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

[Tiberius]

33 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

Doing well... Best ever personally. But, as one gets older, if your priorities are in the right place, doing well just naturally happens. Until I suppose you start feeling the warning signs of croaking, but your spirituality should always growing, doing well.

 

I do fear that the health of our beloved country & the world has taken taken a grave turn for the worse.  We are under attack from constant populism.  Social media, media is really kicking into full gear. Yellow journalism meets the general public.

 

Now we know how Noah felt when the rains came.  I get the populists, why they are so angry on both sides. I just wish they weren't so damn stupid! 

I do hope you are wrong but it would be stupid to ignore the dire warnings. Glad  you are well 

[ExiledInIllinois]

7 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

I do hope you are wrong but it would be stupid to ignore the dire warnings. Glad  you are well 

I hope I am wrong too.

[row_33]

that's how liberals end arguments, "I hope you are wrong".... like !@#$ing Barney Fife rattling his disdain

 

that gives them some invented excuse for being wrong the whole argument

 

 

 

[Tiberius]

28 minutes ago, row_33 said:

that's how liberals end arguments, "I hope you are wrong".... like !@#$ing Barney Fife rattling his disdain

 

that gives them some invented excuse for being wrong the whole argument

 

 

 

You eat sh it

 

I know I am not wrong 

[unbillievable]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

ban people!

Support Planned Parenthood!

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

I know I am not wrong 

 

The true hilarity of this statement is that it's wrong.  

[row_33]

12 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

The true hilarity of this statement is that it's wrong.  

 

all teachers in my family use that line, wish they'd see how pointless it is

 

 

[LA Grant]

3 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

It has impacted me directly.  I lost a close family friend in the Virginia Tech shooting a few years back.

 

And no, it's not selfish.  You don't get to decide selfish.

 

Selfish, from my vantage, are those who seek to infringe on the natural rights of more than 350 million people living today, and countless billions of future Americans, because of their ideology.

 

First, I'm sorry that you lost a friend.

 

Second, yes, that viewpoint is selfish. You are advocating a belief that products are more important than life. You are advocating concepts over people, and have demonstrated no flexibility in your thinking. This is the definition of a zealot.

 

Your argument suggests that the Gods, Founders, and Authorities Greater Than Our Ability To Reason, intended for us to live in fear of each other. You're suggesting that there is no solution to children being gunned down attending school, unless we introduce more fear & weaponry into their lives.

 

Simply put, here is the view we are advocating:

 

Is There A Gun Violence Problem in America? Yes. Data overwhelmingly suggests it is unique to our country.

Should Gun Violence Be Addressed? Obviously.

How? Preventative measures, the most effective of which will be restricting access of weaponry to those who will use them irresponsibly.

When? ASAP

Who Is Preventing This? The gun lobby, and those addicted to feelings of fear.

Why? The gun lobby benefits financially from unrestricted gun sales. Those addicted to fear believe their way of living should be the way of life for all.

 

Here is the view you are advocating.

 

Is There A Gun Violence Problem in America? Maybe. It's debatable.

Should Gun Violence Be Addressed? Violence can be addressed, but you can not address "gun violence" because violence can occur without guns, so guns aren't the problem.

How? We need a healthier society overall, one that holds no capacity for human violence.

When? When humans discard the capacity for chaos and violence, or, when humans strengthen themselves enough through arms to dissuade any violence against another because of mutually assured destruction theory.

Who Is Preventing This? Individual bad actors, or perhaps Satan, who corrupts the souls of the weak.

Why? My interpretation of the Founders intentions is that they viewed guns & gun violence as either good or simply necessary, and because it is good or necessary, a tool cannot be bad, only a person. Because some people will just be bad, and we cannot solve "bad" in the universe, so to punish those who are "good" for those who are "bad" is paradoxical. Therefore, there is no gun violence problem — there is a problem of bad people.

 

Feel free to correct if that is not an accurate description.

 

4 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

It's not that Second Amendment supporters aren't looking inward, we are.

 

It's just that even if mass shootings were 100% attributable to legal gun ownership, which they are not, they are a more than acceptable price to pay for freedom.  Far more, in fact.  Immeasurably so.

 

Tasker. Please provide any example of Legal Gun Owners defending "freedom" for anything other than the "freedom" to purchase guns without inconvenience. You don't get to use military, as we all agree the military should have firearms, because they are trained to do so.

 

Legal Gun Owners defend themselves from burglars or attackers, ok fine (though could they not defend themselves in most instances with a blunt weapon instead of a firearm?).

