What is better, no guns, or more guns?

[Commsvet11]

4 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

, FYI it is prohibited to use tax dollars on abortions. So when you complain about it being the federal government's decision, you already won. People have to use their own money. When you talk about getting rid of Planned Parenthood funding what you are talking about is getting rid of the things that stop abortions. Like contraceptives and Medical Care. So the only reason for your little Jihad is that you don't like it, and you think you should get to impose your religion on everyone else

 

I’ll tell you what as I said earlier in the thread, I am fine with abortions being legal, so long as there is an option for men to opt out of child support during a pregnancy,  if he doesn’t want the responsibility of being a father. That’s fair isn’t it? Equality. I’ll even allow it rape and medical cases.

[LA Grant]

3 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

The wonderful thing about guns and the Second Amendment is that if you try to make an end run around the Second Amendment and infringe on the right to bear arms, we get to do the opposite of get out of the way.

 

We get to stand in front of you.  With guns.

 

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

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

4 minutes ago, Commsvet11 said:

I’ll tell you what as I said earlier in the thread, I am fine with abortions being legal, so long as there is an option for men to opt out of child support during a pregnancy,  if he doesn’t want the responsibility of being a father. That’s fair isn’t it? Equality. I’ll even allow it rape and medical cases.

 

I'm fine with that.

 

My argument is I've been seeing the people going"you can't take away my guns, that's an inalienable right and a horrific government overreeach" being totally cool with people dragging their interpretation of a 6000 year old mythos (which is totally endorses daughters liquoring up their dad so he can impregnate them out of wedlock) which is to why they should be able to dictate other people's medical decisions.

[Rockpile233]

1 minute ago, LA Grant said:

 

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

Doesn’t anyone WORK anymore!!!

[LA Grant]

34 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

Unfortunately for Trump, he's not going to please a lot of people with his anti-2A and and NRA rhetoric.

 

I mean, yes, he'll please the smaller people with the loudest megaphones, but the people who voted for him? Not so much.

 

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.... 

 

 

Edited March 1, 2018 by LA Grant

[Azalin]

51 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

As it is...in true Trumpian fashion, he's got his opponents complaining about the very policy they espouse. 

 

 

It's apparently a gift.

12 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Yeah, that sounds about right. But you can feel comfortable that the rest of us are mocking your dogma.

 

 

Knock yourself out. You have freedom of expression. There are people that will use their firearms to defend your right to do so, if need be.

[boyst]

3 hours ago, Rockpile233 said:

Trump supporting age increase, bump stock ban (even if it takes EO), and bolstering the background check system!!

 

Can’t stop him from winning over gun nuts.

 

Winning!

 

It's a pretty solid plan because it makes Democrats have to say no because they'll want more. And it makes Republicans concede that maybe some things do need to be looked at with regulation. But Trump is smart enough to know like anyone educated and paying attention to this game that nothing will change that will truly jeopardize the Second Amendment except for making the Democrats look foolish and the hardcore Libertarians continue to go further right. There is no way Trump doesn't win this

[LA Grant]

6 minutes ago, Azalin said:

It's apparently a gift.

 

Knock yourself out. You have freedom of expression. There are people that will use their firearms to defend your right to do so, if need be.

 

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.

[Warren Zevon]

1 hour ago, LABillzFan said:

 

Okay, if I'm an idiot because I don't know what constitutes an assault-style rifle, then I'll admit I'm an idiot if you can break down which guns, specifically, come under the heading of "assault-style rifles."

 

 

Make and model will be fine. I'll wait.

 

 

 

 

 

My opinion? Ban every semi-automatic weapon.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 hour ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

, FYI it is prohibited to use tax dollars on abortions. So when you complain about it being the federal government's decision, you already won. People have to use their own money. When you talk about getting rid of Planned Parenthood funding what you are talking about is getting rid of the things that stop abortions. Like contraceptives and Medical Care. So the only reason for your little Jihad is that you don't like it, and you think you should get to impose your religion on everyone else

 

 

Oooooh looks like we’ve got a new edgelord in our midst.

[IDBillzFan]

50 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Yeah, that sounds about right. But you can feel comfortable that the rest of us are mocking your dogma.

 

 

 

 

And we'll mock yours. We can do this all day.

 

 

15 minutes ago, garybusey said:

 

My opinion? Ban every semi-automatic weapon.

 

No, no.  That's not the discussion. You called me an idiot because I don't know what assault-style rifles are. Which means you MUST know what they are.

 

So go ahead and let us know all the guns that fall under the category of assault-style rifles.

 

We'll keep waiting.

[DC Tom]

52 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

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

 

Yes, this obscure Korean dating web site self-styled as a "command center of cosmic peace" run by the Reverend Hyung Jin Moon as the hereditary successor to the Cheon Il Guk's founder is entirely representative of modern American Christian dogma.  

[Warren Zevon]

6 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

 

 

 

And we'll mock yours. We can do this all day.

 

 

 

No, no.  That's not the discussion. You called me an idiot because I don't know what assault-style rifles are. Which means you MUST know what they are.

 

So go ahead and let us know all the guns that fall under the category of assault-style rifles.

 

We'll keep waiting.

 

No. I called you an idiot because you said Dick's stopped selling guns.

[DC Tom]

4 minutes ago, garybusey said:

 

No. I called you an idiot because you said Dick's stopped selling guns.

 

I believe he said Dick's stopped selling diseases.

[Azalin]

14 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

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.

 

I'll tell you that you don't seem to know when you're being mocked for being a petty, pompous blowhard, as well as for your apparent inability to grasp simple concepts like constitutional rights. You think you're the only one here who is sick over the murder of innocent high school students, so you launch on a holier-than-thou rant that does nothing but alienate anyone who you might have won over with a more level-headed approach.

 

So please, continue to express yourself, Grant. I know I won't be the only one being thoroughly entertained as you rage your way into apoplexy.

[IDBillzFan]

9 minutes ago, garybusey said:

 

No. I called you an idiot because you said Dick's stopped selling guns.

 

 

Did I say Dick's stopped selling guns, or did you incorrectly infer that from my post.

 

I have an idea: find my post that said "Dick's stopped selling guns."

 

[LA Grant]

11 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

And we'll mock yours. We can do this all day.

 

 

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!

[DC Tom]

8 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

I'll tell you that you don't seem to know when you're being mocked for being a petty, pompous blowhard, as well as for your apparent inability to grasp simple concepts like constitutional rights. You think you're the only one here who is sick over the murder of innocent high school students, so you launch on a holier-than-thou rant that does nothing but alienate anyone who you might have won over with a more level-headed approach.

 

So please, continue to express yourself, Grant. I know I won't be the only one being thoroughly entertained as you rage your way into apoplexy.

 

It's amusing the way he confuses his outrage with facts.  Makes it a waste of time to engage him, but it is entertaining.

[Commsvet11]

42 minutes ago, WhitewalkerInPhilly said:

 

I'm fine with that.

 

My argument is I've been seeing the people going"you can't take away my guns, that's an inalienable right and a horrific government overreeach" being totally cool with people dragging their interpretation of a 6000 year old mythos (which is totally endorses daughters liquoring up their dad so he can impregnate them out of wedlock) which is to why they should be able to dictate other people's medical decisions.

Well the reason they say that it is an overreach is the 2nd amendment is made so civilians keep the government from being tryancial. It’s easy to fight a military when you invade, there is vehicles, encampments and easy to ID uniforms, now armed civilians on the other hand,  very much harder.

As for your 6000 year old mythos, that is simply religious expression.

No matter how crazy it sounds, religious beliefs have a say, the freedom to practice their religion without government intrusion is like the 2nd amendment written in stone in the first amendment.So people naturally elect those who share beliefs to represent them. You are free to your beliefs, they are modern and you care for society we live in,  I appreciate that, but for changes you personally want to see, gun control, religious folks stance on medical stances dissmissed, that violates the first and second amendment rights, that just can’t happen.

[row_33]

I have never heard a sermon saying it was a good thing for Lot’s daughters to do that....

 

what church do do do do you go to???