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

[Ol Dirty B]

26 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

That's exactly what you're saying.

 

You're literally saying here:  "they needed to give citizen's the right"  that the Founders felt it was government's place to dictate to the people what their rights were.

 

And here:  "...to arm themselves or the Constitution would have never passed." that the Founders considered another path in relation to the right to bear arms, but were prevented from doing so because the couldn't have ratified the Constitution if they did.

 

There is no other idea you could be communicating with those words.

 

 

They also gave citizens the right to own people, and for those owned non-voting populous to count as 3/5's of the population in the actual Constitution. Just for the sake of even getting the document to the states, then they had to add on to the document with the Bill of Rights. So I guess the Bill of Rights wouldn't exist without the "founders" dictating to people what they could or couldn't do.

 

You are totally try to caste my post, and this debate in a way to save face. The documents were written where they needed to expressly demonstrate to people that these rights would be protected, it was a showcase to an extent. Do you know anything about history? You do know that this country probably would have not existed with out the Bill of Rights? Why did they even bother making 10 of them when the 9th Amendment protects negative rights, it could have all been so much simpler then. Or do you feel that you can just say the "founders" and whatever !@#$ will think you know what you are talking about? It's really not even worth it. You've shown you don't know what you're talking about. I'm done.

 

It had nothing to do with them wanting more restrictive gun laws, that was never my point and you know it. The point was that it is a living document, it's hard to change, but it is not impossible. So the 2nd Amendment should not be looked at in such a way. They made it that way because they hoped the country would grow out of the state they were in, and situations would change. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written for that time, and they were self aware enough to know that it might need changing. I don't think any specific Amendment was thought of as the one they wish they could change. You are mis--characterizing and being unfair to my post.

 

Or.. You're really dumb. I don't care own whichever you want.

Edited February 23, 2018 by Ol Dirty B

[TtownBillsFan]

ROFL.  how could you have known what "they" were thinking?  "They" were good enough to put it down in writing.  "They" wrote the constitution and BoR.  "They", luckily for us, made it so that it was extra-difficult to allow anyone to take away God-given (or nature-given, if you prefer) rights.  They can't do crap to take away rights.  As much as that annoys you people now.

[LA Grant]

1 hour ago, Ol Dirty B said:

 

They also gave citizens the right to own people, and for those owned non-voting populous to count as 3/5's of the population in the actual Constitution. Just for the sake of even getting the document to the states, then they had to add on to the document with the Bill of Rights. So I guess the Bill of Rights wouldn't exist without the "founders" dictating to people what they could or couldn't do.

 

You are totally try to caste my post, and this debate in a way to save face. The documents were written where they needed to expressly demonstrate to people that these rights would be protected, it was a showcase to an extent. Do you know anything about history? You do know that this country probably would have not existed with out the Bill of Rights? Why did they even bother making 10 of them when the 9th Amendment protects negative rights, it could have all been so much simpler then. Or do you feel that you can just say the "founders" and whatever !@#$ will think you know what you are talking about? It's really not even worth it. You've shown you don't know what you're talking about. I'm done.

 

It had nothing to do with them wanting more restrictive gun laws, that was never my point and you know it. The point was that it is a living document, it's hard to change, but it is not impossible. So the 2nd Amendment should not be looked at in such a way. They made it that way because they hoped the country would grow out of the state they were in, and situations would change. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written for that time, and they were self aware enough to know that it might need changing. I don't think any specific Amendment was thought of as the one they wish they could change. You are mis--characterizing and being unfair to my post.

 

Or.. You're really dumb. I don't care own whichever you want.

 

Tasker is both a weasely liar & very possibly a genuinely low IQ. His posts are almost entirely cobbled together from Glenn Beck & Wayne LaPierre talking points. His last few posts have made it pretty clear that gets his embarrassingly child-like version of history from Glenn Beck, and his horrifyingly apocalyptic politics from the NRA.  

 

(btw, Tasker, still can't wait to hear your ideas on fixing the problem without addressing gun laws in any way) (and how those ideas compare to whatever Glenn & Wayne's talking points are for the day)

[unbillievable]

The simple argument:

 

Gun-owner: Protect your family, buy a gun

Activist: Protect your family, change the behavior of 7 billion humans. 

 

 

[Tiberius]

23 minutes ago, unbillievable said:

The simple argument:

 

Gun-owner: Protect your family, buy a gun

Activist: Protect your family, change the behavior of 7 billion humans. 

 

 

Aren't the gun owners the ones saying that the rest of world needs to change so they can still own weapons that can slaughter large numbers of people?

[DC Tom]

5 hours ago, LA Grant said:

 

And yet those methods clearly did not work, right? These measures were ineffective, despite the THIRTY NINE complaints in this instance where the gunman was practically waving a "I'm going to shoot up the school" flag, and obviously this problem isn't an isolated incident, as you point out.

 

They weren't ineffective.  THEY WEREN'T PURSUED.  They would be - and have been - effective if people did their jobs.  

[LeviF]

3 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

They weren't ineffective.  THEY WEREN'T PURSUED.  They would be - and have been - effective if people did their jobs.  

 

But God forbid you ask a leftist to have people actually, ya know, do their jobs.  Maybe McDermott should join the Democratic party and introduce them to The Process.

[3rdnlng]

11 minutes ago, LeviF91 said:

 

But God forbid you ask a leftist to have people actually, ya know, do their jobs.  Maybe McDermott should join the Democratic party and introduce them to The Process.

The laws aren't working so we need more laws.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

On 2/22/2018 at 6:13 AM, LeviF91 said:

I forget, are cops the problem this week or are guns?

 

Excellent question. I bet ol' Grant would LOVE to see some whitey cops shot by the oppressed African-American community.

 

19 hours ago, DC Tom said:

Roughly 350 people died of opioid overdoes in the past 72 hours.  

 

Anyone want to take a guess on gun deaths?

 

Or, as i've mentioned before...

 

how many people were butchered by Planned Parenthood yesterday versus gun deaths?

 

18 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Whomever you wish to ascribe that label to. We live in a country where you have the right to worship, or not worship, as you please,.

 

The point isn't a religious one, it's that people are born into FREEDOM, not servitude. It's our natural state. The Bill of Rights were created off the backs of centuries of enlightenment thinking and liberal philosophy and states - clearly - that the first ten amendments are not granted to us by government. Thus, they cannot be taken from us by any government. 

 

To argue otherwise is to expose your ignorance of history, philosophy, and the constitution itself. 

 

DR from the top turnbuckle!

 

[Koko78]

8 hours ago, TtownBillsFan said:

 

No, she's straight-up evil.  I even feel a bit sorry for her slave-husband.  She is that kind of bad-person.

 

You would make a piss poor social justice warrior with that attitude!

[Taro T]

9 hours ago, LA Grant said:

 

And yet those methods clearly did not work, right? These measures were ineffective, despite the THIRTY NINE complaints in this instance where the gunman was practically waving a "I'm going to shoot up the school" flag, and obviously this problem isn't an isolated incident, as you point out.

 

So, tell me: if the current measures are ineffective, then what?

 

Seriously? How bad is your reading comprehension that this is what you took from ODB's post?

 

Yes, they did not work because the people charged with enforcing the existing laws and expected to do their jobs didn't do what they were supposed to do.

 

Your solution to people not properly enforcing existing laws is to enact additional laws.  How about, prior to passing additional laws that past actions/evenrs indicate won't be enforced properly either, we actually enforce the existing laws & then see where we're at?

 

And lets absolutely try enforcing current laws before we go nuclear and eviscerate the 2nd amendment.  OK?

[4merper4mer]

6 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

Yes, they did not work because the people charged with enforcing the existing laws and expected to do their jobs didn't do what they were supposed to do.

 

Your solution to people not properly enforcing existing laws is to enact additional laws.  How about, prior to passing additional laws that past actions/evenrs indicate won't be enforced properly either, we actually enforce the existing laws & then see where we're at?

 

And lets absolutely try enforcing current laws before we go nuclear and eviscerate the 2nd amendment.  OK?

But don't you see that making sure all guns are in the hands of the government will make it easier for the government to do its job?  We don't want them having hard jobs do we?

[LA Grant]

2 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

They weren't ineffective.  THEY WEREN'T PURSUED.  They would be - and have been - effective if people did their jobs.  

 

2 minutes ago, Taro T said:

 

Yes, they did not work because the people charged with enforcing the existing laws and expected to do their jobs didn't do what they were supposed to do.

 

Your solution to people not properly enforcing existing laws is to enact additional laws.  How about, prior to passing additional laws that past actions/evenrs indicate won't be enforced properly either, we actually enforce the existing laws & then see where we're at?

 

And lets absolutely try enforcing current laws before we go nuclear and eviscerate the 2nd amendment.  OK?

 

"Institutions don't fail people, people fail people. Nothing we can do for the future to change it. People will be bad. Authorities will fail. And if you make different laws, they definitely won't work."

 

That's the line of thinking here? It is amazingly cynical and lazy. All to prevent "going nuclear" and "eviscerating" the 2nd Amendment. In other words, back to the original point of this thread — there is no way to strengthen the laws without possibly inconveniencing the "Good Guys with Guns" which is unacceptable regardless of collateral damage.

 

The refrain from the right is ALWAYS the same on this issue — "Never Blame Guns. It Is Never The Gun's Fault."

 

It's not surprising. It's not convincing.

 

2 hours ago, joesixpack said:

 

Excellent question. I bet ol' Grant would LOVE to see some whitey cops shot by the oppressed African-American community.

 

Or, as i've mentioned before...

 

how many people were butchered by Planned Parenthood yesterday versus gun deaths?

 

DR from the top turnbuckle!

 

 

Hey! Glad you're so concerned about life! Say! A question. Why doesn't "Pro-Life" include similarly pro-life stances, like "pro-gun legislation, anti-death penalty, pro-UBI"? Seems like a contradictory term, no?  Seems like someone so concerned about protecting life, such as yourself, would be really motivated to save life across the board.

 

Again, though, it's yet another tangent and distraction. "Never Blame Guns. It Is Never The Gun's Fault."

 

3 hours ago, unbillievable said:

The simple argument:

 

Gun-owner: Protect your family, buy a gun

Activist: Protect your family, change the behavior of 7 billion humans. 

 

 

 

The only way to stop a moral relativist with a gun is an ethical egoist with a gun!

 

3 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Aren't the gun owners the ones saying that the rest of world needs to change so they can still own weapons that can slaughter large numbers of people?

 

Correct. In the other thread, they are currently discussing the logistics of armed officers or teachers wearing body armor.  Nothing would suggest to a reasonable mind that this is remotely a good idea but... gotta have faith to never blame guns.

[Taro T]

50 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

 

"Institutions don't fail people, people fail people. Nothing we can do for the future to change it. People will be bad. Authorities will fail. And if you make different laws, they dIfinitely won't work."

 

That's the line of thinking here? It is amazingly cynical and lazy. All to prevent "going nuclear" and "eviscerating" the 2nd Amendment. In other words, back to the original point of this thread — there is no way to strengthen the laws without possibly inconveniencing the "Good Guys with Guns" which is unacceptable regardless of collateral damage.

 

The refrain from the right is ALWAYS the same on this issue — "Never Blame Guns. It Is Never The Gun's Fault."

 

It's not surprising. It's not convincing.

 

 

Hey! Glad you're so concerned about life! Say! A question. Why doesn't "Pro-Life" include similarly pro-life stances, like "pro-gun legislation, anti-death penalty, pro-UBI"? Seems like a contradictory term, no?  Seems like someone so concerned about protecting life, such as yourself, would be really motivated to save life across the board.

 

Again, though, it's yet another tangent and distraction. "Never Blame Guns. It Is Never The Gun's Fault."

 

 

The only way to stop a moral relativist with a gun is an ethical egoist with a gun!

 

 

The bolded is what you took from those posts?  Thatis truly sad.

 

There are myriad things we can change to do better and several of those have been discussed to great extent in several of these repetitive threads.  But YOU (& your ilk) don't care about any but 1 solution.  "We just need reasonable gun laws" is the rallying cry.  Well, we were told in the past these current laws that don't get enforced are reasonable.  Which is how we got the current laws.

 

Some of us will continue to believe the existing laws are reasonable until they are ACTUALLY enforced & shown not to be effective.  IF that pointis reached, then let's consider what changes to the laws on the books are reasonable & necessary.  Until it is, many of us won't believe your proposals are in good faith.  And if they aren't in good faith, no one will sit at the table with you.

[oldmanfan]

Unfortunately this issue brings out absolutist positions when what is needed are people to have rational discussions where compromise can be reached.  Points I would make:

 

1.  The second amendment should never be repealed.  People should have the right to bear arms.  But if as learned a scholar as Justice Scalia, who in the Heller decision indicates that the specific type of arm you can bear can be regulated, perhaps we should heed his wisdom and discuss.  I am not a gun owner, and as such do not understand the nuances of different types of weapons, magazines, etc.  But as I have said elsewhere on the site, it is a question of math.  As Senator Rubio said the other night, if you have a weapon that can shoot a lot more bullets in a given time as another, then that weapon has the capacity to create more harm than one where magazine size is restricted.  Thus, while a weapons ban or limitation on magazine size would not have prevented the nut case from walking into that school, it would have likely limited the damage.  So if only 16 people rather than 17 had been killed, that matters. 

2.  We can all agree that mentally ill individuals should not be allowed to own a gun.  I think everyone can likely agree that there should be more resources put towards identifying the mentally ill and getting them help sooner.  But that would require more funding, and my understanding is that funding for such treatments have been cut in the federal budget.  So if that is a serious thought, the funding has to follow.  We should also allow families and law enforcement more leeway to have a mentally ill family member or individual be retained for treatment for a specific time, even against there will, to help not only those he o=could harm but also the individual in question.

3.  The focus has of course been on schools this week, and how to make schools safer.  I would welcome more armed individuals on campus.  I would want to recruit ex-military for that purpose myself.  My daughter's school has 4 police on campus, and I'd be happy to see more.  But not teachers.  If some student got nuts and overwhelmed a teach, they could get the weapon.  If a teacher lost it then they're in a classroom with a weapon.  I'm also all for locking down access; my daughter's school has too many doors open at times.  But we need to remember it's not just schools, but churches and movie theaters and other places of assembly like in Vegas that have been affected.  So are we prepared to offer enhanced security at so many of these type sites across the country?  the logistics would be difficult.

4.  I am an advocate for strong enforcement of existing law, and I'd add a few.  If you use an illegally purchased weapon in a crime, life sentence, mandatory.  Use one in a crime and shoot someone, death penalty.  Mandatory.  draconian punishment for such crimes.

5.  Background checks.  I have a hard time finding a reason why a mandatory background check for any individual purchasing a weapon should be argued against.  Make it a sufficient length of time where it' allows a depth of check, and make sure that there is a central registry that is accessible and easy to use such that no one slips through the cracks.  Make all gun purchases through licensed gun sellers, and eliminate private sales.  If you have a gun you want to sell, sell it through a licensed dealer.  That to me would make background checks more  effective.

 

 

Many have talked about rights, on both sides of the argument.  But it's important to recognize that there are different rights that are held dear on both sides.  Our declaration says we are endowed by the Creator with inalienable rights:  life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Life is first.  The Bill or Rights also provides certain rights, but those were written by men, and as such as not truly God-given , as they can be changed as we have seen through the constitutional amendment process. 

 

My bottom line would be to have universal and meaningful background checks, stronger mental health intervention, and reasonable laws on gun regulation to limit the types of weapons and ammunition that can be purchased. Not eliminating the second amendment, but placing upon it certain qualifications as suggested by Justice Scalia.   Regarding that last point, while not a gun owner I have talked to numerous folks who are, and they all have agreed that some restrictions would not take away their right, and they would still be able to own the guns of their choice for sport, or for protection.  I recognize that last point is going to stir up objection, but let's at least have a dialog.

 

We have to stop shouting past each other, and start talking to each other.  There are about I'd say 70-90% of folks in the country that have similar thoughts as mine.  At some point that sizeable majority needs to lead the conversation and the discussion.  Right now it's the 10-20% of the extremes of the argument.

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

10 hours ago, LA Grant said:

 

Then there truly is nothing more to say to each other.

In true form, for someone with "nothing left to say", you sure have a lot left to say.  Lies are par for the course with you.  Your methods are so intellectually dishonest that you can't even help yourself.  And that's fine, Grant, because I'm not actually arguing with you.  You're a true believer with no hope of being reached., and there's no point in discussion with people like that, because they aren't interested in discussion.  What I'm doing is systematically dismantling your arguments, and exposing you for what you are.  I'll continue to do so now:

 

Quote

You're a hardcore fundamentalist, arguably extremist in some of the views you laid out

This is the last ditch efforts of a man who has lost his arguments on their merits, and is now attempting to poison the well.   A logical fallacy.  Your argument was disassembled, so you're now attempting to malign the person whose argument bested yours by labeling them with words holding negative connotations.  This won't fly here.  Make better arguments.

 

Quote

as most people do believe government should play a role in shaping society and protecting people.

This is a red herring, as well as an unsourced fiat declaration.  Even if "most people do believe government" should play this role, which is completely unsubstantiated, it implies that they believe government should intervene in the way you prescribe, and towards the ends you prefer.  This is utter nonsense.  There is tremendous political polarization in this country across multiple belief systems.  White Nationalists "believe government should play a role in shaping society and protecting people", Christian Conservatives "believe government should play a role in shaping society and protecting people"; though they have an entirely different idea of what that looks like.  It should also serve to note that your position on the proper role of government, and your stance against natural rights, empowers them to establish an apartheid state or theocracy respectively.

 

Quote

I'm leftist, obviously, but also a pragmatist.

Nearly all rational actors are pragmatic in pursuit of their priori, assuming their priori are rational.  Your priori are not rational, as they are not internally logically consistent, so no, you are not pragmatic.

 

Quote

Government can do things that other institutions can't.

Like start wars, enslave a population by writ, practice apartheid, imprison political enemies, criminalize religion, place it's citizens into prison camps, engage in human trafficking, initiate ethnic cleansing, and all other manner of atrocities which can only be committed in sustained ways by governments as governments are a monopoly on power.  It's important for the reader to note that these aren't things that happened in the distant past, and are no longer relevant today.  These are practices governments around the world engage in today.

 

And these things can happen here.  Americans are not somehow better or different than other populations, therefore preventing these things.  America's institutions and traditions, backed by our Constitution have historically been better, and make it harder to weaponize our government towards those ends.  Changing our institutions and traditions by eliminating Constitutional protections removes those protections.

 

Quote

I'd rather see the government take action than hope that all gun sellers will independently develop the conscience to work harder to not make sales, but hey, maybe your way will work.

Here you again try to frame your priori, the desire to remove guns from society, as the default desirable outcome for a successful argument.  Again, I reject your premise.   Make more skillful arguments.

 

Quote

Since you clearly believe government should have no role in restricting gun access or addressing gun violence, but still want to beat your chest sanctimoniously that, in spite of all the evidence, you

actually care about the murdered more than anyone else here, I'm eager to hear about how you will be helping to address the myriad issues you raised... let's see, what was that quote...

 

OH yeah, this. Assuming you weren't just saying this to try to gain the unearned moral high ground in an online argument, can't wait to hear how you will be solving the problem that killed them!! Lay it on us, Tasker, you are the smartest man in the room -- it says so right below your name.

You haven't made a single argument in favor of diagnosing, treating, and helping the mentally ill.  If Nikolas Cruz was had been unable to commit his act in that place, on that day; the problem would not have been solved.  Nikolas Cruz was a ticking time bomb because he is a broken, angry, isolated, and mentally ill young man.  Your non-solution leaves Nikolas Cruz, broken as he was, out there in the world, waiting to commit an atrocity.  It also ignores that fact that existing laws in place should have prevented his actions.  That they did not was not a failure in the non-existence of laws, it was a failure to execute existing laws.  Would you pass a law stating the law needed to be followed?  Then, after the failure to follow that law, pass a new law stating the law which states the law must be followed, must be followed?

 

Of course not.  You're dishonest, but you're not stupid.  Which is what exposes you for what you are:  Your goal is not to prevent gun violence.  Your goal is to remove guns from society in order to make it easier for the government of your desires to impose your philosophies on the disarmed masses.  You're a leftist, a fact you admit.  You wish to use the powers of government in an activist manner to enforce your world view,  fact you admit.  You believe it to be problematic that our system, specifically the Second Amendment, makes it difficult for people who believe as you do to impose themselves on the world, a fact you admit.

 

You're standing on the bodies of dead children promoting Marxism.  You have no moral high ground.  Quite the opposite.

Edited February 23, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

12 hours ago, Ol Dirty B said:

 

As many other liberal states have shown, gun ownership is not an inalieable right under social contract theory.

 

I'm not advocating for all guns to be taken away or anything like that. I'm fine with concealed carry, and plenty of other things. But what you are saying is philosophically incorrect. You are taking inalienable rights to an extreme. I have plenty of rights because I exist, if I am stronger than you I could take your property. However, because we enter into a social contract by being in a society we forfeit somethings.

 

Also, with the caps and stuff for emphasis.. You've been reading too many Trump tweets man. They make you look childish and like you've only read really simplistic literature on what you're talking about. 

 

"social contract theory."

 

If the day ever comes that people who think like you run things, I hope I'm dead.

 

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

In true form, for someone with "nothing left to say", you sure have a lot left to say.  Lies are par for the course with you.  Your methods are so intellectually dishonest that you can't even help yourself.  And that's fine, Grant, because I'm not actually arguing with you.  You're a true believer with no hope of being reached., and there's no point in discussion with people like that, because they aren't interested in discussion.  What I'm doing is systematically dismantling your arguments, and exposing you for what you are.  I'll continue to do so now:

 

This is the last ditch efforts of a man who has lost his arguments on their merits, and is now attempting to poison the well.   A logical fallacy.  Your argument was disassembled, so you're now attempting to malign the person whose argument bested yours by labeling them with words holding negative connotations.  This won't fly here.  Make better arguments.

 

This is a red herring, as well as an unsourced fiat declaration.  Even if "most people do believe government" should play this role, which is completely unsubstantiated, it implies that they believe government should intervene in the way you prescribe, and towards the ends you prefer.  This is utter nonsense.  There is tremendous political polarization in this country across multiple belief systems.  White Nationalists "believe government should play a role in shaping society and protecting people", Christian Conservatives "believe government should play a role in shaping society and protecting people"; though they have an entirely different idea of what that looks like.  It should also serve to note that your position on the proper role of government, and your stance against natural rights, empowers them to establish an apartheid state or theocracy respectively.

 

Nearly all rational actors are pragmatic in pursuit of their priori, assuming their priori are rational.  Your priori are not rational, as they are not internally logically consistent, so no, you are not pragmatic.

 

Like start wars, enslave a population by writ, practice apartheid, imprison political enemies, criminalize religion, place it's citizens into prison camps, engage in human trafficking, initiate ethnic cleansing, and all other manner of atrocities which can only be committed in sustained ways by governments as governments are a monopoly on power.  It's important for the reader to note that these aren't things that happened in the distant past, and are no longer relevant today.  These are practices governments around the world engage in today.

 

And these things can happen here.  Americans are not somehow better or different than other populations, therefore preventing these things.  America's institutions and traditions, backed by our Constitution have historically been better, and make it harder to weaponize our government towards those ends.  Changing our institutions and traditions by eliminating Constitutional protections removes those protections.

 

Here you again try to frame your priori, the desire to remove guns from society, as the default desirable outcome for a successful argument.  Again, I reject your premise.   Make more skillful arguments.

 

You haven't made a single argument in favor of diagnosing, treating, and helping the mentally ill.  If Nikolas Cruz was had been unable to commit his act in that place, on that day; the problem would not have been solved.  Nikolas Cruz was a ticking time bomb because he is a broken, angry, isolated, and mentally ill young man.  Your non-solution leaves Nikolas Cruz, broken as he was, out there in the world, waiting to commit an atrocity.  It also ignores that fact that existing laws in place should have prevented his actions.  That they did not was not a failure in the non-existence of laws, it was a failure to execute existing laws.  Would you pass a law stating the law needed to be followed?  Then, after the failure to follow that law, pass a new law stating the law which states the law must be followed, must be followed?

 

Of course not.  You're dishonest, but you're not stupid.  Which is what exposes you for what you are:  Your goal is not to prevent gun violence.  Your goal is to remove guns from society in order to make it easier for the government of your desires to impose your philosophies on the disarmed masses.  You're a leftist, a fact you admit.  You wish to use the powers of government in an activist manner to enforce your world view,  fact you admit.  You believe it to be problematic that our system, specifically the Second Amendment, makes it difficult for people who believe as you do to impose themselves on the world, a fact you admit.

 

You're standing on the bodies of dead children promoting Marxism.  You have no moral high ground.  Quite the opposite.

 

Note to LA Grant:

 

[LA Grant]

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

In true form, for someone with "nothing left to say", you sure have a lot left to say.  Lies are par for the course with you.  Your methods are so intellectually dishonest that you can't even help yourself.  And that's fine, Grant, because I'm not actually arguing with you.  You're a true believer with no hope of being reached., and there's no point in discussion with people like that, because they aren't interested in discussion.  What I'm doing is systematically dismantling your arguments, and exposing you for what you are.  I'll continue to do so now:

 

This is the last ditch efforts of a man who has lost his arguments on their merits, and is now attempting to poison the well.   A logical fallacy.  Your argument was disassembled, so you're now attempting to malign the person whose argument bested yours by labeling them with words holding negative connotations.  This won't fly here.  Make better arguments.

 

This is a red herring, as well as an unsourced fiat declaration.  Even if "most people do believe government" should play this role, which is completely unsubstantiated, it implies that they believe government should intervene in the way you prescribe, and towards the ends you prefer.  This is utter nonsense.  There is tremendous political polarization in this country across multiple belief systems.  White Nationalists "believe government should play a role in shaping society and protecting people", Christian Conservatives "believe government should play a role in shaping society and protecting people"; though they have an entirely different idea of what that looks like.  It should also serve to note that your position on the proper role of government, and your stance against natural rights, empowers them to establish an apartheid state or theocracy respectively.

 

Nearly all rational actors are pragmatic in pursuit of their priori, assuming their priori are rational.  Your priori are not rational, as they are not internally logically consistent, so no, you are not pragmatic.

 

Like start wars, enslave a population by writ, practice apartheid, imprison political enemies, criminalize religion, place it's citizens into prison camps, engage in human trafficking, initiate ethnic cleansing, and all other manner of atrocities which can only be committed in sustained ways by governments as governments are a monopoly on power.  It's important for the reader to note that these aren't things that happened in the distant past, and are no longer relevant today.  These are practices governments around the world engage in today.

 

And these things can happen here.  Americans are not somehow better or different than other populations, therefore preventing these things.  America's institutions and traditions, backed by our Constitution have historically been better, and make it harder to weaponize our government towards those ends.  Changing our institutions and traditions by eliminating Constitutional protections removes those protections.

 

Here you again try to frame your priori, the desire to remove guns from society, as the default desirable outcome for a successful argument.  Again, I reject your premise.   Make more skillful arguments.

 

You haven't made a single argument in favor of diagnosing, treating, and helping the mentally ill.  If Nikolas Cruz was had been unable to commit his act in that place, on that day; the problem would not have been solved.  Nikolas Cruz was a ticking time bomb because he is a broken, angry, isolated, and mentally ill young man.  Your non-solution leaves Nikolas Cruz, broken as he was, out there in the world, waiting to commit an atrocity.  It also ignores that fact that existing laws in place should have prevented his actions.  That they did not was not a failure in the non-existence of laws, it was a failure to execute existing laws.  Would you pass a law stating the law needed to be followed?  Then, after the failure to follow that law, pass a new law stating the law which states the law must be followed, must be followed?

 

Of course not.  You're dishonest, but you're not stupid.  Which is what exposes you for what you are:  Your goal is not to prevent gun violence.  Your goal is to remove guns from society in order to make it easier for the government of your desires to impose your philosophies on the disarmed masses.  You're a leftist, a fact you admit.  You wish to use the powers of government in an activist manner to enforce your world view,  fact you admit.  You believe it to be problematic that our system, specifically the Second Amendment, makes it difficult for people who believe as you do to impose themselves on the world, a fact you admit.

 

You're standing on the bodies of dead children promoting Marxism.  You have no moral high ground.  Quite the opposite.

 

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.

[3rdnlng]

14 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

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.

 

[Tiberius]

Pro-life should include living long enough to graduate from high school