 

But this preposterous idea that Legal Gun Owners defend "freedom" — please provide some specific examples. Ideally, there would be more examples than there would be counterexamples of Legal Gun Ownership in fact causing far more societal harm than good, but let's start with just any specific examples of Legal Gun Owners defending freedom — again, not the freedom to own legal guns without inconvenience, but capital-f Freedom.

[DC Tom]

11 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

First, I'm sorry that you lost a friend.

 

Second, yes, that viewpoint is selfish. You are advocating a belief that products are more important than life.

 

Actually, he's advocating a belief that rights are more important.

 

Jesus, you are !@#$ing stupid.

[TakeYouToTasker]

33 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

First, I'm sorry that you lost a friend.

Thank you.

 

Second, yes, that viewpoint

is selfish. You are advocating a belief that products are more important than life. You are advocating concepts over people, and have demonstrated no flexibility in your thinking. This is the definition of a zealot.

Incorrect.  What I am advocating is that the concept of inalienable rights, which are the only thing standing between man and despotism, are more important than any individual life.

[LA Grant]

21 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

Actually, he's advocating a belief that rights are more important.

 

Jesus, you are !@#$ing stupid.

 

Whose rights, Sir Thomas? "All of our rights, you *@!^*!(^ idiot!"  Sorry, no, bumper sticker rhetoric isn't doing it any longer. Your BS is getting called out. 

 

The "rights" you're advocating for are simple — the unfettered access to weapons for all gun hobbyists. You are not advocating for the rights of students, of gun violence victims. In fact, you're not advocating for anyone's rights except those you "feel" you are personally entitled to. You demonstrate this constantly.

 

You need to learn to uncross your silly little arms — and listen & read. 

2 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Incorrect.  What I am advocating is that the concept of inalienable rights, which are the only thing standing between man and despotism, are more important than any individual life.

 

Incorrect. What you are advocating for is subjugation of logical ethical reasoning in favor of Unquestionable Higher Authority. Logic and ethics are the only thing that stands between man and chaos — you are advocating for continued chaos. Your view is either, at best, destructively ignorant, or at worst, knowingly dishonest.

[TakeYouToTasker]

13 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

What you are advocating for is subjugation of logical ethical reasoning in favor of Unquestionable Higher Authority. Logic and ethics are the only thing that stands between man and chaos — you are advocating for continued chaos. Your view is either, at best, destructively ignorant, or at worst, knowingly dishonest.

I've never met anyone quite so oblivious to the world around them as you are.

 

Governments around the world commit all manner of atrocity against their people.  Americans are no better or different.  The things that happen elsewhere can happen here.  They haven't largely because our government is constrained by our Constitution, and because of the specific rights enumerated within, which it is chartered to protect.

 

Logic and ethics protect nothing.  Just law, and the willingness to use force to protect it, are what stands between man and chaos.

 

Grant:  I'm going to pose to you a question:

 

I assume you believe slavery is wrong as a moral absolute?  This is not a trick question.  Assume I mean Southern chattel slavery.

 

What priori are you appealing to when you declare slavery to be wrong?

 

 

Edited March 1, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[ExiledInIllinois]

3 hours ago, row_33 said:

that's how liberals end arguments, "I hope you are wrong".... like !@#$ing Barney Fife rattling his disdain

 

that gives them some invented excuse for being wrong the whole argument

 

 

 

Did you read the context?  I hope I am wrong about the dumbschits conservatives... 

 

Conservatism to me represents fear of change.

 

I just lost a little bit more hope after reading over the top BS.  Full of themselves people like you will never see themselves for what they really are and how its tearing lives of other people apart.

 

This stuff is like a rolling schitstorm.  Somebody just scrawled graffiti on a bathroom stall at my daughter's high school. Yesterday.  It was a threat that something was going to happen on 3/8. Should she show up that day?  Again, what a schitstorm our gun happy culture has become.

 

We are fighting the terrorists overseas and now from within.

[3rdnlng]

46 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Whose rights, Sir Thomas? "All of our rights, you *@!^*!(^ idiot!"  Sorry, no, bumper sticker rhetoric isn't doing it any longer. Your BS is getting called out. 

 

The "rights" you're advocating for are simple — the unfettered access to weapons for all gun hobbyists. You are not advocating for the rights of students, of gun violence victims. In fact, you're not advocating for anyone's rights except those you "feel" you are personally entitled to. You demonstrate this constantly.

 

You need to learn to uncross your silly little arms — and listen & read. 

 

Incorrect. What you are advocating for is subjugation of logical ethical reasoning in favor of Unquestionable Higher Authority. Logic and ethics are the only thing that stands between man and chaos — you are advocating for continued chaos. Your view is either, at best, destructively ignorant, or at worst, knowingly dishonest.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed unless you feel differently. 

[LA Grant]

46 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

I've never met anyone quite so oblivious to the world around them as you are.

 

Governments around the world commit all manner of atrocity against their people.  Americans are no better or different.  The things that happen elsewhere can happen here.  They haven't largely because our government is constrained by our Constitution, and because of the specific rights enumerated within, which it is chartered to protect.

 

Logic and ethics protect nothing.  Just law, and the willingness to use force to protect it, are what stands between man and chaos.

 

Grant:  I'm going to pose to you a question:

 

I assume you believe slavery is wrong as a moral absolute?  This is not a trick question.  Assume I mean Southern chattel slavery.

 

What priori are you appealing to when you declare slavery to be wrong?

 

You quite literally have no idea what you're talking about, nor does it surprise me that you've "never met" anyone who agrees with my position, aka the majority of Americans. The insulation is the problem.

 

Logic and ethics lead to sensible laws. Our current laws, which you continue to insist are doing enough and could simply not do any more, are not sensible, nor are they enforced sensibly. This must change. You continue to advocate against change.

 

Your justification continues to be that you fear gun restrictions lead to whatever you feel like that means. We literally had internment camps in the United States during World War II — was 2A not in effect during that time? Your stupid fantasy does not f***ing work. You are arguing blind faith, again and again, in spite of overwhelming evidence that your conviction is not correct. This is also what's preventing you from seeing that "you" do not need to necessarily be these dumb beliefs. You're free to separate yourself, but you can't see it, you insist that you are shackled, not seeing that it is entirely self-imposed.

 

Whatever point you're driving to with your slavery example, go ahead and make whatever your point is, and what you think my position is, rather than drawing it out. Whatever point you think you have, go ahead and please illustrate how the U.S. somehow didn't need new laws to prevent institutional slavery.

 

8 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed unless you feel differently. 

 

Oh interesting, didn't realize the Parkland shooter was in a well-regulated militia. Should we thank him for necessitating the security of our free State? He was a Lawful Gun Owner, was he not? You dumb f***.

Edited March 1, 2018 by LA Grant

[Commsvet11]

2 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

You quite literally have no idea what you're talking about, nor does it surprise me that you've "never met" anyone who agrees with my position, aka the majority of Americans. The insulation is the problem.

 

Logic and ethics lead to sensible laws. Our current laws, which you continue to insist are doing enough and could simply not do any more, are not sensible, nor are they enforced sensibly. This must change. You continue to advocate against change.

 

Your justification continues to be that you fear gun restrictions lead to whatever you feel like that means. We literally had internment camps in the United States during World War II — was 2A not in effect during that time? Your stupid fantasy does not f***ing work. You are arguing blind faith, again and again, in spite of overwhelming evidence that your conviction is not correct. This is also what's preventing you from seeing that "you" do not need to necessarily be these dumb beliefs. You're free to separate yourself, but you can't see it, you insist that you are shackled, not seeing that it is entirely self-imposed.

 

Whatever point you're driving to with your slavery example, go ahead and make whatever your point is, and what you think my position is, rather than drawing it out. Whatever point you think you have, go ahead and please illustrate how the U.S. somehow didn't need new laws to prevent institutional slavery.

 

 

Oh interesting, didn't realize the Parkland shooter was in a well-regulated militia.

Uh weapons were confiscated during the Japanese internment camp, and that was done out of an EMOTIONAL response to the bombing of Pearl Harbor. It should never happened but FDR, a LIBERAL made it so. And you clearly do not understand the second amendment, it is for individuals.

[3rdnlng]

5 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

You quite literally have no idea what you're talking about, nor does it surprise me that you've "never met" anyone who agrees with my position, aka the majority of Americans. The insulation is the problem.

 

Logic and ethics lead to sensible laws. Our current laws, which you continue to insist are doing enough and could simply not do any more, are not sensible, nor are they enforced sensibly. This must change. You continue to advocate against change.

 

Your justification continues to be that you fear gun restrictions lead to whatever you feel like that means. We literally had internment camps in the United States during World War II — was 2A not in effect during that time? Your stupid fantasy does not f***ing work. You are arguing blind faith, again and again, in spite of overwhelming evidence that your conviction is not correct. This is also what's preventing you from seeing that "you" do not need to necessarily be these dumb beliefs. You're free to separate yourself, but you can't see it, you insist that you are shackled, not seeing that it is entirely self-imposed.

