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

[Cinga]

2 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

Again — No one cares about you shooting beer cans in the woods. But AR-15s are not an inalienable right. OBVIOUSLY. It's madness that such a statement even needs to be said.

I've said it in other threads..... Please name me a country that uses the AR-15 for their military?

 

I'll wait...... 

[LA Grant]

1 minute ago, Cinga said:

You right, the Constitution can be changed, and that very document tell you how to go about doing it.... But your quotes are based on ignorance of that document and this Nation. Let me just take this one:

 

The very premise of this assumes wrongly that the United States is a Democracy which we are NOT!  It speaks of majorities which the Founder dreaded because so long as there is a rule by majority, it is ALWAYS to the detriment of the minority. I know what you have been taught in school, and I know what politician always say, but they are wrong too.

You see, an extreme of a Democracy would be making the minority give all their earnings over to the majority. Or even for the majority to exempt themselves from all laws and even take the voting rights away from the minority to assure you are forever the majority.

We are a Constitutional Republic, much different than a Democracy in that it is a limited government whose main responsibility it is to protect the rights of the smallest minority,,, The individual.

 

And if you really think any attempt to infringe on the right to bear is not a precedent for more rights taken away, you are sadly mistaken. Just look at the infringements on rights over the last couple decades. If it were not for the investigations going on now,if Hillary had won, I would have expected her to figure a way to suspend the Constitution, or try to.... We know Obama looked into that possibility

 

You're an idiot. No #!*(!&* we are in a constitutional republic and not a true democracy. Thank you for the insight.

 

"More rights taken away." "Hillary." You live in a fantasy land. Talking to you is like playing telephone with whatever the Glenn Beck show has on today or whatever.

[IDBillzFan]

53 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

IT IS A DOCUMENT INTENDED TO BE CHANGED.

 

And you're absolutely welcome to change it.  You do realize that, right? You can actually change it to ban all guns in the US.

 

So, y'know, hop to it, Skippy, and stop wasting everyone's time with your stomping and whining.

 

 

 

[Cinga]

1 minute ago, LA Grant said:

 

You're an idiot. No #!*(!&* we are in a constitutional republic and not a true democracy. Thank you for the insight.

 

"More rights taken away." "Hillary." You live in a fantasy land. Talking to you is like playing telephone with whatever the Glenn Beck show has on today or whatever.

well..... and how did I know that was going to happen?

 

Can't debate truth, so descend into insults.... typical of ALL progressives now

[Deranged Rhino]

4 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

You're way off.

 

No, he isn't. If you had a basic grasp of history you'd understand why. 

5 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

Military technology is NOT a God-given inalienable right. It is not inborn. It is not intrinsic. 

 

 

No one is making that argument but for you. A person who has demonstrated throughly that he does not have even a basic grasp of history, American history, or what's written in the Bill of Rights. 

[LA Grant]

6 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

And you're absolutely welcome to change it.  You do realize that, right? You can actually change it to ban all guns in the US.

 

So, y'know, hop to it, Skippy, and stop wasting everyone's time with your stomping and whining.

 

You're absolutely correct! Well done, Fabio, you're starting to understand why I'm posting down here.

 

I'm terribly sorry that I have triggered you, snowflake, or ruined your safe space with my "stomping and whining"! 

11 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

No one is making that argument but for you. A person who has demonstrated throughly that he does not have even a basic grasp of history, American history, or what's written in the Bill of Rights. 

 

Didn't you start the "Deep State" thread? You are dumb as hell, dude. 

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

You're way off. The idea, as clearly outlined in those Jefferson letters as anywhere (but not just there), is that the document evolves with society. They were aware they were not Moses coming down from the mountain, although people like yourself get completely lost and miss the forest for the trees. You, your stubbornness, your unwillingness to change or compromise — you are what they were trying to save us from.

 

Military technology is NOT a God-given inalienable right. It is not inborn. It is not intrinsic. 

 

NRA folk are clinging to this perversely warped misinterpretation of the Bill of Rights/the Second Amendment because they think Obama himself is going to come smack the rifle out of their hand or something.

 

Again — No one cares about you shooting beer cans in the woods. But AR-15s are not an inalienable right. OBVIOUSLY. It's madness that such a statement even needs to be said.

No, the document was not designed "to evolve with society"; which is precisely the reason the Amendment process was included:  to provide an avenue for change.  Historically, it's the reason an amendment was added to expand the franchise rather than simply reinterpreting it. 

 

Washington, in fact, stated very specifically that the Document was intended only to be changed through the prescribed Amendment process:  "The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution, which at any time exists, ‘till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. … If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed"

 

As to the Jefferson letters?  The one you quoted says:  "Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and inalienable rights of man."   Read that again.  He states, in no uncertain terms, that inherent and inalienable rights are unchangeable.  Inalienable rights, like those enumerated in the Bill of Rights.  Unchangable.  He adds:  "Our peculiar security is in possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. … If it is, then we have no Constitution."

 

 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

Didn't you start the "Deep State" thread? You are dumb as hell, dude. 

 

Coming from someone who has done nothing but demonstrate his own ignorance for the past day, I take that as a compliment.

[IDBillzFan]

Just now, LA Grant said:

 

You're absolutely correct! Well done, Fabio, you're starting to understand why I'm posting down here.

 

I'm terribly sorry that I have triggered you, snowflake, or ruined your safe space with my "stomping and whining"! 

 

You should get together with Badol.

 

Between the two of you, I'd be curious to find out whose simple, little noggin' I've been living in rent- free the longest.

 

Your insults are so childishly similar, maybe I'll just call you guys a duplex and  consider myself happy to occupy so much real estate for so little money.  

[LA Grant]

9 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Coming from someone who has done nothing but demonstrate his own ignorance for the past day, I take that as a compliment.

 

"Mmm, actually a 'douche' is a sanitizing product, so I take that as a compliment." — this is what you sound like.

 

9 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

No, the document was not designed "to evolve with society"; which is precisely the reason the Amendment process was included:  to provide an avenue for change.  Historically, it's the reason an amendment was added to expand the franchise rather than simply reinterpreting it. 

 

Washington, in fact, stated very specifically that the Document was intended only to be changed through the prescribed Amendment process:  "The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution, which at any time exists, ‘till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. … If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed"

 

As to the Jefferson letters?  The one you quoted says:  "Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and inalienable rights of man."   Read that again.  He states, in no uncertain terms, that inherent and inalienable rights are unchangeable.  Inalienable rights, like those enumerated in the Bill of Rights.  Unchangable.  He adds:  "Our peculiar security is in possession of a written Constitution. Let us not make it a blank paper by construction. … If it is, then we have no Constitution."

 

The Bill of Rights have any number of qualifiers. The First Amendment has tons of restrictions. Fourth Amendment. On and on. These are largely considered acceptable or necessary for the greater good.

 

Somehow only the Second Amendment is beyond reproach though, eh? In your head, the idea is that we'd all just continue to get more armed as technology increases? A mini arms race against your neighbors to match the big boys in the news? That was their vision, you think?

 

 

5 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

You should get together with Badol.

 

Between the two of you, I'd be curious to find out whose simple, little noggin' I've been living in rent- free the longest.

 

Your insults are so childishly similar, maybe I'll just call you guys a duplex and  consider myself happy to occupy so much real estate for so little money.  

 

Well, I wouldn't be too flattered. Trump has been in my "noggin" for a time too, and it's not because he's any kind of talented, clever man. He was just on the screen a lot. You just happen to be on this screen/message board a lot. You & JP Losman share about a similar basement space, if we're looking at the floorplan. Congrats...?

 

Anyway, as for snowflake, etc., I wasn't even going expressly personal with that one — I just guessed you were using those kinds of terms because you're a hack who gets all of his 'jokes' from conservative memes. Lazy. 

Edited February 22, 2018 by LA Grant

[Deranged Rhino]

6 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

The Bill of Rights have any number of qualifiers. The First Amendment has tons of restrictions. Fourth Amendment. On and on. These are largely considered acceptable or necessary for the greater good.

 

Somehow only the Second Amendment is beyond reproach though, eh? In your head, the idea is that we'd all just continue to get more armed as technology increases? A mini arms race against your neighbors to match the big boys in the news? That was their vision, you think?

 

 

Incorrect. On nearly everything you've said today. Keep digging. It's fun to watch. 

 

The Bill of Rights are rights which were NOT given to us by the government. They were given to us by the creator. They're inalienable. Words matter. History matters. Context matters. If you spent just a little more time educating yourself rather than emotionally ranting, you'd have a better argument.

 

But instead you want to lash out because you're emotional. When people are emotional, they're less likely to act rationally - like you are in this thread.  

 

The simple fact is there is a process to amend the constitution if needed. The bar to do so is high for a reason, to prevent over corrections from the emotional mob. If you want to change the constitution, devote yourself to politics and enacting that change through the proper channels. That, even if I don't agree with your position, would at least be helpful and an admirable way to go about fighting for what you believe in.  

