Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
2 minutes ago, 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.

Grant, you ignorant slut, go get it  changed. The mechanism is there.  

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:

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.

 

Gahhh you're so dumb. So you're attempting to say that you alone know the Founders' intent, then? How do you know what they considered "free speech" and what wasn't? How do you know what they considered "arms" and what wasn't? Arms in 1700s were very different from our present day, just as free speech was very different. 

 

How do you know the Founders considered school shootings acceptable, but not child pornography? Is the second amendment more important than the first? I'm sure it is, to you, because you're only arguing NRA talking points, and the second amendment is the center of the universe to the NRA.

 

That's why the fundamentalist argument doesn't work in general, and certainly not as sloppily as you attempted to use it. You're not arguing about the Bill of Rights at all. You're arguing "I like guns and I don't want to be inconvenienced getting guns." 

Edited by LA Grant
Posted
6 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:

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.

I know what those !@#$ers meant 200 years ago! Lol 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Posted
Just now, LA Grant said:

 

Gahhh you're so dumb. So you're attempting to say that you alone know the Founders' intent, then? How do you know what they considered "free speech" and what wasn't? How do you know what they considered "arms" and what wasn't? 

 

How do you know the Founders considered school shootings acceptable, but not child pornography? Is the second amendment more important than the first? I'm sure it is, to you, because you're only arguing NRA talking points, and the second amendment is the center of the universe to the NRA.

 

That's why the fundamentalist argument doesn't work in general, and certainly not as sloppily as you attempted to use it. You're not arguing about the Bill of Rights at all. You're arguing "I like guns and I don't want to be inconvenienced getting guns." 

This is what the Supreme Court does.  All the time.

 

And yes, the Second Amendment actually protects all of the Amendments, as well as our basic liberties.  It is certainly vital.

 

I'm educating you on how our government works.  This is so cute.

 

"You're arguing "I like guns and I don't want to be inconvenienced getting guns." "

 

Where do you come up with this stuff?

 

 

Posted
3 hours ago, LA Grant said:

 

Way ahead of you, as always. Already did this on page 8. But sure, if you want to be shamed again, sure. Here's you from page 8. Below is Wayne, a few hours earlier.

 

I'm sure it's just a coincidence, right? hahaha.

 

 

'"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

 

Revising this previous estimate. I think it might just be 20,000 posts of LABillzFan mentioning Hillary. It's sad.

 

 

 

Ah yes, here again comes the idea that these mass shootings are orchestrated media events. Plants! George Soros! Crisis Actors! Anything, anything but guns.

 

 

No, its anything but the nasty human being who did the deed, as long as it fits the 

america hating agenda. To simpletons its guns, trump, the air, etc etc etc

because, you know, guns pull guns triggers because cnn and huff told them so

Posted
Just now, thebug said:

I know what those !@#$ers meant 200 years ago! Lol 

Another student. Welcome to 200 years of history where our government interprets intent.  Did you guys not finish high school?

Posted
1 minute ago, jmc12290 said:

This is what the Supreme Court does.  All the time.

 

And yes, the Second Amendment actually protects all of the Amendments, as well as our basic liberties.  It is certainly vital.

 

I'm educating you on how our government works.  This is so cute.

 

"You're arguing "I like guns and I don't want to be inconvenienced getting guns." "

 

Where do you come up with this stuff?

 

Does the First Amendment protect us and our basic liberties? Is it vital? Why is it OK for restrictions there, but not on the Second Amendment?

 

Even someone as dull as you has to be making this connection by now.

Posted
2 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:

Another student. Welcome to 200 years of history where our government interprets intent.  Did you guys not finish high school?

Yeah, because government is so smart! They are dumber than you !@#$s! 

Posted
Just now, LA Grant said:

 

Does the First Amendment protect us and our basic liberties? Is it vital? Why is it OK for restrictions there, but not on the Second Amendment?

 

Even someone as dull as you has to be making this connection by now.

I was using "protect" in the sense of ACTUAL physical protection. If the government banned free speech tomorrow, the first amendment wouldn't do squat. The second would give us the means to defend ourselves.

 

It's okay for restrictions of the First when it comes to child porn because I do not believe that Tommy Jefferson and the gang fought a war over child porn, nor believed child porn the sort of speech they were trying to protect.  

 

Now tell me I'm an NRA member for the 19th time.

3 minutes ago, thebug said:

Yeah, because government is so smart! They are dumber than you !@#$s! 

Wtf are you talking about now?

 

Here's a tip. Start with "I'm Just a Bill" and go slow from there. You may have something to contribute by 2020  if you study hard.

Posted
3 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:

I was using "protect" in the sense of ACTUAL physical protection. If the government banned free speech tomorrow, the first amendment wouldn't do squat. The second would give us the means to defend ourselves.

 

It's okay for restrictions of the First when it comes to child porn because I do not believe that Tommy Jefferson and the gang fought a war over child porn, nor believed child porn the sort of speech they were trying to protect.  

 

Now tell me I'm an NRA member for the 19th time.

Wtf are you talking about now?

 

Here's a tip. Start with "I'm Just a Bill" and go slow from there. You may have something to contribute by 2020  if you study hard.

Thanks!  I’m glad you know what they meant. You are special. Not just tard special. 

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, thebug said:

Thanks!  I’m glad you know what they meant. You are special. Not just tard special. 

Are you arguing that the entire basis of our government is fundamentally flawed?  Or are you just punching way above your weight and have no idea what you're talking about?

Edited by jmc12290
Posted
5 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:

Are you arguing that the entire basis of our government is fundamentally flawed?  Or are you just punching way above your weight and have no idea what you're talking about?

I’m saying your are like church freaks. You interpret it as you see fit to what fits your BS. 

Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, DC Tom said:

...Point of note: England is moving to regulate and even ban the sale and possession of knives - including kitchen knives - because of the epidemic of knife fatalities.  

 

So no, it's not a strawman argument.  It's an actual, real thing, regulating kitchen cutlery.

oh, i know it's no strawman, i was completely serious.

 

on a bit of a different tangent but also being deadly seriousand not to hurt the sensabilities of the sensative but... those with guns do not get loaded onto trains willingly.

 

 

5 hours ago, LA Grant said:

 

Does the First Amendment protect us and our basic liberties? Is it vital? Why is it OK for restrictions there, but not on the Second Amendment?

 

Even someone as dull as you has to be making this connection by now.

the attack on the First Amendment is well under way. 

 

 

8 hours ago, LA Grant said:

... Another common & very lame excuse. The same stupid logic works the other way. If AR-15s can be bought as long as you're 18 w/ no convictions, why can't the same kid also buy a grenade launcher or a land mine? Why can't I bear those arms? I need them for hunting and to protect my family. ...

ummm... you do understand the impetus for the Second Amendment, right?

 

it was to protect the populace from a totaltarian government. in essence, whatever arrmaments the police state possesses so too should the militia.

it's time to get off your progressive high horse and do a bit of history learning. as history is your best predictor of the future.   

Edited by Foxx
Posted
7 hours ago, LA Grant said:

 

Does the First Amendment protect us and our basic liberties? Is it vital? Why is it OK for restrictions there, but not on the Second Amendment?

 

Even someone as dull as you has to be making this connection by now.

This is a harsh thing to say so I hope you know I don't take it lightly:

 

I think if you moved to Canada, your intellect and ability to use reason might still be well below average.  EVEN IN CANADA!

Posted
56 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:

Be specific, in regards to the Constitution.

Sorry dude, I have a date today with my bbq, some prime rib and pints! You will have to use your copy and paste on someone else. Cheers! 

Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, LA Grant said:

Ah yes, here again comes the idea that these mass shootings are orchestrated media events.

 

 

 

At least you're consistent.

 

Unable to defend your thoughts, you create counter arguments that don't exist in hopes you will somehow sound like the sane one.

 

No wonder you're left with nothing but Vox links while calling people pedophiles and plagiarists.

 

But hey...thanks for Trump. Couldn't have done it without you.

 

 

Edited by LABillzFan
×
×
  • Create New...