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

[3rdnlng]

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?

[TakeYouToTasker]

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

[Rob's House]

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

[LA Grant]

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

[TakeYouToTasker]

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.

[3rdnlng]

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.

[TakeYouToTasker]

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

[3rdnlng]

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.

[LA Grant]

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

[LA Grant]

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!

[TakeYouToTasker]

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.

[Azalin]

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.

[LA Grant]

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.

 

 

[3rdnlng]

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.

[Bob in Mich]

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.

[Koko78]

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.

[3rdnlng]

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.

 

 

[Bob in Mich]

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.

 

[3rdnlng]

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

[Bob in Mich]

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.