Won't anyone think of the poor, sensitive Lawful Gun Owner?

[Cinga]

2 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

Again — No one cares about you shooting beer cans in the woods. But AR-15s are not an inalienable right. OBVIOUSLY. It's madness that such a statement even needs to be said.

I've said it in other threads..... Please name me a country that uses the AR-15 for their military?

 

I'll wait...... 

[LA Grant]

1 minute ago, Cinga said:

You right, the Constitution can be changed, and that very document tell you how to go about doing it.... But your quotes are based on ignorance of that document and this Nation. Let me just take this one:

 

The very premise of this assumes wrongly that the United States is a Democracy which we are NOT!  It speaks of majorities which the Founder dreaded because so long as there is a rule by majority, it is ALWAYS to the detriment of the minority. I know what you have been taught in school, and I know what politician always say, but they are wrong too.

You see, an extreme of a Democracy would be making the minority give all their earnings over to the majority. Or even for the majority to exempt themselves from all laws and even take the voting rights away from the minority to assure you are forever the majority.

We are a Constitutional Republic, much different than a Democracy in that it is a limited government whose main responsibility it is to protect the rights of the smallest minority,,, The individual.

 

And if you really think any attempt to infringe on the right to bear is not a precedent for more rights taken away, you are sadly mistaken. Just look at the infringements on rights over the last couple decades. If it were not for the investigations going on now,if Hillary had won, I would have expected her to figure a way to suspend the Constitution, or try to.... We know Obama looked into that possibility

 

You're an idiot. No #!*(!&* we are in a constitutional republic and not a true democracy. Thank you for the insight.

 

"More rights taken away." "Hillary." You live in a fantasy land. Talking to you is like playing telephone with whatever the Glenn Beck show has on today or whatever.

[IDBillzFan]

53 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

IT IS A DOCUMENT INTENDED TO BE CHANGED.

 

And you're absolutely welcome to change it.  You do realize that, right? You can actually change it to ban all guns in the US.

 

So, y'know, hop to it, Skippy, and stop wasting everyone's time with your stomping and whining.

 

 

 

[Cinga]

1 minute ago, LA Grant said:

 

You're an idiot. No #!*(!&* we are in a constitutional republic and not a true democracy. Thank you for the insight.

 

"More rights taken away." "Hillary." You live in a fantasy land. Talking to you is like playing telephone with whatever the Glenn Beck show has on today or whatever.

well..... and how did I know that was going to happen?

 

Can't debate truth, so descend into insults.... typical of ALL progressives now

[Deranged Rhino]

4 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

You're way off.

 

No, he isn't. If you had a basic grasp of history you'd understand why. 

5 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

Military technology is NOT a God-given inalienable right. It is not inborn. It is not intrinsic. 

 

 

No one is making that argument but for you. A person who has demonstrated throughly that he does not have even a basic grasp of history, American history, or what's written in the Bill of Rights. 

[LA Grant]

6 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

And you're absolutely welcome to change it.  You do realize that, right? You can actually change it to ban all guns in the US.

 

So, y'know, hop to it, Skippy, and stop wasting everyone's time with your stomping and whining.

 

You're absolutely correct! Well done, Fabio, you're starting to understand why I'm posting down here.

 

I'm terribly sorry that I have triggered you, snowflake, or ruined your safe space with my "stomping and whining"! 

11 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

No one is making that argument but for you. A person who has demonstrated throughly that he does not have even a basic grasp of history, American history, or what's written in the Bill of Rights. 

 

Didn't you start the "Deep State" thread? You are dumb as hell, dude. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

You're way off. The idea, as clearly outlined in those Jefferson letters as anywhere (but not just there), is that the document evolves with society. They were aware they were not Moses coming down from the mountain, although people like yourself get completely lost and miss the forest for the trees. You, your stubbornness, your unwillingness to change or compromise — you are what they were trying to save us from.

 

Military technology is NOT a God-given inalienable right. It is not inborn. It is not intrinsic. 

 

NRA folk are clinging to this perversely warped misinterpretation of the Bill of Rights/the Second Amendment because they think Obama himself is going to come smack the rifle out of their hand or something.

 

Again — No one cares about you shooting beer cans in the woods. But AR-15s are not an inalienable right. OBVIOUSLY. It's madness that such a statement even needs to be said.

No, the document was not designed "to evolve with society"; which is precisely the reason the Amendment process was included:  to provide an avenue for change.  Historically, it's the reason an amendment was added to expand the franchise rather than simply reinterpreting it. 

 

Washington, in fact, stated very specifically that the Document was intended only to be changed through the prescribed Amendment process:  "The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution, which at any time exists, ‘till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. … If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed"

 

As to the Jefferson letters?  The one you quoted says:  "Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and inalienable rights of man."   Read that again.  He states, in no uncertain terms, that inherent and inalienable rights are unchangeable.  Inalienable rights, like those enumerated in the Bill of Rights.  Unchangable.  He adds:  "Our peculiar security is in possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. … If it is, then we have no Constitution."

 

 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

Didn't you start the "Deep State" thread? You are dumb as hell, dude. 

 

Coming from someone who has done nothing but demonstrate his own ignorance for the past day, I take that as a compliment.

[IDBillzFan]

Just now, LA Grant said:

 

You're absolutely correct! Well done, Fabio, you're starting to understand why I'm posting down here.

 

I'm terribly sorry that I have triggered you, snowflake, or ruined your safe space with my "stomping and whining"! 

 

You should get together with Badol.

 

Between the two of you, I'd be curious to find out whose simple, little noggin' I've been living in rent- free the longest.

 

Your insults are so childishly similar, maybe I'll just call you guys a duplex and  consider myself happy to occupy so much real estate for so little money.  

[LA Grant]

9 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Coming from someone who has done nothing but demonstrate his own ignorance for the past day, I take that as a compliment.

 

"Mmm, actually a 'douche' is a sanitizing product, so I take that as a compliment." — this is what you sound like.

 

9 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

No, the document was not designed "to evolve with society"; which is precisely the reason the Amendment process was included:  to provide an avenue for change.  Historically, it's the reason an amendment was added to expand the franchise rather than simply reinterpreting it. 

 

Washington, in fact, stated very specifically that the Document was intended only to be changed through the prescribed Amendment process:  "The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution, which at any time exists, ‘till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. … If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed"

 

As to the Jefferson letters?  The one you quoted says:  "Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and inalienable rights of man."   Read that again.  He states, in no uncertain terms, that inherent and inalienable rights are unchangeable.  Inalienable rights, like those enumerated in the Bill of Rights.  Unchangable.  He adds:  "Our peculiar security is in possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. … If it is, then we have no Constitution."

 

The Bill of Rights have any number of qualifiers. The First Amendment has tons of restrictions. Fourth Amendment. On and on. These are largely considered acceptable or necessary for the greater good.

 

Somehow only the Second Amendment is beyond reproach though, eh? In your head, the idea is that we'd all just continue to get more armed as technology increases? A mini arms race against your neighbors to match the big boys in the news? That was their vision, you think?

 

 

5 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

You should get together with Badol.

 

Between the two of you, I'd be curious to find out whose simple, little noggin' I've been living in rent- free the longest.

 

Your insults are so childishly similar, maybe I'll just call you guys a duplex and  consider myself happy to occupy so much real estate for so little money.  

 

Well, I wouldn't be too flattered. Trump has been in my "noggin" for a time too, and it's not because he's any kind of talented, clever man. He was just on the screen a lot. You just happen to be on this screen/message board a lot. You & JP Losman share about a similar basement space, if we're looking at the floorplan. Congrats...?

 

Anyway, as for snowflake, etc., I wasn't even going expressly personal with that one — I just guessed you were using those kinds of terms because you're a hack who gets all of his 'jokes' from conservative memes. Lazy. 

Edited February 22, 2018 by LA Grant

[Deranged Rhino]

6 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

The Bill of Rights have any number of qualifiers. The First Amendment has tons of restrictions. Fourth Amendment. On and on. These are largely considered acceptable or necessary for the greater good.

 

Somehow only the Second Amendment is beyond reproach though, eh? In your head, the idea is that we'd all just continue to get more armed as technology increases? A mini arms race against your neighbors to match the big boys in the news? That was their vision, you think?

 

 

Incorrect. On nearly everything you've said today. Keep digging. It's fun to watch. 

 

The Bill of Rights are rights which were NOT given to us by the government. They were given to us by the creator. They're inalienable. Words matter. History matters. Context matters. If you spent just a little more time educating yourself rather than emotionally ranting, you'd have a better argument.

 

But instead you want to lash out because you're emotional. When people are emotional, they're less likely to act rationally - like you are in this thread.  

 

The simple fact is there is a process to amend the constitution if needed. The bar to do so is high for a reason, to prevent over corrections from the emotional mob. If you want to change the constitution, devote yourself to politics and enacting that change through the proper channels. That, even if I don't agree with your position, would at least be helpful and an admirable way to go about fighting for what you believe in.  

 

... Or stay down here demonstrating to everyone that you're ignorant of even BASIC history. 

Edited February 22, 2018 by Deranged Rhino

[TakeYouToTasker]

On February 22, 2018 at 5:14 PM, LA Grant said:

 

"Mmm, actually a 'douche' is a sanitizing product, so I take that as a compliment." — this is what you sound like.

 

 

The Bill of Rights have any number of qualifiers. The First Amendment has tons of restrictions. Fourth Amendment. On and on. These are largely considered acceptable or necessary for the greater good.

 

Somehow only the Second Amendment is beyond reproach though, eh? In your head, the idea is that we'd all just continue to get more armed as technology increases? A mini arms race against your neighbors to match the big boys in the news? That was their vision, you think?

 

 

 

Their vision was to protect the People's inalienable right to (entire paragraph added for context, most relevant piece bolded by me) "...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

 

Articulated, right there for your consumption:  the vision was to protect the People's right to possess weaponry sufficient to overthrow their government should it become necessary.

 

You aren't going to win this argument, and you're making yourself look dumber by the minute by arguing with someone who actually knows what the hell they're talking about.

Edited February 27, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[LA Grant]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Incorrect. On nearly everything you've said today. Keep digging. It's fun to watch. 

 

The Bill of Rights are rights which were NOT given to us by the government. They were given to us by the creator. They're inalienable. Words matter. History matters. Context matters. If you spent just a little more time educating yourself rather than emotionally ranting, you'd have a better argument.

 

But instead you want to lash out because you're emotional. When people are emotional, they're less likely to act rationally - like you are in this thread.  

 

The simple fact is there is a process to amend the constitution if needed. The bar to do so is high for a reason, to prevent over corrections from the emotional mob. If you want to change the constitution, devote yourself to politics and enacting that change through the proper channels. That, even if I don't agree with your position, would at least be helpful and an admirable way to go about fighting for what you believe in.  

 

... Or stay down here demonstrating to everyone that you're ignorant of even BASIC history. 

Watching you learn things is sort of like the joy of fatherhood except with you, the child is a mutant, and you just want them stop sticking their finger in the socket.

 

How do you suppose one amends the constitution, sweet child? What do you think "politics" is? Why is the NRA such a powerful lobby? What laws/changes have they made possible or prevented? Who is the NRA? 

 

The Bill of Rights.... were not actually literally written by God. You.... you do understand that, right? They are "inalienable rights" because those are the description written on the paper. History matters. Context matters. If you spent just a little more time educating yourself rather than... <looks at your post history> ... okay a lot more time educating yourself.... <looks deeper into your post history> .... good lord man. 

 

 

 

[IDBillzFan]

6 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Well, I wouldn't be too flattered. Trump has been in my "noggin" for a time too, and it's not because he's any kind of talented, clever man. He was just on the screen a lot. You just happen to be on this screen/message board a lot. You & JP Losman share about a similar basement space, if we're looking at the floorplan.

 

Anyway, as for snowflake, etc., I wasn't even going expressly personal with that one — I just guessed you were using those kinds of terms because you're a hack who gets all of his 'jokes' from conservative memes. Lazy. 

 

You're getting to the point where I should probably let you know I'm straight, and I'm married.

 

But I appreciate the obsession.

[snafu]

1 hour ago, LA Grant said:

 

Bumping this quote YET AGAIN for Tasker/LABillz who seem very hung up on the idea that somehow the Second Amendment and Guns are as unchangeable as the wind or the ground.

 

IT IS A DOCUMENT INTENDED TO BE CHANGED.

 

The reason it is not changed is because.... Well, that's a good question. Suppose it would take some ugly people with ugly thoughts to do something they're very uncomfortable with: look in a mirror. 

 

I really don't lean one way or another with this matter.  I see that there are arguments to be made both ways.  Sounds like a cop-out, maybe it is.  I just want to put these three Thomas Jefferson quotes out there.  I get that you quoted Jefferson to make the point that the Constitution was meant to grow and evolve with changing times.  But there's a couple things you also need to note:

 

(1) there's a process for changing the Constitution, and I don't think people on your side of this argument have enough votes to get any amendment to the constitution passed which will abridge gun ownership.

 

(2) The Second Amendment was protection against a standing army -- which Jefferson hated the idea of.  At the time that the Constitution was drafted, the US didn't have a standing army.  So you can say that the Second Amendment was already included to change with the times.

 

Here are the three quotes.  Sorry I didn't give attribution to them.  Lazy, I suppose:

 

“There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation, and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors, that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot, but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army.”

 

“None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important.”

 

“I will now add what I do not like. First, the omission of a bill of rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land and not by the law of nations.”

 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, LA Grant said:

 

How do you suppose one amends the constitution, sweet child?

 

Not by making a fool of themselves on PPP, kiddo. They take actual action. You're pissing into the wind and we're laughing because it's blowing back in your face. 

 

1 minute ago, LA Grant said:

Why is the NRA such a powerful lobby? 

 

The NRA is not even in the top ten in terms of powerful lobby. They're a boogeyman designed to fool simpletons. 

 

It's working (clearly) on you. 

 

Who impacts US policy more, the NRA or Big Pharma? 

 

2 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

The Bill of Rights.... were not actually literally written by God.

 

I never said they were. If you could read at higher than a third grade level, you'd understand that. 

 

3 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

They are "inalienable rights" because those are the description written on the paper. History matters. Context matters. 

 

No, they're not. If you had an understanding of history and the context, you'd understand that. 

 

Misunderstanding this BASIC fact of American history shows your ignorance. 

[LA Grant]

5 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

There vision was to protect the People's inalienable right to (entire paragraph added for context, most relevant piece bolded by me) "...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

 

Articulated, right there for your consumption:  the vision was to protect the People's right to possess weaponry sufficient to overthrow their government should it become necessary.

 

You aren't going to win this argument, and you're making yourself look dumber by the minute by arguing with someone who actually knows what the hell they're talking about.

 

Do you possess weaponry sufficient to overthrow the government? Do "The People'" What do you think a government necessary of being overthrown looks like? I don't know if you've seen them in action but I guarantee you're not going to out-gun the US Military. 

 

Suppose gun reform passes, and now the gubbermint is more involved in your guns than before, comparable to how involved they are with cars/traffic and the DMV. Is Obama or George Soros or LA Grant coming to your house to take your guns? Or would it more likely be local police checking on the bad guys who didn't follow the rules to re-register their lawful weapons? And hey Blue Lives Matter, right? Seems like something we can agree on.

 

I've seen dogs learn concepts faster than you, I swear to god.

[DC Tom]

Just now, LA Grant said:

 

Do you possess weaponry sufficient to overthrow the government? Do "The People'" What do you think a government necessary of being overthrown looks like? 

 

Orange with foo-foo lhasa apso hair, of course.  #resistance

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, LA Grant said:

 

Do you possess weaponry sufficient to overthrow the government? Do "The People'" What do you think a government necessary of being overthrown looks like?

 

Are you Gator? What kind of sentence is that. Maybe you shouldn't insult people's intelligence when you can't string together a simple sentence without blundering it.

 

 

[LA Grant]

3 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

You're getting to the point where I should probably let you know I'm straight, and I'm married.

 

But I appreciate the obsession.

 

Ohhh a gay joke, ohhhhhhh snap. I haven't seen someone grasp for straws this pathetically since my one-handed cousin Mookie worked at a concession stand.

 

I'm sorry that your life is so empty that "a guy who DOESN'T like you on the internet but DOES remember you" is somehow, in your eyes... a loving gesture???