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

[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