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

[LA Grant]

20 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

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. 

 

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. 

 

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. 

 

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. 

 

Just shootings? That's it? 

 

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

 

a) I don't expect to change the Constitution on PPP, if that's what you think my goal is?? But bridging the gap of understanding is not going about it backwards.

 

b) A ban on semi autos is not impossible just because it has failed before. People determine laws. People (theoretically) are capable of adapting to new circumstances. This is (theoretically) one of the upsides of people in a representative society. 

 

c) Now you are beginning to get it. Legal Gun Owners are part of the problem. They do not think they should be inconvenienced. Yes, they should. Your drunk driving example is inaccurate — the solutions proposed are to ensure that there are measures in place to prevent the "drunk driving" of guns. Would your solution to drunk driving be "de-regulated traffic laws"? Would your solution be "what about mental health & fatherhood"? Of course it wouldn't (presumably).

 

Look. We cannot know the future. If someone who has a legal license will someday drive drunk, you can't predict that ahead of time. Similarly, if someone who purchases a gun is going to use it for mass murder, it can't always be predicted. SOMETIMES IT CAN. If you get DUIs, you lose your driving privileges. But if you say "I'm going to shoot up the school," you can still exercise your GOD GIVEN INALIENABLE RIGHTS to purchase an AR-15 in Florida and own it without any problems. That's the closest you're going to get to knowing someone is a danger to others as clearly as drunk driving. Unlike a DUI, you can't merely take the gun privilege away from someone after they've used it improperly because by that time, they are a murderer and you've already lost.  

 

Can you see why the problem is madness? Does this really not make any sense to you?

 

d) Correct, the issue is guns. They are the common root in mass shootings. Are there other variables? Obviously. But to pretend guns are not part of the root problem is pure lunacy, as you put it.

Edited February 23, 2018 by LA Grant

[Deranged Rhino]

16 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

a) I don't expect to change the Constitution on PPP, if that's what you think my goal is?? But bridging the gap of understanding is not going about it backwards.

 

 

I am all for bridging gaps and having a conversation. But if you want that to be successful down here you have to have better arguments or a better understanding of history. Otherwise you are going to end up doing the opposite as this place THRIVES on dismantling lesser arguments. Especially ones rooted in emotion rather than logic or fact. 

 

17 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

b) A ban on semi autos is not impossible just because it has failed before. People determine laws. People (theoretically) are capable of adapting to new circumstances. This is (theoretically) one of the upsides of people in a representative society. 

 

Yes, a ban on semi-autos in either of our lifetimes is next to impossible. It's been tried many times, and has failed many times, because it's NOT AN ARGUMENT DESIGNED TO STOP MURDER, it's an argument designed to BAN GUNS.

 

In order to understand why you should familiarize yourself more with what classifies a weapon as a semi automatic.

 

19 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

c) Now you are beginning to get it. Legal Gun Owners are part of the problem. They do not think they should be inconvenienced. Yes, they should. Your drunk driving example is inaccurate — the solutions proposed are to ensure that there are measures in place to prevent the "drunk driving" of guns. Would your solution to drunk driving be "de-regulated traffic laws"? Would your solution be "what about mental health & fatherhood"? Of course it wouldn't (presumably).

 

No they're not part of the problem. Framing it in such a way that they are weakens your argument and makes it one based on emotion and outrage rather than logic and facts. The drunk driving comparison is apt. You disagree because clearly your goal is taking guns away from LAW ABIDING citizens because you do not like them. You keep denying this is your goal, then follow up those statements with something like this. 

 

21 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

Look. We cannot know the future. If someone who has a legal license will someday drive drunk, you can't predict that ahead of time. Similarly, if someone who purchases a gun is going to use it for mass murder, it can't always be predicted. SOMETIMES IT CAN. If you get DUIs, you lose your driving privileges. But if you say "I'm going to shoot up the school," you can still exercise your GOD GIVEN INALIENABLE RIGHTS to purchase an AR-15 in Florida and own it without any problems.

 

Again, this is a ridiculous argument. The law FAILED to prevent the Florida shooting despite 39 visits by LEOs. The shooter made threats, was mentally unstable, had no business owning a weapon - but he was able to not because of the 2nd amendment, but because the police FAILED to do their job. 

 

Now, if you want to get into the weeds as to how they !@#$ed up, you're not going to like it because we're going to have to talk about more causes than just the tool used to commit the crime. That's not a conversation you wish to have, as you've shown, because to you the guns are the problem. By your own admission, LEGAL GUN OWNERSHIP is part of the problem. 

 

That's idiocy. Plain and simple. Emotional blather devoid of logic or reason. 

 

25 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

d) Correct, the issue is guns. They are the common root in mass shootings. Are there other variables? Obviously. But to pretend guns are not part of the root problem is pure lunacy, as you put it.

 

So there were no mass slaughters in history without guns? You REALLY want to make that case?

 

You don't care about saving children. You care about stopping people from owning guns. 

 

That's what you're admitting. And it's why your arguments are failing. 

 

Get better arguments. That starts by educating yourself more on the contributing factors OUTSIDE of the tools used to commit the crimes. 

[LA Grant]

9 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I am all for bridging gaps and having a conversation. But if you want that to be successful down here you have to have better arguments or a better understanding of history. Otherwise you are going to end up doing the opposite as this place THRIVES on dismantling lesser arguments. Especially ones rooted in emotion rather than logic or fact. 

 

Yes, a ban on semi-autos in either of our lifetimes is next to impossible. It's been tried many times, and has failed many times, because it's NOT AN ARGUMENT DESIGNED TO STOP MURDER, it's an argument designed to BAN GUNS.

 

In order to understand why you should familiarize yourself more with what classifies a weapon as a semi automatic.

 

No they're not part of the problem. Framing it in such a way that they are weakens your argument and makes it one based on emotion and outrage rather than logic and facts. The drunk driving comparison is apt. You disagree because clearly your goal is taking guns away from LAW ABIDING citizens because you do not like them. You keep denying this is your goal, then follow up those statements with something like this. 

 

Again, this is a ridiculous argument. The law FAILED to prevent the Florida shooting despite 39 visits by LEOs. The shooter made threats, was mentally unstable, had no business owning a weapon - but he was able to not because of the 2nd amendment, but because the police FAILED to do their job. 

 

Now, if you want to get into the weeds as to how they !@#$ed up, you're not going to like it because we're going to have to talk about more causes than just the tool used to commit the crime. That's not a conversation you wish to have, as you've shown, because to you the guns are the problem. By your own admission, LEGAL GUN OWNERSHIP is part of the problem. 

 

That's idiocy. Plain and simple. Emotional blather devoid of logic or reason. 

 

So there were no mass slaughters in history without guns? You REALLY want to make that case?

 

You don't care about saving children. You care about stopping people from owning guns. 

 

That's what you're admitting. And it's why your arguments are failing. 

 

Get better arguments. That starts by educating yourself more on the contributing factors OUTSIDE of the tools used to commit the crimes. 

 

Foolishness. It's not like I don't understand your position. Here, to your point, a quick read: https://www.popehat.com/2015/12/07/talking-productively-about-guns/

 

Obviously something can be done. The idea that nothing can be done is asinine. That's the point, because nothing will continue to happen with stubborn attitudes like you're laying out. Cops in Parkland, supposedly one of the safest places, specifically have said that stronger gun laws would have allowed them to do something earlier. There are stronger laws to make the airport more of a hassle to prevent another 9/11 by taking your shoes off, somehow we all accept this; grumble, but accept. At the very least it wouldn't hurt.

 

Except that you think it would not only hurt, but be some dramatic red-skied invasion where troops are coming in to your home to take your weapons. That is not the endgame. I'm not a hostage negotiator so I don't know how to talk you off of that ledge other than to say again and again that it isn't the case. I don't care about your stupid guns hunting deer, or shooting beer cans in the woods. You can deal with some additional forms and tests for that privilege, because those measures could clearly save lives.

 

Again, this podcast below. Take a listen. Really. Its 2 Iraq vets talking logistics on how to secure a HS similar to a government embassy and estimate it would take minimum 60 but really 120 infantry to secure the building properly. And what weapons are they carrying to counter AR-15s? Rather than restricting guns, in ANY way, which you think inevitably immediately leads to dystopia, somehow THIS is a better solution, despite armed guards throughout schools practically being a dictionary definition of dystopia.

 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

9 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Obviously something can be done. The idea that nothing can be done is asinine.

 

I never said nothing can be done. 

 

I said the "solutions" you're offering aren't really solutions to the problem. 

 

Difference. 

10 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Cops in Parkland, supposedly one of the safest places, specifically have said that stronger gun laws would have allowed them to do something earlier

 

39 warnings. And they did nothing. 

 

The cops in Parkland, and the FBI, are in CYA mode. They're lying to you. 

 

11 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

There are stronger laws to make the airport more of a hassle to prevent another 9/11 by taking your shoes off, somehow we all accept this; grumble, but accept.

 

That's a GREAT example to use. And if you were familiar with my positions on this matter you'd know better than to bring it up. But you did. So let's go:

 

What else did we "accept" after 9/11? The curtailing of our 4th and 5th amendment rights. How did that turn out? 

 

Now we live under the most invasive surveillance state in history.

 

Has it made us safer? Nope.

 

Has it ended terrorism? Nope.

 

What did it do?

 

It made us easier to control and allowed rogue elements within the executive branch to abuse the FISA system in order to spy on their political opposition. 

 

See how the consequences for an over correction are WORSE than what came before?

 

So now you're saying that even though we KNOW surrendering our 4th and 5th amendments in the name of fighting terror did NOTHING to stop terrorism and NOTHING to make us safer, in fact it made us LESS SAFE, you're saying let's double down on our stupidity and start tinkering with the amendment that secures the rest. 

 

It's shortsighted, based entirely on emotion and devoid of facts. That's why you need better arguments. 

 

15 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Except that you think it would not only hurt, but be some dramatic red-skied invasion where troops are coming in to your home to take your weapons.

 

 

 

I was told after 9/11 that the only way to stay safe was to give up my rights to privacy and due process. I was told it wouldn't really impact me... and yet, we've seen it has. It nearly cost us the republic. 

 

So forgive people if they aren't assured by your empty words that ALL you want is to stop mass shootings - especially when you have repeatedly gone out of your way to say legal gun owners are part of the problem and advocating for banning certain firearms. 

 

That you don't connect those dots is another reason why you're making such a lousy argument. 

 

17 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

I don't care about your stupid guns hunting deer, or shooting beer cans in the woods. You can deal with some additional forms and tests for that privilege, because those measures could clearly save lives.

 

They won't "clearly save lives". How many mass shooters in recent history have been weekend hunters? None? 

 

[LA Grant]

23 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I never said nothing can be done. 

 

I said the "solutions" you're offering aren't really solutions to the problem. 

 

Difference. 

 

39 warnings. And they did nothing. 

 

The cops in Parkland, and the FBI, are in CYA mode. They're lying to you. 

 

That's a GREAT example to use. And if you were familiar with my positions on this matter you'd know better than to bring it up. But you did. So let's go:

 

What else did we "accept" after 9/11? The curtailing of our 4th and 5th amendment rights. How did that turn out? 

 

Now we live under the most invasive surveillance state in history.

 

Has it made us safer? Nope.

 

Has it ended terrorism? Nope.

 

What did it do?

 

It made us easier to control and allowed rogue elements within the executive branch to abuse the FISA system in order to spy on their political opposition. 

See how the consequences for an over correction are WORSE than what came before?

 

So now you're saying that even though we KNOW surrendering our 4th and 5th amendments in the name of fighting terror did NOTHING to stop terrorism and NOTHING to make us safer, in fact it made us LESS SAFE, you're saying let's double down on our stupidity and start tinkering with the amendment that secures the rest. 

 

It's shortsighted, based entirely on emotion and devoid of facts. That's why you need better arguments. 

 

I was told after 9/11 that the only way to stay safe was to give up my rights to privacy and due process. I was told it wouldn't really impact me... and yet, we've seen it has. It nearly cost us the republic. 

 

So forgive people if they aren't assured by your empty words that ALL you want is to stop mass shootings - especially when you have repeatedly gone out of your way to say legal gun owners are part of the problem and advocating for banning certain firearms. 

 

That you don't connect those dots is another reason why you're making such a lousy argument. 

 

They won't "clearly save lives". How many mass shooters in recent history have been weekend hunters? None? 

 

 

In reverse order... 

 

c) Exactly, weekend hunters are not the problem, but it's the lax gun laws that are exploited by the psychos. If preventing mass shootings means weekend hunters are inconvenienced, that should be an acceptable trade off.

 

b) We agree to a point. I acknowledge from the beginning that comparisons to airline security, DMVs, job applications — those are not perfect systems. And we agree on over-reaching on 4th/5th, Patriot Act surveillance, etc., as you point out. Our country is nothing but a mess of broken systems, frankly. The disagreement is on two things — the idea that nothing can be changed in the Bill of Rights - clearly it can;  and the idea that changes will always be broken, useless, and worse than before. I don't think you're right on your conclusions, either, because we also know the importance of surveillance, especially as what that means changes with technology. There is over reach, no argument! Point I'm making is it's not an absolute, it's not an either/or. Its a question of "how much is too much" and what's the trade-off?

 

We live in the most invasive surveillance state in history, alright sure. We also live during a time of more school/mass shootings than ever before. The correct answer is that these are both unacceptable, obviously the ideal is a balance between freedom and security, for privacy and for guns. Simply put: for privacy - too much security, need to dial back; for guns - too much freedom, need to tighten up.

 

a) Exactly. There were a terrible amount of warning signs. It did nothing. We agree: this is bad. Solution: More restrictive gun laws. Enforce those laws. He should not have been able to buy that weapon in that manner. Period.

 

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

There is over reach, no argument! Point I'm making is it's not an absolute, it's not an either/or. Its a question of "how much is too much" and what's the trade-off?

 

 

Once you give up a right, you will NEVER GET IT BACK. We've seen that with the 4th and 5th. Now you're talking about the 2nd. 

 

The Bill of Rights are different than the rest of the amendments because of their provenance and history. This is what you're still failing to get. This country was founded to protect the people from over reach by tyranny which - until the formation of the Bill of Rights (which were influenced by centuries of philosophy and enlightenment thinking and formed the foundation for democracies in all shapes and forms across the globe) tyranny was the norm. Not the exception. 

 

What you're suggesting is that we've progressed to a point as a society where tyranny isn't a real worry anymore. That these bedrock rights, which fundamentally reshaped the world, aren't necessary anymore. They're fungible. 

 

That's incredibly shortsighted. Governments today have more power and capability than ever before to oppress us. We've seen it in this country, let alone the rest of the world. I argue the principles and ideals laid out in the BoR are more crucial to protect today than any other point in our history. 

 

[LA Grant]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Once you give up a right, you will NEVER GET IT BACK. We've seen that with the 4th and 5th. Now you're talking about the 2nd. 

 

The Bill of Rights are different than the rest of the amendments because of their provenance and history. This is what you're still failing to get. This country was founded to protect the people from over reach by tyranny which - until the formation of the Bill of Rights (which were influenced by centuries of philosophy and enlightenment thinking and formed the foundation for democracies in all shapes and forms across the globe) tyranny was the norm. Not the exception. 

 

What you're suggesting is that we've progressed to a point as a society where tyranny isn't a real worry anymore. That these bedrock rights, which fundamentally reshaped the world, aren't necessary anymore. They're fungible. 

 

That's incredibly shortsighted. Governments today have more power and capability than ever before to oppress us. We've seen it in this country, let alone the rest of the world. I argue the principles and ideals laid out in the BoR are more crucial to protect today than any other point in our history. 

 

 

Incorrect. Tyranny should certainly be a worry. But the fight against it doesn't look like you're imagining it. I'm saying that all of the weekend hunters combined on their best day don't stand a chance against the US Military, in the absurd scenario where it led to a modern revival of the fantasy version of the American Revolution. The fight against tyranny is vigilance, not your rifles. Having an AR-15 is no help in that scenario, and it's also a pointless hunting weapon. All it does is be the widely available weapon of choice for mass shooters in America. It's the same damn message every time — Make it harder for these weapons to get in the wrong hands.

 

But because we don't want to inconvenience these men's fantasies or interrupt their gun cosplay in the basement, we will never consider it to be a problem or part of the solution when it comes to mass shootings. Guns are never the problem.

[DC Tom]

6 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Once you give up a right, you will NEVER GET IT BACK. We've seen that with the 4th and 5th. Now you're talking about the 2nd. 

 

 

You forgot the 1st, 6th, 8th, and 10th.

2 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Incorrect. Tyranny should certainly be a worry. But the fight against it doesn't look like you're imagining it. I'm saying that all of the weekend hunters combined on their best day don't stand a chance against the US Military,

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

[LA Grant]

1 minute ago, DC Tom said:

 

You forgot the 1st, 6th, 8th, and 10th.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War

 

Ha. 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, LA Grant said:

 

Incorrect. Tyranny should certainly be a worry. But the fight against it doesn't look like you're imagining it.

 

Fighting against it does not begin by surrendering the very rights we're all born with. That's helping the cause of tyranny, not fighting it. 

 

1 minute ago, LA Grant said:

I'm saying that all of the weekend hunters combined on their best day don't stand a chance against the US Military, in the absurd scenario where it led to a modern revival of the fantasy version of the American Revolution.

 

This is where you're wrong. Did you not watch any of the wars fought in the last 17 years in the middle east? Have insurgents and rebels not been fighting off more powerful and better armed forces for over a decade and a half now? 

 

No one is arguing that militias or hunters are going to fight toe-to-toe with the US military. You forget our army is a volunteer one, comprised of citizens. Citizen soldiers who swear oaths to follow the constitution first, not the orders of their men. If a civil war breaks out in this country you're not going to get soldiers shooting civilians unless those soldiers are imported from other states, or other countries. Otherwise, you're going to see those very soldiers siding up with their fellow citizens. 

 

Legal gun owners are not the problem, no matter how much you wish to make it so. 

 

6 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

The fight against tyranny is vigilance, not your rifles.

 

Yes. And that vigilance includes watching out for slippery slope arguments built on emotional outrage that are really designed to rob us of our bedrock rights. 

 

Like the arguments you're making - despite claiming you're not. 

 

7 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

 It's the same damn message every time — Make it harder for these weapons to get in the wrong hands.

 

 

Yet so far all you've argued for is making it harder for LEGAL GUN OWNERS to get their hands on the weapons. Criminals, by definition, don't follow the law. 

 

People who legally purchased and own their firearms are not the problem. They're not your enemy. The enemy are the people lying to you in order to divide us, to get us to fight with each other rather than looking to solve the real problems facing this country. 

 

And the real problems facing this country are not legal gun owners. 

 

We don't need to change the constitution to protect people, we need to enforce it as intended. We haven't done that in decades. 

 

9 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

But because we don't want to inconvenience these men's fantasies or interrupt their gun cosplay in the basement, we will never consider it to be a problem or part of the solution when it comes to mass shootings. Guns are never the problem.

 

It has nothing to do with inconvenience. It has to do with our fundamental rights as Americans. You are advocating changing the laws of the country to engineer a different reality. That's an uphill slog that ultimately won't stop mass murder from occurring. But you're welcome to try. I fully support individual advocacy. 

[3rdnlng]

U.S. citizens vs. the military and all their might isn't going to happen. The government would not be able to use the extent of their war making equipment. In addition, military people are not going to engage in a shooting war with the populace. I picture scenarios like the Bundy Ranch situation as what might happen. Nobody can tell me that the armed ranchers didn't make the feds back down and let things play out in court. In the meantime, Cliven kept his cattle.

[LA Grant]

3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Yet so far all you've argued for is making it harder for LEGAL GUN OWNERS to get their hands on the weapons. Criminals, by definition, don't follow the law. 

 

This seems like the crux of it: The Parkland shooter wasn't a criminal until after he shot up the school and murdered people. Before that, he was a Legal Gun Owner.

 

How do you solve?

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

This seems like the crux of it: The Parkland shooter wasn't a criminal until after he shot up the school and murdered people. Before that, he was a Legal Gun Owner.

 

How do you solve?

 

That's a cop out. Literally. 

 

39 times authorities were warned. They ignored it. The system would have worked had they taken their jobs seriously. They didn't. 

 

Your solution is to let them off the hook and go after instead legal gun owners who have committed no crime. 

 

And in the process, that will undercut one of the most sacred inalienable rights in this country. That's how tyranny wins, not how you defend against it. 

[DC Tom]

5 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

This seems like the crux of it: The Parkland shooter wasn't a criminal until after he shot up the school and murdered people. Before that, he was a Legal Gun Owner.

 

How do you solve?

 

Seriously?  Nearly every state and municipality has methods by which the legal authorities can confiscate weapons based on a court finding of incapacity and/or danger.  Just yesterday here, an off-duty officer was shot and killed when he tried to help out in a domestic violence situation...shot five times with a shotgun wielded by a guy who had multiple DV complaints against him from his current and ex-wife, but was not disarmed as required under the law.  Similar two weeks ago - woman was shot by her husband, against whom she'd filed multiple DV complaints AND received a restraining order against him, which should have resulted in his firearms being confiscated had anyone bothered to enforce it.  

 

When you have THIRTY NINE complaints against you, there are plenty of mechanisms available.  

[Chandemonium]

44 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

I'm saying that all of the weekend hunters combined on their best day don't stand a chance against the US Military, in the absurd scenario where it led to a modern revival of the fantasy version of the American Revolution.

I said this yesterday in the other gun thread, but it's worth repeating here: this belief is all the more reason to support the second amendment. If you believe that in a worst case scenario where armed conflict is necessary to defend liberty the deck would be heavily stacked in favor of your oppressor, you should not willingly give up one of the few cards in your favor. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that freedom isn't worth defending because it might be difficult. I can empathize with that position because I think we're all afraid to die to varying degrees and likely more than we'd like to admit, but it's also ultimately an untenable position for those among us who believe that our freedom is literally the most important thing that we have.  You or I or anyone else don't get to make the choice for anyone else that their freedom isn't that important. I certainly don't fantasize about a modern armed revolution, in fact the prospect terrifies me, but the beauty of the second amendment is that it acts as a deterrent making a scenario where there's just cause for such a conflict less likely.

[BringBackOrton]

8 hours ago, Tiberius said:

We do it already all the time. Hand gun laws, laws against machine guns, etc.

Unacceptable. 

8 hours ago, KW95 said:

 

Yup, the safest method of transportation...Nice comparison. Too bad those 17 won't have a chance to fly on a plane anymore.

 

Was this an argument?

[TakeYouToTasker]

4 hours 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.

Pro-tip:  Acting like a petulant 12 year old and being louder than the person you're arguing with doesn't make your argument better.  You're still making the same bad argument, only now you're attracting more eyes to the bad argument so more people can see how bad it is.  This sort of thing might work for you on Facebook, but it won't work here.  No one is impressed with your litany of non-sequiturs, ad-homs, and various other fallacies and sundry of poor arguments.

 

On to the meat:  No.  I reject your basic premise.  The government should not take an activist role in the day to day lives of it's citizens outside of intentionally limited, specifically enumerated, and narrowly defined guidelines that are hard coded into law.  Centrally directed social experimentation conducted at the barrel of a gun holding a monopoly on force is the antithesis of a free people.  As such as many pains as possible should be taken to prevent exactly the situation you describe as ideal:  a mobile and activist government empowered to "fix" people based on the whims of a majority.

 

Our Founders understood this, which is exactly the reason they made the Constitution, our High Law, very difficult to change by design.  This is a feature of our brand of republican democracy, not a flaw.

 

And I'll agree with you that this is a major reason gun rights violations have been hard to achieve.  And it's a good thing.

 

 

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).

Again, no.  The government should not be engaging in all encompassing social experimentation, especially in instances where it violates the natural rights of it's citizens.  A government empowered to act in this way is a tool of tyrants.  A government empowered to act in this way with a disarmed populace is a beacon to bad actors as is an insect to a fire.

 

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.

I don't necessarily expect to win in a fire fight with my government.  I expect an armed populace standing up against it's government which relies on a civilian military to give it's government pause; and even if it does not grant pause, I am not prepared to live as a serf.  I understand that you don't think rights are important.  You don't even believe in the concept of rights, as upthread you alluded to the "privilege of gun ownership".  But I and others have a different view of freedom, a better understanding of history, and a firmer grasp of the fragility of the concept of freedom, which is still in it's infancy; and we have the Law on our side, along with the firearms the Law protects. 

 

Finally, you don't care a whit for those 17 dead children.  If you did, you'd be interested in solving the problem that killed them.  You aren't.  You're just grateful that they died so you'd have more stacked corpses to raise your pulpit on.

[Doc Brown]

35 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Pro-tip:  Acting like a petulant 12 year old and being louder than the person you're arguing with doesn't make your argument better.  You're still making the same bad argument, only now you're attracting more eyes to the bad argument so more people can see how bad it is.  This sort of thing might work for you on Facebook, but it won't work here.  No one is impressed with your litany of non-sequiturs, ad-homs, and various other fallacies and sundry of poor arguments.

 

On to the meat:  No.  I reject your basic premise.  The government should not take an activist role in the day to day lives of it's citizens outside of intentionally limited, specifically enumerated, and narrowly defined guidelines that are hard coded into law.  Centrally directed social experimentation conducted at the barrel of a gun holding a monopoly on force is the antithesis of a free people.  As such as many pains as possible should be taken to prevent exactly the situation you describe as ideal:  a mobile and activist government empowered to "fix" people based on the whims of a majority.

 

Our Founders understood this, which is exactly the reason they made the Constitution, our High Law, very difficult to change by design.  This is a feature of our brand of republican democracy, not a flaw.

 

And I'll agree with you that this is a major reason gun rights violations have been hard to achieve.  And it's a good thing.

 

Again, no.  The government should not be engaging in all encompassing social experimentation, especially in instances where it violates the natural rights of it's citizens.  A government empowered to act in this way is a tool of tyrants.  A government empowered to act in this way with a disarmed populace is a beacon to bad actors as is an insect to a fire.

 

I don't necessarily expect to win in a fire fight with my government.  I expect an armed populace standing up against it's government which relies on a civilian military to give it's government pause; and even if it does not grant pause, I am not prepared to live as a serf.  I understand that you don't think rights are important.  You don't even believe in the concept of rights, as upthread you alluded to the "privilege of gun ownership".  But I and others have a different view of freedom, a better understanding of history, and a firmer grasp of the fragility of the concept of freedom, which is still in it's infancy; and we have the Law on our side, along with the firearms the Law protects. 

I get the sense that you believe strongly in the libertarian philosophy.  Out of curiosity, what do you think of a Republican controlled federal government borrowing an estimated 955 trillion dollars this year?  Up 84% from last year and the most borrowed since 2012.

Edited February 23, 2018 by Doc Brown

[3rdnlng]

54 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

I get the sense that you believe strongly in the libertarian philosophy.  Out of curiosity, what do you think of a Republican controlled federal government borrowing an estimated 955 trillion dollars this year?  Up 84% from last year and the most borrowed since 2012.

I think it's horseshit and suggest they reduce that deficit by about 99%.

[TtownBillsFan]

10 hours ago, thebug said:

Fair enough.  

Oh Bull Poop dude.  You've been trying to kill people's inalienable rights from the get-go.  Now you just say, fair-enough?  You give up all that you've been arguing?  Good enough, don't need to see you say anything more then.  Thanks! *thumbs up!*

[3rdnlng]

1 minute ago, TtownBillsFan said:

Oh Bull Poop dude.  You've been trying to kill people's inalienable rights from the get-go.  Now you just say, fair-enough?  You give up all that you've been arguing?  Good enough, don't need to see you say anything more then.  Thanks! *thumbs up!*

Sounds like an honest statement. Keep that up and you'll gain a lot of respect here.

[Ol Dirty B]

17 hours ago, thebug said:

Oh come on, they have to protect themselves from their own great government. 

 

It's weird that the one's who want to protect themselves from their government are the ones so offended by people taking knees or peacefully protesting it...

 

I guess they have to grow a pair? I'm not sure

[Azalin]

9 minutes ago, Ol Dirty B said:

 

It's weird that the one's who want to protect themselves from their government are the ones so offended by people taking knees or peacefully protesting it...

 

I guess they have to grow a pair? I'm not sure

 

Can you be so kind as to cite a few examples of what the hell you're talking about?

 

When you say "grow a pair", do you mean that they need to embolden themselves to defend against possible government intrusion into their lives?

 

Or are you just being a dick?

 

 

[TtownBillsFan]

9 hours ago, LA Grant said:

 

No one wants your stupid firearms. No one is coming for your guns, you knob. No one is scared of "the people with all the guns." 

 

I don't know how this idea just won't pass through your doughy mind. NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOUR LOSER HOBBY SHOOTING BEER CANS IN THE WOODS. It is a false equivalency.

 

Guns are NOT PROTECTING YOU from some evil government dystopia. Good lord.  Legal Gun Owners are the softest people alive. Not just in the mid-section. In the brain.

 

Aw I'm sorry you're being mildly inconvenienced with message board posts you don't prefer! Life is so hard for you!

 

Don't worry. Go take gun from safe. Look at gun. Gun won't judge you. Gun thinks you're smart and cool.

No, he called you on your stuff.  If you believe that something needs changed, you're the one that laid out how it can be done.  Get enough people to pony up and change it.  Else, really, get bent.

9 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

Not acceptable. The reference was to pure evil from a SJW perspective.

 

Goddess-Queen Hillary is not pure evil, she is the victim of the misogynistic, racist, bigoted, hateful patriarchy that just exists to keep the poor liberal woman down.

No, she's straight-up evil.  I even feel a bit sorry for her slave-husband.  She is that kind of bad-person.

[Ol Dirty B]

19 minutes ago, Azalin said:

 

Can you be so kind as to cite a few examples of what the hell you're talking about?

 

When you say "grow a pair", do you mean that they need to embolden themselves to defend against possible government intrusion into their lives?

 

Or are you just being a dick?

 

 

 

No I'm not being a dick at all. 

 

People correctly cite the 2nd Amendment as a way for people to defend themselves against government intrusion. It just seems odd to me that so many of these people don't come from a lineage that has been racially oppressed, stigmatized, or profiled. I'd say those people have actually experienced government intrusion into their personal lives. Now those people, whether you agree with their grievances or not, have peacefully protested.

 

It drew a lot of venom from people, especially people who want to hold onto their guns because the government may intrude on their rights. They responded, instead of listening to those people, by dismissed their feelings, booing, swearing, ostracizing them, making shirts of the them with cross hairs over their head. Completely dismissing how those people may feel, what they may have experienced. A lot of 2nd Amendment people may have even just dismissed whatever police brutality they have seen videos of. That's government intrusion, I doubt you know the first thing of experiencing government intrusion. So many who proclaim they don't trust the government are trusting that said government over fellow citizens, but they need their AR15's because of that government, because they don't really trust that government.

 

It's the same thing as what the issue is with the left to an extent. You want to be the judge, and the jury. You can grasp the contradictory nature that most of yourselves are in. You are dismissing another persons grievance with the government, who is going about addressing them in a way that doesn't effect you at all. Yet, you are clinging to guns as a necessary to prevent the same government from being oppressive but hold in an esteem that couldn't be oppressive. So I can't wait for these people to be the ones who decide when it becomes okay to fight fire with fire.

 

EDIT - The grow a pair was referring to how people were so offended by a peaceful protest, yet seem to advocate for a right to start shooting government officials when they feel that it is appropriate. Their will never be a time when the latter is accepted at all. People need to understand the context of the time when the 2nd Amendment was constructed. We are not in that same development as a country anymore. Everyone who has ever raised arms against this country has been wrong. I'm not saying we should completely dismiss that point, but I do think people thinking they with their lil AR15 would stop this government from really oppressing us, are misguided, out of touch, and not the historical or Constitutional scholars they think they are.

 

 

Edited February 23, 2018 by Ol Dirty B

[TtownBillsFan]

8 hours ago, LA Grant said:

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. 

 

 

 

Inalienable means, regardless of your belief or disbelief in a God or god or whatever you do or don't believe in, the rights are ours, as people, period.  NOT GIVEN to us by government, NOT up for debate.  THEY ARE OUR RIGHTS BECAUSE WE EXIST.  Therefore, cannot be taken away.

[Ol Dirty B]

5 minutes ago, TtownBillsFan said:

Inalienable means, regardless of your belief or disbelief in a God or god or whatever you do or don't believe in, the rights are ours, as people, period.  NOT GIVEN to us by government, NOT up for debate.  THEY ARE OUR RIGHTS BECAUSE WE EXIST.  Therefore, cannot be taken away.

 

As many other liberal states have shown, gun ownership is not an inalieable right under social contract theory.

 

I'm not advocating for all guns to be taken away or anything like that. I'm fine with concealed carry, and plenty of other things. But what you are saying is philosophically incorrect. You are taking inalienable rights to an extreme. I have plenty of rights because I exist, if I am stronger than you I could take your property. However, because we enter into a social contract by being in a society we forfeit somethings.

 

Also, with the caps and stuff for emphasis.. You've been reading too many Trump tweets man. They make you look childish and like you've only read really simplistic literature on what you're talking about. 

Edited February 23, 2018 by Ol Dirty B

[Ol Dirty B]

5 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Once you give up a right, you will NEVER GET IT BACK. We've seen that with the 4th and 5th. Now you're talking about the 2nd. 

 

The Bill of Rights are different than the rest of the amendments because of their provenance and history. This is what you're still failing to get. This country was founded to protect the people from over reach by tyranny which - until the formation of the Bill of Rights (which were influenced by centuries of philosophy and enlightenment thinking and formed the foundation for democracies in all shapes and forms across the globe) tyranny was the norm. Not the exception. 

 

What you're suggesting is that we've progressed to a point as a society where tyranny isn't a real worry anymore. That these bedrock rights, which fundamentally reshaped the world, aren't necessary anymore. They're fungible. 

 

That's incredibly shortsighted. Governments today have more power and capability than ever before to oppress us. We've seen it in this country, let alone the rest of the world. I argue the principles and ideals laid out in the BoR are more crucial to protect today than any other point in our history. 

 

 

How much Glenn Beck do you listen to?

[TtownBillsFan]

5 hours ago, LA Grant said:

 

Incorrect. Tyranny should certainly be a worry. But the fight against it doesn't look like you're imagining it. I'm saying that all of the weekend hunters combined on their best day don't stand a chance against the US Military, in the absurd scenario where it led to a modern revival of the fantasy version of the American Revolution. The fight against tyranny is vigilance, not your rifles. Having an AR-15 is no help in that scenario, and it's also a pointless hunting weapon. All it does is be the widely available weapon of choice for mass shooters in America. It's the same damn message every time — Make it harder for these weapons to get in the wrong hands.

 

But because we don't want to inconvenience these men's fantasies or interrupt their gun cosplay in the basement, we will never consider it to be a problem or part of the solution when it comes to mass shootings. Guns are never the problem.

Jackass, it's people that believe in the BoR that protects us.  It's the fact that people that serve in our military do so, to protect the BoR in total.  I think it's the very people that you seem to fear that protect your rights to espouse your goofy beliefs.  Without them, you couldn't espouse the liberal douchebaggery.

23 minutes ago, Ol Dirty B said:

 

As many other liberal states have shown, gun ownership is not an inalieable right under social contract theory.

 

I'm not advocating for all guns to be taken away or anything like that. I'm fine with concealed carry, and plenty of other things. But what you are saying is philosophically incorrect. You are taking inalienable rights to an extreme. I have plenty of rights because I exist, if I am stronger than you I could take your property. However, because we enter into a social contract by being in a society we forfeit somethings.

 

Also, with the caps and stuff for emphasis.. You've been reading too many Trump tweets man. They make you look childish and like you've only read really simplistic literature on what you're talking about. 

You're both right and wrong.  Our founders put it in there for a reason, b/c it was the way the average person could defend themselves at the time.  Guns are still the way we can defend ourselves, regardless of size.  You don't know me, I don't know you.  The weapon is the ultimate equalizer.

[Ol Dirty B]

22 minutes ago, TtownBillsFan said:

Jackass, it's people that believe in the BoR that protects us.  It's the fact that people that serve in our military do so, to protect the BoR in total.  I think it's the very people that you seem to fear that protect your rights to espouse your goofy beliefs.  Without them, you couldn't espouse the liberal douchebaggery.

 

Wow man... You're just so wrong on so many levels.

In my experience, people who have served in the military have been most respectful of people displaying opposing view points. That being said, most of the people I know are under 35 or so. So Vietnam Veterans I think had a completely different experience.

 

Secondly, I know a lot of Vets, who have gone on to be cops and currently serve in law enforcement who don't abide by all the stuff you are saying. You're clearly not educated. The Bill of Rights, first of all doesn't mean that all must go on forever. They mostly are, but they aren't more important than all the other amendments to the Constitution. Do you know about Strict Scrutiny, Intermediate and Rational Basis? The Bill of Rights is pretty much all Strict scrutiny but so are amendments that came afterwards. I don't think you really understand the Bill of Rights is a legal document subject to change when appropriate. It is not something we can never change because it deals with natural rights. 

Edited February 23, 2018 by Ol Dirty B

[TtownBillsFan]

1 hour ago, Ol Dirty B said:

 

It's weird that the one's who want to protect themselves from their government are the ones so offended by people taking knees or peacefully protesting it...

 

I guess they have to grow a pair? I'm not sure

Come on, you know better than that.  It's not only about protecting one or 'ourselves' against the government, it's about protecting rights.  And the 'taking a knee' fight has been argued to death.  You know that's a false-flag man, don't do that.

[LA Grant]

4 minutes ago, TtownBillsFan said:

Jackass, it's people that believe in the BoR that protects us.  It's the fact that people that serve in our military do so, to protect the BoR in total.  I think it's the very people that you seem to fear that protect your rights to espouse your goofy beliefs.  Without them, you couldn't espouse the liberal douchebaggery.

 

Once again, here's a lovely example of veterans who served in our military fighting in Iraq strongly encouraging gun reform. Don't take it from me, take it from a couple of vets you love to casually assume the responsibility of speaking for. Unlike you, they don't claim to speak for everyone, and unlike you, they are coherent. But still worth a listen.

 

 

 

44 minutes ago, TtownBillsFan said:

No, he called you on your stuff.  If you believe that something needs changed, you're the one that laid out how it can be done.  Get enough people to pony up and change it.  Else, really, get bent.

No, she's straight-up evil.  I even feel a bit sorry for her slave-husband.  She is that kind of bad-person.

 

 

You're an idiot.

 

3 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

On to the meat:  No.  I reject your basic premise.  The government should not take an activist role in the day to day lives of it's citizens outside of intentionally limited, specifically enumerated, and narrowly defined guidelines that are hard coded into law.  Centrally directed social experimentation conducted at the barrel of a gun holding a monopoly on force is the antithesis of a free people.  As such as many pains as possible should be taken to prevent exactly the situation you describe as ideal:  a mobile and activist government empowered to "fix" people based on the whims of a majority.

 

Then there truly is nothing more to say to each other. You're a hardcore fundamentalist, arguably extremist in some of the views you laid out as most people do believe government should play a role in shaping society and protecting people. I'm leftist, obviously, but also a pragmatist. Government can do things that other institutions can't. I'd rather see the government take action than hope that all gun sellers will independently develop the conscience to work harder to not make sales, but hey, maybe your way will work.

 

Since you clearly believe government should have no role in restricting gun access or addressing gun violence, but still want to beat your chest sanctimoniously that, in spite of all the evidence, you actually care about the murdered more than anyone else here, I'm eager to hear about how you will be helping to address the myriad issues you raised... let's see, what was that quote...

 

Quote

Finally, you don't care a whit for those 17 dead children.  If you did, you'd be interested in solving the problem that killed them.  You aren't.  You're just grateful that they died so you'd have more stacked corpses to raise your pulpit on.

 

OH yeah, this. Assuming you weren't just saying this to try to gain the unearned moral high ground in an online argument, can't wait to hear how you will be solving the problem that killed them!! Lay it on us, Tasker, you are the smartest man in the room -- it says so right below your name.

3 minutes ago, Ol Dirty B said:

 

Wow man... You're just so wrong on so many levels.

In my experience, people who have served in the military have been most respectful of people displaying opposing view points. That being said, most of the people I know are under 35 or so. So Vietnam Veterans I think had a completely different experience.

 

Secondly, I know a lot of Vets, who have gone on to be cops and currently serve in law enforcement who don't abide by all the stuff you are saying. You're clearly not educated. The Bill of Rights, first of all doesn't mean that all must go on forever. They mostly are, but they aren't more important than all the other amendments to the Constitution. Do you know about Strict Scrutiny, Intermediate and Rational Basis? The Bill of Right's is pretty much all Strict scrutiny but so are amendments that came afterwards. I don't think you really understand the Bill of Rights is a legal document subject to change when appropriate. It is not something we can never change because it deals with natural rights. 

 

I have the same experience. I've never heard the actual veterans in my life ever come close to sounding nearly as close-minded as the people that pretend to speak for "the troops." 

 

I've also never personally known a veteran who really liked firing guns or being around guns or was casual about the idea of death. The people I've known who have had those experiences would be called "snowflakes" etc on this board of he-men gun-lovers.

[Ol Dirty B]

21 minutes ago, TtownBillsFan said:

Jackass, it's people that believe in the BoR that protects us.  It's the fact that people that serve in our military do so, to protect the BoR in total.  I think it's the very people that you seem to fear that protect your rights to espouse your goofy beliefs.  Without them, you couldn't espouse the liberal douchebaggery.

You're both right and wrong.  Our founders put it in there for a reason, b/c it was the way the average person could defend themselves at the time.  Guns are still the way we can defend ourselves, regardless of size.  You don't know me, I don't know you.  The weapon is the ultimate equalizer.

 

They also put it in there because the country was a bunch of factions, and still wanted to cling to their own militias. The country was in a much weaker state than I think most actually think can conceive of at that point. The south was weary of the north, agrarian regions were paranoid of cities. And then on top of all that, you had the Spanish and Napoleon lurking to the south, and Great Britain still in Canada. We owed money to everyone, we couldn't pay soldiers, our currency was sinking. It was inconceivable that we great into what we did. 

 

There was no way at the time of writing the Constitution that it could pass without the 2nd Amendment. No one would have believed the government had goodwill or their interests at heart, especially after what just happened with England and the oppressive measures he took. It's a great document, but it is a reactionary one.

Edited February 23, 2018 by Ol Dirty B

[TakeYouToTasker]

3 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

I get the sense that you believe strongly in the libertarian philosophy.  Out of curiosity, what do you think of a Republican controlled federal government borrowing an estimated 955 trillion dollars this year?  Up 84% from last year and the most borrowed since 2012.

I'm happy to answer that elsewhere, or in PMs, but I don't want to drag this thread of target by turning it into that thread.

 

11 minutes ago, Ol Dirty B said:

 

They also put it in there because the country was a bunch of factions, and still wanted to cling to their own militias. The country was in a much weaker state than I think most actually think can conceive of at that point. The south was weary of the north, agrarian regions were paranoid of cities. And then on top of all that, you had the Spanish and Napoleon lurking to the south, and Great Britain still in Canada. We owed money to everyone, we couldn't pay soldiers, our currency was sinking. It was inconceivable that we great into what we did. 

 

There was no way at the time of writing the Constitution that it could pass without the 2nd Amendment. No one would have believed the government had goodwill or their interests at heart, especially after what just happened with England and the oppressive measures he took. It's a great document, but it is a reactionary one.

...

