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

[DC Tom]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

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.

 

 

 

It amazes me that he thinks he's making coherent points.  I've never been able to read a single one of his posts without imagining it "read" in the voice of the Tasmanian Devil.

[Nanker]

Anyone want to tackle the feral pig problem we have in this country with a B.B. gun?

Maybe the school crossing guards can protect us from them. 

[LA Grant]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

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.

 

 

 

Ya caught me, Rhino! There's absolutely no contextual clues that I merely left out a "?" in a typographical error. It's CLEARLY supposed to be one long sentence. That proves everything. Me dumb and you smart!

 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, LA Grant said:

 

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

 

 

So you don't read your own posts. Good to know. Explains the blithering stupidity inherent in them. 

Just now, LA Grant said:

 

Ya caught me, Rhino! There's absolutely no contextual clues that I merely left out a "?" in a typographical error. It's CLEARLY supposed to be one long sentence. That proves everything. Me dumb and you smart!

 

 

No, the bulk of your posts are doing a fine job of exposing your ignorance. 

 

I pile on when you call someone dumb in the same post that you mangle basic English. 

[IDBillzFan]

2 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

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??? 

 

Rent-free in your mind since the early 90s.

 

Gotta be some kind of record.

 

But yeah...my life is the empty one. 

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

So you don't read your own posts. Good to know. Explains the blithering stupidity inherent in them. 

 

I have to give him some credit for that line though.  That was pretty creative.

 

Pretty sure he stole it, then.  And didn't read it.

[LA Grant]

1 minute ago, Nanker said:

Anyone want to tackle the feral pig problem we have in this country with a B.B. gun?

Maybe the school crossing guards can protect us from them. 

 

Right! Because when we talk about "gun control" we obviously mean "eliminate hunting." 

 

When we talk about "gun reform" we must mean "send all republicans to death camps."

 

When we talk about "restrictions on gun purchases" obviously that's code for "storm the houses of all who post on TSW and put all of their guns in a ziploc bag."

 

It couldn't be a slight bit more nuanced than that. It couldn't be. You know why? Because guns aren't the problem! Never have been. Never will be. It's science. And history!

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Right! Because when we talk about "gun control" we obviously mean "eliminate hunting." 

 

When we talk about "gun reform" we must mean "send all republicans to death camps."

 

When we talk about "restrictions on gun purchases" obviously that's code for "storm the houses of all who post on TSW and put all of their guns in a ziploc bag."

 

It couldn't be a slight bit more nuanced than that. It couldn't be. You know why? Because guns aren't the problem! Never have been. Never will be. It's science. And history!

 

If you weren't so hysterical and hyperbolic, we might be able to have the rational conversation you seem to be pushing for in this post. 

 

But then it's preceded by a day's worth of posts which are nothing but the rantings of an emotional man in the middle of a full bore temper tantrum. You can't have it both ways.

[TakeYouToTasker]

It's been hilarious watching LAGrant's argument slowly shift from "The Founder's never intended for your right's to necessarily be permanent." to "Inalienable rights aren't really important anyway."

 

 

[LA Grant]

2 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

Rent-free in your mind since the early 90s.

 

Gotta be some kind of record.

 

But yeah...my life is the empty one. 

 

Early 90s!? Good lord, man, not even close. TSW has only been around since '98 or so. I started posting or lurking around JP Losman era. '05? That's why I remember your Fabio anecdote. It was one of the things I saw when I first found this place. 

 

There you go, you sweet narcissist. You can now have the weird pleasure of imagining a post you wrote being read by me 15 years ago. It is slightly amazing that this detail is the only thing that concerns you. You may not have voted for him, but Trump represents you pretty well.

 

But I'm happy that, late in life though it may be, you are now learning that even your small actions DO have consequences, even when you yourself can't SEE them. Things li'l ol' you put out there could be read and remembered just like anything else. Who knew!

[Tiberius]

37 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.

Ignorance? Like how how we were fighting the Revolutionary war in 1788?

[Nanker]

1 minute ago, LA Grant said:

 

Right! Because when we talk about "gun control" we obviously mean "eliminate hunting." 

 

When we talk about "gun reform" we must mean "send all republicans to death camps."

 

When we talk about "restrictions on gun purchases" obviously that's code for "storm the houses of all who post on TSW and put all of their guns in a ziploc bag."

 

It couldn't be a slight bit more nuanced than that. It couldn't be. You know why? Because guns aren't the problem! Never have been. Never will be. It's science. And history!

You sir, are obviously deranged, a misogynist, homophobe, Communist sympathizing anarchist, anti-religious bigot who has a foot fetish, and eats raw snails for breakfast. 

Its so obvious from what you’ve posted. 

Turn in your man card and your log-in credentials to the Internet. It’s too dangerous a place for you and you might do some innocent people harm... like your mommy and little sister. 

[LA Grant]

Just now, TakeYouToTasker said:

It's been hilarious watching LAGrant's argument slowly shift from "The Founder's never intended for your right's to necessarily be permanent." to "Inalienable rights aren't really important anyway."

 

Argument is the same, you simple mutant. I'll repeat myself, repeat arguments that have existed forever, as it is easily distilled. The government can have a role in solving societal problems. We should all want to have a government that can adapt to society's problems, based on majority rule w/checks & balances. The fact that it does not work that way in practice is a problem. It is a major reason why, despite gun reform having widespread support, it is not on the books.

 

Like... this is complicated a little bit but it's not that complicated. The solution is obvious. Gun Reform. Even a mutant like you should be able to process. 

 

1) "But... gun legislation NEVER WORKS!!!!!" <--- Then out comes Chicago, California, any number of "what about" or "what if"s. The data overwhelmingly supports it. But the reason "gun control doesn't work" is a bad argument is because WE HAVE NEVER TRIED IT. Not on a national level. Not even to the degree of making gun laws & traffic/vehicle laws similarly restrictive (and ideally more). 

 

2) "But... the founders said guns keeps tyrants away!" <---- This is a harder fantasy to break because it's like, how do you tell a 50-year-old man that he's not going to win in a fire fight? I know we grew up learning that the Revolutionary War was won a certain way, but you are not those people. Our lives are not those circumstances. The whole "good guy with a gun" thing is so dumb. Even that Dan Bilzerian dork, the instagram poker-millionaire guy who posts all about guns & poker & hookers, he was at the Las Vegas shooting, wasn't he? Did he "good guy with a gun" save people? No. He ran from the gunfire, obviously.

 

Also, my little mutant child, while we're learning simple lessons — forks don't go in the socket & peeing on a woman isn't how you make babies. 

21 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

I have to give him some credit for that line though.  That was pretty creative.

 

Pretty sure he stole it, then.  And didn't read it.

 

Tom, you ignorant slut, I clearly write my own material.

 

(The concession stand line was me, tho)

[Deranged Rhino]

13 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Argument is the same, you simple mutant. I'll repeat myself, repeat arguments that have existed forever, as it is easily distilled. The government can have a role in solving societal problems. We should all want to have a government that can adapt to society's problems, based on majority rule w/checks & balances. The fact that it does not work that way in practice is a problem. It is a major reason why, despite gun reform having widespread support, it is not on the books.

 

It does work that way. 

 

Or did before the executive branch began usurping unchecked power from 43 through 44. 

 

13 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Like... this is complicated a little bit but it's not that complicated. The solution is obvious. Gun Reform.

 

That's an empty, meaningless phrase. It offers NO solution to the problem of stopping murder. 

 

13 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

1) "But... gun legislation NEVER WORKS!!!!!" <--- Then out comes Chicago, California, any number of "what about" or "what if"s. The data overwhelmingly supports it. But the reason "gun control doesn't work" is a bad argument is because WE HAVE NEVER TRIED IT. Not on a national level. Not even to the degree of making gun laws & traffic/vehicle laws similarly restrictive (and ideally more). 

 

False. It's been tried in multiple states in many different ways. 

 

What we haven't tried is amending the constitution itself with this regard. If that's your goal, go with God. But you're doing a lousy job making that case. 

 

13 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

2) "But... the founders said guns keeps tyrants away!" <---- This is a harder fantasy to break because it's like, how do you tell a 50-year-old man that he's not going to win in a fire fight? I know we grew up learning that the Revolutionary War was won a certain way, but you are not those people. Our lives are not those circumstances. The whole "good guy with a gun" thing is so dumb. Even that Dan Bilzerian dork, the instagram poker-millionaire guy who posts all about guns & poker & hookers, he was at the Las Vegas shooting, wasn't he? Did he "good guy with a gun" save people? No. He ran from the gunfire, obviously.

 

 

This is precisely why you're losing so badly in this discussion. This isn't reality, it's fantasy. 

 

The second amendment is about PERSONAL liberty. It's not about the Revolutionary War, it's not about storming DC. It's about the right to defend to the death the rights we are born with. Your ignorance of history is showing.  

 

The Vegas shooter was in a concealed elevated position across the street. You talked about false equivalencies before, and mangled the definition, but comparing Vegas to a school shooting IS a false equivalency.

Edited February 22, 2018 by Deranged Rhino

[Tiberius]

The 1994 law included a ban on 18 specific models of assault weapons, as well as a ban on any firearms containing certain military-style features, like a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor or a folding stock. It also banned high-capacity magazines capable of holding more than 10 bullets. The bill allowed individuals already in possession of such weapons to keep them. It was also set to expire after 10 years' time.

“The original intent of the assault weapons ban was to reduce the carnage of mass shootings,” Klarevas said. “And on that front the data indicate that it worked.”

 

Klarevas has compiled data on gun massacres involving six or more fatalities for the 50 years before 2016. His numbers show that gun massacres fell significantly during the time the assault weapons ban was in place, and skyrocketed after the ban lapsed in 2004. A separate mass shooting database compiled by Mother Jones magazine shows a similar trend.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/22/the-real-reason-congress-banned-assault-weapons-in-1994-and-why-it-worked/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_wonk-assaultrifles-1003am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.bd498577891b

[DC Tom]

20 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Tom, you ignorant slut, I clearly write my own material.

 

 

Gotta give you credit for this juxtaposition, too. 

[LA Grant]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

It does work that way. 

 

Or did before the executive branch began usyrping unchecked power from 43 through 44. 

 

That's an empty, meaningless phrase. It offers NO solution to the problem of stopping murder. 

 

False. It's been tried in multiple states in many different ways. 

 

What we haven't tried is amending the constitution itself with this regard. If that's your goal, go with God. But you're doing a lousy job making that case. 

 

This is precisely why you're losing so badly in this discussion. This isn't reality, it's fantasy. 

 

The second amendment is about PERSONAL liberty. It's not about the Revolutionary War, it's not about storming DC. It's about the right to defend to the death the rights we are born with. Your ignorance of history is showing.  

 

The Vegas shooter was in a concealed elevated position across the street. You talked about false equivalencies before, and mangled the definition, but comparing Vegas to a school shooting IS a false equivalency.

 

Idiot! You are not born with a gun. Yes, you have the God-given right to defend yourself, if that's what you're arguing, you doofus. A person should not be entitled to a gun. Exactly what liberties are you enjoying with a gun that you're unable to enjoy without a gun? I'd like to know. 

 

Answers are simple. I'm banging the drum because, despite its simplicity, we live in a chaotic jungle full of deranged rhinos who will stomp over reasonable measures just to make sure they're not personally inconvenienced in any way.

 

National gun laws. Enforced evenly. Background checks. Behavioral assessments. Competency tests. Annual registration renewal. No automatics. If you want  try to shoot up a school or a night club with a revolver, a hunting rifle, a shotgun, a big knife — there will still be deranged rhinos out there. But they don't need to be able to shoot weapons capable of holding 30-100 rounds w/o reload for home defense or hunting.

 

http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2016/06/4_things_you_need_to_know_abou.html

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, LA Grant said:

 

Idiot! You are not born with a gun.

 

Never said we were. We were born with the right to DEFEND our inalienable rights. Without the second amendment, the other 9 of the BoR are meaningless. Something which you would understand if you knew your history and how the document came to be. 

 

1 minute ago, LA Grant said:

A person should not be entitled to a gun. Exactly what liberties are you enjoying with a gun that you're unable to enjoy without a gun? I'd like to know. 

 

The Bill of rights disagrees. We have an inalienable right to bear arms. They didn't write that amendment because they were paid by the NRA to do so. They wrote it because the British banned importing firearms and gunpowder in 1774, in 1775 they began confiscations of weapons and powder THROUGH FORCE. 

 

The founders knew that without the means to protect yourself and property from the over reach of tyranny, the rest of the rights set forth in the document were meaningless. 

 

Again, you are showing how ignorant you are of history. 

 

4 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

Answers are simple. I'm banging the drum because, despite its simplicity, we live in a chaotic jungle full of deranged rhinos who will stomp over reasonable measures just to make sure they're not personally inconvenienced in any way.

 

I don't own a gun. I'm not in the NRA. I'm not a conservative, nor a republican. This isn't about my personal convenience at all. This is about the rule of law and the REASONS for them. 

 

5 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

National gun laws. Enforced evenly. Background checks. Behavioral assessments. Competency tests. Annual registration renewal.

 

It's a state-by-state thing, but otherwise there is a place for reasonable discussion about these issues. 

 

6 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

No automatics. 

 

This will never pass. It's also unnecessary. It's a talking point that will only further the divide and lose the allies you need to make the changes you're talking about. 

 

 

[LA Grant]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

It's a state-by-state thing, but otherwise there is a place for reasonable discussion about these issues. 

 

This will never pass. It's also unnecessary. It's a talking point that will only further the divide and lose the allies you need to make the changes you're talking about. 

 

A) It does not need to be different by state. DMVs are state regulated but the requirements/tests/procedures are largely, if not wholly, identical.

 

B) Never say never. Why is it unnecessary? Better yet — why are (semi)automatic weapons necessary? How do those provide liberties we do not enjoy without automatic?  If you need an AR-15 to "defend your home from burglars," you should not have a gun. It means you're a terrible shot. It means you're a liability with a dangerous weapon. 

 

See, you're not actually picking up the funny thing about my position, which is — I'm pretty flexible for what "gun reform" looks like. We have to be, because the other side (your side) is so immovable, we have to take whatever inch we can get. 

 

Like most people, I think the most important things are (1) improved background checks/tests/registration processes; (2) reduced access. These systems largely go hand in hand. 

 

None of those solutions involve "coming to your home & removing your weapons." They might involve "local police checking on a weapon they have record of you purchasing, but not registering" -- or,  the equivalent of being pulled over because the tags on your license are expired.

 

If you can pass the tests* and really want your AR-15, I don't really care what you do, as long as you're not hurting other people. Most people feel this way.

 

The goal is to prevent mass shootings. Mass shooters have been able to easily legally buy weapons designed for mass shooting. There are a number of ways to prevent that. Unfortunately, the most efficient ways tend to involve restricting access to the instrument doing the mass shooting, and as your side wants to keep "guns as a problem" entirely off the table, you'd rather send everyone interested in helping down a number of different rabbit holes to avoid addressing the clear, obvious issue. Your side of the argument is tired and predictable: "Guns aren't the problem, it's the people that use it." But then if the conversation is about the government helping those people, well that's also off the table, because those services would cost money. And that this has always been about is not inconveniencing the Rural Baby Boomer White Man. 

 

They need their deer-heads on the wall. Those participation trophies remind them that they could overthrow Hillary, if necessary.

 

*Anticipating this hypothetical rabbit hole: "Well but who's to say who's fit and who's unfit?" Yes, well, it will always be subjective. The DMV's assessment is subjective. I maintain the comparison to the DMV and Wal-Mart as a baseline example. Companies like that often make applicants take 20-minute repetitive tests to weed out antisocial tendencies, not to mention drug tests, references, and so on. This should not be an unreasonable requirement for owning a gun. I expect most Lawful Gun Owners would be perfectly fine. But it could have prevented Parkland, and it could have prevented others. And if you don't pass the test, well, sorry if you're deemed too crazy to own 100 guns. I suppose a Lawful Gun Owner might worry these tests would be as gruesomely unfair and oppressive as Jim Crow voter laws, which is adorably paranoid. But don't worry, if our country has shown anything, it's that justice is an illusion and "what goes around comes around" simply isn't true. 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, LA Grant said:

 

A) It does not need to be different by state.

 

Yes it does, unless you amend the constitution itself - which again, is possible but if it's your goal you're going about it backwards. 

 

1 minute ago, LA Grant said:

B) Never say never. Why is it unnecessary? Better yet — why are (semi)automatic weapons necessary? How do those provide liberties we do not enjoy without automatic?  If you need an AR-15 to "defend your home from burglars," you should not have a gun. It means you're a terrible shot. It means you're a liability with a dangerous weapon. 

 

You're dreaming if you think you can get a ban on semi autos. It shows you don't understand firearms enough to have this kind of nuanced conversation. Look into the history of trying to do this, how it failed, and how it widened the divide between the gun rights people and the gun control people. 

 

I'm trying to help you by pointing out areas you should avoid talking about if you're actually interested in building a consensus that actually can bring about the changes you want to see. 

 

3 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

We have to be, because the other side (your side) is so immovable, we have to take whatever inch we can get. 

 

I don't have a side, other than believing in the rule of law. I'm not in the NRA, I'm not even a gun owner. 

 

4 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Like most people, I think the most important things are (1) improved background checks/tests/registration processes; (2) reduced access. These systems largely go hand in hand. 

 

None of those solutions involve "coming to your home & removing your weapons." They might involve "local police checking on a weapon they have record of you purchasing, but not registering" -- or,  the equivalent of being pulled over because the tags on your license are expired.

 

If you can pass the tests* and really want your AR-15, I don't really care what you do, as long as you're not hurting other people. Most people feel this way.

 

And yet - everything you're proposing - including "reduced access" - only addresses legal gun ownership. That's like saying you're going to stop drunk driving by banning sober people from owning cars. It's lunacy. 

 

6 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

The goal is to prevent mass shootings.

 

Just shootings? That's it? 

 

So you really only DO care about guns, not getting to the root cause of mass murders.