 

Whatever point you're driving to with your slavery example, go ahead and make whatever your point is, and what you think my position is, rather than drawing it out. Whatever point you think you have, go ahead and please illustrate how the U.S. somehow didn't need new laws to prevent institutional slavery.

 

 

Oh interesting, didn't realize the Parkland shooter was in a well-regulated militia.

You know what I'm saying and it is what it is. I'm not going to get into a discussion with you because you talk in circles as you move the goalposts. Besides, you repeat yourself constantly and bore the **** out of me.

[IDBillzFan]

1 hour ago, LA Grant said:

You are advocating a belief that products are more important than life.

 

You could randomly drop a pile of dogschitt from 12,000 feet and have it land closer to his point than you did.

 

It would appear you have decided that since you are unable to make your case, you'll try to make his case in a manner that makes it appear like you make sense.

 

I can't tell if you're that creative or that !@#$ stupid.

 

I'm thinking you ain't very creative.

 

 

[boyst]

1 hour ago, LA Grant said:

 

Whose rights, Sir Thomas? "All of our rights, you *@!^*!(^ idiot!"  Sorry, no, bumper sticker rhetoric isn't doing it any longer. Your BS is getting called out. 

 

The "rights" you're advocating for are simple — the unfettered access to weapons for all gun hobbyists. You are not advocating for the rights of students, of gun violence victims. In fact, you're not advocating for anyone's rights except those you "feel" you are personally entitled to. You demonstrate this constantly.

 

You need to learn to uncross your silly little arms — and listen & read. 

 

Incorrect. What you are advocating for is subjugation of logical ethical reasoning in favor of Unquestionable Higher Authority. Logic and ethics are the only thing that stands between man and chaos — you are advocating for continued chaos. Your view is either, at best, destructively ignorant, or at worst, knowingly dishonest.

You know even when I start to find you might be making a point I get confused because you sound like a little kitty. 

 

Just a tip, always just the tip... Don't feed in to their provocation. Just stick to the facts, if you can find them and you might be able to pose an argument that they could not refute. The problem isn't that this part of the board leans right it is that all those who lean left are retarded. Back when this board is readable there was a balance of both sides that no one dare step in because you end up in the middle of the road and hit by both sides for being a retard, now it's just chicken and idiots like you who react emotionally end up getting splattered all across the road.

 

I'm not trying to insult your intelligence, this is more an insult to your posting ability. It's a certain work of art, I myself have mastered a level of trolling and self-indulgence to just make a mockery of all things. That means I can do basically about anything and not be taken seriously, why you insist upon being taken seriously and send him just as foolish as I do entirely on accident

[LA Grant]

33 minutes ago, Commsvet11 said:

Uh weapons were confiscated during the Japanese internment camp, and that was done out of an EMOTIONAL response to the bombing of Pearl Harbor. It should never happened but FDR, a LIBERAL made it so. And you clearly do not understand the second amendment, it is for individuals.

 

Uh yeah weapons would be confiscated to put people into the camps, but were weapons confiscated from everyone? No "Good Guy with Guns" neighbors standing up for freedom? I keep hearing how citizens owning guns (without restrictions) is what keeps the rest of us free. I thought guns were the reason we could never have internment camps from a totalitarian regime?? If it makes so much sense to keep guns unrestricted, you'd think there wouldn't be so many contradictions to that position.

 

It's just arguing from the lunk-head fantasy — previously seen from Trump, or Mark Wahlberg — that unprovable claim, "well, if I were there, it wouldn't have happened." 

35 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

You could randomly drop a pile of dogschitt from 12,000 feet and have it land closer to his point than you did.

 

It would appear you have decided that since you are unable to make your case, you'll try to make his case in a manner that makes it appear like you make sense.

 

I can't tell if you're that creative or that !@#$ stupid.

 

I'm thinking you ain't very creative.

 

"Wah wah wah, wahhhhh, wah." You've had multiple opportunities to engage on several different points, you chose not to because you're able to recognize an unwinnable position, so this drivel is all you have left. Boring and LA-z.

 

43 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

You know what I'm saying and it is what it is. I'm not going to get into a discussion with you because you talk in circles as you move the goalposts. Besides, you repeat yourself constantly and bore the **** out of me.

 

Well, no, I don't know what you're saying. You quoted 2A, including that it's intended for "well-regulated militias" to bear arms. I'm advocating for regulation. Seems like we agree.

 

Or are you insisting on the NRA's interpretation, that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" means arms should never be regulated under any circumstances?