TakeYouToTasker

In true form, for someone with "nothing left to say", you sure have a lot left to say. Lies are par for the course with you. Your methods are so intellectually dishonest that you can't even help yourself. And that's fine, Grant, because I'm not actually arguing with you. You're a true believer with no hope of being reached., and there's no point in discussion with people like that, because they aren't interested in discussion. What I'm doing is systematically dismantling your arguments, and exposing you for what you are. I'll continue to do so now: This is the last ditch efforts of a man who has lost his arguments on their merits, and is now attempting to poison the well. A logical fallacy. Your argument was disassembled, so you're now attempting to malign the person whose argument bested yours by labeling them with words holding negative connotations. This won't fly here. Make better arguments. This is a red herring, as well as an unsourced fiat declaration. Even if "most people do believe government" should play this role, which is completely unsubstantiated, it implies that they believe government should intervene in the way you prescribe, and towards the ends you prefer. This is utter nonsense. There is tremendous political polarization in this country across multiple belief systems. White Nationalists "believe government should play a role in shaping society and protecting people", Christian Conservatives "believe government should play a role in shaping society and protecting people"; though they have an entirely different idea of what that looks like. It should also serve to note that your position on the proper role of government, and your stance against natural rights, empowers them to establish an apartheid state or theocracy respectively. Nearly all rational actors are pragmatic in pursuit of their priori, assuming their priori are rational. Your priori are not rational, as they are not internally logically consistent, so no, you are not pragmatic. Like start wars, enslave a population by writ, practice apartheid, imprison political enemies, criminalize religion, place it's citizens into prison camps, engage in human trafficking, initiate ethnic cleansing, and all other manner of atrocities which can only be committed in sustained ways by governments as governments are a monopoly on power. It's important for the reader to note that these aren't things that happened in the distant past, and are no longer relevant today. These are practices governments around the world engage in today. And these things can happen here. Americans are not somehow better or different than other populations, therefore preventing these things. America's institutions and traditions, backed by our Constitution have historically been better, and make it harder to weaponize our government towards those ends. Changing our institutions and traditions by eliminating Constitutional protections removes those protections. Here you again try to frame your priori, the desire to remove guns from society, as the default desirable outcome for a successful argument. Again, I reject your premise. Make more skillful arguments. You haven't made a single argument in favor of diagnosing, treating, and helping the mentally ill. If Nikolas Cruz was had been unable to commit his act in that place, on that day; the problem would not have been solved. Nikolas Cruz was a ticking time bomb because he is a broken, angry, isolated, and mentally ill young man. Your non-solution leaves Nikolas Cruz, broken as he was, out there in the world, waiting to commit an atrocity. It also ignores that fact that existing laws in place should have prevented his actions. That they did not was not a failure in the non-existence of laws, it was a failure to execute existing laws. Would you pass a law stating the law needed to be followed? Then, after the failure to follow that law, pass a new law stating the law which states the law must be followed, must be followed? Of course not. You're dishonest, but you're not stupid. Which is what exposes you for what you are: Your goal is not to prevent gun violence. Your goal is to remove guns from society in order to make it easier for the government of your desires to impose your philosophies on the disarmed masses. You're a leftist, a fact you admit. You wish to use the powers of government in an activist manner to enforce your world view, fact you admit. You believe it to be problematic that our system, specifically the Second Amendment, makes it difficult for people who believe as you do to impose themselves on the world, a fact you admit. You're standing on the bodies of dead children promoting Marxism. You have no moral high ground. Quite the opposite.

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.

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?

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. 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.

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."

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.

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 Document is permitted to be changed, not intended to be changed. Intended changes would have made at the time of ratification. Intended changes like, for instance, adding the Bill or Rights. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution because it could not have been ratified without it. It was understood by all in attendance of the Convention that the right to self-defense and the defense of rights against oppressors was the absolute sacred right of the People. Those opposed to adding the Bill of Rights asserted that what we now deem to be "Second Amendment rights" were so obvious and intrinsic that their protection need not be encoded, as the body of the Document itself did not permit the federal government the power to infringe on that obvious natural right (and all other rights enumerated in the BoR), and knowing the despotism of the Leviathan, feared a possible future in which the People enjoyed only the rights specifically enumerated which went against their intentions. Those who did insist on it for ratification did so because they also knew the despotism of the Leviathan, and foresaw a possible future in which the government recognized no rights not specifically enumerated. Both fears wound up being valid, with the advantage of hindsight. The compromise was the 10th Amendment. The purpose of the Amendment process was not to eliminate of modify the rights of Americans. The purpose, in relation to the natural rights, is carefully spelled out in the Document's pre-amble. The first words of the Document, which tell's you of their importance to those writing it: "...to...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." This "Liberty" outlined in the Declaration of Independence is defined as not coming from government, but instead being inborn, intrinsic, and inalienable (meaning inseparable from the holder). The Founders never intended the Amendment process to remove rights from it's citizens. They quite clearly didn't believe that any just form of government even had that authority. The had, in fact, just fought a war for the very purpose of establishing that fact. The Amendment process was included for three reasons: 1) the compromise over slavery was untenable, and they knew they needed to leave room for changes as liberty grew, 2) the were creating a new form of government structurally, and had the desire to make if possible to reform roles, duties, and checks and balances as became necessary, and 3) they feared the expansion of government over the People it intended to govern, and wished to leave the ability to add to the list of enumerated rights in the likely even that government grew to bold. That's not a factual counter argument addressing any of the points or concerns raised, it's a fiat declaration based on nothing more than your own feelings. And it's not very bright. I'm going to go ahead and stick with my argument, because yours isn't very impressive.

Correct. The Founders, men of their own time, were not perfect. They failed to live up to our 21st century understanding of their actions. That's how history works. The modern concept of freedom, self-determination, and natural rights protected by government is only 250 years old on the entire timeline of human history. Think about that: 200,000 years of human history, and until only 250 years ago all but a handful of individuals owned nothing (they had no right to property as we understand it), and lived in serfdom and servitude to those handful of individuals who were free, largely, to do as they pleased to the masses with impunity. So yes, our Founders were late to the party in regards to other races; but in the timeline of our history, that party only started about 3 minutes ago, and now that the minorities have arrived, we're thrilled to have them here, and are sorry they weren't able to get here earlier because we gave them bad directions. But you know what? They're here now with the rest of us, and we're all better off for it... and by the way, did I mention the party only started 3 minutes ago? Stop bitching and grab a !@#$ing beer. I thought it was a pretty good joke. But to the meat: I really don't need to do better. I have historical evidence outlining the Founders' intentions in regard to the Second, have a reading level higher than a 5th grade understanding, and I know how to diagram a sentence.

An argument that tortures language, modifies history to it's own ends, and disregards the purpose of the Amendment in question; but sure, and "argument" can be made. Poor arguments can be made in favor of just about anything. This place demonstrates that quite adequately by the hour.

That was left intentionally vague, as our Founders believed the First to be as important as the Second. For the purpose of our Constitution it simply means that your rights are intrinsic to your humanity, and you've had them from your first moment of existence. That they are yours naturally, it is tyrannical to separate you from them, and as such a legitimate and just government cannot deprive you of them.

Interesting position. In relation to the Second Amendment this can only be an assertion that people are different than they were 300 years ago in their desires. Today there must be: No despots seeking to enrich themselves and insulate themselves from consequences at the expense of the People, no movement to squash political speech, no massive corruption and criminality in government, no government entities engaging in human trafficking, no war with other nations, no nations hostile towards America. These were the reasons for the Second Amendment, so if the Second is antiquated, all of those issues must have been solved?

The relevant purpose, as framed by the Second Amendment, is to kill humans engaging in a certain type of behavior or to deter them from behaving in a way that might lead to their death, not to kill indiscriminately. I think if we're to ever have a reasonable discussion about gun violence, the equivalency of the desire to protect natural rights and a lack of caring about mass shootings needs to be addressed.

This encapsulates the entirety of the "You aren't an honest bargaining partner, so I'm not willing to negotiate with you," position that rights activists take. I couldn't possibly have made my argument any better than you just made it for me. Thank you for that.

Your lead is to insult me and accuse me of plagiarism? !@#$ you. And as if that wasn't bad enough, you've strawmanned my argument as well. My argument, which is constantly born out by gun grabbers who admit they want to see gun bans as implemented in the UK and Australia, is that concessions by rights advocates are nothing more than the slow drip of incrementalism towards those ends. Further, your introduction of the phrase "reasonable controls" is nothing more than the introduction of prejudicial language by fiat. Nothing about the infringements of rights is "reasonable". In fact, it's the absolute lack of reason for anyone seeking to live in a free society. Finally, I am not obligated to allow you and others to infringe on my rights to what you consider a small degree (I don't find it small at all) in order to see if you take the proverbial mile when given an inch. My rights are mine to exercise as I see fit, and you have no say in the matter.

Mayock is saying "I was right about Carson Wentz, so give me your clicks."

If I correctly remember the position of draftniks at that time, there was "no Carson Wentz" in Carson Wentz's draft either.

Your argument defines the need precisely. The Second Amendment exists to protect the rights of Americans. You seek to use the power of government top infringe on the rights of Americans. Guns like the AR-15 are a wonderful tool for defending those rights by making holes in the people trying to infringe on them.

The Second Amendment isn't about home security. It's about rights, and the natural and just authority each human has to defend them. The Second Amendment is the defense to the others, which ultimately is why gun grabbers want the guns. Gun grabbers would prefer to dictate to society how they will live, what they will say and not say, etc. Gun ownership prevents them from having their way, because you can't impose restrictions on my speech if you're dead. In these times where we see a concerted effort from the left to reduce rights to privileges in terms of speech, religious liberty, privacy, etc. the Second Amendment is as important as ever; as when the left legislates the denial of natural rights, that's when it's time to shoot them.

You aren't asking for a compromise. You're asking for gun owners for abrogate their rights with nothing being given up by the other side. This is the very definition of a slippery slope. It's the reason Second Amendment groups make the slippery slope argument. You're stating the end goal of gun grabbers is a ban, and then asking to take steps towards that ban, while gun owners know full well what the end goal is, and as such are not willing to negotiate the restriction of their rights with a dishonest bargaining partner. They know any concession established "the new normal" which will then be pushed to represent the "extreme position" with new demands made, further eroding natural rights. This is a fact, and as much as you might dislike the argument, it's a valid argument. Further, there will never be a full ban. Not so long as rights advocates refuse to come to the table, stating their rights are non-negotiable. The nature of guns and a uniquely American culture placing a high priority on liberty prevents it.

Gun violence is far more common in gun free zones. Regardless, this still doesn't address the issue, which is mental health.

There's no difference. The former simply saves key strokes. More efficient. Very similar to how I'm taking the time to respond to you, even though you're an intellectually dishonest dope; where as Tom would simply call you an idiot. Same end goal, he's just more efficient.

Their certainly are mental issues associated with the violence seen coming from Muslim communities. The problems, however are wide spread. Massive percentages of the Muslim global population take no issue with the "policy preferences" advanced by groups like ISIS. This in combination with a major self-destructive cultural/biological problem (roughly half the world's Muslim population show serious genetic markers of inbreeding) make for trouble.

Well, Grant, that's because guns are not the causal issue. Mass shootings are a symptom. They are not a gun problem, they are a mental health problem. Nor are they a uniquely American problem, nor are they more frequent in America than European nations with more restrictive gun laws, nor are they an epidemic. They are a sad, and tragic occurrence; and we should work towards identifying troubled and isolated kids exhibiting the pathology of a "shooter" and help them. That's how you solve the problem, if you're actually interested in solving the problem. My suspicion is, however, that you don't actually have any desire to solve the problem, that you don't care a drop for any of the families impacted by this tragedy, and instead are simply stacking up the still warm corpses of dead children to build a pulpit from which you can demagogue about your pet political issue.

An truly convincing argument: "I can't dispute a single fact presented, and I'm an emotional and self-righteous dickhead, so I'll call names instead." I am convinced. Where should I turn over my firearms? I do thank you for your asshattery, however, because while your particular brand of howling into your facebook echo chamber won't do a thing to take a single gun off the street, prevent a single gun death, or help a mentally ill child, what it does do, very effectively, is put gun owners on the further defensive. And that's fine, stupid as it may be to pick a fight with the people with all the guns.