Jump to content

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


LA Grant

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

It sounds like you pissed yourself which yeah is not a good sign. Hopefully you had an adult diaper or those pants might be ruined.

On further inspection it was a wet dream, all because you said you were leaving.

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

I'd like to see fewer mass shootings. You don't want to be inconvenienced.

Let me know how stricter gun laws gets weapons off the street.

 

Let me know how stricter gun laws stop gun violence in Chicago.

 

Also freedom isn't an inconvenience.  The American Revolution was not an inconvenience.  Communist.

Edited by jmc12290
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

I'd like to see fewer mass shootings. You don't want to be inconvenienced.

Wouldn't we all. But because people don't fall in lock-step with your ideas and have different approaches you ridicule them and call them pedophiles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jmc12290 said:

Let me know how stricter gun laws gets weapons off the street.

 

Let me know how stricter gun laws stop gun violence in Chicago.

 

https://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

http://www.pewresearch.org/topics/gun-control/

https://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/09/gun-control

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/4/16418754/gun-control-washington-post

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

Not sure what the first link proves.

 

Ditto on the second.

 

Third article is a useless comparison between the USA and England.

 

Fourth article states there's a positive correlation between guns and gun deaths.  Okay.  There's a positive correlation between cars and car deaths.

 

None of those provide solutions.  Try again.

 

Freedom is not an inconvenience to me, communist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, 3rdnlng said:

Wouldn't we all. But because people don't fall in lock-step with your ideas and have different approaches you ridicule them and call them pedophiles.

 

Didn't say Tasker was a pedophile. Just that, as his argument supports the necessity of mass shooters for 2A, it also supports the necessity of pedophiles for 1A. 

 

On the other hand, your previous post did say that one of my posts made you literally cream in your jeans. If someone said that to you or your wife or child, even though it was just a failed joke, what would you label that? Because I don't know what other word there is for that but pervert. Do you think that telling a stranger that their post made you involuntarily orgasm is not perverted? Then I guess it would be fair to call you a pervert, no? Just based on your actions in the last 5 minutes? 

 

In conclusion, Tasker is not a pedophile, his argument just strongly supports their freedom to own child pornography provided they did not make it. And 3rdnIng is either the world's worst joke teller, and/or a pervert with clear sexual predator tendencies. This is just based on your posts in this thread. Who knows how much worse you are outside of it.

 

But you can keep going, if you like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 pages of Grant blathering emotionally about wanting to stop shootings...

 

Yet he hasn't said boo about the fact the school system, local politicians, and sheriffs office allowed this to happen by selling out the kids for federal dollars. 

 

39 times they were warned, yet did nothing. 

 

4 officers outside the building as the shooting happened, yet they did nothing. 

 

Since he he is only outraged about guns, it shows us that he doesn't really care about saving kids or stopping murder. 

 

Just getting the guns. 

 

Its a shallow argument devoid of reason and made for completely partisan reasons. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Didn't say Tasker was a pedophile. Just that, as his argument supports the necessity of mass shooters for 2A, it also supports the necessity of pedophiles for 1A. 

 

On the other hand, your previous post did say that one of my posts made you literally cream in your jeans. If someone said that to you or your wife or child, even though it was just a failed joke, what would you label that? Because I don't know what other word there is for that but pervert. Do you think that telling a stranger that their post made you involuntarily orgasm is not perverted? Then I guess it would be fair to call you a pervert, no? Just based on your actions in the last 5 minutes? 

 

In conclusion, Tasker is not a pedophile, his argument just strongly supports their freedom to own child pornography provided they did not make it. And 3rdnIng is either the world's worst joke teller, and/or a pervert with clear sexual predator tendencies. This is just based on your posts in this thread. Who knows how much worse you are outside of it.

 

But you can keep going, if you like.

You came to a (somewhat) rough and tumble site with your piss and vinegar attitude but lacking any real intelligence and when you can't stand the heat you try to change the subject. At some point in time people get tired of little weasels that spout out a continuous stream of gibberish. Just go away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

5 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:

Not sure what the first link proves.

 

Ditto on the second.

 

Third article is a useless comparison between the USA and England.

 

Fourth article states there's a positive correlation between guns and gun deaths.  Okay.  There's a positive correlation between cars and car deaths.

 

None of those provide solutions.  Try again.

 

Freedom is not an inconvenience to me, communist.

 

The majority of Americans support stronger gun control. You want to prevent the majority because of your niche interests and a flawed understanding of our society and the world we inhabit. It's not up for debate. The whole point of this thread is that there is no debate, not a logical one. Every accusal from the right always ends up being a confused confession. The weirdo hardcore right anti-gay guys always end up being closeted homosexuals or with Roy Moore literally pedophiles. The right loves to pretend that the gun-control argument is "emotional" without awareness that their entire argument is based on emotion. They like the feelings of comfort a gun provides. As I said before, I don't even want to outlaw the AR-15 necessarily, I understand the argument of why its popular, I just want to make it harder to get. Of course then the question is why stop at AR-15? Why can't I own a grenade launcher? Why is that not an arm I can bear? Why can't I have a landmine on my front lawn to prevent burglars from trying to steal my grenade launcher? I need it for hunting and to protect my family from a potentially tyrannical government. 

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/20/voters-support-tougher-gun-control-after-florida-shooting-quinnipiac-poll.html

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/11/gun-control-vegas-polls-243647

https://morningconsult.com/2017/10/11/republican-support-gun-control-growing-polling-shows/

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/13/16468902/gun-control-politics-intensity

 

It's not really even up for debate, not any kind of honest debate. There is no counter-argument anymore. The debate is over, and it has been. The question is not "should it change." The question is when is it going to change, and who is preventing it and why? By the way, your argument — "Guns are never the problem & we cannot/should not change gun laws or policy in any way" — includes preventing research into gun violence, repeatedly blocked by the NRA, preventing even clearer evidence. Tasker literally plaigarized Wayne LaPierre as part of his argument. Even the most hack political cartoonists would think that would be a way too on-the-nose version of  "the NRA controls you like puppets" except there was no irony or self-awareness in it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

 

The majority of Americans support stronger gun control. You want to prevent the majority because of your niche interests and a flawed understanding of our society and the world we inhabit. It's not up for debate. The whole point of this thread is that there is no debate, not a logical one. Every accusal from the right always ends up being a confused confession. The weirdo hardcore right anti-gay guys always end up being closeted homosexuals or with Roy Moore literally pedophiles. The right loves to pretend that the gun-control argument is "emotional" without awareness that their entire argument is based on emotion. They like the feelings of comfort a gun provides. As I said before, I don't even want to outlaw the AR-15 necessarily, I understand the argument of why its popular, I just want to make it harder to get. Of course then the question is why stop at AR-15? Why can't I own a grenade launcher? Why is that not an arm I can bear? Why can't I have a landmine on my front lawn to prevent burglars from trying to steal my grenade launcher? I need it for hunting and to protect my family from a potentially tyrannical government. 

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/20/voters-support-tougher-gun-control-after-florida-shooting-quinnipiac-poll.html

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/11/gun-control-vegas-polls-243647

https://morningconsult.com/2017/10/11/republican-support-gun-control-growing-polling-shows/

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/13/16468902/gun-control-politics-intensity

 

It's not really even up for debate, not any kind of honest debate. There is no counter-argument anymore. The debate is over, and it has been. The question is not "should it change." The question is when is it going to change, and who is preventing it and why? By the way, your argument — "Guns are never the problem & we cannot/should not change gun laws or policy in any way" — includes preventing research into gun violence, repeatedly blocked by the NRA, preventing even clearer evidence. Tasker literally plaigarized Wayne LaPierre as part of his argument. Even the most hack political cartoonists would think that would be a way too on-the-nose version of  "the NRA controls you like puppets" except there was no irony or self-awareness in it. 

Then they can vote on revoking the Second Amendment.

 

But until then, shall not be infringed.

 

Freedom is not a nice interest.

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:

Then they can vote on revoking the Second Amendment.

 

But until then, shall not be infringed.

 

Freedom is not a nice interest.

some might say that the SAFE act is an infringement.

 

after they take away your guns, what's next, baseball bats? knives, forks , then spoons? what the hell r u going to eat with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

 

The majority of Americans support stronger gun control. You want to prevent the majority because of your niche interests and a flawed understanding of our society and the world we inhabit. It's not up for debate. The whole point of this thread is that there is no debate, not a logical one. Every accusal from the right always ends up being a confused confession. The weirdo hardcore right anti-gay guys always end up being closeted homosexuals or with Roy Moore literally pedophiles. The right loves to pretend that the gun-control argument is "emotional" without awareness that their entire argument is based on emotion. They like the feelings of comfort a gun provides. As I said before, I don't even want to outlaw the AR-15 necessarily, I understand the argument of why its popular, I just want to make it harder to get. Of course then the question is why stop at AR-15? Why can't I own a grenade launcher? Why is that not an arm I can bear? Why can't I have a landmine on my front lawn to prevent burglars from trying to steal my grenade launcher? I need it for hunting and to protect my family from a potentially tyrannical government. 

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/20/voters-support-tougher-gun-control-after-florida-shooting-quinnipiac-poll.html

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/11/gun-control-vegas-polls-243647

https://morningconsult.com/2017/10/11/republican-support-gun-control-growing-polling-shows/

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/13/16468902/gun-control-politics-intensity

 

It's not really even up for debate, not any kind of honest debate. There is no counter-argument anymore. The debate is over, and it has been. The question is not "should it change." The question is when is it going to change, and who is preventing it and why? By the way, your argument — "Guns are never the problem & we cannot/should not change gun laws or policy in any way" — includes preventing research into gun violence, repeatedly blocked by the NRA, preventing even clearer evidence. Tasker literally plaigarized Wayne LaPierre as part of his argument. Even the most hack political cartoonists would think that would be a way too on-the-nose version of  "the NRA controls you like puppets" except there was no irony or self-awareness in it. 

 

You realize, twatwaffle, that not all people who oppose gun control own guns, right? Prohibition literally never works. See: alcohol and drugs.

Edited by joesixpack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

You realize, twatwaffle, that not all people who oppose gun control own guns, right? Prohibition literally never works. See: alcohol and drugs.

Right here. I’m one of them. I don’t own one. I hate them and I still support the 2A. 

  • Like (+1) 4
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LA Grant said:

 

 

The majority of Americans support stronger gun control. You want to prevent the majority because of your niche interests and a flawed understanding of our society and the world we inhabit. It's not up for debate. The whole point of this thread is that there is no debate, not a logical one. Every accusal from the right always ends up being a confused confession. The weirdo hardcore right anti-gay guys always end up being closeted homosexuals or with Roy Moore literally pedophiles. The right loves to pretend that the gun-control argument is "emotional" without awareness that their entire argument is based on emotion. They like the feelings of comfort a gun provides. As I said before, I don't even want to outlaw the AR-15 necessarily, I understand the argument of why its popular, I just want to make it harder to get. Of course then the question is why stop at AR-15? Why can't I own a grenade launcher? Why is that not an arm I can bear? Why can't I have a landmine on my front lawn to prevent burglars from trying to steal my grenade launcher? I need it for hunting and to protect my family from a potentially tyrannical government. 

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/20/voters-support-tougher-gun-control-after-florida-shooting-quinnipiac-poll.html

https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/11/gun-control-vegas-polls-243647

https://morningconsult.com/2017/10/11/republican-support-gun-control-growing-polling-shows/

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/13/16468902/gun-control-politics-intensity

 

It's not really even up for debate, not any kind of honest debate. There is no counter-argument anymore. The debate is over, and it has been. The question is not "should it change." The question is when is it going to change, and who is preventing it and why? By the way, your argument — "Guns are never the problem & we cannot/should not change gun laws or policy in any way" — includes preventing research into gun violence, repeatedly blocked by the NRA, preventing even clearer evidence. Tasker literally plaigarized Wayne LaPierre as part of his argument. Even the most hack political cartoonists would think that would be a way too on-the-nose version of  "the NRA controls you like puppets" except there was no irony or self-awareness in it. 

And now in addition to calling me a pedophile, you're calling me a plagiarist?

 

Sources now, or GTFO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LA Grant said:

It's not really even up for debate, not any kind of honest debate. There is no counter-argument anymore. The debate is over, and it has been.

Bet people over at the Global Warming debate would have fun with you too

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Cinga said:

Bet people over at the Global Warming debate would have fun with you too

 

If you define "fun" as listening to an uninformed blowhard attempt to verbally bully everyone else into accepting his opinion as gospel, then yeah, he'd be a riot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jmc12290 said:

Then they can vote on revoking the Second Amendment.

 

But until then, shall not be infringed.

 

Freedom is not a nice interest.

 

There is no way that you will ever get LA Grant to understand this very simple,  basic truth.

 

He consistently says the same, leftwing talking points: Americans want more gun control and they want to make it near impossible to get a gun.

 

You'd think if this were even REMOTELY true, he could get 2A abolished, right? I mean, he posted an article by VOX, for crying out loud. If you can't believe a VOX article, you may as well just in your union card.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

If you define "fun" as listening to an uninformed blowhard attempt to verbally bully everyone else into accepting his opinion as gospel, then yeah, he'd be a riot.

 

But you don't seem to have a problem when I...

 

...oh, wait.  Uninformed blowhard.  Never mind.

2 hours ago, Foxx said:

some might say that the SAFE act is an infringement.

 

after they take away your guns, what's next, baseball bats? knives, forks , then spoons? what the hell r u going to eat with?

 

Point of note: England is moving to regulate and even ban the sale and possession of knives - including kitchen knives - because of the epidemic of knife fatalities.  

 

So no, it's not a strawman argument.  It's an actual, real thing, regulating kitchen cutlery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

12 pages of Grant blathering emotionally about wanting to stop shootings...

 

Yet he hasn't said boo about the fact the school system, local politicians, and sheriffs office allowed this to happen by selling out the kids for federal dollars. 

 

39 times they were warned, yet did nothing. 

 

4 officers outside the building as the shooting happened, yet they did nothing. 

 

Since he he is only outraged about guns, it shows us that he doesn't really care about saving kids or stopping murder. 

 

Just getting the guns. 

 

Its a shallow argument devoid of reason and made for completely partisan reasons. 

These guys hate trump more than the nutjob shooters imho.

Totally irrational.

Sitting here reading this post, all I can do is shake my head.

I'm ashamed and embarrassed at how much hatred there is towards

our great country from the left.

Its as if the media and the left celebrate these incidents as holidays.

Edited by Albwan
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Albwan said:

Its as if the media and the left celebrate these incidents as holidays.

 

It's not 'as if.'

 

They simply do. They are poised and ready to take any incident and turn it into their latest effort to label groups of people as dangerous, evil,  and even murderous, and quickly dispatch their gatorman/tiberius/lagrant-like chuckleheads to Facebook to yell and scream about how the world would be a better place if only Hillary wasn't robbed of her due seat.

 

On the bright side, most Americans don't fall for it any more. The country sees the left for what they are, because the left is TOO quick to turn everything political. They literally moved this nation to make Donald freaking Trump our president because the thought of another leftist in charge was genuinely a worse option.

 

Amazing, really, when you think about it. They mock the middle of the country that elected Trump without realizing the role they played. And it was a magnificent role, really. I'm not kidding. It was huge. Biggest we've ever seen.

 

Bigly, even.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Albwan said:

 

Its as if the media and the left celebrate these incidents as holidays.

 

 

Well, at least they come forward with the fake outrage if you call them out on it:

 

Quote

“I don’t know anybody in the media that likes mass shootings,” Camerota said. “You’re wrong on every single level. We pray that there’s never another one. And the idea of them being ratings gold … guess what? They’re not ratings gold. Because Americans have reached saturation levels. They’re so sick of it. It’s so heartbreaking that they actually often turn away.”

...

“It’s not true, you know this!” Camerota replied. “It’s just not true! How dare you!”

 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/dare-cnns-camerota-clashes-nras-loesch-claim-media-love-mass-shootings-151738545.html

 

Of course, CNN staged a heavily scripted town hall (complete with plants), heavily promoted it for the better part of a week, and sold advertising because they're not trying to improve their ratings. Nah, it was all for humanitarian reasons. Handing students scripted questions to ambush that idiot Rubio was clearly to aid in the healing process...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

And now in addition to calling me a pedophile, you're calling me a plagiarist?

 

Sources now, or GTFO.

 

Way ahead of you, as always. Already did this on page 8. But sure, if you want to be shamed again, sure. Here's you from page 8. Below is Wayne, a few hours earlier.

 

I'm sure it's just a coincidence, right? hahaha.

 

On 2/22/2018 at 8:20 PM, TakeYouToTasker said:

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.

 

'"The elites don’t care not one whit about America’s school system and school children,” he said to a favorable reception at the conservative event. “If they truly cared, what they would do is they would protect them. For them it’s not a safety issue, it’s a political issue. They care more about control and more of it, their goal is to eliminate the Second Amendment and our firearms freedoms so that they can eradicate all individual freedoms.”

http://www.newsweek.com/wayne-lapierre-nra-cpac-guns-816294

6 hours ago, LA Grant said:

 

I just find it amusing that you think this is the grown-up's table. Hahahaha. How do you make that conclusion, Joe? 

 

Are you suggesting PPP is full of thoughtful, respectful discourse, philosophically engaging in comparative arguments on the value of ideas? lol WHERE?? Every other thread is a bunch of conservative snowflakes in a bubble agreeing with each other as B-Man shares conservative memes & links from often incredibly dubious sources and the rest of you do your tired schticks to each other. There must be 200,000 posts on PPP with "Hillary" in there somewhere and that might be a conservative estimate.

 

Revising this previous estimate. I think it might just be 20,000 posts of LABillzFan mentioning Hillary. It's sad.

 

54 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

It's not 'as if.'

 

They simply do. They are poised and ready to take any incident and turn it into their latest effort to label groups of people as dangerous, evil,  and even murderous, and quickly dispatch their gatorman/tiberius/lagrant-like chuckleheads to Facebook to yell and scream about how the world would be a better place if only Hillary wasn't robbed of her due seat.

 

On the bright side, most Americans don't fall for it any more. The country sees the left for what they are, because the left is TOO quick to turn everything political. They literally moved this nation to make Donald freaking Trump our president because the thought of another leftist in charge was genuinely a worse option.

 

Amazing, really, when you think about it. They mock the middle of the country that elected Trump without realizing the role they played. And it was a magnificent role, really. I'm not kidding. It was huge. Biggest we've ever seen.

 

Bigly, even.

 

24 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Well, at least they come forward with the fake outrage if you call them out on it:

 

 

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/dare-cnns-camerota-clashes-nras-loesch-claim-media-love-mass-shootings-151738545.html

 

Of course, CNN staged a heavily scripted town hall (complete with plants), heavily promoted it for the better part of a week, and sold advertising because they're not trying to improve their ratings. Nah, it was all for humanitarian reasons. Handing students scripted questions to ambush that idiot Rubio was clearly to aid in the healing process...

 

Ah yes, here again comes the idea that these mass shootings are orchestrated media events. Plants! George Soros! Crisis Actors! Anything, anything but guns.

 

 

Edited by LA Grant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

But you don't seem to have a problem when I...

 

...oh, wait.  Uninformed blowhard.  Never mind.

 

Point of note: England is moving to regulate and even ban the sale and possession of knives - including kitchen knives - because of the epidemic of knife fatalities.  

 

So no, it's not a strawman argument.  It's an actual, real thing, regulating kitchen cutlery.

Buy stock in plastic knives or napkins lol

 

What’s next? Envelope openers? Ice picks? Box-cutters? Razors? I suppose they never watched a movie based in prison lol. You can make a shank out of just about anything. Lol

Edited by Justice
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, joesixpack said:

 

You realize, twatwaffle, that not all people who oppose gun control own guns, right? Prohibition literally never works. See: alcohol and drugs.

 

You realize that not all people who own guns oppose restrictions, right? Gun restrictions clearly work. See: a mountain of evidence, already posted in this thread by me, multiple times, data that's been established and available for years. You. Just. Don't. Want. To. Hear. It. 

 

4 hours ago, Foxx said:

some might say that the SAFE act is an infringement.

 

after they take away your guns, what's next, baseball bats? knives, forks , then spoons? what the hell r u going to eat with?

 

Another common & very lame excuse. The same stupid logic works the other way. If AR-15s can be bought as long as you're 18 w/ no convictions, why can't the same kid also buy a grenade launcher or a land mine? Why can't I bear those arms? I need them for hunting and to protect my family.

7 minutes ago, Justice said:

Buy stock in plastic knives or napkins lol

 

What’s next? Envelope openers? Ice picks? Box-cutters? Razors? I suppose they never watched a movie based in prisons lol. You can make a shank out or just about anything. Lol

 

See above. There's a million reasons this is incredibly stupid — go ahead and list all of the mass killings perpetrated with ice picks. Also, those other tools have other utility besides murder. Guns can't open your mail. Well, not efficiently, anyway.

Edited by LA Grant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

Ah yes, here again comes the idea that these mass shootings are orchestrated media events. Plants! George Soros! Crisis Actors! Anything, anything but guns.

 

 

Orchestrated? Don't be a dumbass.

 

Exploited is a more accurate assessment.

7 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Another common & very lame excuse. The same stupid logic works the other way. If AR-15s can be bought as long as you're 18 w/ no convictions, why can't the same kid also buy a grenade launcher or a land mine? Why can't I bear those arms? I need them for hunting and to protect my family.

 

 

How does one shoot a landmine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Justice said:

Buy stock in plastic knives or napkins lol

 

What’s next? Envelope openers? Ice picks? Box-cutters? Razors? I suppose they never watched a movie based in prison lol. You can make a shank out of just about anything. Lol

 

Bed Bath & Beyond might have to implement background checks and a waiting period

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

 

Orchestrated? Don't be a dumbass.

 

Exploited is a more accurate assessment.

 

How does one shoot a landmine?

 

Is a landmine not 'Arms' because it doesn't shoot? Seems like it fits the definition.

arms
ärmz/
noun
  1. 1.
    weapons and ammunition; armaments.
    "they were subjugated by force of arms"
    synonyms: weapons, weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, artillery, armaments, munitions, matériel

 

Maybe you're thinking of "firearms," which a landmine is not. But the Second Amendment quite clearly says "Arms" so land mines do fit. 

 

Perhaps you want to restrict the definition of "arms"? Well, that's very troubling. Tasker or other fundamentalists would tell you any restriction is the slippery slope to tyranny. But okay, let's just keep it to things that can shoot as "arms." Why can't I own a grenade launcher? A mini-gun? A fire launcher?

 

Do you know?

 

Because the answer is I could, actually. Those are legal if you really want one.

https://www.online-paralegal-programs.com/crazy-weapons-that-are-still-legal-in-the-us/

 

They're just a little more difficult to get than AR-15s as they require background checks & licenses & registration. Would you prefer that an 18 y/o like the Parkland shooter be able to buy one of these as easily as he did an AR-15? Or is the more logical solution to require similar background checks & licenses & registration?

 
EDIT — The shooting victims are exploited... by the right, who ghoulishly use the grieving to punt on the discussion, to avoid discussing solutions. When the victims who survived speak out in the way that the right doesn't want them to, then the tactics are all about discrediting them & shutting them up. Somehow the kids who were in the school being shot at are "Fake News" crisis actors, scripted, whatever InfoWars nonsense. It's perverse and horrible.
 
You see these exact same tactics every time the right receives a message they don't want to hear (see: player protests & liberal veterans), but because the right's base is so easily tricked, they falsely assume the rest of us don't see through that crap.
Edited by LA Grant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Way ahead of you, as always. Already did this on page 8. But sure, if you want to be shamed again, sure. Here's you from page 8. Below is Wayne, a few hours earlier.

 

I'm sure it's just a coincidence, right? hahaha.

 

 

'"The elites don’t care not one whit about America’s school system and school children,” he said to a favorable reception at the conservative event. “If they truly cared, what they would do is they would protect them. For them it’s not a safety issue, it’s a political issue. They care more about control and more of it, their goal is to eliminate the Second Amendment and our firearms freedoms so that they can eradicate all individual freedoms.”

 

...

 

LOL

 

That's hilarious.  You think those sentiments originated with Wayne LaPierre over the past few days?  

 

That's been a consistent critique of people holding your belief set for just about as long as it's been in existence.  LaPierre was echoing those sentiments as was I because it's a common and accurate argument against your position.  If you were better read, or more aware of anything outside of your neo-Marxist bubble, you'd know that already.

 

Good grief.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TakeYouToTasker said:

...

 

LOL

 

That's hilarious.  You think those sentiments originated with Wayne LaPierre over the past few days?  

 

That's been a consistent critique of people holding your belief set for just about as long as it's been in existence.  LaPierre was echoing those sentiments as was I because it's a common and accurate argument against your position.  If you were better read, or more aware of anything outside of your neo-Marxist bubble, you'd know that already.

 

Good grief.

 

Mm, not quite. Sure, the sentiment of the right accusing the left of being disingenuous is "consistent" but that doesn't mean stealing the phrasing and structure isn't "plagiarism."

Look, it's not like I'm expecting you're going to admit that you've been merely parroting the NRA's position. You couldn't admit that your argument was dismantled. Hell, you can't even admit to yourself what your own position is. It's funny: the only things that bother you are the things that directly, personally affect you. You're more horrified at being called names than mass shootings because one affects you and the other doesn't. I know the word "libertarianism" sounds cool & smart but that's the core of your dumbass beliefs. 

 

Back to the plagiarism thing, the issue that's really got you bothered. Go ahead & show me "one whit" of evidence of that quote, that you passed off as your own thought, being used before LaPierre said it.

 

"Sources or GTFO."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...