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

[Doc Brown]

2 hours ago, Paulus said:

I thought it was decided years ago that the best way to stop mass shootings was to take guns away from liberals. 

 

I mean, after each liberal mass shooting we get to hear from the same liberals, who bullied these guys into killing people, try and take away gun rights. Seriously, this crap has gone far beyond good and asinine. 

 

16 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

That might work except it's almost always a right-wing nutjob. Usually some loner obsessed with guns.  

One dumb post followed by an even dumber post.

[3rdnlng]

24 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

 

One dumb post followed by an even dumber post.

That's some stupid chit on their part. We've had automatic and semi-automatic weapons for a century. The mass killings have only been for the last couple of decades (with few exceptions). The problem is not with the weapon but with the person pulling the trigger. Solve that and we solve the problem.

[Paulus]

1 hour ago, LA Grant said:

 

 

 

That might work except it's almost always a right-wing nutjob. Usually some loner obsessed with guns.  

Hahaha... By "right-wing nutjob" you mean registered Democrat, communist sympathizers?

 

I mean, I can just point out the Islamic terrorists to start (Army shooter, Pulse shooter, San Bernardino shooter), then the socialist/communist ones (Laughter, Cho, Holmes), and then move onto the totally liberal guys (Bernie Bros= Softball game shooter, VEGAS dude, and then this last guy).

 

And, those are just a few of the guys off the top of my head....

 

I mean, sure the majority of my old grunt pals have beards and have small arsenals, but they also go to church and contribute to society. I don't fear any of them and think they actually make places safer. 

 

Honestly, the less lefties hold guns the safer society is. Stop being the fat guy who tries to take my bowl of ice cream away because you have the "beetus."

Edited February 26, 2018 by Paulus

[TakeYouToTasker]

On February 24, 2018 at 10:38 PM, LA Grant said:

 

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."

What's truly laughable is that I've made that same argument, with the same sort of phrasing here, on this website.  I'd be surprised if I haven't made it in this thread; but once again, lacking even a shred of intellectual honesty, and knowing you're losing badly on merits, you're reading from Alinsky and are attempting to personalize and distract.  You haven't countered a single argument against your position with facts.  You just get louder and more offensive, and are substituting mud slinging and logical fallacy for argument.

 

Here, again, you attempt to disparage an argument by attributing negative connotations to people and organizations you personally dislike, then attempt to dismiss an entire opposing argument, skipping debate, by announcing "Your position mirrors that of X, and therefore you're stupid.  I win."  This is the dumbest debate tactic I've ever seen.

 

I again reject your entire premise.  That's not an argument grounded in logic.  It's literally a logical fallacy.

 

Now, back to dismantling your argument.

 

No, the Founders would not have considered pornography of any sort to be speech.  On what grounds would they do so?  The purpose of the First Amendment was to protect political speech, and was a direct reaction to the British Crown restricting political speech, just as the Second Amendment was a direct reaction to the British Crown's 1774 import ban on firearms and gunpowder.  

 

The Founder's were primarily men of their home states rather than men of their new country, and outside of the few very specific enumerations of power, they intended for nearly all of the laws they lived under to be local to them in their home states.  This was the purpose of the Constitution.

 

And while inanimate objects not representing political speech would certainly not stand up to the Founder's qualifications for speech, and would be regulated at the state level; given that they had just needed the arms available to them to overthrow an existing tyrannical government, including a private navy, they certainly did not intend to restrict future generation's ability to do the same when they wrote the words "shall not be infringed".

 

Your bare assertion that anyone supporting the Second Amendment in it's origionalist intent necessarily means that they support the general population have access to claymore mines, missiles, and weapons of mass destruction is a poor one which betrays your lack of understanding of your opponents position, which is another reason you're getting your ass kicked.  You don't bother to understand the argument your opponent is making.  Do you know what they call lawyers who engage in that practice?  Dishwashers.  It's a terrible practice which causes you to lose every argument you're having on every topic by default, because every argument you make becomes a strawman in practice.  I have made my argument against those types of weapons being unConstritutional under a constructionist understanding on this website as well, and again, if you weren't such a lazy and boring "debater" you'd know that.

 

The largest problem with your argument, however, if your insistence that Second Amendment advocates are being "selfish" about not being "inconvenienced"; and is the reason one is easily able to understand your real motives in regards to going after guns:  You are an admitted leftist who wishes to use the force of government to actively pursue leftist dogma.  As such, you do not believe in natural rights.

 

Natural rights pose a massive problem for your ideology in which authority is centralized, autonomy is limited, and privilege is granted.  You dismiss the entire notion of freedom having any importance because you don't value it.  You believe it is OK to separate individuals from their right to defend their freedom because freedom is an impediment to your larger political goals.

Edited February 26, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[Doc Brown]

1 hour ago, 3rdnlng said:

That's some stupid chit on their part. We've had automatic and semi-automatic weapons for a century. The mass killings have only been for the last couple of decades (with few exceptions). The problem is not with the weapon but with the person pulling the trigger. Solve that and we solve the problem.

The mass public shootings have remained pretty constant over the last 35 years, but the casualties have increased as the charts below indicates.  The higher the death count the more media coverage it receives.  There's no empirical evidence that banning assault rifles like the AR-15 is the reason for this and to take away the right to buy those weapons without any evidence it will help the situation is a grave infringement on our 2nd amendment rights.  In my opinion, a mentally deranged person is going to find a way regardless of what gun laws are put into place to get their hands on a weapon and ammunition that will cause the most casualties. 

 

As far as school shootings go, all you can really do is throw money at the problem at the federal and state level.  Metal detectors, more security guards, more mental health counselors, etc...  It's a slippery slope if you go in that direction though as you don't want to turn schools into a police state.  One area that I believe is overlooked is how much media attention the killer gets.  We all know the name of the killer and any mentally deranged person out there on the brink is thinking everybody will know my name if I do what that kid just did.  

 

 

 

Edited February 26, 2018 by Doc Brown

[ExiledInIllinois]

Not so sensitive as much as they are selfish.  They are much more selfish:

 

I have a 2nd Amendment right!  It's MY RIGHT.

 

I will be damned if the jerk offs spoil that right.  I have a right.

 

Too bad about dead people.  Sure glad it ain't ME.

 

There is no we in AMErica.  But there is a ME. And of course we can't have AmErica w/out that all important bolded part!

 

Let's all try selfish on for size!  If the shoe fits, wear it.

 

Do I fit in with the paranoid gun crowd?  Of course not, I am really not that selfish.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

5 hours ago, LA Grant said:

 

Nice to see the weak arguments previously dismantled on earlier pages in a Buzzfeed format but nonetheless, it's still not an argument, it's a list of excuses.  6 Excuses to Avoid. "We're treated bad. You're not nice enough. I don't like your tone." Grow up. The right is so endlessly contradictory. Trump wins on bullying but as soon as they take just a hint of their own medicine, it's always this kind of crybaby crap. Can't wait for the NYT piece on how actually mass shootings are good for factory workers so think of them.

On and on and on with the BS.

"Poor, sensitive Lawful Gun Owners. Why won't anyone consider what they want after a tragedy? After all, they're still alive — in a way, aren't Lawful Gun Owners the real victims here? We must appease these snowflakes at all costs, their ears are vewwy vewwy delicate." I think the only kind of gun control the gun-wing of the right will support is if we also go through the list of every NRA member who hasn't murdered anyone and pat them on the head and give 'em a treat.

 

 

That might work except it's almost always a right-wing nutjob. Usually some loner obsessed with guns.  

 

Except when it’s a Democrat who shot up a bunch of republican congressmen.

[Keukasmallie]

On 2/22/2018 at 9:20 AM, LA Grant said:

 

GENUINELY one of the dumbest takes I have seen. Like the bar was low, and seeing your name the bar droops a little lower, and even then — an amount of stupid that's surprising every time. Well done.

 

 ^ On the Second Amendment garbage. Grow the $*!^( up and face reality. 

 

No one is "taking your guns away" you hobbyless morons. You've done plenty of damage. The idea is to prevent more. Gun reform is the obvious answer in front of your stupid potato face.

 

 

 

OK, seriously, why would anyone even stop to think about anything this person writes after reading these "reasoned responses" to whatever the hell the point was in the first place?

[ExiledInIllinois]

1 hour ago, Keukasmallie said:

 

OK, seriously, why would anyone even stop to think about anything this person writes after reading these "reasoned responses" to whatever the hell the point was in the first place?

Because he is right.  The paranoid hobbyists are being selfish.  Of course they can be. They are granted their right.

 

We all lose, now deal with.  Bury the dead and move on.

 

Sorry to be so blunt Kueka.  I don't know how to solve the problem.  Let's say another prayer, yeah that that will help.

 

ALL sides, selfish idiots that can't agree.

Edited February 26, 2018 by ExiledInIllinois

[DC Tom]

7 hours ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

Not so sensitive as much as they are selfish.  They are much more selfish:

 

I have a 2nd Amendment right!  It's MY RIGHT.

 

I will be damned if the jerk offs spoil that right.  I have a right.

 

Too bad about dead people.  Sure glad it ain't ME.

 

There is no we in AMErica.  But there is a ME. And of course we can't have AmErica w/out that all important bolded part!

 

Let's all try selfish on for size!  If the shoe fits, wear it.

 

Do I fit in with the paranoid gun crowd?  Of course not, I am really not that selfish.

 

2nd Amendment rights are everyone's right.  Whether they choose to exercise it or not.  

 

And the entire point of the Constitution was the protection of the rights of the individual.  

[ExiledInIllinois]

6 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

2nd Amendment rights are everyone's right.  Whether they choose to exercise it or not.  

 

And the entire point of the Constitution was the protection of the rights of the individual.  

Of course it is!  I know I am an idiot, but humor me.

 

And thanks for the update.

 

I wonder if they figured it would go off the rails this bad? The Founding Father's that is.  Of course they didn't, "rails" didn't exist yet.

 

[DC Tom]

2 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

Of course it is!  I know I am an idiot, but humor me.

 

And thanks for the update.

 

I wonder if they figured it would go off the rails this bad? The Founding Father's that is.  Of course they didn't, "rails" didn't exist yet.

 

 

I wonder what their metaphor was for "off the rails?"  Given they were farmer-statesmen, probably something agricultural.  "The oxen hast draggeth the plow into the adjacent furrow!"

[ExiledInIllinois]

14 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

I wonder what their metaphor was for "off the rails?"  Given they were farmer-statesmen, probably something agricultural.  "The oxen hast draggeth the plow into the adjacent furrow!"

Close with the furrows.

 

Well... The guage of railroads came from the width of the ruts created by wagons.  In England, dating back to the Romans... Specifically standard guage 4'8.5".

 

So it was probably "not off the rails" but "in the rut."

 

"How thou shall we get us out of this most hideous rut that we dug ourselves?"

 

Answer: Put down the damn entrenching tool and let the USC live, breathe.... 

[BringBackOrton]

8 hours ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

Not so sensitive as much as they are selfish.  They are much more selfish:

 

I have a 2nd Amendment right!  It's MY RIGHT.

 

I will be damned if the jerk offs spoil that right.  I have a right.

 

Too bad about dead people.  Sure glad it ain't ME.

 

There is no we in AMErica.  But there is a ME. And of course we can't have AmErica w/out that all important bolded part!

 

Let's all try selfish on for size!  If the shoe fits, wear it.

 

Do I fit in with the paranoid gun crowd?  Of course not, I am really not that selfish.

Those rights protect all of us.  You're an idiot.

[boyst]

On 2/22/2018 at 4:12 PM, LA Grant said:

 

You (or Tasker) do not have a point. You have "gun control doesn't work," "b-b-but the Second Amendment," and any number of distractions/excuses like "what about prayer" or "what about fatherlessness" or "what about opiods" or "what about spoons" or whatever.

 

You are not "sniping retards from the balcony." You are not clever. You're just pissy, evasive, and petulant on a Bills message board. Somehow you think of yourself as a hero, a man out of a time, a cowboy born in the wrong age. It's really amazing, but it's not surprising, because it's this whole idiotic debate writ small. You're not some useless lazy old fart, you're like those charming balcony Muppets! Yeah, that's the ticket....  Like the NRA, you are delusional, cynical, and useless. GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS! The only thing protecting us from EVIL TYRANNY is a bunch of chubbos with a stupid hobby. Therefore AR-15s should be legal everywhere. 

 

Once again: you have no point, no argument. 

 

 

Yet, if that's true you give him no educated thought, critical though, logical assertion, or anything beyond light hearted retardism.

 

It's one thing to be Tiberius and a slew of others. That's different. But you're climbing the charts. They're asshats. You're an autistic savant, able to deliver complete sentences, able to form a thought but both lacking any actual integrity toward a constructive or purposeful argument. 

 

You are the epitome of an autistic savant.

On 2/22/2018 at 4:25 PM, LA Grant said:

 

Yes, Tom is funny sometimes on TSW. It's clearly gone to his head down here.

 

 

If you were good at deconstructing stupidity, you'd realize you're stupidly wasting all this valuable social satire toiling in PPP. 

 

Looks like a handy delusion to me. "Hey, not me, I don't have a point, I go after all sides. I'm an Equal Opportunity Offender. I snipe retards from the balcony with a Muppets avatar. I have a mug with funny words on it and several funny bumper stickers." 

 

On 2/22/2018 at 4:16 PM, KW95 said:

 

I just take it for what it is LAGrant. Everyone knows he's got the good one liners.  That is all he brings to the boards.  If he feels good about it, that is what counts. He makes me smile and laugh as well. in regards to opinions and points of views on anything,  He is vanilla. no flavor....but again, his one liners are funny!

 

On 2/22/2018 at 4:29 PM, thebug said:

Don't worry, it's 4:30 so dinner time for Tommy. 

Why the hell are you fairies talking about #feelings and being butthurt over names?

 

Your insecurities are showing, pussies.

 

"Boohoo, Tom is mean to me, boohoo, b-man refuted my opinion with facts, boohoo, LA just showed me I am stupid."

 

Well, if you bring actual worthy discussion to a topic you won't get ridiculed. And, of course, this response is no different but someone needed to clue you in to why the 3 of you aren't taken seriously. It's the same damn reason I am running joke.  I don't dignify a response, I'm just an !@#$ who passes time at work on the toilet typing this. (literally **** going out both ends, eh?). 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

1 hour ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

Close with the furrows.

 

Well... The guage of railroads came from the width of the ruts created by wagons.  In England, dating back to the Romans... Specifically standard guage 4'8.5".

 

So it was probably "not off the rails" but "in the rut."

 

"How thou shall we get us out of this most hideous rut that we dug ourselves?"

 

Answer: Put down the damn entrenching tool and let the USC live, breathe.... 

In Australia the simultaneously built a railroad from east to west ans west to east.  

 

When they met in the middle they found out that they were using a different "gauge rail"  and not a standard-gauge line

 

Australian Railway Gauges Australia's state-run railways have not been known for cooperating in the past. Whilst NSW adopted standard gauge, Victoria chose broad gauge (5'3"), Queensland, Tasmania & Western Australia went for 3'6" narrow gauge, & South Australia decided on both broad & narrow. Today, standard gauge connects Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Perth & Alice Springs. Victorian Railways also built four 2'6" narrow gauge lines, one of which has been preserved as Puffing Billy. Queensland is now running high-speed tilt-trains on its narrow gauge network.

[ExiledInIllinois]

5 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

In Australia the simultaneously built a railroad from east to west ans west to east.  

 

When they met in the middle they found out that they were using a different "gauge rail"  and not a standard-gauge line

 

Australian Railway Gauges Australia's state-run railways have not been known for cooperating in the past. Whilst NSW adopted standard gauge, Victoria chose broad gauge (5'3"), Queensland, Tasmania & Western Australia went for 3'6" narrow gauge, & South Australia decided on both broad & narrow. Today, standard gauge connects Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne, Perth & Alice Springs. Victorian Railways also built four 2'6" narrow gauge lines, one of which has been preserved as Puffing Billy. Queensland is now running high-speed tilt-trains on its narrow gauge network.

Wow.  2'6"  THAT is one skinny train!

[LA Grant]

4 hours ago, DC Tom said:

2nd Amendment rights are everyone's right.  Whether they choose to exercise it or not.  

 

And the entire point of the Constitution was the protection of the rights of the individual.  

 

The absolutist argument is a dead end. See: 1st Amendment, various examples. Restrictions are sometimes necessary.

 

12 hours ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

Not so sensitive as much as they are selfish.  They are much more selfish:

 

I have a 2nd Amendment right!  It's MY RIGHT.

 

I will be damned if the jerk offs spoil that right.  I have a right.

 

Too bad about dead people.  Sure glad it ain't ME.

 

There is no we in AMErica.  But there is a ME. And of course we can't have AmErica w/out that all important bolded part!

 

Let's all try selfish on for size!  If the shoe fits, wear it.

 

Do I fit in with the paranoid gun crowd?  Of course not, I am really not that selfish.

 

Well said.

--

 

 

How the Right see themselves:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/26/trump-says-he-would-have-confronted-florida-school-shooter-even-without-gun/372792002/

 

How the Right actually is:

 

Edited February 26, 2018 by LA Grant

[LA Grant]

13 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

No, the Founders would not have considered pornography of any sort to be speech.  On what grounds would they do so?  The purpose of the First Amendment was to protect political speech, and was a direct reaction to the British Crown restricting political speech, just as the Second Amendment was a direct reaction to the British Crown's 1774 import ban on firearms and gunpowder.  

 

...

 

Your bare assertion that anyone supporting the Second Amendment in it's origionalist intent necessarily means that they support the general population have access to claymore mines, missiles, and weapons of mass destruction is a poor one which betrays your lack of understanding of your opponents position, which is another reason you're getting your ass kicked.  You don't bother to understand the argument your opponent is making.  Do you know what they call lawyers who engage in that practice?  Dishwashers.  It's a terrible practice which causes you to lose every argument you're having on every topic by default, because every argument you make becomes a strawman in practice.  I have made my argument against those types of weapons being unConstritutional under a constructionist understanding on this website as well, and again, if you weren't such a lazy and boring "debater" you'd know that.

 

 

If the First Amendment should only be applied to protecting political speech in modern law, why shouldn't the Second Amendment only be applied to weapons that matched the Founders intent?  If we're going by their intent within the context it was written, then your argument is that the Second Amendment only protects for muskets or other 1700s-era Arms.

 

You're making all sorts of assertions about their intent now, whereas previously your position had been to adhere to the letter of the law above all else. If that's the case, why is it so absurd to assume that the Founders meant "Arms" when they wrote "Arms"? Why didn't they mean missiles or WMDs?

 

The Second Amendment didn't account for modern weaponry, yet modern weaponry exploits loose laws because of Second Amendment absolutists & corporate lobbying. This is why restrictions on Amendments are sometimes necessary.

 

 

EDIT: You keep dropping these things that reveal where you're getting your arguments, btw. Before it was the Wayne LaPierre plagiarism, now it's the multiple "Saul Alinsky" references which you seem to think is some clever insult because you've picked it up from second or third-hand from Newt Gingrich, apparently, either from Glenn or Rush or InfoWars. Try. Using. Your. Own. Brain. 

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204624204577177272926154002

https://newrepublic.com/article/100030/gingrich-alinsky-saul-newt-catholic-carolina

 

For anyone who wants the broad overview of what Tasker's attempting with "Alinsky" & where it comes from:

https://www.vox.com/2014/10/6/6829675/saul-alinsky-explain-obama-hillary-clinton-rodham-organizing

 

(The next step is for Tasker to claim, as with the LaPierre quote, that he's actually been using Alinsky as a reference/talking point waaaay before the rest of the Right did. I'm sure he liked it "before it was cool" because libertarians are the hipsters of the right.)

 

Delusions on top of delusions.

 

 

Edited February 26, 2018 by LA Grant

[TakeYouToTasker]

Just now, LA Grant said:

 

If the First Amendment should only be applied to protecting political speech in modern law, why shouldn't the Second Amendment only be applied to weapons that matched the Founders intent?  Why is it so absurd to assume that the Founders meant "Arms" when they wrote "Arms"? Why didn't they mean missiles or WMDs?

 

You're making all sorts of assertions about their intent now, whereas previously your position had been to adhere to the letter of the law above all else. If we're going by their intent within the context it was written, then your argument is that the Second Amendment only protects for muskets or other 1700s-era Arms.

 

The Second Amendment didn't account for modern weaponry, yet modern weaponry exploits loose laws because of Second Amendment absolutists & corporate lobbying. This is why restrictions on Amendments are sometimes necessary.

The Founders explained their intent to us in the supporting documents, which while not legally binding are crucial elements in understanding the "why", and intentionally wrote the Document in plain English at what qualified as a 5th grade reading level.

 

It is uncontested that the Founders wrote the Second in response to gun control imposed on the colonists by the British Crown.  They realized, in that moment, how essential the ability to defend their liberty against their own government was.  Further, several amongst the most prominent Founders were inventors.  They knew technology wasn't static.  And they know that a free people required weaponry sufficient to keep them free.  The entire purpose of the Constitution was build a cage around government, and protect liberty for "themselves and their Posterity", which means they clearly intended future generations to have protections on their rights as well.

 

It is also uncontested that the Founders wrote the First Amendment in response to infringements of their rights imposed on them by the Crown.  What we now call "the Freedom of religion" was put in place because the English King claimed his authority from the State religion which placed him at the head by the Divine Right of Kings.  Likewise, the Freedom of Speech, and of the Press, was because the British Crown criminalized their political dissent.

 

It is not difficult to understand the Founders intentions, directly spoken; anything not directly spoken to went to the States and the People.  This is not to say that the Federal government could never have this authority, only that an additional amendment would have been required to grant them that authority. 

 

This is not an exploit.  This is by design.  This is the Document working as intended.  Remember, the Founders described our rights as inalienable.