boyst Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 2 minutes ago, thebug said: So I've read.... And yet you are as clueless as they !@#$ing come. Do you not think I have zero care for the issue you bring up?
LA Grant Posted February 22, 2018 Author Posted February 22, 2018 Listen to this podcast episode. It's 2 veterans of Iraq talking about guns. What do you think these military veterans say about it? They are both gun owners. What do you think their position is? For arming schools and teachers, what do you think they think? They talk it through pretty logically, considering who would be in those jobs and what equipment they'd need. How many infantry do you suppose they'd estimate it would take to secure a HS as safely as a US embassy? It's worth a listen.
Tiberius Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/02/22/does-the-second-amendment-really-protect-assault-weapons-four-courts-have-said-no/?hpid=hp_hp-morning-mix_mm-amendment%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.a5c8cbf786f7 Quote Almost exactly a year ago, a federal appeals court considered whether a Maryland law banning assault weapons was unconstitutional. The law was passed in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre, which left 20 first-graders and six adults dead after a man bearing an AR-15 style weapon stormed the Connecticut school. “Nine terrified children ran from one of the classrooms when the gunman paused to reload, while two youngsters successfully hid in a restroom,” Judge Robert B. King of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, wrote in the majority opinion. “Another child was the other classroom’s sole survivor. In all, the gunman fired at least 155 rounds of ammunition within five minutes, shooting each of his victims multiple times.” The court ruled that the ban on assault weapons like the one Adam Lanza used inside Sandy Hook that day — like the one that police say Nikolas Cruz has confessed to using inside Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and that Omar Mateen used inside Orlando’s Pulse Nightclub and Stephen Paddock used from the Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas — was constitutional. It was not the first time a federal appeals court had ruled that a ban on assault weapons was permissible under the Second Amendment. It was the fourth time in the last decade. In fact, no federal appeals court has ever held that assault weapons are protected.
thebug Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 Just now, Boyst62 said: And yet you are as clueless as they !@#$ing come. Do you not think I have zero care for the issue you bring up? You mad bro?
LA Grant Posted February 22, 2018 Author Posted February 22, 2018 20 minutes ago, jmc12290 said: Because of the Second Amendment. Bans infringe on my inalienable rights. Next question. There is no solution. It sucks that kids are getting killed. But this isn't an "epidemic," either. Oh hey jmc! Well, I already know you're trash from your posts on TSW but speaking of Amendments... Let's hear it from Thomas Jefferson. (Apologies he doesn't write in message board style for you, jmc, but it's worth it to read through the full excerpt, or even more!) "Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times." http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/letter-to-samuel-kercheval/ "Can one generation bind another, and all others, in succession forever? I think not. The Creator has made the earth for the living, not the dead. Rights and powers can only belong to persons, not to things, not to mere matter, unendowed with will." https://thefederalistpapers.org/founders/jefferson/the-creator-has-made-the-earth-for-the-living-not-the-dead "A generation may bind itself as long as its majority continues in life; when that has disappeared, another majority is in place, holds all the rights and powers their predecessors once held, and may change their laws and institutions to suit themselves. Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and inalienable rights of man." ^ Congrats on being the binding generation, you selfish lazy old useless farts.
LeviF Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 I forget, are cops the problem this week or are guns?
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 It says all anyone needs to know about a person when they condemn, wholesale, the exercise on another human's natural rights. It's also hilarious that they don't realize that mindset: that they believe they should have a say in what natural rights a person should be permitted to exercise, is the exact reason the Second Amendment exists. Fortunately, no matter how much the gnash their teeth and wail, "shall not be infringed" is the High Law of the land and cannot be changed without Constitutional Amendment, and the gun owning populace is very awake to the would be monarchists who are quick to deny them not only their Second Amendment rights, but other rights protected by the Constitution as well. Further, the nature of guns themselves makes them impossible to confiscate without a civil war (anyone advocating gun grabbing to "prevent gun deaths" is a liar, as the gun deaths instigated by their desire to confiscate would lead to unfathomable amounts of gun deaths); while those they would be asking to do the confiscating (law enforcement and military) are amongst the demographic most likely to be private gun owners themselves, who have taken an oath to defend the Constitution.
DC Tom Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: It says all anyone needs to know about a person when they condemn, wholesale, the exercise on another human's natural rights. It's also hilarious that they don't realize that mindset: that they believe they should have a say in what natural rights a person should be permitted to exercise, is the exact reason the Second Amendment exists. Fortunately, no matter how much the gnash their teeth and wail, "shall not be infringed" is the High Law of the land and cannot be changed without Constitutional Amendment, and the gun owning populace is very awake to the would be monarchists who are quick to deny them not only their Second Amendment rights, but other rights protected by the Constitution as well. Further, the nature of guns themselves makes them impossible to confiscate without a civil war (anyone advocating gun grabbing to "prevent gun deaths" is a liar, as the gun deaths instigated by their desire to confiscate would lead to unfathomable amounts of gun deaths); while those they would be asking to do the confiscating (law enforcement and military) are amongst the demographic most likely to be private gun owners themselves, who have taken an oath to defend the Constitution. GTFO with your rationalism. This thread is for histrionics.
LA Grant Posted February 22, 2018 Author Posted February 22, 2018 3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said: It says all anyone needs to know about a person when they condemn, wholesale, the exercise on another human's natural rights. It's also hilarious that they don't realize that mindset: that they believe they should have a say in what natural rights a person should be permitted to exercise, is the exact reason the Second Amendment exists. Fortunately, no matter how much the gnash their teeth and wail, "shall not be infringed" is the High Law of the land and cannot be changed without Constitutional Amendment, and the gun owning populace is very awake to the would be monarchists who are quick to deny them not only their Second Amendment rights, but other rights protected by the Constitution as well. Further, the nature of guns themselves makes them impossible to confiscate without a civil war (anyone advocating gun grabbing to "prevent gun deaths" is a liar, as the gun deaths instigated by their desire to confiscate would lead to unfathomable amounts of gun deaths); while those they would be asking to do the confiscating (law enforcement and military) are amongst the demographic most likely to be private gun owners themselves, who have taken an oath to defend the Constitution. GENUINELY one of the dumbest takes I have seen. Like the bar was low, and seeing your name the bar droops a little lower, and even then — an amount of stupid that's surprising every time. Well done. 10 minutes ago, LA Grant said: Oh hey jmc! Well, I already know you're trash from your posts on TSW but speaking of Amendments... Let's hear it from Thomas Jefferson. (Apologies he doesn't write in message board style for you, jmc, but it's worth it to read through the full excerpt, or even more!) "Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times." http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/letter-to-samuel-kercheval/ "Can one generation bind another, and all others, in succession forever? I think not. The Creator has made the earth for the living, not the dead. Rights and powers can only belong to persons, not to things, not to mere matter, unendowed with will." https://thefederalistpapers.org/founders/jefferson/the-creator-has-made-the-earth-for-the-living-not-the-dead "A generation may bind itself as long as its majority continues in life; when that has disappeared, another majority is in place, holds all the rights and powers their predecessors once held, and may change their laws and institutions to suit themselves. Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and inalienable rights of man." ^ Congrats on being the binding generation, you selfish lazy old useless farts. ^ On the Second Amendment garbage. Grow the $*!^( up and face reality. No one is "taking your guns away" you hobbyless morons. You've done plenty of damage. The idea is to prevent more. Gun reform is the obvious answer in front of your stupid potato face. 2
Nanker Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 12 minutes ago, LA Grant said: GENUINELY one of the dumbest takes I have seen. Like the bar was low, and seeing your name the bar droops a little lower, and even then — an amount of stupid that's surprising every time. Well done. ^ On the Second Amendment garbage. Grow the $*!^( up and face reality. No one is "taking your guns away" you hobbyless morons. You've done plenty of damage. The idea is to prevent more. Gun reform is the obvious answer in front of your stupid potato face. Gee. Thanks for starting a whole new thread on this topic, and for offering your objective opinion on the subject.
boyst Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 38 minutes ago, thebug said: You mad bro? I don't get mad, I really don't.
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 16 minutes ago, LA Grant said: GENUINELY one of the dumbest takes I have seen. Like the bar was low, and seeing your name the bar droops a little lower, and even then — an amount of stupid that's surprising every time. Well done. 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.
Paulus Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 4 hours ago, /dev/null said: You forgot your hashtag #CurrentTragedyStrong #PrayForWhoeverTheBadThingHappenedTo I prefer #ArmenianGenocide Too tired to write mor.
3rdnlng Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 9 minutes ago, Paulus said: I prefer #ArmenianGenocide Too tired to write mor. Too tired to even spell out "more"? Get some sleep, man.
IDBillzFan Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 Gee, if only there was a thread here about guns. Thanks for starting this one. You're a real ground-breaker.
DC Tom Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 4 minutes ago, LABillzFan said: Gee, if only there was a thread here about guns. Thanks for starting this one. You're a real ground-breaker. His opinion is just TOO DAMNED IMPORTANT to be relegated to someone else's thread, you pissant.
3rdnlng Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 17 minutes ago, DC Tom said: His opinion is just TOO DAMNED IMPORTANT to be relegated to someone else's thread, you pissant. "Pissant" is a term generally used for gator by me. Don't get too comfortable with using it in such a cavalier manner. Seriously (or not) my auto-correct keeps changing the spelling to puissant which I ashamedly admit that I had to look up and it means the opposite of puissant.
B-Man Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 2 hours ago, LeviF91 said: I forget, are cops the problem this week or are guns? Guns this week.........................next weeks urgency has not yet been sent out.
3rdnlng Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 3 hours ago, LeviF91 said: I forget, are cops the problem this week or are guns? Cops with guns are the problem. That's it.
Koko78 Posted February 22, 2018 Posted February 22, 2018 8 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: Cops with guns are the problem. That's it. White cops with guns.
Recommended Posts