how much of the above is paraphrased from them? Any interest in explaining why your previous post was plagiarized from the the head of the NRA? I wrongly assumed you were using your own words before. Is it because you're less educated, less evolved? Desperately clinging to some higher authority over plain reason? I don't know. I don't know you. I have an image of my head of what you might be like in reality based on your posts, but I have no idea. I don't know you except for your posts. Speaking of which, you tend to do this thing where you like to repeat this refrain: "Make a better argument." Buddy, I can't make your brain work for you. The arguments are there. They have always been there. They are clear. You can find them anywhere. Well, except for Fox, Beck, freedomtruth.net or righttobeararms.biz or whatever fringe outlets you're parroting. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/20/voters-support-tougher-gun-control-after-florida-shooting-quinnipiac-poll.html https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/21/17028930/gun-violence-us-statistics-charts You accuse me/gun control proponents of "standing on the bodies of dead children promoting Marxism" without any hint of self-awareness that you, the NRA, & the fierce Second Amendment defenders, are "standing on the bodies of dead children promoting guns over social health." As tends to be the case with the right, everything that you throw out as an accusal is often just a confused confession. It's disgusting. You just drone on and on about how nothing can be done, legally, and certainly not with guns. So then what? Have you booked your flight for your missionary trip to save the children yet? Like the NRA, you have no interest in solving the problem. The problem is obvious. The solution is obvious. You simply want to distract, to point to other societal issues in a long-winded series of playing the "what about"-ism game. White Nationalists & Christian Conservatives, by the way, have shaped the role of an active government to suit their interests. From the beginning. Which is apparently fine to you, as long as it's written on parchment somewhere. But if the role of the government goes in another direction, then it's unacceptable to you. I don't know how you contort your mind to think that the rest of the country, the rest of the world, somehow doesn't understand your position. Frankly it often appears that you don't understand your position. You bloviate to distract, distract, distract from the core issue: you don't want to be personally inconvenienced. So, guns are never the problem. The problem or solution is never guns. But you can't say your position that plainly because it's obviously wrong, and you're more interested in feeling right than being right, so here we are. The challenge, Tasker, I'll remind you, is for you to offer up your solutions. You've heard mine. They are on page one. You've exhaustively gunsplained to me why reform cannot (and should not) work or happen. All you've pointed to is mental health and the broken individual. So, I'll get into the weeds here a little bit for you — yes, we should have more mental health services. Mental health should be covered under universal health care. I also believe in universal basic income replacing unemployment & other social services. Here's why we can't have that, and why we can't have common sense gun reform either: because it might inconvenience you. So. Are you paying? Because mental health is "health care," you stupid selfish 'libertarian' oaf. So, let's hear it. What's your solution? In your own words, if possible, not Wayne's or Glenn's.

Kneeling during the anthem did absolutely nothing to affect the game except for sensitive fans losing their minds because they can't put themselves in another person's shoes to even try to understand their point. The games were not delayed. They were not affected. Instead, you saw reactionary fans intentionally misconstruing everything to somehow be about disrespecting the troops or other such nonsense, no matter how many times both the players (and veterans) said that was not the case. And I couldn't disagree more that it should only be up to the NFL owners what their platform is used for. I don't watch for the NFL as an entity, I watch for the players and the teams.

Things like this make me proud to have Kim Pegula as an owner. Unfortunately too many football owners (and fans) treat the players like they're subhuman. See below: