Ol Dirty B Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 (edited) 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 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TtownBillsFan Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA Grant Posted February 23, 2018 Author Share Posted February 23, 2018 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) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 The simple argument: Gun-owner: Protect your family, buy a gun Activist: Protect your family, change the behavior of 7 billion humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 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? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA Grant Posted February 23, 2018 Author Share Posted February 23, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanfan Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 (edited) 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 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 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: 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA Grant Posted February 23, 2018 Author Share Posted February 23, 2018 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. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 Pro-life should include living long enough to graduate from high school 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 20 minutes ago, Tiberius said: Pro-life should include living long enough to graduate from high school So, for you that would be 50 years? 60? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 23, 2018 Share Posted February 23, 2018 (edited) 15 hours 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. No, they did not "give citizens the right to own people". What they did was fail to protect the rights of certain people, allowing their rights to be trampled by unjust law. The Founders did not believe they had the authority to bestow rights on anyone. They believed people were born with their rights fully intrinsic to their being, and that the only just function of government was to protect those rights. Being men of their time, they did not recognize the humanity of slaves, and therefor failed to institute protections their rights. It should not go without saying, that this is the very reason that slavery is wrong. It is the moral priori we appeal to when we condemn slavery as an abomination. Slavery is nothing more than the forced abrogation of rights of another human being. If rights are mutable, as you say, then so is the immorality of slavery. Quote 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. This demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding surrounding the arguments both for and against the Bill of Rights. Not one single founder, not one, expressed the idea that the Bill of Rights was added to bestow rights on Americans. The argument against the Bill of Rights was that it was unnecessary, as the Constitution was designed as a cage on the functions of government, and the government was only permitted to do the things the Document expressly empowered them to do. As such, of course American's possessed those rights; and of course the government was not permitted to infringe on them. Further, that the government Leviathan would grow over time, and that future despots would argue that Americans possessed only the rights specifically enumerated rather than their full liberty. The argument for the Bill of Rights was that while that was understood in that day, the raw power of government seeks to grow and impose itself over time, and that despotism would creep into the system, and that if individual rights were not enumerated, future tyrants would deny them completely. The second argument won out, with the compromise being the inclusion of the Bill or Rights, with the Tenth Amendment left to alleviate the concerns of the first camp. Again, no one expressed the idea that the citizens did not possess these rights in an absolute sense. There only argument was over how best to protect them against the arch of time. Quote You are totally try to caste my post, and this debate in a way to save face. Save face? Save face from what? I am casting your post in this way because that what the words you are choosing to use imply. That's not my fault. I have demonstrated for you, using your own words, and the meaning of those words, that is the idea you have communicated. If that's not the idea you wanted to convey, then I suggest developing more skill with the language. 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 Of course they did. They had just fought a war to escape the despotism of a tyrant who denied them their natural rights. The items included in the Bill of Rights expressly addressed rights violations the British Crown had imposed on the colonists. My point was that the notion that individuals might not actually have the right to bear arms never entered into their minds, and that it's inclusion in the Bill of Rights, specifically enumerated, speaks directly to how important they believed that fundamental human right to be. 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. I am trying, very hard, not to insult your intelligence. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you leapt immediately to an emotional argument without comprehending what I had written. Again, of course the Bill of Rights had to be included for the Constitution to be ratified. And again, for exactly the reasons I listed above. It had nothing to do with them wanting more restrictive gun laws, that was never my point and you know it. Again, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I'm going to ignore the first portion, and address the second: You interjected, into a conversation about the Second Amendment, the protection of natural rights, and the just role of government, the notion that the Founders intended their protection of rights to be mutable. The arguments, for and against, made at the Convention betray your argument: The rights of all people are inalienable. Cannot be separated from the people. The whole purpose of the establishment of our country is staked directly to that absolute truism. The only debate was over the best way to permanently hard code the protection of rights by government into the Document. This is the reason they advised vigilance against exactly the ideas you are proposing, noting that it was each successive generations job to safe guard the Constitution. The point was that it is a living document, it's hard to change, but it is not impossible I don't want to bog down here, but it is not a "living document" in the sense that term means today. "Living document" implies that the Document's meaning was intended to shift over time through interpretation, which is incorrect. The document was intended to be static, with a fixed meaning, which could only be changed through the prescribed process. The Founder's view was that the document should mean today exactly what it meant when it was written with the exception of the changes made by the 17 additional Amendments. So the 2nd Amendment should not be looked at in such a way. This belies the entire purpose of the Document. Again, the Founder's did not believe that just government had the authority to grant rights; but rather that it had the absolute duty to defend rights already intrinsic to the People. Jefferson articulated this idea well: "A generation may bind itself as long as its majority continues in life; when that has disappeared, another majority is in place, holds all the rights and powers their predecessors once held, and may change their laws and institutions to suit themselves. Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and inalienable rights of man" 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 Again, I've mischaracterized nothing. I'll respond to this last bit by quoting myself earlier in this thread: "The purpose of the Amendment process was not to eliminate of modify the rights of Americans. The purpose, in relation to the natural rights, is carefully spelled out in the Document's pre-amble. The first words of the Document, which tell's you of their importance to those writing it: "...to...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." This "Liberty" outlined in the Declaration of Independence is defined as not coming from government, but instead being inborn, intrinsic, and inalienable (meaning inseparable from the holder). The Founders never intended the Amendment process to remove rights from it's citizens. They quite clearly didn't believe that any just form of government even had that authority. The had, in fact, just fought a war for the very purpose of establishing that fact. The Amendment process was included for three reasons: 1) the compromise over slavery was untenable, and they knew they needed to leave room for changes as liberty grew, 2) the were creating a new form of government structurally, and had the desire to make if possible to reform roles, duties, and checks and balances as became necessary, and 3) they feared the expansion of government over the People it intended to govern, and wished to leave the ability to add to the list of enumerated rights in the likely even that government grew to bold." Edited February 23, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 (edited) Upon seeing the title I hoped the OP would be some non-sensical, sarcastic hodge podge of strawmen, half-truths, and false equivalencies, packed full of moral outrage and light on anything vaguely resembling a rational reality-based thought. I wasn't disappointed. Edited February 24, 2018 by Rob's House 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA Grant Posted February 24, 2018 Author Share Posted February 24, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said: You interjected, into a conversation about the Second Amendment, the protection of natural rights, and the just role of government, the notion that the Founders intended their protection of rights to be mutable. The arguments, for and against, made at the Convention betray your argument: The rights of all people areinalienable. Cannot be separated from the people. The whole purpose of the establishment of our country is staked directly to that absolute truism. The only debate was over the best way to permanently hard code the protection of rights by government into the Document. This is the reason they advised vigilance against exactly the ideas you are proposing, noting that it was each successive generations job to safe guard the Constitution. I don't want to bog down here, but it is not a "living document" in the sense that term means today. "Living document" implies that the Document's meaning was intended to shift over time through interpretation, which is incorrect. The document was intended to be static, with a fixed meaning, which could only be changed through the prescribed process. The Founder's view was that the document should mean today exactly what it meant when it was written with the exception of the changes made by the 17 additional Amendments. Exactly what it was meant, eh? Because I cannot legally own a military-tech drone, a live mine, or a missile, even though I need those weapons to protect my family from a tyrannical government. Why shouldn't a grenade launcher count as arms? Why can't I bear those, Tasker? Are you similarly upset that the First Amendment is not also absolute, Tasker? Sure, we what we call "free speech," but not if that speech includes incitement, obscenity, false statements of fact, and a host of other restrictions including child pornography. Since you're advocating strict interpretation of an amendment written back in the 1700s, you must clearly want that same interpretation extended to all amendments. It's for this reason I can only assume that you are also pro-child-pornography. Maybe that should be your new tagline under your handle? TakeYouToTasker "This Man Supports Child Pornography" Anyway, still awaiting you, re: solutions to mass shootings. Are you perhaps busy on another part of the internet? ...Pervert. 6 hours 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. Edited February 24, 2018 by LA Grant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 23 minutes ago, LA Grant said: Exactly what it was meant, eh? Because I cannot legally own a military-tech drone, a live mine, or a missile, even though I need those weapons to protect my family from a tyrannical government. Why shouldn't a grenade launcher count as arms? Why can't I bear those, Tasker? Are you similarly upset that the First Amendment is not also absolute, Tasker? Sure, we what we call "free speech," but not if that speech includes incitement, obscenity, false statements of fact, and a host of other restrictions including child pornography. Since you're advocating strict interpretation of an amendment written back in the 1700s, you must clearly want that same interpretation extended to all amendments. It's for this reason I can only assume that you are also pro-child-pornography. Maybe that should be your new tagline under your handle? TakeYouToTasker "This Man Supports Child Pornography" Anyway, still awaiting you, re: solutions to mass shootings. Are you perhaps busy on another part of the internet? ...Pervert. Quoted for posterity. We're done here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Quoted for posterity. We're done here. I don't blame you. He's insulted some of our best long-term posters here making it impossible to have the "real discussion" he claims to want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: I don't blame you. He's insulted some of our best long-term posters here making it impossible to have the "real discussion" he claims to want. He's nothing but an Alinskyite. Which is fine. He's lost every round of the argument on merit, and is now doing nothing but engaging in libel. I don't think the moderation team here thinks very highly of people making charges of pedophilia in place of an argument. Edited February 24, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said: He's nothing but an Alinskyite. Which is fine. He's lost every round of the argument on merit, and is now doing nothing but engaging in libel. I don't think the moderation team here thinks very highly of people making charges of pedophilia in place of an argument. He's been at TSW since 2014 but until the last few days I don't remember him ever posting here at PPP. It's funny, we tend to get a fair amount of these idiots that come down here, spew their crap and insult everybody. When they get the reception they deserve, they eventually leave and then go back to wherever and tell everyone what a snake pit this place is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA Grant Posted February 24, 2018 Author Share Posted February 24, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said: Quoted for posterity. We're done here. Indeed we are, because you have nothing. You had multiple invitations to offer your solutions that would not involve restricting guns, or paying more taxes, or you personally inconvenienced. As that leaves you with no ground left to argue, all you have left is trying to weasel out. You said it yourself: the Bill of Rights are absolute. The government should not modify their meaning unless specified by an additional amendment. Am I misunderstanding your position, Tasker? If you support no limitations on the Second Amendment, then logically you'd also support no limitations on the First Amendment, which means, your argument in favor of guns is also in favor of child pornography. Congratulations, Tasker, this is the endgame of your argument. Unless you'd agree that preventing child pornography is a necessary restriction on the Bill of Rights? You seem horrified by the mere mention of the crime, whereas you were gleefully putting on your professor cosplay to explain to us why children being murdered is acceptable and necessary. So, do you agree that that restriction is necessary or do you not, Tasker? If you don't agree — and based on your previous arguments, you do not support those restrictions — then clearly you are in favor of owning child pornography. This logic should be simple enough even for you. In boxing, this is called rope-a-dope, thank you for playing the dope, you set yourself up beautifully. Now it's over. 2 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said: He's nothing but an Alinskyite. Which is fine. He's lost every round of the argument on merit, and is now doing nothing but engaging in libel. I don't think the moderation team here thinks very highly of people making charges of pedophilia in place of an argument. "Crybaby snowflake can't handle being challenged in his safe space. Needs to try to insist that he won the argument despite retreating." I'm sure we can find a participation trophy for you. How about some of those brain supplements on InfoWars, is there an NRA discount, or...? Best of luck in the future. Edited February 24, 2018 by LA Grant 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA Grant Posted February 24, 2018 Author Share Posted February 24, 2018 1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said: He's been at TSW since 2014 but until the last few days I don't remember him ever posting here at PPP. It's funny, we tend to get a fair amount of these idiots that come down here, spew their crap and insult everybody. When they get the reception they deserve, they eventually leave and then go back to wherever and tell everyone what a snake pit this place is. Oh you poor child, I'm not staying, you have grossly misunderstood my intentions — and the attractiveness of this board. I've visited here before. I only come to PPP when I want to find Old White Conservative Men With Bad Opinions. They grow 'em here. 1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said: I don't blame you. He's insulted some of our best long-term posters here making it impossible to have the "real discussion" he claims to want. Insults on PPP? Clutch your pearls! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 2 hours ago, LA Grant said: Indeed we are, because you have nothing. You had multiple invitations to offer your solutions that would not involve restricting guns, or paying more taxes, or you personally inconvenienced. As that leaves you with no ground left to argue, all you have left is trying to weasel out. You said it yourself: the Bill of Rights are absolute. The government should not modify their meaning unless specified by an additional amendment. Am I misunderstanding your position, Tasker? If you support no limitations on the Second Amendment, then logically you'd also support no limitations on the First Amendment, which means, your argument in favor of guns is also in favor of child pornography. Congratulations, Tasker, this is the endgame of your argument. Unless you'd agree that preventing child pornography is a necessary restriction on the Bill of Rights? You seem horrified by the mere mention of the crime, whereas you were gleefully putting on your professor cosplay to explain to us why children being murdered is acceptable and necessary. So, do you agree that that restriction is necessary or do you not, Tasker? If you don't agree — and based on your previous arguments, you do not support those restrictions — then clearly you are in favor of owning child pornography. This logic should be simple enough even for you. In boxing, this is called rope-a-dope, thank you for playing the dope, you set yourself up beautifully. Now it's over. "Crybaby snowflake can't handle being challenged in his safe space. Needs to try to insist that he won the argument despite retreating." I'm sure we can find a participation trophy for you. How about some of those brain supplements on InfoWars, is there an NRA discount, or...? Best of luck in the future. No, Grant, it's because you're crude, and unnecessarily insulting, and I don't enjoy engaging people who behave like that in conversation, especially when they make poor and boring arguments. Again, you can't simply will "facts" into existence; which seems to be your "go to". You create preposterous strawmen, then dance them out to the most absurd lengths, then insist they must be true in place of reality, then scream GOTCHA at the top of your lungs. Watching you do it over and over again is tiring. It's a very lazy way to argue, what with not being reliant on information. Your most recent example involved positions I've never taken attributed to me in your creation of a caricature, followed with a bare assertion that the Founders considered child pornography to be speech, and then attributing the conundrum to me; all while carefully taking the time to be a truly ****ty person in regards to direct character attacks. The Court has, over the years, legislated from the bench creating law through carve-out of ruling. Speech has been attributed to many things that are not speech in order to grant them special favor of the government. The Founders would not have considered child pornography, or any for of pornography for that matter, to be speech; and as such it would have been an issue for the states, with no federal authority to get involved. And I am confident that the several states, by 2018, would have individually outlawed it. So again, Grant, I'm done. This is tiring, and you're rude and boorish. I'm sure your parents are quite proud. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 2 hours ago, LA Grant said: "Crybaby snowflake can't handle being challenged in his safe space. Needs to try to insist that he won the argument despite retreating." I'm sure we can find a participation trophy for you. How about some of those brain supplements on InfoWars, is there an NRA discount, or...? You know, you've been venting here for a couple of days now, and so far you've done absolutely nothing but show everybody how absolutely weak you are, both emotionally and intellectually. You start by posting an anti-NRA rant, and then become not just defensive, but rude, belligerent, and insulting when challenged. There has been nothing intellectual about anything you've posted. For some reason, you seem to think that you have a monopoly on anger over the deaths of innocent students. That's your own political bias clouding your common sense, which I suspect is in short supply even in the best of times. Now you're doing nothing but trolling. This is a forum, not a place for butthurt little candyasses to libel others. Grow up. Grow a pair. Some day, you might be afforded a seat at the adult's table. Until then, %$#@ off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LA Grant Posted February 24, 2018 Author Share Posted February 24, 2018 3 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said: No, Grant, it's because you're crude, and unnecessarily insulting, and I don't enjoy engaging people who behave like that in conversation, especially when they make poor and boring arguments. Again, you can't simply will "facts" into existence; which seems to be your "go to". You create preposterous strawmen, then dance them out to the most absurd lengths, then insist they must be true in place of reality, then scream GOTCHA at the top of your lungs. Watching you do it over and over again is tiring. It's a very lazy way to argue, what with not being reliant on information. Your most recent example involved positions I've never taken attributed to me in your creation of a caricature, followed with a bare assertion that the Founders considered child pornography to be speech, and then attributing the conundrum to me; all while carefully taking the time to be a truly ****ty person in regards to direct character attacks. The Court has, over the years, legislated from the bench creating law through carve-out of ruling. Speech has been attributed to many things that are not speech in order to grant them special favor of the government. The Founders would not have considered child pornography, or any for of pornography for that matter, to be speech; and as such it would have been an issue for the states, with no federal authority to get involved. And I am confident that the several states, by 2018, would have individually outlawed it. So again, Grant, I'm done. This is tiring, and you're rude and boorish. I'm sure your parents are quite proud. ahahaha "Tiring rude and boorish" — Have you read your posts here?? You just spent the last however many pages trotting out every NRA and Glenn Beck talking point you could think of to argue in favor of mass shootings as acceptable collateral damage over any restrictions on gun access. You argued against common sense reform in favor of strict adherence to the Constitution. Now your unwillingness to defend all Amendments equally plainly reveals your "intellectual dishonesty." If it's acceptable to redefine & reinterpret 1A for things the Founders could not have foreseen, its acceptable to redefine & reinterpret 2A for things the Founders could not have foreseen. How did you put it? Quote "What I'm doing is systematically dismantling your arguments, and exposing you for what you are. I'll continue to do so now" You've explained multiple times why mass shootings in America are acceptable & necessary, but the line for you is that I'm rude. Once again proving the point that it's all about your personal convenience above all else. Do you understand that's why we're having the conversation here, on your turf? It wouldn't happen otherwise. You've shown more sympathy for the shooter than the victims. You're so desensitized to what's actually happening that you've made it completely acceptable with all the stupid blather from before just to justify the madness. Defending unrestricted gun access is crazy, as crazy as defending a pedophile's right to own child porn. But that's the argument you've made. Yesterday You explains your reasoning why you feel this way, since it seems like you forgot: Quote I don't want to bog down here, but it is not a "living document" in the sense that term means today. "Living document" implies that the Document's meaning was intended to shift over time through interpretation, which is incorrect. The document was intended to be static, with a fixed meaning, which could only be changed through the prescribed process. The Founder's view was that the document should mean today exactly what it meant when it was written with the exception of the changes made by the 17 additional Amendments. Quote "I understand that you don't think rights are important. You don't even believe in the concept of rights, as upthread you alluded to the "privilege of gun ownership". But I and others have a different view of freedom, a better understanding of history, and a firmer grasp of the fragility of the concept of freedom, which is still in it's infancy; and we have the Law on our side, along with the firearms the Law protects." Quote "The government should not be engaging in all encompassing social experimentation, especially in instances where it violates the natural rights of it's citizens. A government empowered to act in this way is a tool of tyrants" Quote "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?" Quote "Finally, you don't care a whit for those 17 dead children. If you did, you'd be interested in solving the problem that killed them. You aren't. You're just grateful that they died so you'd have more stacked corpses to raise your pulpit on" You don't care a whit about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or defending the Second Amendment. If you did, you'd be interested in defending the First Amendment from the same types of "infringements" upon our freedoms. You aren't. You're just grateful that you have this crap to hide behind to avoid dealing with the corpses you're piling up to avoid being inconvenienced. (Also — you never did respond to multiple invitations to share your 'solutions' or even identification of 'the problem') 2 hours ago, Azalin said: You know, you've been venting here for a couple of days now, and so far you've done absolutely nothing but show everybody how absolutely weak you are, both emotionally and intellectually. You start by posting an anti-NRA rant, and then become not just defensive, but rude, belligerent, and insulting when challenged. There has been nothing intellectual about anything you've posted. For some reason, you seem to think that you have a monopoly on anger over the deaths of innocent students. That's your own political bias clouding your common sense, which I suspect is in short supply even in the best of times. Now you're doing nothing but trolling. This is a forum, not a place for butthurt little candyasses to libel others. Grow up. Grow a pair. Some day, you might be afforded a seat at the adult's table. Until then, %$#@ off. Why, just a moment ago, we were hearing about the importance of defending every inch of our inalienable rights the Second Amendment and the Bill of Rights at all costs, by all means necessary, collateral damage be damned. Now you want to... restrict my speech? Whahaahahahahaa I have to say, on top of everything, feeling earnestly victimized for "libel" of all things after doing this performative condescending history professor BS & vehemently defending strict adherence to the Bill of Rights is pretty funny. Wish you could see why. http://www.newseuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/topics/freedom-of-the-press/libel-defamation/ IN CONCLUSION: There is no honest argument against the gun reform laid out in page one, post one. The problem and solution are simple. Expand background checks. Increase regulation. Restrict access. Apologies to the Lawful Gun Owners who may be mildly inconvenienced by these obviously necessary measures, but, get over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 1 hour ago, LA Grant said: IN CONCLUSION: There is no honest argument against the gun reform laid out in page one, post one. The problem and solution are simple. Expand background checks. Increase regulation. Restrict access. Apologies to the Lawful Gun Owners who may be mildly inconvenienced by these obviously necessary measures, but, get over it. Congratulations, you have taken positions that may have some merit, or at least worthy of discussion and have acted like such a self aggrandizing prick that what you say is overshadowed by how you say it. You are a perfect example of a person who can't get out of their own way. You didn't want a discussion as much as you wanted a fight. Obviously the way you went about this was not conducive to convincing anyone of the merits of your argument, but an excuse to get on your soapbox. You took every chance to insult other posters and conflate issues for the sake of sensationalism. You are the Maxine Walters of this forum. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 It is a tough place to have a productive conversation. I know first hand. I thought that with different age groups, economic groups, occupations, geographic locations, etc, that this forum should foster some informative discussions. Rarely happens for several reasons, imo. First and most understandable is that posters very often post to try to make a joke. Often these are 'inside jokes' among the veteran posters which are obviously going to be misunderstood by the newbies. Beyond that, most posters here are rarely funny. Swings and misses are the norm but those interrupt just the same. It is common to imply new posters are fools, especially if bucking the veterans' opinions. New users naturally become defensive as it can feel one is being attacked from several directions. Thought leaders here have a shtick where they insult posters and call them idiots. Apparently hilarious to many, though I put these guys on ignore years ago, as I would recommend. The ignore function can keep the trolls from sidetracking. Also, in a productive conversation one feels free to ask questions or to offer ideas that need vetting. Here, apparently only a fool doesn't know everything already or hasn't already done their own research. Brainstorming is impossible here. Finally, there is an obsession with 'winning' the discussion. Hard to know if this is just an internet persona thing or has this forum in fact attracted a bunch of needy personalities. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 22 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: It is a tough place to have a productive conversation. I know first hand. I thought that with different age groups, economic groups, occupations, geographic locations, etc, that this forum should foster some informative discussions. Rarely happens for several reasons, imo. If you start a rational discussion and back up your positions with facts (or at least factual something to ponder), then you'll get a rational conversation. Posting stupidity, then refusing to engage the posters who actually try to discuss the matter with anything approaching a rational thought does not work. That's neither a secret, nor an inside joke. The problem is that newbies come here, act like asshats, post a bunch of stupid nonsense with nothing to back up the assertions, then seem shocked that they're treated like asshats and that their nonsense is dismissed out of hand. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 10 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: It is a tough place to have a productive conversation. I know first hand. I thought that with different age groups, economic groups, occupations, geographic locations, etc, that this forum should foster some informative discussions. Rarely happens for several reasons, imo. First and most understandable is that posters very often post to try to make a joke. Often these are 'inside jokes' among the veteran posters which are obviously going to be misunderstood by the newbies. Beyond that, most posters here are rarely funny. Swings and misses are the norm but those interrupt just the same. It is common to imply new posters are fools, especially if bucking the veterans' opinions. New users naturally become defensive as it can feel one is being attacked from several directions. Thought leaders here have a shtick where they insult posters and call them idiots. Apparently hilarious to many, though I put these guys on ignore years ago, as I would recommend. The ignore function can keep the trolls from sidetracking. Also, in a productive conversation one feels free to ask questions or to offer ideas that need vetting. Here, apparently only a fool doesn't know everything already or hasn't already done their own research. Brainstorming is impossible here. Finally, there is an obsession with 'winning' the discussion. Hard to know if this is just an internet persona thing or has this forum in fact attracted a bunch of needy personalities. Grant went beyond the pale. Even in his OP he was acting like an ass and that was obviously without any provocation. I sat back and I don't believe that I even posted in this thread until the last page or so. I observed the conversation between him and several long term, well respected posters. There was a moment when he started to sound reasonable and willing to discuss things in a rational manner. That was with DR. It didn't last long and it was nothing that DR said that made him start acting like an ass again. Any newcomer here should tread lightly at first. Get to know the landscape. When I call you Jersey Sue or Scooby or refer to hot sauce on your junk don't automatically feel insulted. Say you don't understand. I know that many people haven't been around long enough to get it and I and most others will explain the deal. Jump to conclusions and I'll crayonz you. This place can actually be very enjoyable if one approaches it in the right manner. There's a lot to be learned and I know I'm light years ahead as far as politics and information goes than I would be without it. If I get verbally engaged politically outside of here I'm the expert because I've already seen the subject argued a dozen times here and already have a position that is well thought out and informed. I can reel off statistics and reasoning with ease because of this place. I constantly see things here that I see as "breaking news" a few days later (or in some cases months later) on tv or on the internet. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 5 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Grant went beyond the pale. Even in his OP he was acting like an ass and that was obviously without any provocation. I sat back and I don't believe that I even posted in this thread until the last page or so. I observed the conversation between him and several long term, well respected posters. There was a moment when he started to sound reasonable and willing to discuss things in a rational manner. That was with DR. It didn't last long and it was nothing that DR said that made him start acting like an ass again. Any newcomer here should tread lightly at first. Get to know the landscape. When I call you Jersey Sue or Scooby or refer to hot sauce on your junk don't automatically feel insulted. Say you don't understand. I know that many people haven't been around long enough to get it and I and most others will explain the deal. Jump to conclusions and I'll crayonz you. This place can actually be very enjoyable if one approaches it in the right manner. There's a lot to be learned and I know I'm light years ahead as far as politics and information goes than I would be without it. If I get verbally engaged politically outside of here I'm the expert because I've already seen the subject argued a dozen times here and already have a position that is well thought out and informed. I can reel off statistics and reasoning with ease because of this place. I constantly see things here that I see as "breaking news" a few days later (or in some cases months later) on tv or on the internet. I didn't really defend Grant's position. He obviously got frustrated and sarcastic. He even took a swipe at a post of mine I guess because the post didn't specifically blame the guns. My post was a general observation/critique. Many posters depart here with some of the same observations. I have asked several friends if they ever post on PPP. The reply has always been pretty much the same. "Why bother getting into an insult battle with those guys? For what?" You may not see yourselves as a group versus the new poster, but it seems that a whole lot of posters see it that way. If you really want to have better conversations outside of your veteran circle here, you might consider that point. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 5 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: I didn't really defend Grant's position. He obviously got frustrated and sarcastic. He even took a swipe at a post of mine I guess because the post didn't specifically blame the guns. My post was a general observation/critique. Many posters depart here with some of the same observations. I have asked several friends if they ever post on PPP. The reply has always been pretty much the same. "Why bother getting into an insult battle with those guys? For what?" You may not see yourselves as a group versus the new poster, but it seems that a whole lot of posters see it that way. If you really want to have better conversations outside of your veteran circle here, you might consider that point. This was the OP: 88 RFA Members 88 699 posts Report post Posted Thursday at 05:40 AM It's sad to see kids & parents sad because a bunch of children were murdered again with a legally purchased AR-15 assault rifle. But it's not SO sad that the Legal Gun Owners should be inconvenienced in any way whatsoever. What kind of totalitarian regime are you trying to set up? How much is George Soros paying you to be a Crisis Actor? Do not expand background checks. Sure, you have to take behavioral tests/assessments to work at Wal-Mart but not to own a gun, which means people who are too psycho to work at Wal-Mart are still perfectly qualified to own 100 guns. Do not expand testing & registration requirements. Sure, you need to do this maintain a driver's license. But are cars in the Second Amendment? Didn't think so. We're Patriots! By the way I also think that it's only fair that we revise traffic/vehicle laws to be as de-regulated as gun laws. "Um wait, you want to add MORE idiots on the road?" Well, sometimes the only one way to stop an idiot on the road is a good driver on the road. I say I'm a good driver, that should be enough. And never, ever, EVER limit the war machines that my child has access to. He's 18 so he's not ready for beer or cigarettes but this is a FREE COUNTRY and he will defend with your life his right to own any gun. Here are some solutions that my fellow NRA-supporting Legal Gun Owning Heroes can feel comfortable with: 1) Every teacher has a gun (they can buy it with their school supplies) 2) Every door & entrance has a sheriff's deputy (I'm not paying for this with my taxes tho) 3) We need to hire a lot of new sheriff's deputies (I'm not paying, sorry, no more kids in school, not my problem) 4) New school uniform: SWAT gear. (again, not paying) 5) Thoughts 6) Prayers 7) Mental health!! (Just not on my dime.) USA USA USA USA GO BILLS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted February 24, 2018 Share Posted February 24, 2018 Well, he did say 'Go Bills' OK, I get your point about his post being an abrasive discussion opening. As mentioned though, I wasn't defending Grant as much as making a general observation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts