TakeYouToTasker Posted December 17, 2018 Share Posted December 17, 2018 14 minutes ago, /dev/null said: I'll leave the "in his ass and out his mouth" between the two of you, but in the decade or so I've known EII on TSW he does tend to talk out of his ass He is the single most irretrievably stupid person I've encountered here, and was the very first person I blocked on the board. I responded to him for the first time in several years very recently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 17, 2018 Share Posted December 17, 2018 5 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: He is the single most irretrievably stupid person I've encountered here, and was the very first person I blocked on the board. I responded to him for the first time in several years very recently. Daddy issues? ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 17, 2018 Share Posted December 17, 2018 13 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: He is the single most irretrievably stupid person I've encountered here "Hold my sippy cup and watch this..." - gator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 17, 2018 Share Posted December 17, 2018 19 minutes ago, DC Tom said: "Hold my sippy cup and watch this..." - gator I can honestly say I'd rather read the combined lifetimes works of gatorman than have any kind of exchange with EII. Gatorman is stupid, but at least he's mostly coherent, and I can tell what he's directing his stupidity at. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted December 17, 2018 Share Posted December 17, 2018 42 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: I can honestly say I'd rather read the combined lifetimes works of gatorman than have any kind of exchange with EII. Gatorman is stupid, but at least he's mostly coherent, and I can tell what he's directing his stupidity at. If you ever get the chance to meet the idiot, do so! He's just a fun and nice guy you'd be shocked to chat with - it's entertaining! He looks more like a grungy 60s hippy with a 90s vibe than the internet troll you'd maybe expect, if I quote someone else. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 17, 2018 Share Posted December 17, 2018 4 minutes ago, Boyst62 said: If you ever get the chance to meet the idiot, do so! He's just a fun and nice guy you'd be shocked to chat with - it's entertaining! He looks more like a grungy 60s hippy with a 90s vibe than the internet troll you'd maybe expect, if I quote someone else. I have always been the same. Our politics differ. I am not trying to troll. Yes, preachy... I mean come on, there has to be differing viewpoints. I came here fully expecting this reaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 17, 2018 Share Posted December 17, 2018 1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said: I can honestly say I'd rather read the combined lifetimes works of gatorman than have any kind of exchange with EII. Gatorman is stupid, but at least he's mostly coherent, and I can tell what he's directing his stupidity at. eii is the latterday coming of eecummings rambling on incoherently in vain attempting to sound deep what makes the asian carp swim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 17, 2018 Share Posted December 17, 2018 40 minutes ago, Boyst62 said: If you ever get the chance to meet the idiot, do so! He's just a fun and nice guy you'd be shocked to chat with - it's entertaining! He looks more like a grungy 60s hippy with a 90s vibe than the internet troll you'd maybe expect, if I quote someone else. I'm sure he and I would hate each other, and have a blast together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted December 17, 2018 Share Posted December 17, 2018 7 minutes ago, DC Tom said: I'm sure he and I would hate each other, and have a blast together. That's unpossible. Picture a special Olympian disliking glitter. EII would love you and want to sprinkle you on everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted December 17, 2018 Share Posted December 17, 2018 42 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said: I have always been the same. Our politics differ. I am not trying to troll. Yes, preachy... I mean come on, there has to be differing viewpoints. I came here fully expecting this reaction. The thing is — Maddison clearly wrote out what the 2nd amendment met. In the days of yesteryear when I was more liberal I fought your argument to a degree. However, I historied and discovered through the Federalist papers exactly what they meant. And so there’s no merit in the “militia” argument. Afteall, what were the minute men? Nothing more than bro’s with guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 17, 2018 Share Posted December 17, 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, The_Dude said: The thing is — Maddison clearly wrote out what the 2nd amendment met. In the days of yesteryear when I was more liberal I fought your argument to a degree. However, I historied and discovered through the Federalist papers exactly what they meant. And so there’s no merit in the “militia” argument. Afteall, what were the minute men? Nothing more than bro’s with guns. You don't even need to read the primary sources or the history (though anyone making arguments about it certainly should), you just need to be able to read above a 6th grade level and know how to diagram a sentence. Here: https://selfeducatedconservative.wordpress.com/2nd-amendment/ Quote Actually diagramming the 2nd amendment puts to rest any argument that the right to own a gun is for militias and not individuals. It drives me crazy when people argue about original intent