 

Are you really making the argument that the Founders wanted to impose strict gun laws on Americans, but were prevented from doing so because of the immediate post-war strains of a new nation?

Edited February 23, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[LA Grant]

5 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

Seriously?  Nearly every state and municipality has methods by which the legal authorities can confiscate weapons based on a court finding of incapacity and/or danger.  Just yesterday here, an off-duty officer was shot and killed when he tried to help out in a domestic violence situation...shot five times with a shotgun wielded by a guy who had multiple DV complaints against him from his current and ex-wife, but was not disarmed as required under the law.  Similar two weeks ago - woman was shot by her husband, against whom she'd filed multiple DV complaints AND received a restraining order against him, which should have resulted in his firearms being confiscated had anyone bothered to enforce it.  

 

When you have THIRTY NINE complaints against you, there are plenty of mechanisms available.  

 

And yet those methods clearly did not work, right? These measures were ineffective, despite the THIRTY NINE complaints in this instance where the gunman was practically waving a "I'm going to shoot up the school" flag, and obviously this problem isn't an isolated incident, as you point out.

 

So, tell me: if the current measures are ineffective, then what?

7 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

I'm happy to answer that elsewhere, or in PMs, but I don't want to drag this thread of target by turning it into that thread.

 

...

 

Are you really making the argument that the Founders wanted to impose strict gun laws on Americans, but were prevented from doing so because of the immediate post-war strains of a new nation?

 

Seriously? How bad is your reading comprehension that this is what you took from ODB's post?

[Ol Dirty B]

11 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

I'm happy to answer that elsewhere, or in PMs, but I don't want to drag this thread of target by turning it into that thread.

...

 

Are you really making the argument that the Founders wanted to impose strict gun laws on Americans, but were prevented from doing so because of the immediate post-war strains of a new nation?

 

No that's not what I'm saying at all. It's actually a joke that you would make my post out to be that.

 

What my post is saying, is that they were in a place where they were all thinking that they needed to give citizen's the right to arm themselves or the Constitution would have never passed. It's actually pretty simple history, and why it was such a tough debate for Washington on how to handle Shay's Rebellion and the Whisky Rebellion. Their was a general paranoia and lack of trust. I'm not even going to go off further on it, because you are trying to make me get off my point and I won't be taken into the weeds by some pseudo historian simpleton. Be insulted, because the way you took my post and twisted it into something is to me. 

 

It's really a joke, and I don't throw people on ignore. But if you're going to misconstrue what I'm saying to that extent, I'm just going to put you on ignore.

 

Instead of saying something to me, why don't you answer the question Doc Brown posed to you? Your political commentary is as bad as your namesakes Football.

 

 

Edited February 23, 2018 by Ol Dirty B

[TtownBillsFan]

I'm not going to quote LA anymore, as I'm not giving that jackarse the enjoyment.  And Old dirty B can't possibly believe what he/she/it says.  The country was in such a state because of factions, but these factions banged out this constitution thing.  The very thing many of us are trying to argue for.  I just can't understand the arguments.

 

[LA Grant]

Just now, TtownBillsFan said:

I'm not going to quote LA anymore, as I'm not giving that jackarse the enjoyment.  And Old dirty B can't possibly believe what he/she/it says.  The country was in such a state because of factions, but these factions banged out this constitution thing.  The very thing many of us are trying to argue for.  I just can't understand the arguments.

 

 

We're aware.

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 minutes ago, Ol Dirty B said:

 

No that's not what I'm saying at all. It's actually a joke that you would make my post out to be that.

 

What my post is saying, is that they were in a place where they were all thinking that they needed to give citizen's the right to arm themselves or the Constitution would have never passed. It's actually pretty simple history, and why it was such a tough debate for Washington on how to handle Shay's Rebellion and the Whisky Rebellion. Their was a general paranoia and lack of trust. I'm not even going to go off further on it, because you are trying to make me get off my point and I won't be taken into the weeds by some pseudo historian simpleton. Be insulted, because the way you took my post and twisted it into something is to me. 

That's exactly what you're saying.

 

You're literally saying here:  "they needed to give citizen's the right"  that the Founders felt it was government's place to dictate to the people what their rights were.

 

And here:  "...to arm themselves or the Constitution would have never passed." that the Founders considered another path in relation to the right to bear arms, but were prevented from doing so because the couldn't have ratified the Constitution if they did.

 

There is no other idea you could be communicating with those words.

 

[LA Grant]

1 hour ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

That's exactly what you're saying.

 

You're literally saying here:  "they needed to give citizen's the right"  that the Founders felt it was government's place to dictate to the people what their rights were.

 

And here:  "...to arm themselves or the Constitution would have never passed." that the Founders considered another path in relation to the right to bear arms, but were prevented from doing so because the couldn't have ratified the Constitution if they did.

 

There is no other idea you could be communicating with those words.

 

 

Tasker, I know you're earnestly going for the "Junior Glenn Beck/Constitutional Historian with a GED" thing but would love to hear your thoughts on the future, not just your misinterpretations of the past.

 

In case you missed this earlier invitation to spread your wisdom, here it is again:

 

Quote

 

Since you clearly believe government should have no role in restricting gun access or addressing gun violence, but still want to beat your chest sanctimoniously that, in spite of all the evidence, you actually care about the murdered more than anyone else here, I'm eager to hear about how you will be helping to address the myriad issues you raised... let's see, what was that quote...

 

  Quote

Finally, you don't care a whit for those 17 dead children.  If you did, you'd be interested in solving the problem that killed them.  You aren't.  You're just grateful that they died so you'd have more stacked corpses to raise your pulpit on.

 

OH yeah, this. Assuming you weren't just saying this to try to gain the unearned moral high ground in an online argument, can't wait to hear how you will be solving the problem that killed them!! Lay it on us, Tasker, you are the smartest man in the room -- it says so right below your name.

 

 

While you're at it Tasker — go ahead and explain why you're paraphrasing Wayne LaPierre and passing off the NRA head's words as your own?

 

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

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

 

Can't wait to hear your own original ideas, Tasker, for how we will fix the problem without doing anything differently with guns!! (I understand if you need to wait to answer before Glenn Beck or the NRA tell you what to say, based on your learning disabilities)

 

I know you can't but I'd love to see you try to prove that you aren't the useless, lying, simple weasel that you've shown yourself to be here. You stupid POS.

Edited February 23, 2018 by LA Grant