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

[thebug]

2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

From what I've heard, they come like really quick, so you might want to reconsider. I can see a lot of $1000 days in your future.

They come “like” really quick?  Are you “like” 14? 

[LA Grant]

Just now, thebug said:

They come “like” really quick?  Are you “like” 14? 

 

Check out his exchange with me somewhere around page 11 where he talks about cumming in his pants based on one of my posts.

[BringBackOrton]

Just now, LA Grant said:

 

a) The reason the "gun control won't work in the US" doesn't fly is because it has literally never been tried. Not on a national level, not comparable to preventive measures similar to DMV, etc etc etc, I've said all this already. Page one. 

 

By the way, your response to this will be "What about Chicago" so let's save us both a step and refute you now:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/glanton/ct-met-gun-control-chicago-dahleen-glanton-20171003-story.html

https://www.npr.org/2017/10/05/555580598/fact-check-is-chicago-proof-that-gun-laws-don-t-work

 

b) The "shall not be infringed" does not work because it's already infringed. You can't own a land mine, which is an Arm. You can own a grenade launcher, but you need background checks, license, registration. 

 

If you agree that's a necessary limitation for grenade launchers, it should be easy to agree it's also a necessary limitation for all Arms, assuming that you agree mass shootings are a problem (I know you personally do not, you've already said that you consider those to be acceptable casualties, but if 'you' were reasonable, you might agree it's a problem).

 

If you think there should be no limitations on any Amendments, then you also think there should be no limitations on the First Amendment. This would mean you disagree with the Supreme Court's decisions to ban all sorts of speech under 1A, including child pornography, even though adult pornography & lewd speech is still covered under the First Amendment. Therefore, your arguments that guns should not be restricted also means you are arguing that child pornography should not be restricted. If this is your belief, then you should state it as such. If it is not your belief, you should try to untangle this contradiction in your mind and figure out what it is that you actually believe. Try to do better than "i like guns, they keep me free, don't tread on me." 

 

Understand? Of course you don't. You're just parroting catch phrases. I'm arguing with a parrot.

So the argument is "let's try to ban the unbannable and waste all of our time when there are clear reasons it won't work?"  Okay.  Well, no thanks.

 

Wrong.  The Amendments were drafted with intent. That intent matters.  I don't think there should be any limits on the Second Amendment, because the government and the governed must be on the same playing field to prevent tyranny, as the founders intended.  That doesn't mean I think something absurd, like perjury should be protected under the First Amendment.  Because that's not what the founders intended.

 

See the difference?

[thebug]

1 minute ago, LA Grant said:

 

Check out his exchange with me somewhere around page 11 where he talks about cumming in his pants based on one of my posts.

You sure that wasn’t Boyst? 

[3rdnlng]

3 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

a) The reason the "gun control won't work in the US" doesn't fly is because it has literally never been tried. Not on a national level, not comparable to preventive measures similar to DMV, etc etc etc, I've said all this already. Page one. 

 

By the way, your response to this will be "What about Chicago" so let's save us both a step and refute you now:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/glanton/ct-met-gun-control-chicago-dahleen-glanton-20171003-story.html

https://www.npr.org/2017/10/05/555580598/fact-check-is-chicago-proof-that-gun-laws-don-t-work

 

b) The "shall not be infringed" does not work because it's already infringed. You can't own a land mine, which is an Arm. You can own a grenade launcher, but you need background checks, license, registration. 

 

If you agree that's a necessary limitation for grenade launchers, it should be easy to agree it's also a necessary limitation for all Arms, assuming that you agree mass shootings are a problem (I know you personally do not, you've already said that you consider those to be acceptable casualties, but if 'you' were reasonable, you might agree it's a problem).

 

If you think there should be no limitations on any Amendments, then you also think there should be no limitations on the First Amendment. This would mean you disagree with the Supreme Court's decisions to ban all sorts of speech under 1A, including child pornography, even though adult pornography & lewd speech is still covered under the First Amendment. Therefore, your arguments that guns should not be restricted also means you are arguing that child pornography should not be restricted. If this is your belief, then you should state it as such. If it is not your belief, you should try to untangle this contradiction in your mind and figure out what it is that you actually believe. Try to do better than "i like guns, they keep me free, don't tread on me." 

 

Understand? Of course you don't. You're just parroting catch phrases. I'm arguing with a parrot.

I don't know if you know it but you have lost everyone here. Earlier in this thread I tried to explain to you that you had lost everybody with your bs. Now, if everyone sorta thinks how I do, we don't give a **** what you say.

[LA Grant]

8 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:

So the argument is "let's try to ban the unbannable and waste all of our time when there are clear reasons it won't work?"  Okay.  Well, no thanks.

 

Wrong.  The Amendments were drafted with intent. That intent matters.  I don't think there should be any limits on the Second Amendment, because the government and the governed must be on the same playing field to prevent tyranny, as the founders intended.  That doesn't mean I think something absurd, like perjury should be protected under the First Amendment.  Because that's not what the founders intended.

 

See the difference?

 

a) Are you able to differentiate between "ban" and "restriction"? If so, please explain the difference, because you continue to use the terms interchangeably when they have vastly different meanings. 

 

b) Ahhh, "what the founders intended." Interesting. Just a moment ago, you were advocating for strict adherence to the letter of the law. Now you're arguing "intent." Here, JMC, this is easy: you're either arguing for your liberty to own child pornography, or you're arguing that the Founders intended for school shootings as a necessity for a free country. Which is it?

 

7 minutes ago, thebug said:

You sure that wasn’t Boyst? 

 

Ahahaha. You would think so, but not this time, surprisingly.

Edited February 25, 2018 by LA Grant

[3rdnlng]

2 minutes ago, thebug said:

You sure that wasn’t Boyst? 

No it was me. He said he was leaving and I said it brought a tingle to my leg, but after his thoughts of golden showers I said that maybe I came, instead knowing that he was leaving here.Just locker room talk, like I grabbed his kitty, because I could.

[BringBackOrton]

4 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

a) Are you able to differentiate between "ban" and "restriction"? If so, please explain the difference, because you continue to use the terms interchangeably when they have vastly different meanings. 

 

b) Ahhh, "what the founders intended." Interesting. Just a moment ago, you were advocating for strict adherence to the letter of the law. Now you're arguing "intent." Here, JMC, this is easy: you're either arguing for your liberty to own child pornography, or you're arguing that the Founders intended for school shootings as a necessity for a free country. Which is it?

A restriction and/or ban are equally unacceptable.

 

That's because in this instance, they are one in the same.

 

I'm arguing that the Founders thought that the freedom to put weapons in the hands of private citizens, of the same caliber as the weapons used by the government, was paramount.  And that the consequences of that freedom were acceptable.

Edited February 25, 2018 by jmc12290

[thebug]

2 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

No it was me. He said he was leaving and I said it brought a tingle to my leg, but after his thoughts of golden showers I said that maybe I came, instead knowing that he was leaving here.Just locker room talk, like I grabbed his kitty, because I could.

Hey, what ever gets you off. 

[LA Grant]

5 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:

A restriction and/or ban are equally unacceptable.

 

That's because in this instance, they are one in the same.

 

I'm arguing that the Founders intended that the freedom to put weapons in the hands of private citizens, of the same caliber as the weapons used by the government, was paramount.  And that the consequences of that freedom were acceptable.

 

Wow!! So it's both, then!?! You support citizens' rights to own child pornography as an inalienable right AND you think the Founders drafted the Second Amendment with the anticipation that school shootings would be an inevitable necessity??

 

Good. To. Know.

 

Edited February 25, 2018 by LA Grant

[BringBackOrton]

1 minute ago, LA Grant said:

 

Wow!! So it's both, then!?! You support citizens' rights to own child pornography AND you think the Founders drafted the Second Amendment with the anticipation that school shootings would be an inevitable necessity??

 

Good. To. Know.

 

I just said no.  So no.

[3rdnlng]

Asswholes bringing child pornography into this discussion are truly lowlifes.

[LA Grant]

Just now, jmc12290 said:

I just said no.  So no.

 

Then you agree the Amendments need restrictions and should not be interpreted strictly literally if it means protecting people/children & agree that the Second Amendment can have similar restrictions.

[BringBackOrton]

Just now, LA Grant said:

 

Then you agree the Amendments need restrictions and should not be interpreted strictly literally if it means protecting people/children & agree that the Second Amendment can have similar restrictions.

No.

[LA Grant]

1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:

Asswholes bringing child pornography into this discussion are truly lowlifes.

 

Have you been in a coma? What level of consciousness are you in? Better question: why am I still bothering with you? 

 

You're aware this thread was started because 17 children were murdered, right? And we have 15 pages of people defending the necessity of their murder, including you. 

 

If you think child pornography is vile, just wait until you hear about children being murdered because we don't have it in us to restrict psychos from getting guns — and that many of the posters on PPP,  including you, are willing to fight for those psychos to keep getting unfettered access. 

3 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:

No.

 

Then this is checkmate.  If you support restrictions on one amendment, but not another, then your reasoning that the Bill of Rights must be immutable does not work. As with Tasker, this is the endgame of the fundamentalist argument. Thanks for playing.

[BringBackOrton]

6 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Have you been in a coma? What level of consciousness are you in? Better question: why am I still bothering with you? 

 

You're aware this thread was started because 17 children were murdered, right? And we have 15 pages of people defending the necessity of their murder, including you. 

 

If you think child pornography is vile, just wait until you hear about children being murdered because we don't have it in us to restrict psychos from getting guns — and that many of the posters on PPP,  including you, are willing to fight for those psychos to keep getting unfettered access. 

 

Then this is checkmate.  If you support restrictions on one amendment, but not another, then your reasoning that the Bill of Rights must be immutable does not work. As with Tasker, this is the endgame of the fundamentalist argument. Thanks for playing.

I already explained this to you.  The intention matters, and that's what gives the Second A it's immutability.  

 

It's like you didn't read my post,  called me a support of child porn, and then prematurely declared victory.   This is what we consider here, a retard.

[3rdnlng]

3 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Have you been in a coma? What level of consciousness are you in? Better question: why am I still bothering with you? 

 

You're aware this thread was started because 17 children were murdered, right? And we have 15 pages of people defending the necessity of their murder, including you. 

 

If you think child pornography is vile, just wait until you hear about children being murdered because we don't have it in us to restrict psychos from getting guns — and that many of the posters on PPP,  including you, are willing to fight for those psychos to keep getting unfettered access. 

You stupid schitt. We had restrictions in place but the system failed, and if you were just a tiny bit aware you would know that the county sheriff and his people failed miserably. This wasn't about the NRA or anything but human failure, but I guess that's something you can't legislate against.

[B-Man]

One view.................

 

Sure, I’ll Say It: 'Liberals Don’t Want to Stop School Shootings'

by John Hawkins

 

FTA:

 

A terrible tragedy happens. Some nutjob/terrorist/angry dirtbag shoots a lot of people. Before the blood is even dry on the ground, liberals take to social media to claim the killer is a conservative and demand new gun laws. If you suggest that perhaps we should wait to find out what happened before we start bringing politics into this, they ignore it. If you suggest that we pray for the victims, they viciously criticize that idea and mock Christians in general. When you ask which gun laws would put a stop to mass murders, they have no answer. Then they scream that the NRA is full of murderers. Of course, the killer never turns out to actually be an NRA member. Furthermore, the NRA never advocates for anything other than the rights of law-abiding citizens. As a matter of fact, when a shooter killed people in a Texas church in November of last year, it was an NRA member who stopped him.

 

Yet and still, after working themselves up into a frenzy screaming that the NRA is composed of murderers, after howling that law-abiding gun owners are killers, liberals move on to demand that we “DO SOMETHING.” The “something” involved is seldom defined and even when it is, it pretty clearly won’t stop school shootings.

 

At this point, suspicious conservatives suggest that liberals seem to be angling for gun confiscation, something that would never work in America. Some liberals respond to this by saying, “That’s paranoia! Nobody wants that,” while others respond, “Hell yes, it’s time for gun confiscation.”

 

Perhaps more intriguingly, liberals show absolutely no interest in any policy that might stop school shootings that doesn’t involve taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. Metal detectors in all schools? Nope. Allowing trained teachers to bring guns to schools? Uh-uh. Armed guards in all schools? No way. That one guy ran away at Parkland, so that proves a good guy with a gun won't stop a bad guy with a gun. Of course, that makes about as much sense as saying the troops failed to stop Pearl Harbor, so using the military can never work. How about dramatically loosening the rules for involuntarily committing people with mental health issues? Sorry, the ACLU doesn’t like that, so nope. What about demanding more from sheriffs’ departments that drop the ball in these cases, like the Broward County Sheriff’s Department, which made 39 trips out to the Parkland shooter’s home over the last seven years without arresting anyone? They were even told by the family that took him in, just months before the shooting, “He put the gun to the head of his brother before. This is not the first time, and he did that to his mom, and his mom died. It is not the first time that he put a gun on somebody’s head.” Heck, even the FBI was explicitly warned that the Parkland shooter wanted to kill people and it did nothing of consequence.

 

So are liberals calling for reforms of how sheriffs’ departments and the FBI handle issues like these? For the most part, no. Instead, they continue to obsessively, almost gleefully push for gun control that won’t solve the problem. It’s almost as if liberals look at dead kids as nothing more than convenient props they can use to push their agenda.

 

In fact, let me suggest something that you are not supposed to say: liberals don’t want to try any of these other things primarily BECAUSE THEY MIGHT WORK and reduce the number of school shootings. You’d think everyone would want fewer school shootings because it would mean fewer dead kids, but it would also mean that liberals would lose a useful tool for pushing the gun control agenda, and that appears to mean more to liberals than the lives of children.

 

If I’m getting liberals wrong, terrific! No, seriously, that would be great news because I’ve noted several things we could do to reduce the number of mass murderers and school shootings. If liberals are interested in working with conservatives on those issues, we might be able to stop the next Parkland or Columbine and save a lot of lives. The alternative to that is for liberals to keep demanding gun control and to keep accusing law-abiding gun owners of being horrible humans while we continue to tell liberals to shove it where the sun doesn’t shine. Sadly I suspect if most liberals had to choose, they’d take more dead kids over changes that undercut their gun control agenda every time.

 

https://pjmedia.com/trending/sure-ill-say-liberals-dont-want-stop-school-shootings/

 

[LA Grant]

Just now, jmc12290 said:

I already explained this to you.  The intention matters, and that's what gives the Second A it's immutability.  

 

It's like you didn't read my post,  called me a support of child porn, and then prematurely declared victory.   This is what we consider here, a retard.

 

Oh my lord. I can't make your busted brain work for you, you dumbass corncob. You're going to have to fire those little synapses on your own, too.

 

You are telling me the Founders intended for 2A to be immutable, but not for 1A to be immutable. This is a contradiction.

 

A contradiction is a combination of ideas that are opposed to one another. 

 

You don't want an argument with contradictions in your logic, because logic requires validity. Logic cannot be valid if it is contradictory.

 

Your argument is built on contradictory logic, which is what we consider "a bad argument," of which you are the proud owner.

 

Many happy returns, you sick stupid mutant.

[BringBackOrton]

Just now, LA Grant said:

 

Oh my lord. I can't make your busted brain work for you, you dumbass corncob. You're going to have to fire those little synapses on your own, too.

 

You are telling me the Founders intended for 2A to be immutable, but not for 1A to be immutable. This is a contradiction.

 

A contradiction is a combination of ideas that are opposed to one another. 

 

You don't want an argument with contradictions in your logic, because logic requires validity. Logic cannot be valid if it is contradictory.

 

Your argument is built on contradictory logic, which is what we consider "a bad argument," of which you are the proud owner.

 

Many happy returns, you sick stupid mutant.

It's actually just two separate ideas, you dumb !@#$.

 

Child Porn was not in the founder's intention.  Not allowing restrictions on the ability of private citizens to arm themselves was.  

 

You are proving too stupid to insult.