 

... Or stay down here demonstrating to everyone that you're ignorant of even BASIC history. 

Edited February 22, 2018 by Deranged Rhino

[TakeYouToTasker]

On February 22, 2018 at 5:14 PM, LA Grant said:

 

"Mmm, actually a 'douche' is a sanitizing product, so I take that as a compliment." — this is what you sound like.

 

 

The Bill of Rights have any number of qualifiers. The First Amendment has tons of restrictions. Fourth Amendment. On and on. These are largely considered acceptable or necessary for the greater good.

 

Somehow only the Second Amendment is beyond reproach though, eh? In your head, the idea is that we'd all just continue to get more armed as technology increases? A mini arms race against your neighbors to match the big boys in the news? That was their vision, you think?

 

 

 

Their vision was to protect the People's inalienable right to (entire paragraph added for context, most relevant piece bolded by me) "...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

 

Articulated, right there for your consumption:  the vision was to protect the People's right to possess weaponry sufficient to overthrow their government should it become necessary.

 

You aren't going to win this argument, and you're making yourself look dumber by the minute by arguing with someone who actually knows what the hell they're talking about.

Edited February 27, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[LA Grant]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Incorrect. On nearly everything you've said today. Keep digging. It's fun to watch. 

 

The Bill of Rights are rights which were NOT given to us by the government. They were given to us by the creator. They're inalienable. Words matter. History matters. Context matters. If you spent just a little more time educating yourself rather than emotionally ranting, you'd have a better argument.

 

But instead you want to lash out because you're emotional. When people are emotional, they're less likely to act rationally - like you are in this thread.  

 

The simple fact is there is a process to amend the constitution if needed. The bar to do so is high for a reason, to prevent over corrections from the emotional mob. If you want to change the constitution, devote yourself to politics and enacting that change through the proper channels. That, even if I don't agree with your position, would at least be helpful and an admirable way to go about fighting for what you believe in.  

 

... Or stay down here demonstrating to everyone that you're ignorant of even BASIC history. 

Watching you learn things is sort of like the joy of fatherhood except with you, the child is a mutant, and you just want them stop sticking their finger in the socket.

 

How do you suppose one amends the constitution, sweet child? What do you think "politics" is? Why is the NRA such a powerful lobby? What laws/changes have they made possible or prevented? Who is the NRA? 

 

The Bill of Rights.... were not actually literally written by God. You.... you do understand that, right? They are "inalienable rights" because those are the description written on the paper. History matters. Context matters. If you spent just a little more time educating yourself rather than... <looks at your post history> ... okay a lot more time educating yourself.... <looks deeper into your post history> .... good lord man. 

 

 

 

[IDBillzFan]

6 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Well, I wouldn't be too flattered. Trump has been in my "noggin" for a time too, and it's not because he's any kind of talented, clever man. He was just on the screen a lot. You just happen to be on this screen/message board a lot. You & JP Losman share about a similar basement space, if we're looking at the floorplan.

 

Anyway, as for snowflake, etc., I wasn't even going expressly personal with that one — I just guessed you were using those kinds of terms because you're a hack who gets all of his 'jokes' from conservative memes. Lazy. 

 

You're getting to the point where I should probably let you know I'm straight, and I'm married.

 

But I appreciate the obsession.

[snafu]

1 hour ago, LA Grant said:

 

Bumping this quote YET AGAIN for Tasker/LABillz who seem very hung up on the idea that somehow the Second Amendment and Guns are as unchangeable as the wind or the ground.

 

IT IS A DOCUMENT INTENDED TO BE CHANGED.

 

The reason it is not changed is because.... Well, that's a good question. Suppose it would take some ugly people with ugly thoughts to do something they're very uncomfortable with: look in a mirror. 

 

I really don't lean one way or another with this matter.  I see that there are arguments to be made both ways.  Sounds like a cop-out, maybe it is.  I just want to put these three Thomas Jefferson quotes out there.  I get that you quoted Jefferson to make the point that the Constitution was meant to grow and evolve with changing times.  But there's a couple things you also need to note:

 

(1) there's a process for changing the Constitution, and I don't think people on your side of this argument have enough votes to get any amendment to the constitution passed which will abridge gun ownership.

 

(2) The Second Amendment was protection against a standing army -- which Jefferson hated the idea of.  At the time that the Constitution was drafted, the US didn't have a standing army.  So you can say that the Second Amendment was already included to change with the times.

 

Here are the three quotes.  Sorry I didn't give attribution to them.  Lazy, I suppose:

 

“There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation, and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors, that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot, but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army.”

 

“None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important.”

 

“I will now add what I do not like. First, the omission of a bill of rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for freedom of religion, freedom of the press, protection against standing armies, restriction against monopolies, the eternal and unremitting force of the habeas corpus laws, and trials by jury in all matters of fact triable by the laws of the land and not by the law of nations.”

 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, LA Grant said:

 

How do you suppose one amends the constitution, sweet child?

 

Not by making a fool of themselves on PPP, kiddo. They take actual action. You're pissing into the wind and we're laughing because it's blowing back in your face. 

 

1 minute ago, LA Grant said:

Why is the NRA such a powerful lobby? 

 

The NRA is not even in the top ten in terms of powerful lobby. They're a boogeyman designed to fool simpletons. 

 

It's working (clearly) on you. 

 

Who impacts US policy more, the NRA or Big Pharma? 

 

2 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

The Bill of Rights.... were not actually literally written by God.

 

I never said they were. If you could read at higher than a third grade level, you'd understand that. 

 

3 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

They are "inalienable rights" because those are the description written on the paper. History matters. Context matters. 

 

No, they're not. If you had an understanding of history and the context, you'd understand that. 

 

Misunderstanding this BASIC fact of American history shows your ignorance. 

[LA Grant]

5 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

There vision was to protect the People's inalienable right to (entire paragraph added for context, most relevant piece bolded by me) "...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

 

Articulated, right there for your consumption:  the vision was to protect the People's right to possess weaponry sufficient to overthrow their government should it become necessary.

 

You aren't going to win this argument, and you're making yourself look dumber by the minute by arguing with someone who actually knows what the hell they're talking about.

 

Do you possess weaponry sufficient to overthrow the government? Do "The People'" What do you think a government necessary of being overthrown looks like? I don't know if you've seen them in action but I guarantee you're not going to out-gun the US Military. 

 

Suppose gun reform passes, and now the gubbermint is more involved in your guns than before, comparable to how involved they are with cars/traffic and the DMV. Is Obama or George Soros or LA Grant coming to your house to take your guns? Or would it more likely be local police checking on the bad guys who didn't follow the rules to re-register their lawful weapons? And hey Blue Lives Matter, right? Seems like something we can agree on.

 

I've seen dogs learn concepts faster than you, I swear to god.

[DC Tom]

Just now, LA Grant said:

 

Do you possess weaponry sufficient to overthrow the government? Do "The People'" What do you think a government necessary of being overthrown looks like? 

 

Orange with foo-foo lhasa apso hair, of course.  #resistance

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, LA Grant said:

 

Do you possess weaponry sufficient to overthrow the government? Do "The People'" What do you think a government necessary of being overthrown looks like?

 

Are you Gator? What kind of sentence is that. Maybe you shouldn't insult people's intelligence when you can't string together a simple sentence without blundering it.

 

 

[LA Grant]

3 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

You're getting to the point where I should probably let you know I'm straight, and I'm married.

 

But I appreciate the obsession.

 

Ohhh a gay joke, ohhhhhhh snap. I haven't seen someone grasp for straws this pathetically since my one-handed cousin Mookie worked at a concession stand.

 

I'm sorry that your life is so empty that "a guy who DOESN'T like you on the internet but DOES remember you" is somehow, in your eyes... a loving gesture??? 

[DC Tom]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Are you Gator? What kind of sentence is that. Maybe you shouldn't insult people's intelligence when you can't string together a simple sentence without blundering it.

 

 

 

It amazes me that he thinks he's making coherent points.  I've never been able to read a single one of his posts without imagining it "read" in the voice of the Tasmanian Devil.

[Nanker]

Anyone want to tackle the feral pig problem we have in this country with a B.B. gun?

Maybe the school crossing guards can protect us from them. 

[LA Grant]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Are you Gator? What kind of sentence is that. Maybe you shouldn't insult people's intelligence when you can't string together a simple sentence without blundering it.

 

 

 

Ya caught me, Rhino! There's absolutely no contextual clues that I merely left out a "?" in a typographical error. It's CLEARLY supposed to be one long sentence. That proves everything. Me dumb and you smart!

 

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, LA Grant said:

 

I haven't seen someone grasp for straws this pathetically since my one-handed cousin Mookie worked at a concession stand.

 

 

So you don't read your own posts. Good to know. Explains the blithering stupidity inherent in them. 

Just now, LA Grant said:

 

Ya caught me, Rhino! There's absolutely no contextual clues that I merely left out a "?" in a typographical error. It's CLEARLY supposed to be one long sentence. That proves everything. Me dumb and you smart!

 

 

No, the bulk of your posts are doing a fine job of exposing your ignorance. 

 

I pile on when you call someone dumb in the same post that you mangle basic English. 

[IDBillzFan]

2 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Ohhh a gay joke, ohhhhhhh snap. I haven't seen someone grasp for straws this pathetically since my one-handed cousin Mookie worked at a concession stand.

 

I'm sorry that your life is so empty that "a guy who DOESN'T like you on the internet but DOES remember you" is somehow, in your eyes... a loving gesture??? 

 

Rent-free in your mind since the early 90s.

 

Gotta be some kind of record.

 

But yeah...my life is the empty one. 

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

So you don't read your own posts. Good to know. Explains the blithering stupidity inherent in them. 

 

I have to give him some credit for that line though.  That was pretty creative.

 

Pretty sure he stole it, then.  And didn't read it.

[LA Grant]

1 minute ago, Nanker said:

Anyone want to tackle the feral pig problem we have in this country with a B.B. gun?

Maybe the school crossing guards can protect us from them. 

 

Right! Because when we talk about "gun control" we obviously mean "eliminate hunting." 

 

When we talk about "gun reform" we must mean "send all republicans to death camps."

 

When we talk about "restrictions on gun purchases" obviously that's code for "storm the houses of all who post on TSW and put all of their guns in a ziploc bag."

 

It couldn't be a slight bit more nuanced than that. It couldn't be. You know why? Because guns aren't the problem! Never have been. Never will be. It's science. And history!

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Right! Because when we talk about "gun control" we obviously mean "eliminate hunting." 

 

When we talk about "gun reform" we must mean "send all republicans to death camps."

 

When we talk about "restrictions on gun purchases" obviously that's code for "storm the houses of all who post on TSW and put all of their guns in a ziploc bag."

 

It couldn't be a slight bit more nuanced than that. It couldn't be. You know why? Because guns aren't the problem! Never have been. Never will be. It's science. And history!

 

If you weren't so hysterical and hyperbolic, we might be able to have the rational conversation you seem to be pushing for in this post. 

 

But then it's preceded by a day's worth of posts which are nothing but the rantings of an emotional man in the middle of a full bore temper tantrum. You can't have it both ways.

[TakeYouToTasker]

It's been hilarious watching LAGrant's argument slowly shift from "The Founder's never intended for your right's to necessarily be permanent." to "Inalienable rights aren't really important anyway."

 

 

[LA Grant]

2 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

Rent-free in your mind since the early 90s.

 

Gotta be some kind of record.

 

But yeah...my life is the empty one. 

 

Early 90s!? Good lord, man, not even close. TSW has only been around since '98 or so. I started posting or lurking around JP Losman era. '05? That's why I remember your Fabio anecdote. It was one of the things I saw when I first found this place. 

 

There you go, you sweet narcissist. You can now have the weird pleasure of imagining a post you wrote being read by me 15 years ago. It is slightly amazing that this detail is the only thing that concerns you. You may not have voted for him, but Trump represents you pretty well.

 

But I'm happy that, late in life though it may be, you are now learning that even your small actions DO have consequences, even when you yourself can't SEE them. Things li'l ol' you put out there could be read and remembered just like anything else. Who knew!

[Tiberius]

37 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Coming from someone who has done nothing but demonstrate his own ignorance for the past day, I take that as a compliment.

Ignorance? Like how how we were fighting the Revolutionary war in 1788?

[Nanker]

1 minute ago, LA Grant said:

 

Right! Because when we talk about "gun control" we obviously mean "eliminate hunting." 

 

When we talk about "gun reform" we must mean "send all republicans to death camps."

 

When we talk about "restrictions on gun purchases" obviously that's code for "storm the houses of all who post on TSW and put all of their guns in a ziploc bag."

 

It couldn't be a slight bit more nuanced than that. It couldn't be. You know why? Because guns aren't the problem! Never have been. Never will be. It's science. And history!

You sir, are obviously deranged, a misogynist, homophobe, Communist sympathizing anarchist, anti-religious bigot who has a foot fetish, and eats raw snails for breakfast. 

Its so obvious from what you’ve posted. 

Turn in your man card and your log-in credentials to the Internet. It’s too dangerous a place for you and you might do some innocent people harm... like your mommy and little sister. 

[LA Grant]

Just now, TakeYouToTasker said:

It's been hilarious watching LAGrant's argument slowly shift from "The Founder's never intended for your right's to necessarily be permanent." to "Inalienable rights aren't really important anyway."

 

Argument is the same, you simple mutant. I'll repeat myself, repeat arguments that have existed forever, as it is easily distilled. The government can have a role in solving societal problems. We should all want to have a government that can adapt to society's problems, based on majority rule w/checks & balances. The fact that it does not work that way in practice is a problem. It is a major reason why, despite gun reform having widespread support, it is not on the books.

 

Like... this is complicated a little bit but it's not that complicated. The solution is obvious. Gun Reform. Even a mutant like you should be able to process. 

 

1) "But... gun legislation NEVER WORKS!!!!!" <--- Then out comes Chicago, California, any number of "what about" or "what if"s. The data overwhelmingly supports it. But the reason "gun control doesn't work" is a bad argument is because WE HAVE NEVER TRIED IT. Not on a national level. Not even to the degree of making gun laws & traffic/vehicle laws similarly restrictive (and ideally more). 

 

2) "But... the founders said guns keeps tyrants away!" <---- This is a harder fantasy to break because it's like, how do you tell a 50-year-old man that he's not going to win in a fire fight? I know we grew up learning that the Revolutionary War was won a certain way, but you are not those people. Our lives are not those circumstances. The whole "good guy with a gun" thing is so dumb. Even that Dan Bilzerian dork, the instagram poker-millionaire guy who posts all about guns & poker & hookers, he was at the Las Vegas shooting, wasn't he? Did he "good guy with a gun" save people? No. He ran from the gunfire, obviously.

 

Also, my little mutant child, while we're learning simple lessons — forks don't go in the socket & peeing on a woman isn't how you make babies. 

21 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

I have to give him some credit for that line though.  That was pretty creative.

 

Pretty sure he stole it, then.  And didn't read it.

 

Tom, you ignorant slut, I clearly write my own material.

 

(The concession stand line was me, tho)

[Deranged Rhino]

13 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Argument is the same, you simple mutant. I'll repeat myself, repeat arguments that have existed forever, as it is easily distilled. The government can have a role in solving societal problems. We should all want to have a government that can adapt to society's problems, based on majority rule w/checks & balances. The fact that it does not work that way in practice is a problem. It is a major reason why, despite gun reform having widespread support, it is not on the books.

 

It does work that way. 

 

Or did before the executive branch began usurping unchecked power from 43 through 44. 

 

13 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Like... this is complicated a little bit but it's not that complicated. The solution is obvious. Gun Reform.

 

That's an empty, meaningless phrase. It offers NO solution to the problem of stopping murder. 

 

13 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

1) "But... gun legislation NEVER WORKS!!!!!" <--- Then out comes Chicago, California, any number of "what about" or "what if"s. The data overwhelmingly supports it. But the reason "gun control doesn't work" is a bad argument is because WE HAVE NEVER TRIED IT. Not on a national level. Not even to the degree of making gun laws & traffic/vehicle laws similarly restrictive (and ideally more). 

 

False. It's been tried in multiple states in many different ways. 

 

What we haven't tried is amending the constitution itself with this regard. If that's your goal, go with God. But you're doing a lousy job making that case. 

 

13 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

2) "But... the founders said guns keeps tyrants away!" <---- This is a harder fantasy to break because it's like, how do you tell a 50-year-old man that he's not going to win in a fire fight? I know we grew up learning that the Revolutionary War was won a certain way, but you are not those people. Our lives are not those circumstances. The whole "good guy with a gun" thing is so dumb. Even that Dan Bilzerian dork, the instagram poker-millionaire guy who posts all about guns & poker & hookers, he was at the Las Vegas shooting, wasn't he? Did he "good guy with a gun" save people? No. He ran from the gunfire, obviously.

 

 

This is precisely why you're losing so badly in this discussion. This isn't reality, it's fantasy. 

 

The second amendment is about PERSONAL liberty. It's not about the Revolutionary War, it's not about storming DC. It's about the right to defend to the death the rights we are born with. Your ignorance of history is showing.  

 

The Vegas shooter was in a concealed elevated position across the street. You talked about false equivalencies before, and mangled the definition, but comparing Vegas to a school shooting IS a false equivalency.

Edited February 22, 2018 by Deranged Rhino

[Tiberius]

The 1994 law included a ban on 18 specific models of assault weapons, as well as a ban on any firearms containing certain military-style features, like a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor or a folding stock. It also banned high-capacity magazines capable of holding more than 10 bullets. The bill allowed individuals already in possession of such weapons to keep them. It was also set to expire after 10 years' time.

“The original intent of the assault weapons ban was to reduce the carnage of mass shootings,” Klarevas said. “And on that front the data indicate that it worked.”

 

Klarevas has compiled data on gun massacres involving six or more fatalities for the 50 years before 2016. His numbers show that gun massacres fell significantly during the time the assault weapons ban was in place, and skyrocketed after the ban lapsed in 2004. A separate mass shooting database compiled by Mother Jones magazine shows a similar trend.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/22/the-real-reason-congress-banned-assault-weapons-in-1994-and-why-it-worked/?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_wonk-assaultrifles-1003am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.bd498577891b

[DC Tom]

20 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Tom, you ignorant slut, I clearly write my own material.

 

 

Gotta give you credit for this juxtaposition, too. 

[LA Grant]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

It does work that way. 

 

Or did before the executive branch began usyrping unchecked power from 43 through 44. 

 

That's an empty, meaningless phrase. It offers NO solution to the problem of stopping murder. 

 

False. It's been tried in multiple states in many different ways. 

 

What we haven't tried is amending the constitution itself with this regard. If that's your goal, go with God. But you're doing a lousy job making that case. 

 

This is precisely why you're losing so badly in this discussion. This isn't reality, it's fantasy. 

 

The second amendment is about PERSONAL liberty. It's not about the Revolutionary War, it's not about storming DC. It's about the right to defend to the death the rights we are born with. Your ignorance of history is showing.  

 

The Vegas shooter was in a concealed elevated position across the street. You talked about false equivalencies before, and mangled the definition, but comparing Vegas to a school shooting IS a false equivalency.

 

Idiot! You are not born with a gun. Yes, you have the God-given right to defend yourself, if that's what you're arguing, you doofus. A person should not be entitled to a gun. Exactly what liberties are you enjoying with a gun that you're unable to enjoy without a gun? I'd like to know. 

 

Answers are simple. I'm banging the drum because, despite its simplicity, we live in a chaotic jungle full of deranged rhinos who will stomp over reasonable measures just to make sure they're not personally inconvenienced in any way.

 

National gun laws. Enforced evenly. Background checks. Behavioral assessments. Competency tests. Annual registration renewal. No automatics. If you want  try to shoot up a school or a night club with a revolver, a hunting rifle, a shotgun, a big knife — there will still be deranged rhinos out there. But they don't need to be able to shoot weapons capable of holding 30-100 rounds w/o reload for home defense or hunting.

 

http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2016/06/4_things_you_need_to_know_abou.html

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, LA Grant said:

 

Idiot! You are not born with a gun.

 

Never said we were. We were born with the right to DEFEND our inalienable rights. Without the second amendment, the other 9 of the BoR are meaningless. Something which you would understand if you knew your history and how the document came to be. 

 

1 minute ago, LA Grant said:

A person should not be entitled to a gun. Exactly what liberties are you enjoying with a gun that you're unable to enjoy without a gun? I'd like to know. 

 

The Bill of rights disagrees. We have an inalienable right to bear arms. They didn't write that amendment because they were paid by the NRA to do so. They wrote it because the British banned importing firearms and gunpowder in 1774, in 1775 they began confiscations of weapons and powder THROUGH FORCE. 

 

The founders knew that without the means to protect yourself and property from the over reach of tyranny, the rest of the rights set forth in the document were meaningless. 

 

Again, you are showing how ignorant you are of history. 

 

4 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

Answers are simple. I'm banging the drum because, despite its simplicity, we live in a chaotic jungle full of deranged rhinos who will stomp over reasonable measures just to make sure they're not personally inconvenienced in any way.

 

I don't own a gun. I'm not in the NRA. I'm not a conservative, nor a republican. This isn't about my personal convenience at all. This is about the rule of law and the REASONS for them. 

 

5 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

National gun laws. Enforced evenly. Background checks. Behavioral assessments. Competency tests. Annual registration renewal.

 

It's a state-by-state thing, but otherwise there is a place for reasonable discussion about these issues. 

 

6 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

No automatics. 

 

This will never pass. It's also unnecessary. It's a talking point that will only further the divide and lose the allies you need to make the changes you're talking about. 

 

 

[LA Grant]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

It's a state-by-state thing, but otherwise there is a place for reasonable discussion about these issues. 

 

This will never pass. It's also unnecessary. It's a talking point that will only further the divide and lose the allies you need to make the changes you're talking about. 

 

A) It does not need to be different by state. DMVs are state regulated but the requirements/tests/procedures are largely, if not wholly, identical.

 

B) Never say never. Why is it unnecessary? Better yet — why are (semi)automatic weapons necessary? How do those provide liberties we do not enjoy without automatic?  If you need an AR-15 to "defend your home from burglars," you should not have a gun. It means you're a terrible shot. It means you're a liability with a dangerous weapon. 

 

See, you're not actually picking up the funny thing about my position, which is — I'm pretty flexible for what "gun reform" looks like. We have to be, because the other side (your side) is so immovable, we have to take whatever inch we can get. 

 

Like most people, I think the most important things are (1) improved background checks/tests/registration processes; (2) reduced access. These systems largely go hand in hand. 

 

None of those solutions involve "coming to your home & removing your weapons." They might involve "local police checking on a weapon they have record of you purchasing, but not registering" -- or,  the equivalent of being pulled over because the tags on your license are expired.

 

If you can pass the tests* and really want your AR-15, I don't really care what you do, as long as you're not hurting other people. Most people feel this way.

 

The goal is to prevent mass shootings. Mass shooters have been able to easily legally buy weapons designed for mass shooting. There are a number of ways to prevent that. Unfortunately, the most efficient ways tend to involve restricting access to the instrument doing the mass shooting, and as your side wants to keep "guns as a problem" entirely off the table, you'd rather send everyone interested in helping down a number of different rabbit holes to avoid addressing the clear, obvious issue. Your side of the argument is tired and predictable: "Guns aren't the problem, it's the people that use it." But then if the conversation is about the government helping those people, well that's also off the table, because those services would cost money. And that this has always been about is not inconveniencing the Rural Baby Boomer White Man. 

 

They need their deer-heads on the wall. Those participation trophies remind them that they could overthrow Hillary, if necessary.

 

*Anticipating this hypothetical rabbit hole: "Well but who's to say who's fit and who's unfit?" Yes, well, it will always be subjective. The DMV's assessment is subjective. I maintain the comparison to the DMV and Wal-Mart as a baseline example. Companies like that often make applicants take 20-minute repetitive tests to weed out antisocial tendencies, not to mention drug tests, references, and so on. This should not be an unreasonable requirement for owning a gun. I expect most Lawful Gun Owners would be perfectly fine. But it could have prevented Parkland, and it could have prevented others. And if you don't pass the test, well, sorry if you're deemed too crazy to own 100 guns. I suppose a Lawful Gun Owner might worry these tests would be as gruesomely unfair and oppressive as Jim Crow voter laws, which is adorably paranoid. But don't worry, if our country has shown anything, it's that justice is an illusion and "what goes around comes around" simply isn't true. 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, LA Grant said:

 

A) It does not need to be different by state.

 

Yes it does, unless you amend the constitution itself - which again, is possible but if it's your goal you're going about it backwards. 

 

1 minute ago, LA Grant said:

B) Never say never. Why is it unnecessary? Better yet — why are (semi)automatic weapons necessary? How do those provide liberties we do not enjoy without automatic?  If you need an AR-15 to "defend your home from burglars," you should not have a gun. It means you're a terrible shot. It means you're a liability with a dangerous weapon. 

 

You're dreaming if you think you can get a ban on semi autos. It shows you don't understand firearms enough to have this kind of nuanced conversation. Look into the history of trying to do this, how it failed, and how it widened the divide between the gun rights people and the gun control people. 

 

I'm trying to help you by pointing out areas you should avoid talking about if you're actually interested in building a consensus that actually can bring about the changes you want to see. 

 

3 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

We have to be, because the other side (your side) is so immovable, we have to take whatever inch we can get. 

 

I don't have a side, other than believing in the rule of law. I'm not in the NRA, I'm not even a gun owner. 

 

4 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Like most people, I think the most important things are (1) improved background checks/tests/registration processes; (2) reduced access. These systems largely go hand in hand. 

 

None of those solutions involve "coming to your home & removing your weapons." They might involve "local police checking on a weapon they have record of you purchasing, but not registering" -- or,  the equivalent of being pulled over because the tags on your license are expired.

 

If you can pass the tests* and really want your AR-15, I don't really care what you do, as long as you're not hurting other people. Most people feel this way.

 

And yet - everything you're proposing - including "reduced access" - only addresses legal gun ownership. That's like saying you're going to stop drunk driving by banning sober people from owning cars. It's lunacy. 

 

6 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

The goal is to prevent mass shootings.

 

Just shootings? That's it? 

 

So you really only DO care about guns, not getting to the root cause of mass murders.