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

[IDBillzFan]

13 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

"Wah wah wah, wahhhhh, wah." You've had multiple opportunities to engage on several different points, you chose not to because you're able to recognize an unwinnable position, so this drivel is all you have left. Boring and LA-z.

 

The people who engage you are incredibly patient, able to drill down into your arguments so that even Stevie Wonder can see how unbelievably bad they are.

 

I don't have that kind of patience, but calling you out for misdirecting the conversation for the sake of looking smart? Easy pickings.

 

 

 

[3rdnlng]

15 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Uh yeah weapons would be confiscated to put people into the camps, but were weapons confiscated from everyone? No "Good Guy with Guns" neighbors standing up for freedom? I keep hearing how citizens owning guns (without restrictions) is what keeps the rest of us free. I thought guns were the reason we could never have internment camps from a totalitarian regime?? If it makes so much sense to keep guns unrestricted, you'd think there wouldn't be so many contradictions to that position.

 

It's just arguing from the lunk-head fantasy — previously seen from Trump, or Mark Wahlberg — that unprovable claim, "well, if I were there, it wouldn't have happened." 

 

"Wah wah wah, wahhhhh, wah." You've had multiple opportunities to engage on several different points, you chose not to because you're able to recognize an unwinnable position, so this drivel is all you have left. Boring and LA-z.

 

 

Well, no, I don't know what you're saying. You quoted 2A, including that it's intended for "well-regulated militias" to bear arms. I'm advocating for regulation. Seems like we agree.

 

Or are you insisting on the NRA's interpretation, that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" means arms should never be regulated under any circumstances?

 

You are being obtuse.

[LA Grant]

10 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

The people who engage you are incredibly patient, able to drill down into your arguments so that even Stevie Wonder can see how unbelievably bad they are.

 

I don't have that kind of patience, but calling you out for misdirecting the conversation for the sake of looking smart? Easy pickings.

 

You've got it entirely backwards, again, but whining and stomping your feet does not change reality. It's very simple. As has been demonstrated repeatedly, no logically sound counter-argument exists against "there should be stronger gun control in the US." Every counter, down to the last hold of "b-b-but 2A... f-f-freedom...," is filled with contradictions or baseless fantasy, each of which can be broken down. Only one side here has been providing supporting empirical evidence, and it's not the one you've decided to choose, apparently.

[Koko78]

40 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

Well, no, I don't know what you're saying. You quoted 2A, including that it's intended for "well-regulated militias" to bear arms. I'm advocating for regulation. Seems like we agree.

 

 

Commas and sentence structure matter. A 'well-regulated militia', and the right of the people to bear arms' are two separate ideas within the Amendment.

 

Just like the rest of our Constitutional rights, the comma separating ideas in the second amendment isn't there only if you 'feel' like it.

 

3 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

You've got it entirely backwards, again, but whining and stomping your feet does not change reality. It's very simple. As has been demonstrated repeatedly, no logically sound counter-argument exists against "there should be stronger gun control in the US." Every counter, down to the last hold of "b-b-but 2A... f-f-freedom...," is filled with contradictions or baseless fantasy, each of which can be broken down. Only one side here has been providing supporting empirical evidence, and it's not the one you've decided to choose, apparently.

 

In fairness, no counter-argument can exist when you put your fingers in your year and loudly sing "lalalalalalalalalalala, I can't hear you, lalalalalalalalalala!!!!!"

Edited March 2, 2018 by Koko78

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 hour ago, LA Grant said:

 

You quite literally have no idea what you're talking about, nor does it surprise me that you've "never met" anyone who agrees with my position, aka the majority of Americans. The insulation is the problem.

 

Logic and ethics lead to sensible laws. Our current laws, which you continue to insist are doing enough and could simply not do any more, are not sensible, nor are they enforced sensibly. This must change. You continue to advocate against change.

 

Your justification continues to be that you fear gun restrictions lead to whatever you feel like that means. We literally had internment camps in the United States during World War II — was 2A not in effect during that time? Your stupid fantasy does not f***ing work. You are arguing blind faith, again and again, in spite of overwhelming evidence that your conviction is not correct. This is also what's preventing you from seeing that "you" do not need to necessarily be these dumb beliefs. You're free to separate yourself, but you can't see it, you insist that you are shackled, not seeing that it is entirely self-imposed.

 

Whatever point you're driving to with your slavery example, go ahead and make whatever your point is, and what you think my position is, rather than drawing it out. Whatever point you think you have, go ahead and please illustrate how the U.S. somehow didn't need new laws to prevent institutional slavery.

Grant:  answer the question please.  

 

Assuming you believe slavery is wrong, to what priori are you appealing?

 

And you're right, Grant.  One does not need to believe that humans have natural rights, nor are they obligated to believe that the only just forms of government are those whose central and primary duty are to protect those rights.  Might makes right philosophies have dominated humanity for the overwhelming majority of our existence.  You're free to argue that the world was a better place before the concept of natural rights was conceived. 

 

Now, please answer my question.

Edited March 2, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[LA Grant]

6 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

Commas and sentence structure matter. A 'well-regulated militia', and the right of the people to bear arms' are two separate ideas within the Amendment.

 

Just like the rest of our Constitutional rights, the comma separating ideas in the second amendment isn't there only if you 'feel' like it.

 

The only flaw with that is there's no way to absolutely know if they are separate ideas or not, except in how you interpret it, just like the rest of the Constitution is continuously reinterpreted to fit changing context. Again, the host of restrictions on 1A are proof that "we" can and should clarify & reinterpret, from time to time. 

 

So the argument of what was intended or not is debatable. 

 

If we interpret it exactly as the Founders interpreted it, then we also need to decide which Founders and when. Tasker & I already went through all of this, because there's the question of a number of different contextual elements that could point one way or another, and then it's assumptions about assumptions.

 

Even the Supreme Court, the final arbiter of constitutional meaning, cannot make up its mind about the proper limits of federal power. Child-labor prohibitions were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1918, but upheld in 1941. In 1991, former Chief Justice Warren Burger said the National Rifle Association's interpretation of virtually unlimited Second Amendment rights was an obvious "fraud." In its 2008 Heller decision, the Supreme Court essentially adopted the NRA view. In the end, it seems fair to conclude that even great legal minds read their own political preferences into the Constitution. As Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story said in 1845: "How easily men satisfy themselves that the Constitution is exactly what they wish it to be."

http://theweek.com/articles/487160/constitution-what-founders-intended

 

But let's say, despite the context of militias at the time, that you're right and the Founders intended for it to mean two different things, including the individual citizen's right to bear arms without regulation. Most of the precedent throughout US history interpreted it differently:

 

Quote

Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia. As the Tennessee Supreme Court put it in 1840, “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856

 

This changed in 2008 when the Supreme Court applied the NRA's interpretation into federal law.

Quote

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.^[3][4]The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock". Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

 

One of the dissenting judges, Breyer, made the case that applying a literal interpretation doesn't make sense, or fit what the Founders intended:

 

Quote

 

Breyer, who just published "Making Our Democracy Work," a book about the role of the court in American life, outlined his judicial philosophy as one in which the court must take a pragmatic approach in which it "should regard the Constitution as containing unwavering values that must be applied flexibly to ever-changing circumstances." 

Since the Founding Fathers could not foresee the impact of modern day communications and technology, the only option is to take the values of the Founding Fathers and apply them to today's challenges.

"The difficult job in open cases where there is no clear answer is to take those values in this document, which all Americans hold, which do not change, and to apply them to a world that is ever changing," Breyer said. "It's not a matter of policy. It is a matter of what those framers intended."

He suggested that those values and intentions mean that the Second Amendment allows for restrictions on the individual, including an all-out ban on handguns in the nation's capital.

"We're acting as judges. If we're going to decide everything on the basis of history -- by the way, what is the scope of the right to keep and bear arms? Machine guns? Torpedoes? Handguns?" he asked. "Are you a sportsman? Do you like to shoot pistols at targets? Well, get on the subway and go to Maryland. There is no problem, I don't think, for anyone who really wants to have a gun."

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/12/breyer-founding-fathers-allowed-restrictions-guns.html 

 

As we've already established that "what the Founders intended" is debatable, here's a gun propaganda website that basically takes the Fox News story & adds "uhh look at this idiot" angle — without actually countering what he's saying. Maybe written by LABillzFan, I don't know.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/12/robert-farago/supreme-court-justice-bryer-the-founding-fathers-never-intended-guns-to-go-unregulated/

 

Here is their best counter, essentially: "it is, therefore it must." 

Quote

 The Founding Fathers’ support for the Second Amendment, for the principle of the citizens’ right to bear arms, is clear and unequivocal. (Which is kinda why we have one in the first place.) For the sake of those not familiar with the Founding Fathers’ belief in the unfettered right to bear arms (cough Stephen cough), click over to dojgov.net.

 

Unfortunately, the links that supposedly provide their argument don't go anywhere. One is literally broken and the other is a seller for a bow & arrow, which I'm guessing is their version of making the point "what's next, banning bows & arrows?" aka "what is an arm?" which, as Breyer pointed out, that 'slippery slope' cuts both ways. Why not unfettered access to grenade launchers? The answer, obviously, is the law should be nuanced. A law that allows for Nikolas Cruz to legally purchase an AR-15, despite countless red flags, is not nuanced. 

 

Now. Change of course is not necessarily bad. You might argue, the Heller case was something the Supreme Court got right. You could posit that the '08 Court upheld the law correctly, fixing previous mistakes. If you do make this case, you should also include the rates of gun violence before & after 2008. 

 

Aw hell, here, I'll do it for you.

 

Quote

 Gun deaths in the U.S. have jumped 17 percent since the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that there is a right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense, according to a new analysis by the Violence Policy Center (VPC) of just-released 2016 data from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Injury Prevention. Nationwide, the overall gun death rate (suicides, homicides, and unintentional shootings) increased from 10.21 per 100,000 in 2009 (the year after the Heller decision) to 11.96 per 100,000 in 2016.

http://www.vpc.org/press/u-s-gun-death-rate-jumps-17-percent-since-2008-supreme-court-district-of-columbia-v-heller-decision-affirming-right-to-own-a-handgun-for-self-defense/

 

So, unless we were hoping the overall gun death rate would go up, maybe it wasn't such a great decision. 

And because I've already posted this 10,000 times already, why not 10,001...

 

 

Quote

 

What Works and Doesn’t Work in Reducing Gun Deaths

Suggested Policy	Effectiveness	Public Support
Requiring all sellers to run background checks on anyone who buys a gun.	7.3	86%
Preventing sales of all firearms to people who have been convicted of violent misdemeanors, including domestic assaults.	7.1	83%

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/10/upshot/How-to-Prevent-Gun-Deaths-The-Views-of-Experts-and-the-Public.htm

 

That NY Times article is no longer entirely accurate, though, as it's from last January — the article says Trump doesn't support gun control measures and of course, he flipped on that yesterday.

[LA Grant]

53 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Grant:  answer the question please.  

 

Assuming you believe slavery is wrong, to what priori are you appealing?

 

And you're right, Grant.  One does not need to believe that humans have natural rights, nor are they obligated to believe that the only just forms of government are those whose central and primary duty are to protect those rights.  Might makes right philosophies have dominated humanity for the overwhelming majority of our existence.  You're free to argue that the world was a better place before the concept of natural rights was conceived. 

 

Now, please answer my question.

 

Tasker. Accept my request, please. I don't care to play. You have been deceptive and evasive more than once, so sorry, but you don't get the benefit of the doubt here after getting caught plagiarizing earlier. That said, I am listening, so whatever point you think you're making with slavery, to what "priori" I'm appealing to, daring to invoke Kant without having any understanding of what you're even arguing, whatever you think makes your best point here — just go ahead and take the swing.

 

Because I'm pretty sure the point you're trying to make is "guns are a natural right, to be without unfettered access to guns is to be without unfettered access to basic freedom" which is so absurd that I'd like to see you state your own position in your own words. 

 

The floor is yours.

[IDBillzFan]

1 hour ago, LA Grant said:

 

You've got it entirely backwards, again, but whining and stomping your feet does not change reality. It's very simple. As has been demonstrated repeatedly, no logically sound counter-argument exists against "there should be stronger gun control in the US." Every counter, down to the last hold of "b-b-but 2A... f-f-freedom...," is filled with contradictions or baseless fantasy, each of which can be broken down. Only one side here has been providing supporting empirical evidence, and it's not the one you've decided to choose, apparently.

 

 

And herein lies the reason you find yourself alone in your arguments: "no logically sound counter-argument exists..."

 

That's the anti-2A equivalent of "The science is settled."

 

 

Maybe instead of gun control you should call it global cooling warming climate gun change. 

 

 

[BringBackOrton]

9 hours ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

LoL... The paranoid Right.  You protect nothing except your own insecurities and narrow view.

 

This has to have you rushing to the store to stock up in Barry Obama fashion:

 

“Take the guns first, go through due process second”  ~Donald Trump

 

Even the head crazy guy thinks Snowflake Deplorable gun owners are destroying the country from within.

 

Grab your popcorn people as we watch a group that has zero ability to look inward, well actually attempt to look inward.

 

 

 

 

Nope, I'm protecting you.  Every second.  Every day.  Be grateful, dopey.  I'm the mother deer and you're Bambi.

3 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Thank you.

 

 

 

Incorrect.  What I am advocating is that the concept of inalienable rights, which are the only thing standing between man and despotism, are more important than any individual life.

Are people really this stupid?  They know we like, fight wars and sacrifice lives for our rights, right?

Edited March 2, 2018 by jmc12290

[LA Grant]

Just now, LABillzFan said:

And herein lies the reason you find yourself alone in your arguments: "no logically sound counter-argument exists..."

 

That's the anti-2A equivalent of "The science is settled."

 

Maybe instead of gun control you should call it global cooling warming climate gun change. 

 

Actually, you're right. Climate change is unprovable or it's a hoax, and all of the counter-arguments seen in this thread are logical. Guns give me freedom, the earth is flat, and the white man is simply genetically superior.*

 

*Sorry to imply you're racist, I know how triggering that can be to some conservatives. I'm sure in real life you are very popular with many POC friends who love you. The implication comes from flipping your flip — "if you believe this, then you must believe this." Now I do also believe in what you apparently perceive to be a ridiculous argument, that human-caused climate change is clearly real, and moreover I think it's ridiculous that you think that's the ridiculous thing. Perhaps you also believe what I perceive to be a ridiculous argument, that white men are genetically superior, and it's simply too shameful for you to publicly admit. Or maybe I'm simply being unfair in a more unfair way than you were being unfair, even though, in fact, you were being fair, unintentionally — similar when you tried the Women's March flip before. Unfortunately the degrees to which you may or may not be ridiculous are too exponential to calculate precisely in the time here, and so, a joke was made. Deepest apologies.

[TakeYouToTasker]

26 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Tasker. Accept my request, please. I don't care to play. You have been deceptive and evasive more than once, so sorry, but you don't get the benefit of the doubt here after getting caught plagiarizing earlier. That said, I am listening, so whatever point you think you're making with slavery, to what "priori" I'm appealing to, daring to invoke Kant without having any understanding of what you're even arguing, whatever you think makes your best point here — just go ahead and take the swing.

 

Because I'm pretty sure the point you're trying to make is "guns are a natural right, to be without unfettered access to guns is to be without unfettered access to basic freedom" which is so absurd that I'd like to see you state your own position in your own words. 

 

The floor is yours.

Grant:

 

That's a cop out.  There is no one here whose opinion matters to me who thinks I've been deceptive, or evasive, or have plagiarized anyone.  Those intellectually honest posters, whom I have argued against before, have all seen me make that exact same argument on this board before. 

 

All you're doing is attempting to antagonize and discredit while awarding yourself victory, while saving yourself the trouble of having your ideas vetted for merit through argument and the process of logic.

 

At this point you're refusing to answer a very direct question related directly to your argument, and you're denying even it's asking because you're terrified your ideas don't stand up to that process.

 

Your style isn't impressive thus far.

 

If an argument is worth making, then it's worth testing it's integrity.  That you won't allow yours to be tested says everything I need to know about it.

 

Or, you could simply answer the question.

[LA Grant]

15 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Grant:

 

That's a cop out.  There is no one here whose opinion matters to me who thinks I've been deceptive, or evasive, or have plagiarized anyone.  Those intellectually honest posters, whom I have argued against before, have all seen me make that exact same argument on this board before. 

 

All you're doing is attempting to antagonize and discredit while awarding yourself victory, while saving yourself the trouble of having your ideas vetted for merit through argument and the process of logic.

 

At this point you're refusing to answer a very direct question related directly to your argument, and you're denying even it's asking because you're terrified your ideas don't stand up to that process.

 

Your style isn't impressive thus far.

 

If an argument is worth making, then it's worth testing it's integrity.  That you won't allow yours to be tested says everything I need to know about it.

 

Or, you could simply answer the question.

 

It's really not a cop out, I'm just not going to make your ridiculous point for you. You've once again set yourself up for a fall here.

 

Your question is — "What priori are you appealing to when you declare slavery to be wrong?" Now, Tasker, as you must surely realize, there are only a limited number of reasonable answers to this question. I encourage you to explore those you think would be relevant to this discussion, then relate it back to the topic of guns, the stated topic. In other words: make a point or STFU. 

 

If you refuse to make a point, you are free to award yourself victory while saving yourself the trouble of having your ideas vetted for merit through argument and the process of logic. But your style isn't impressive thus far. If an argument is worth making, then it's worth testing it's integrity. That you won't simply state yours and allow it to be tested says everything I need to know about it. Or, you could simply state your argument.

 

You previously supplied us all with an air-tight argument in favor of pedophile rights, so I can't wait to see where your brain is taking you this time. Use your own words, if possible.

Edited March 2, 2018 by LA Grant

[TakeYouToTasker]

10 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

It's really not a cop out, I'm just not going to make your ridiculous point for you. You've once again set yourself up for a fall here.

 

Your question is — "What priori are you appealing to when you declare slavery to be wrong?" Now, Tasker, as you must surely realize, there are only a limited number of reasonable answers to this question. I encourage you to explore those you think would be relevant to this discussion, then relate it back to the topic of guns, the stated topic. In other words: make a point or STFU. 

 

If you refuse to make a point, you are free to award yourself victory while saving yourself the trouble of having your ideas vetted for merit through argument and the process of logic. But your style isn't impressive thus far. If an argument is worth making, then it's worth testing it's integrity. That you won't simply state yours and allow it to be tested says everything I need to know about it. Or, you could simply state your argument.

Grant:

 

You've stated, many times in this thread, that this thread is about your argument.  That there is no other argument.  That all other arguments have been thoroughly deconstructed.

 

I'm willing to believe you.  I'm simply asking that you demonstrate your claims.

 

If they stand up to intellectual rigor, you'll have won the day, and have recruited many individuals who enjoy argument as sport to take up your argument as their own.  This is your chance to make a difference in the world for your cause.

 

In order that you demonstrate your claim, I am asking you a simple and direct question which requires answering:  What priori are you appealing to when you declare slavery to be wrong?  Or, if you'd prefer it, and want to stay narrowly focused on guns:  I believe that both you and I agree that the murder of the students at Stoneman Douglas was wrong.  What priori are you appealing to when you judge it's wrongness?

Edited March 2, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[3rdnlng]

2 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

Commas and sentence structure matter. A 'well-regulated militia', and the right of the people to bear arms' are two separate ideas within the Amendment.

 

Just like the rest of our Constitutional rights, the comma separating ideas in the second amendment isn't there only if you 'feel' like it.

 

 

In fairness, no counter-argument can exist when you put your fingers in your year and loudly sing "lalalalalalalalalalala, I can't hear you, lalalalalalalalalala!!!!!"

Maybe they typed up the Constitution on their phones and didn't really mean that.

[LA Grant]

28 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Grant:

 

You've stated, many times in this thread, that this thread is about your argument.  That there is no other argument.  That all other arguments have been thoroughly deconstructed.

 

I'm willing to believe you.  I'm simply asking that you demonstrate your claims.

 

If they stand up to intellectual rigor, you'll have won the day, and have recruited many individuals who enjoy argument as sport to take up your argument as their own.  This is your chance to make a difference in the world for your cause.

 

In order that you demonstrate your claim, I am asking you a simple and direct question which requires answering:  What priori are you appealing to when you declare slavery to be wrong?  Or, if you'd prefer it, and want to stay narrowly focused on guns:  I believe that both you and I agree that the murder of the students at Stoneman Douglas was wrong.  What priori are you appealing to when you judge it's wrongness?

 

Tasker: I've stated, many times in this thread, that it's about restricting guns. That there is no argument against doing so in the US. Indeed, all other arguments have been thoroughly deconstructed.

 

I can see through your sh*t here, dude, I can see where you're going with this. I do not trust, or frankly, respect you enough to go down a useless path of debating what is a priori, or a posteriori, or what "is" is, for one thing. For another, I want you to make the point I think you're trying to make on your own. If you're looking to earnestly explore the question you pose, then by all means explore it, here, in the grand marketplace of ideas. There are only a few possible answers to that, from anyone, so it shouldn't be so hard for you to explore on your own.

 

Why are you afraid of doing this? Because if you state it plainly, then you won't be able to pretend "I didn't say that," as you tried before?
 

Stop playing "chicken," be a big boy, and use your own words. Or, don't. My bet is you won't, but will try to claim "winning!" anyway. You may not be able to prove the facts wrong but you do have an opportunity to prove me wrong about your character.

Edited March 2, 2018 by LA Grant

[BringBackOrton]

16 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Tasker: I've stated, many times in this thread, that it's about restricting guns. That there is no argument against doing so in the US. Indeed, all other arguments have been thoroughly deconstructed.

 

I can see through your sh*t here, dude, I can see where you're going with this. I do not trust, or frankly, respect you enough to go down a useless path of debating what is a priori, or a posteriori, or what "is" is, for one thing. For another, I want you to make the point I think you're trying to make on your own. If you're looking to earnestly explore the question you pose, then by all means explore it, here, in the grand marketplace of ideas. There are only a few possible answers to that, from anyone, so it shouldn't be so hard for you to explore on your own.

 

Why are you afraid of doing this? Because if you state it plainly, then you won't be able to pretend "I didn't say that," as you tried before?
 

Stop playing "chicken," be a big boy, and use your own words. Or, don't. My bet is you won't, but will try to claim "winning!" anyway. You may not be able to prove the facts wrong but you do have an opportunity to prove me wrong about your character.

Oh lord, the irony.

 

LA Grant is a master troll.  We've been had.

Edited March 2, 2018 by jmc12290

[LA Grant]

1 minute ago, jmc12290 said:

Oh lord, the irony.

 

LA Grant is a master troll.  We've been had.

 

You're correct in detecting irony there, but it is by design. I am intentionally using the same "answer the question!" intimidation tactic Tasker was employing back at him. 

[BringBackOrton]

1 minute ago, LA Grant said:

 

You're correct in detecting irony there, but it is by design. I am intentionally using the same "answer the question!" intimidation tactic Tasker was employing back at him. 

Do you remember when you asked questions about the First Amendment to make points about the Second Amendment?

 

Why can't you extend a courtesy you were already given pages ago?

[LA Grant]

5 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:

Do you remember when you asked questions about the First Amendment to make points about the Second Amendment?

 

Why can't you extend a courtesy you were already given pages ago?

 

Actually, all I'm asking for is the same courtesy I've shown to be returned. Questions on 1A to make a point on 2A were rhetorical, plus I explained my point. I've made the case with tons of links, data, supporting evidence — almost none of which has been engaged with. And I've gone down virtually every rabbit hole or tangent thrown at me to show that the argument has depth. If someone has a valid counter-argument, the least they could do is make their case with that same courtesy, rather than simply saying "here's yet another rabbit hole, but if you go down it, I promise this time I will reward you with an actual case," as Tasker is currently doing.

 

It's not asking for much. Then again, the common sense reforms proposed aren't asking for much either, and here we are.

Edited March 2, 2018 by LA Grant

[BringBackOrton]

2 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Actually, all I'm asking for is the same courtesy I've shown to be returned. Questions on 1A to make a point on 2A were rhetorical, plus I explained my point. I've made the case with tons of links, data, supporting evidence — almost none of which has been engaged with. And I've gone down virtually every rabbit hole or tangent thrown at me to show that the argument has depth. If someone has a valid counter-argument, the least they could do is make their case with that same courtesy.

 

It's not asking for much. Then again, the common sense reforms proposed aren't asking for much either, and here we are.

That's because several posters, most notably Tasker, has stated that even if you proved "common sense" gun laws worked in reducing school shooting, it wouldn't make a difference..

 

You refuse to go down rabbit holes that you yourself don't manufacture.  Follow Tasker's.  It'll be fun.

Edited March 2, 2018 by jmc12290

[keepthefaith]

3 hours ago, LA Grant said:

 

You've got it entirely backwards, again, but whining and stomping your feet does not change reality. It's very simple. As has been demonstrated repeatedly, no logically sound counter-argument exists against "there should be stronger gun control in the US." Every counter, down to the last hold of "b-b-but 2A... f-f-freedom...," is filled with contradictions or baseless fantasy, each of which can be broken down. Only one side here has been providing supporting empirical evidence, and it's not the one you've decided to choose, apparently.

 

Pardon me for jumping in late. Have only read some of this thread.  It can be argued I suppose that over a couple hundred years the peoples right to bear "arms" has been infringed.  Arms capability has evolved significantly and restrictions on what arms the people can own have been put into place.  I can't buy a bazooka or a fully automatic gun legally.  The government's weapons today have a significant destructive advantage over what the people can own.  That wasn't so much the case back in the 1700's.  We've had a lot of rules creep over time. 

 

Strict constitutionalists can likely make very good arguments against further restrictions on gun ownership. 

 

What changes to the law are you suggesting?

[LA Grant]

Just now, jmc12290 said:

That's because several posters, most notably Tasker, has stated that even if you proved "common sense" gun laws worked in reducing school shooting, it wouldn't make a difference..

 

You refuse to go down rabbit holes that you yourself don't manufacture.  Follow Tasker's.  It'll be fun.

 

Not true on either point. "Wouldn't make a difference" is not what any of the data suggests to us — the most likely outcome is reform would lead to a tangibly positive difference, by almost all metrics. In fact, your own position isn't even that "it wouldn't make a difference" because if it were, what would be the harm in trying? Why oppose if there will be no difference? As national gun restrictions have never been attempted in the US, we can state with absolute certainty that we definitely do not know that it "wouldn't make a difference." Correct me if I'm wrong but it's more likely that your actual position is "It would make a difference, but I don't believe it would lead to the desired outcome." Which then begs the question, what does lead to the desired outcome then, and how?

 

The other point is also incorrect. Count them up.  I've gone down a great number of rabbit holes from others, including previous holes from Tasker. If he has a valid point, I'm sure The Smartest Man in the Room is more than capable of articulating himself but  I am tired of Tasker asking me to go in his hole, and I don't know how else to tell him I am not interested. ?

[ExiledInIllinois]

2 hours ago, jmc12290 said:

Nope, I'm protecting you.  Every second.  Every day.  Be grateful, dopey.  I'm the mother deer and you're Bambi.

Are people really this stupid?  They know we like, fight wars and sacrifice lives for our rights, right?

Well please stop.  Don't need you, thank you.

[IDBillzFan]

7 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:

Do you remember when you asked questions about the First Amendment to make points about the Second Amendment?

 

Why can't you extend a courtesy you were already given pages ago?

 

He's  already told you why. There is no logical argument against gun control.

 

The science  is settled. There is only one truth: Global warming cooling climate change gun control must take place, and to deny it means you value product over children's lives.

[LA Grant]

49 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

 

Pardon me for jumping in late. Have only read some of this thread.  It can be argued I suppose that over a couple hundred years the peoples right to bear "arms" has been infringed.  Arms capability has evolved significantly and restrictions on what arms the people can own have been put into place.  I can't buy a bazooka or a fully automatic gun legally.  The government's weapons today have a significant destructive advantage over what the people can own.  That wasn't so much the case back in the 1700's.  We've had a lot of rules creep over time. 

 

Strict constitutionalists can likely make very good arguments against further restrictions on gun ownership. 

 

What changes to the law are you suggesting?

 

The strict constitutionalist argument would say you should be able to buy a bazooka or a fully automatic gun, with unregulated access even, as those are arms which would therefore be a guaranteed right under 2A. Right? Most of us are glad that's not the case (although you can legally buy grenade launchers or other artillery in certain places, actually; they're just highly regulated). 

 

Furthermore, 2A has been interpreted differently multiple times over the years, depending on which judges are deciding. Until recently, the common interpretation was that 2A guaranteed arms only to militia, not ordinary, non-law-enforcement citizens. But even if we interpret 2A the way the NRA prefers,  that every Joe Schmo has the right to own arms (which to be fair, is the law of the land, as of the '08 Supreme Court decision), including the Parkland shooter, then the strict constitutionalist argument against gun control is still contradicted by the restrictions on other amendments, notably 1A.

 

The Amendments have been interpreted & limited several times throughout US history, for both "left" & "right" reasons, correct? If the strict constitutionalist argument says that all interpretations are invalid without an additional amendment stating the change, that instead, the Bill of Rights should be followed to the letter of the law, then they're just as much advocating for the citizens right to own child pornography  (a necessary restriction on 1A) as you are for citizens to own infantry weapons (a theoretical restriction on 2A).  Or if the strict constitutionalist argument says we must only follow the Founders intent, then this also brings problems: there's a clear case to be made that 2A was drafted with militias in mind, as in local militias would be the only chance to oppose a strong national army. Once you get into intent, then comes the whole thing of "well maybe you should only be able to buy muskets, cannons, and 1700s arms." 

 

Bottom line, the strict constitutionalist argument is mostly bunk and provides no practical solution to the problem of modern gun violence. Our government must be contextual and current. The Bill of Rights, including 2A, are principles that we live by. The principles must be applied to the modern context, as that's a little easier than trying to force reality to fit the document, yeah? The Founders were not wizards. They could not have envisioned problems like pornography being free speech, and then child pornography obviously not being free speech. They also probably did not envision Nikolas Cruz, a kid with more red flags than a Chinese parade, legally buying an AR-15 a block from his school and then using it on his classmates. To suggest that the Founders did intend that is to suggest that they intended the United States to be chaotic and fearful, which of course they did not. It is more likely that they hoped for a citizenry that could debate & solve problems following their example. "Doing nothing" is not a solution, and there's not any compelling argument in favor of it, other than to make some dark assumptions about how we're "supposed" to be living.

 

As to what laws are being suggested — universal background tests/registration for all sales on arms going forward, aka the "common sense gun reform" that most Americans already agree about. For more, see this post from a page or two back:

 

 

Edited March 2, 2018 by LA Grant

[TakeYouToTasker]

The argument that restrictions on the right to bear arm are the same as prohibitions against child porn have already been dissected in this thread.

 

To rehash:

 

We can understand their intentions surrounding each amendment and other Constitutional provision by revisiting the supporting documents directly related to the Constitution, the various State Constitutions, and the circumstances under which the Constitution was penned.

 

The Constitution was necessitated because the men writing had just been required, due to the infringement of their rights by their government, to overthrow that government and institute a new one.  In response to this necessity, and to the British Crown exacting a form of gun control on the colonists, they specifically enumerated an absolute protection by this new government of their right to possess arms sufficient to this task.  This guarantee was built on the acknowledgement that this was a fundamental natural right of free people.

 

 

It is also easy to see the intent of the Founders in regards to the protection of speech.  As the Second Amendment was written in response to British gun control in order to make it harder for the colonists to resist their oppressors, the First Amendment was written in response to the Crown's restrictions on political speech.  The Founders, if not Puritans themselves (many of the most prominent were not) came from Puritanical times, and lived in a society of Puritanical mores and culture.  The Founders would not have considered inanimate objects with no political value depicting sexualized children to be speech.  As such, the Federal government, with no role prescribed to it in regards to pornography, would have left the issue to the individual states, where the overwhelming majority of the law US citizens were expect to follow was intended to be implemented.  And, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, I expect that by 2018 the several states all would have made child porn illegal at the insistence of their individual citizenry.

 

The argument that the protections offered by the Second Amendment are invalid because we have no way of knowing if the Founders wanted people to have pictures of adults !@#$ing children is, itself, invalid.

Edited March 2, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[keepthefaith]

40 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

The strict constitutionalist argument would say you should be able to buy a bazooka or a fully automatic gun, with unregulated access, even, as those are arms, which would therefore be a guaranteed right under 2A. Right? Most of us are glad that's not the case (although, in fact, you can legally buy grenade launchers or other artillery in certain places, they are just highly regulated). 

 

Furthermore, 2A has been interpreted differently multiple times over the years, depending on which judges are deciding. Until recently, the common interpretation was that 2A guaranteed arms only to militia, not ordinary, non-law-enforcement citizens. But even if we interpret 2A the way the NRA prefers, that every Joe Schmo has the right to own arms, the strict constitutionalist argument is also contradicted by the restrictions on other amendments, notably 1A.

 

In other words, the Amendments have been interpreted and limited several times throughout US history, for both "left" & "right" reasons. If the strict constitutionalist argument says that all interpretations are invalid, that the Bill of Rights should be followed to the letter of the law, then you're just as much advocating for the citizens right to own child pornography  (a necessary restriction on 1A) as you are for citizens to own infantry weapons (a theoretical restriction on 2A).  Or if the strict constitutionalist argument says we must only follow the Founders intent, then this also brings problems: there's a clear case to be made that 2A was drafted with militias in mind, as in local militias would be the only chance to oppose a strong national army. 

 

Bottom line, the strict constitutionalist argument is mostly bunk.

 

As to what laws are being suggested — universal background tests/registration for all sales on arms going forward, aka the "common sense gun reform" that most Americans already agree about. For more, see this post from a page or two back:

 

 

 

Colonel Ralph Peters made a decent pitch recently on why the AR-15 should be banned or limited.  Apologies if this has been posted before.  Personally I wouldn't have a problem eliminating or significantly restricting the sale of these guns and I'm not opposed to a more thorough background system and some kind of additional training requirement if laws were passed.  I don't see any of these 3 changes as too limiting with the possible exception of psychological restrictions.  Where exactly do you draw the line there? 

 

I also don't see these changes saving many lives.  In the Florida example there was a succession of failures that allowed that !@#$ to do what he did.  I will say this though, had the officer on site confronted the shooter the officer would have been at a disadvantage weapons-wise.  It's truly sad that an officer was there and chose retirement over doing his job.  Schools if they want to prevent this IMO have to have well trained, experienced and armed police or others on site.  Otherwise they are a very soft target.  In the Florida case though the shooter probably knew there was an officer in the school.  That didn't stop him from doing it.  Our district has armed police officers in most of the schools.  Maybe all of them.

 

In Vegas it took too long to disarm the shooter and the target was very soft.

 

We already have laws on the books making it illegal to shoot a bunch of people or threaten to do so or run people over with a truck.  Those laws haven't stopped the attacks. Tighter gun laws likely won't prevent the bad apples from using high speed and high capacity guns.  They'll get them or build them. 

 

In this political climate I don't see much federal law change happening. 

 

Peters.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5739834858001/?#sp=show-clips

 

 

 

Edited March 2, 2018 by keepthefaith

[LA Grant]

27 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

Colonel Ralph Peters made a decent pitch recently on why the AR-15 should be banned or limited.  Apologies if this has been posted before.  Personally I wouldn't have a problem eliminating or significantly restricting the sale of these guns and I'm not opposed to a more thorough background system and some kind of additional training requirement if laws were passed.  I don't see any of these 3 changes as too limiting with the possible exception of psychological restrictions.  Where exactly do you draw the line there? 

 

I also don't see these changes saving many lives.  In the Florida example there was a succession of failures that allowed that !@#$ to do what he did.  I will say this though, had the officer on site confronted the shooter the officer would have been at a disadvantage weapons-wise.  It's truly sad that an officer was there and chose retirement over doing his job.  Schools if they want to prevent this IMO have to have well trained, experienced and armed police or others on site.  Otherwise they are a very soft target.  In the Florida case though the shooter probably knew there was an officer in the school.  That didn't stop him from doing it.  Our district has armed police officers in most of the schools.  Maybe all of them.

 

In Vegas it took too long to disarm the shooter and the target was very soft.

 

We already have laws on the books making it illegal to shoot a bunch of people or threaten to do so or run people over with a truck.  Those laws haven't stopped the attacks. Tighter gun laws likely won't prevent the bad apples from using high speed and high capacity guns.  They'll get them or build them. 

 

In this political climate I don't see much federal law change happening. 

 

No need to apologize, for one. The debate has been going for years & I'm sure we've all been through versions of this multiple times. Instead, thank you for talking specific measures and offering your position honestly. This is the conversation that's most fruitful: what can be done, how, and when? 

 

I'm not even sure that I personally am in favor of banning the AR-15, or banning anything. I have seen compelling arguments that the AR-15s prominence is because it's a versatile, quality weapon, rather than it being uniquely dangerous to other available firearms, and that banning AR-15s would not do much to curb mass shootings, but it would piss off Lawful Gun Owners. I think that Chicago's high rate of gun violence, despite local laws banning handguns, also shows that bans don't work, because guns still come in from out-of-state. A lot of the Chicago blackmarket is supplied by guns purchased legally in Indiana, as it turns out. Now as much as I concede these points to "gun bans don't work," I'll also represent the other side, which is that we don't know how much worse Chicago might be with gun violence without the ban. 

 

The current laws are not enough, and the rate of mass shootings & overall gun violence is proof. Maybe the guard could have done more, maybe not. Instead of hoping for Super Soldier Guards any place a mass shooter may want to strike, would it not make more sense to restrict access to guns? Universal background checks will not stop all gun violence, but it is incredibly likely that it could dramatically reduce it. The idea that he would have found another way anyway— maybe; we can't know. But we don't need to make it so easy, do we? If he wants to try to build a bomb, or pull that sh*t with a samurai sword, then I like the security guard's chances better, because the psycho kid isn't armed with an infantry weapon. In terms of "where do you draw the line?" or how does it work in practice? Compare it to the DMV or to applying at Wal-Mart. Buying a gun should be that difficult and that simple. For a Lawful Gun Owner who isn't going to go shoot up a school, this is a mild inconvenience. For the Parkland shooter, he wouldn't have been able to get it; his red flags would have mattered.

 

There are two bills proposed right now that include strengthening background checks. One of them actually does it, and the other only kind of does it. The one that Trump specifically mentioned is, unfortunately, the weaker proposal. This lays out the differences between the two bills: https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/26/politics/chuck-schumer-background-checks-parkland/index.html

 

Politically that means Democrats are either accepting another half-measure, or they're opposing gun legislation. It's the kind of double-bind that the Republicans have perfected, so, hooray for winning. If only the half-measure bill is passed, it may perhaps help, but it will still not be the common sense solution that most people support; instead, it will be pointed to, like Chicago, as evidence that gun control doesn't work. But maybe Chuck Schumer's bill gets another shot after the mid-terms, who knows. It's never surprising to see Democrats blow "a sure thing" for their own incompetence, although in their defense, they haven't been working as hard at gerrymandering as the other guys. This is why our politics are garbage in this country, it's nothing but games and charades to score fantasy points.

Edited March 2, 2018 by LA Grant

[LA Grant]

44 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

The argument that restrictions on the right to bear arm are the same as prohibitions against child porn have already been dissected in this thread.

 

To rehash:

 

We can understand their intentions surrounding each amendment and other Constitutional provision by revisiting the supporting documents directly related to the Constitution, the various State Constitutions, and the circumstances under which the Constitution was penned.

 

The Constitution was necessitated because the men writing had just been required, due to the infringement of their rights by their government, to overthrow that government and institute a new one.  In response to this necessity, and to the British Crown exacting a form of gun control on the colonists, they specifically enumerated an absolute protection by this new government of their right to possess arms sufficient to this task.  This guarantee was built on the acknowledgement that this was a fundamental natural right of free people.

 

 

It is also easy to see the intent of the Founders in regards to the protection of speech.  As the Second Amendment was written in response to British gun control in order to make it harder for the consists to resist their oppressors, the First Amendment was written in response to the Crown's restrictions on political speech.  The Founders, if not Puritans themselves (many of the most prominent were not) came from Puritanical times, and lived in a society of Puritanical mores and culture.  The Founders would not have considered inanimate objects with no political value depicting sexualized children to be speech.  As such, the Federal government, with no role prescribed to it in regards to pornography, would have left the issue to the individual states, where the overwhelming majority of the law US citizens were expect to follow was intended to be implemented.  And, as I pointed out earlier in this thread, I expect that by 2018 the several states all would have made child porn illegal at the insistence of their individual citizenry.

 

The argument that the protections offered by the Second Amendment are invalid because we have no way of knowing if the Founders wanted people to have pictures of adults !@#$ing children is, itself, invalid.

 

So part of why we disagree is just because you've been sneaky and dishonest, but part of it is also that we just fundamentally disagree on the role of government. Because in the alternate universe where child porn is only illegal through state law, then it's probably also legal in certain states, right? Would it also follow that you'd then also support gun restrictions as state law, just simply not on the national level? (Either way, I assume that your view of Dick's or Wal-Mart making changes to how they choose to sell guns is also acceptable, yes?) If so, then that is at least consistent. 

 

It wouldn't be the most practical solution to either problem. But it would at least be consistent.

 

[BringBackOrton]

6 hours ago, LA Grant said:

 

So part of why we disagree is just because you've been sneaky and dishonest, but part of it is also that we just fundamentally disagree on the role of government. Because in the alternate universe where child porn is only illegal through state law, then it's probably also legal in certain states, right? Would it also follow that you'd then also support gun restrictions as state law, just simply not on the national level? (Either way, I assume that your view of Dick's or Wal-Mart making changes to how they choose to sell guns is also acceptable, yes?) If so, then that is at least consistent. 

 

It wouldn't be the most practical solution to either problem. But it would at least be consistent.

 

That would actually be inconsistent with the way the US government works. The Second Amendment is specified in the Constitution. Child Pornoraphy is not. What is not specified in the Constitution is left up to the state level.

 

It's actually shocking how so few understand the US government. Now that's not all their fault but still.

Edited March 2, 2018 by jmc12290

[LA Grant]

Just now, jmc12290 said:

That would actually be inconsistent with the way the US government works. The Second Amendment is specified in the Constitution. Child Pornoraphy is not. What is not specified in the Constitiion is left up to the state level.

 

It's actually shocking how so few understand the US government.

 

jmc, to call your comprehension skills "childlike" would be a disservice to children. Children are capable of learning eventually.

[BringBackOrton]

7 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

jmc, to call your comprehension skills "childlike" would be a disservice to children. Children are capable of learning eventually.

You don't understand the design of the US gov. That's why you came back with nothing. You've demonstrated that several times in this topic, but most clearly right now. 

 

 You lost

[LA Grant]

7 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:

You don't understand the design of the US gov. That's why you came back with nothing. You've demonstrated that several times in this topic, but most clearly right now. 

 

 You lost

 

Yeah, that's probably it.

 

Here jmc, a thought exercise:  Define what is & is not "speech."  Then define what is & is not "arms."  Before you get your crayons, you may want to go out onto the world wide web and see what others have had to say about these definitions — including real live members of the United States gubbamint! And remember to keep the crayons in your hands and not your mouth. What do we say about crayons, jmc? They're not for eating.

 

[row_33]

Why do you fight with LA Grant, after two exchanges it’s clearly going nowhere

[Warren Zevon]

the real question should be...

 

what's the true definition of a store?

[DC Tom]

16 hours ago, LA Grant said:

 

Whose rights, Sir Thomas? "All of our rights, you *@!^*!(^ idiot!"  Sorry, no, bumper sticker rhetoric isn't doing it any longer. Your BS is getting called out. 

 

My point wasn't that he was correct.  It was that you didn't even understand his post.  This is why you're impossible to discuss things with: you're !@#$ing retarded.

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

My point wasn't that he was correct.  It was that you didn't even understand his post.  This is why you're impossible to discuss things with: you're !@#$ing retarded.

Oh, I'm pretty sure he understood it quite well, Tom.  It's the reason he won't answer questions related to his position.

 

He's a neo-Marxist.  He's advocating for undoing 250 years of US history and encoding a new value system into law.  He's using this tragedy to market his value system, but he's treading very lightly in doing so because he doesn't want people to understand exactly what he's marketing.  He is, instead, bludgeoning the argument with an emotional appeal to a single narrow issue, while being intentionally dismissive of all others that are necessarily related.

 

It's why he won't answer the question related to priori, and why he has engaged in unprovoked ad homs and other various fallacious appeals in order to avoid engaging on those points.  You'll note that in his most recent response to me he make a point to take the time to call me "sneaky and dishonest", which is a bald faced lie, as he knows I've been direct and engaging; as opposed to engaging the argument itself.

Edited March 2, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[IDBillzFan]

10 hours ago, keepthefaith said:

I also don't see these changes saving many lives

 

Unfortunately, this is the flaw in your entire post. 

 

You want to make concessions, but you also admit it really won't do anything. Everyone knows this. Even the left. They don't want to restrict more guns to save lives. They want to restrict more guns because they trust the government over the individual. They must have the government in charge of everything because they are unable to take care of themselves. This is why they piss on ideas of self-accountability and self-responsibility.

 

They NEED the government to run all things.

 

Subsequently, you don't make concessions just to make them stop crying. You fight back with options that WILL make a difference. The problem, as LA Grant repeatedly states, is that they are not interested in your ideas. Only their own. As he stated, and most leftists agree, there is no argument against more gun control, so just shut up and give them the guns.

 

 

[DC Tom]

30 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

Unfortunately, this is the flaw in your entire post. 

 

You want to make concessions, but you also admit it really won't do anything. Everyone knows this. Even the left. They don't want to restrict more guns to save lives. They want to restrict more guns because they trust the government over the individual. They must have the government in charge of everything because they are unable to take care of themselves. This is why they piss on ideas of self-accountability and self-responsibility.

 

They NEED the government to run all things.

 

Subsequently, you don't make concessions just to make them stop crying. You fight back with options that WILL make a difference. The problem, as LA Grant repeatedly states, is that they are not interested in your ideas. Only their own. As he stated, and most leftists agree, there is no argument against more gun control, so just shut up and give them the guns.

 

 

 

Not all things.  They're perfectly happy to delegate the regulation of speech to Google and Facebook, for example...

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

Not all things.  They're perfectly happy to delegate the regulation of speech to Google and Facebook, for example...

They take a more active personal role on campus.