in favor of the individual right to own guns. This isn’t because they are wrong, but because they overlook this important fact: to come to the conclusion that the right to own a gun is for individuals and not militias, all you need is an understanding of the English language. Anyway, on the to actual diagram. The subject of this sentence is “right,” namely, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” The predicate (the action the subject is taking) is “shall not be infringed.” “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” is a nominative absolute. It has a noun, but no verb. Grammatically speaking, it has no bearing on the meaning of the rest of the sentence, which is why it is unconnected in the diagram. That first phrase could say anything at all, and the subject and predicate would remain the same. Edited December 17, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted December 17, 2018 Share Posted December 17, 2018 9 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: You don't even need to read the primary sources or the history (though anyone making arguments about it certainly should), you just need to be able to read above a 6th grade level and know how to diagram a sentence. Here: https://selfeducatedconservative.wordpress.com/2nd-amendment/ It needs historical context. Im not making googles so I’m not gonna get into specifics, but males were once required to own musket and shot for the defense of the nation. I’m not sure when that fell out. Further, and one needs a background into privateering/piracy — but merchant ships also kept cannons which blows holes into lots of theories on to what degree of arms the people should have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 17, 2018 Share Posted December 17, 2018 Just now, The_Dude said: It needs historical context. Im not making googles so I’m not gonna get into specifics, but males were once required to own musket and shot for the defense of the nation. I’m not sure when that fell out. Further, and one needs a background into privateering/piracy — but merchant ships also kept cannons which blows holes into lots of theories on to what degree of arms the people should have. As I said, I think anyone making arguments surrounding the intentions of the Founders should absolutely read the primary sources and relevant history; but the particular argument that this fool is making doesn't even require that much: it only requires understanding how English works, and being about to read above a 6th grade level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted December 17, 2018 Share Posted December 17, 2018 3 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said: He is the single most irretrievably stupid person I've encountered here, and was the very first person I blocked on the board. I responded to him for the first time in several years very recently. Same here. Pure gibberish in every post. And it's not even in the realm of "Are you drunk?" It's more like Brad Pitt "Twelve Monkeys" type stuff. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted December 17, 2018 Share Posted December 17, 2018 1 hour ago, LABillzFan said: Same here. Pure gibberish in every post. And it's not even in the realm of "Are you drunk?" It's more like Brad Pitt "Twelve Monkeys" type stuff. .....that was an awesome movie. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 18, 2018 Share Posted December 18, 2018 Quote WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration is moving to officially ban bump stocks, which allow semi-automatic weapons to fire rapidly like automatic firearms. A senior Justice Department official says bump stocks will be banned under the federal law that prohibits machine guns. It will take effect in late March. After that, it will be illegal to possess bump stocks. https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-admin-bump-stocks-ban Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted December 18, 2018 Share Posted December 18, 2018 1 hour ago, Tiberius said: https://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/trump-admin-bump-stocks-ban Bump stocks are stupid. Only good for 25m and in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted December 18, 2018 Share Posted December 18, 2018 Here is the summary of the new rule................... Quote Stephen GutowskiVerified account @StephenGutowski FollowFollow @StephenGutowski I have to point out that it's not true. That isn't how bump fire stocks work. You have to actuate the trigger for each shot fired. So, they're basically just saying bump fire stocks do something they clearly don't do. Quote Stephen GutowskiVerified account @StephenGutowski 1h1 hour ago Additionally, regardless of how you feel about bump fire stocks, the mechanism for outlawing the devices is what gun rights activists have long considered confiscation. There is no grandfathering. Possession will become completely illegal 90 days after the rule goes into effect. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted December 18, 2018 Share Posted December 18, 2018 This is my largest ***** Trump situation. Complete ***** and hope it gets challenged in court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevbeau Posted December 19, 2018 Share Posted December 19, 2018 (edited) I’ve never fired anything with a bump stock so I defer to our board experts. From what I understand it’s an inertia driven system? Seems like it actuates the trigger just based of the motion of the firearm vs the bearer....to the Dude’s point, seems sloppy. Edited December 19, 2018 by Kevbeau Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts