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

[IDBillzFan]

13 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

"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.

 

The people who engage you are incredibly patient, able to drill down into your arguments so that even Stevie Wonder can see how unbelievably bad they are.

 

I don't have that kind of patience, but calling you out for misdirecting the conversation for the sake of looking smart? Easy pickings.

 

 

 

[3rdnlng]

15 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

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." 

 

"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.

 

 

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?

 

You are being obtuse.

[LA Grant]

10 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

The people who engage you are incredibly patient, able to drill down into your arguments so that even Stevie Wonder can see how unbelievably bad they are.

 

I don't have that kind of patience, but calling you out for misdirecting the conversation for the sake of looking smart? Easy pickings.

 

You've got it entirely backwards, again, but whining and stomping your feet does not change reality. It's very simple. As has been demonstrated repeatedly, no logically sound counter-argument exists against "there should be stronger gun control in the US." Every counter, down to the last hold of "b-b-but 2A... f-f-freedom...," is filled with contradictions or baseless fantasy, each of which can be broken down. Only one side here has been providing supporting empirical evidence, and it's not the one you've decided to choose, apparently.

[Koko78]

40 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

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.

 

 

Commas and sentence structure matter. A 'well-regulated militia', and the right of the people to bear arms' are two separate ideas within the Amendment.

 

Just like the rest of our Constitutional rights, the comma separating ideas in the second amendment isn't there only if you 'feel' like it.

 

3 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

You've got it entirely backwards, again, but whining and stomping your feet does not change reality. It's very simple. As has been demonstrated repeatedly, no logically sound counter-argument exists against "there should be stronger gun control in the US." Every counter, down to the last hold of "b-b-but 2A... f-f-freedom...," is filled with contradictions or baseless fantasy, each of which can be broken down. Only one side here has been providing supporting empirical evidence, and it's not the one you've decided to choose, apparently.

 

In fairness, no counter-argument can exist when you put your fingers in your year and loudly sing "lalalalalalalalalalala, I can't hear you, lalalalalalalalalala!!!!!"

Edited March 2, 2018 by Koko78

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 hour 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.

Grant:  answer the question please.  

 

Assuming you believe slavery is wrong, to what priori are you appealing?

 

And you're right, Grant.  One does not need to believe that humans have natural rights, nor are they obligated to believe that the only just forms of government are those whose central and primary duty are to protect those rights.  Might makes right philosophies have dominated humanity for the overwhelming majority of our existence.  You're free to argue that the world was a better place before the concept of natural rights was conceived. 

 

Now, please answer my question.

Edited March 2, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[LA Grant]

6 minutes ago, Koko78 said:

Commas and sentence structure matter. A 'well-regulated militia', and the right of the people to bear arms' are two separate ideas within the Amendment.

 

Just like the rest of our Constitutional rights, the comma separating ideas in the second amendment isn't there only if you 'feel' like it.

 

The only flaw with that is there's no way to absolutely know if they are separate ideas or not, except in how you interpret it, just like the rest of the Constitution is continuously reinterpreted to fit changing context. Again, the host of restrictions on 1A are proof that "we" can and should clarify & reinterpret, from time to time. 

 

So the argument of what was intended or not is debatable. 

 

If we interpret it exactly as the Founders interpreted it, then we also need to decide which Founders and when. Tasker & I already went through all of this, because there's the question of a number of different contextual elements that could point one way or another, and then it's assumptions about assumptions.

 

Even the Supreme Court, the final arbiter of constitutional meaning, cannot make up its mind about the proper limits of federal power. Child-labor prohibitions were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1918, but upheld in 1941. In 1991, former Chief Justice Warren Burger said the National Rifle Association's interpretation of virtually unlimited Second Amendment rights was an obvious "fraud." In its 2008 Heller decision, the Supreme Court essentially adopted the NRA view. In the end, it seems fair to conclude that even great legal minds read their own political preferences into the Constitution. As Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story said in 1845: "How easily men satisfy themselves that the Constitution is exactly what they wish it to be."

http://theweek.com/articles/487160/constitution-what-founders-intended

 

But let's say, despite the context of militias at the time, that you're right and the Founders intended for it to mean two different things, including the individual citizen's right to bear arms without regulation. Most of the precedent throughout US history interpreted it differently:

 

Quote

Four times between 1876 and 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to rule that the Second Amendment protected individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia. As the Tennessee Supreme Court put it in 1840, “A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane.”

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856

 

This changed in 2008 when the Supreme Court applied the NRA's interpretation into federal law.

Quote

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.^[3][4]The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock". Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

 

One of the dissenting judges, Breyer, made the case that applying a literal interpretation doesn't make sense, or fit what the Founders intended:

 

Quote

 

Breyer, who just published "Making Our Democracy Work," a book about the role of the court in American life, outlined his judicial philosophy as one in which the court must take a pragmatic approach in which it "should regard the Constitution as containing unwavering values that must be applied flexibly to ever-changing circumstances." 

Since the Founding Fathers could not foresee the impact of modern day communications and technology, the only option is to take the values of the Founding Fathers and apply them to today's challenges.

"The difficult job in open cases where there is no clear answer is to take those values in this document, which all Americans hold, which do not change, and to apply them to a world that is ever changing," Breyer said. "It's not a matter of policy. It is a matter of what those framers intended."

He suggested that those values and intentions mean that the Second Amendment allows for restrictions on the individual, including an all-out ban on handguns in the nation's capital.

"We're acting as judges. If we're going to decide everything on the basis of history -- by the way, what is the scope of the right to keep and bear arms? Machine guns? Torpedoes? Handguns?" he asked. "Are you a sportsman? Do you like to shoot pistols at targets? Well, get on the subway and go to Maryland. There is no problem, I don't think, for anyone who really wants to have a gun."

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/12/breyer-founding-fathers-allowed-restrictions-guns.html 

 

As we've already established that "what the Founders intended" is debatable, here's a gun propaganda website that basically takes the Fox News story & adds "uhh look at this idiot" angle — without actually countering what he's saying. Maybe written by LABillzFan, I don't know.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2010/12/robert-farago/supreme-court-justice-bryer-the-founding-fathers-never-intended-guns-to-go-unregulated/

 

Here is their best counter, essentially: "it is, therefore it must." 

Quote

 The Founding Fathers’ support for the Second Amendment, for the principle of the citizens’ right to bear arms, is clear and unequivocal. (Which is kinda why we have one in the first place.) For the sake of those not familiar with the Founding Fathers’ belief in the unfettered right to bear arms (cough Stephen cough), click over to dojgov.net.

 

Unfortunately, the links that supposedly provide their argument don't go anywhere. One is literally broken and the other is a seller for a bow & arrow, which I'm guessing is their version of making the point "what's next, banning bows & arrows?" aka "what is an arm?" which, as Breyer pointed out, that 'slippery slope' cuts both ways. Why not unfettered access to grenade launchers? The answer, obviously, is the law should be nuanced. A law that allows for Nikolas Cruz to legally purchase an AR-15, despite countless red flags, is not nuanced. 

 

Now. Change of course is not necessarily bad. You might argue, the Heller case was something the Supreme Court got right. You could posit that the '08 Court upheld the law correctly, fixing previous mistakes. If you do make this case, you should also include the rates of gun violence before & after 2008. 

 

Aw hell, here, I'll do it for you.

 

Quote

 Gun deaths in the U.S. have jumped 17 percent since the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that there is a right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense, according to a new analysis by the Violence Policy Center (VPC) of just-released 2016 data from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Injury Prevention. Nationwide, the overall gun death rate (suicides, homicides, and unintentional shootings) increased from 10.21 per 100,000 in 2009 (the year after the Heller decision) to 11.96 per 100,000 in 2016.

http://www.vpc.org/press/u-s-gun-death-rate-jumps-17-percent-since-2008-supreme-court-district-of-columbia-v-heller-decision-affirming-right-to-own-a-handgun-for-self-defense/

 

So, unless we were hoping the overall gun death rate would go up, maybe it wasn't such a great decision. 

And because I've already posted this 10,000 times already, why not 10,001...

 

 

Quote

 

What Works and Doesn’t Work in Reducing Gun Deaths

Suggested Policy	Effectiveness	Public Support
Requiring all sellers to run background checks on anyone who buys a gun.	7.3	86%
Preventing sales of all firearms to people who have been convicted of violent misdemeanors, including domestic assaults.	7.1	83%

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/10/upshot/How-to-Prevent-Gun-Deaths-The-Views-of-Experts-and-the-Public.htm

 

That NY Times article is no longer entirely accurate, though, as it's from last January — the article says Trump doesn't support gun control measures and of course, he flipped on that yesterday.

[LA Grant]

53 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Grant:  answer the question please.  

 

Assuming you believe slavery is wrong, to what priori are you appealing?

 

And you're right, Grant.  One does not need to believe that humans have natural rights, nor are they obligated to believe that the only just forms of government are those whose central and primary duty are to protect those rights.  Might makes right philosophies have dominated humanity for the overwhelming majority of our existence.  You're free to argue that the world was a better place before the concept of natural rights was conceived. 

 

Now, please answer my question.

 

Tasker. Accept my request, please. I don't care to play. You have been deceptive and evasive more than once, so sorry, but you don't get the benefit of the doubt here after getting caught plagiarizing earlier. That said, I am listening, so whatever point you think you're making with slavery, to what "priori" I'm appealing to, daring to invoke Kant without having any understanding of what you're even arguing, whatever you think makes your best point here — just go ahead and take the swing.

 

Because I'm pretty sure the point you're trying to make is "guns are a natural right, to be without unfettered access to guns is to be without unfettered access to basic freedom" which is so absurd that I'd like to see you state your own position in your own words. 

 

The floor is yours.

[IDBillzFan]

1 hour ago, LA Grant said:

 

You've got it entirely backwards, again, but whining and stomping your feet does not change reality. It's very simple. As has been demonstrated repeatedly, no logically sound counter-argument exists against "there should be stronger gun control in the US." Every counter, down to the last hold of "b-b-but 2A... f-f-freedom...," is filled with contradictions or baseless fantasy, each of which can be broken down. Only one side here has been providing supporting empirical evidence, and it's not the one you've decided to choose, apparently.

 

 

And herein lies the reason you find yourself alone in your arguments: "no logically sound counter-argument exists..."

 

That's the anti-2A equivalent of "The science is settled."

 

 

Maybe instead of gun control you should call it global cooling warming climate gun change. 

 

 

[BringBackOrton]

9 hours ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

LoL... The paranoid Right.  You protect nothing except your own insecurities and narrow view.

 

This has to have you rushing to the store to stock up in Barry Obama fashion:

 

“Take the guns first, go through due process second”  ~Donald Trump

 

Even the head crazy guy thinks Snowflake Deplorable gun owners are destroying the country from within.

 

Grab your popcorn people as we watch a group that has zero ability to look inward, well actually attempt to look inward.

 

 

 

 

Nope, I'm protecting you.  Every second.  Every day.  Be grateful, dopey.  I'm the mother deer and you're Bambi.

3 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Thank you.

 

 

 

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.

Are people really this stupid?  They know we like, fight wars and sacrifice lives for our rights, right?

Edited March 2, 2018 by jmc12290

[LA Grant]

Just now, LABillzFan said:

And herein lies the reason you find yourself alone in your arguments: "no logically sound counter-argument exists..."

 

That's the anti-2A equivalent of "The science is settled."

 

Maybe instead of gun control you should call it global cooling warming climate gun change. 

 

Actually, you're right. Climate change is unprovable or it's a hoax, and all of the counter-arguments seen in this thread are logical. Guns give me freedom, the earth is flat, and the white man is simply genetically superior.*

 

*Sorry to imply you're racist, I know how triggering that can be to some conservatives. I'm sure in real life you are very popular with many POC friends who love you. The implication comes from flipping your flip — "if you believe this, then you must believe this." Now I do also believe in what you apparently perceive to be a ridiculous argument, that human-caused climate change is clearly real, and moreover I think it's ridiculous that you think that's the ridiculous thing. Perhaps you also believe what I perceive to be a ridiculous argument, that white men are genetically superior, and it's simply too shameful for you to publicly admit. Or maybe I'm simply being unfair in a more unfair way than you were being unfair, even though, in fact, you were being fair, unintentionally — similar when you tried the Women's March flip before. Unfortunately the degrees to which you may or may not be ridiculous are too exponential to calculate precisely in the time here, and so, a joke was made. Deepest apologies.

[TakeYouToTasker]

26 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Tasker. Accept my request, please. I don't care to play. You have been deceptive and evasive more than once, so sorry, but you don't get the benefit of the doubt here after getting caught plagiarizing earlier. That said, I am listening, so whatever point you think you're making with slavery, to what "priori" I'm appealing to, daring to invoke Kant without having any understanding of what you're even arguing, whatever you think makes your best point here — just go ahead and take the swing.

 

Because I'm pretty sure the point you're trying to make is "guns are a natural right, to be without unfettered access to guns is to be without unfettered access to basic freedom" which is so absurd that I'd like to see you state your own position in your own words. 

 

The floor is yours.

Grant:

 

That's a cop out.  There is no one here whose opinion matters to me who thinks I've been deceptive, or evasive, or have plagiarized anyone.  Those intellectually honest posters, whom I have argued against before, have all seen me make that exact same argument on this board before. 

 

All you're doing is attempting to antagonize and discredit while awarding yourself victory, while saving yourself the trouble of having your ideas vetted for merit through argument and the process of logic.

 

At this point you're refusing to answer a very direct question related directly to your argument, and you're denying even it's asking because you're terrified your ideas don't stand up to that process.

 

Your style isn't impressive thus far.

 

If an argument is worth making, then it's worth testing it's integrity.  That you won't allow yours to be tested says everything I need to know about it.

 

Or, you could simply answer the question.

[LA Grant]

15 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Grant:

 

That's a cop out.  There is no one here whose opinion matters to me who thinks I've been deceptive, or evasive, or have plagiarized anyone.  Those intellectually honest posters, whom I have argued against before, have all seen me make that exact same argument on this board before. 

 

All you're doing is attempting to antagonize and discredit while awarding yourself victory, while saving yourself the trouble of having your ideas vetted for merit through argument and the process of logic.

 

At this point you're refusing to answer a very direct question related directly to your argument, and you're denying even it's asking because you're terrified your ideas don't stand up to that process.

 

Your style isn't impressive thus far.

 

If an argument is worth making, then it's worth testing it's integrity.  That you won't allow yours to be tested says everything I need to know about it.

 

Or, you could simply answer the question.

 

It's really not a cop out, I'm just not going to make your ridiculous point for you. You've once again set yourself up for a fall here.

 

Your question is — "What priori are you appealing to when you declare slavery to be wrong?" Now, Tasker, as you must surely realize, there are only a limited number of reasonable answers to this question. I encourage you to explore those you think would be relevant to this discussion, then relate it back to the topic of guns, the stated topic. In other words: make a point or STFU. 

 

If you refuse to make a point, you are free to award yourself victory while saving yourself the trouble of having your ideas vetted for merit through argument and the process of logic. But your style isn't impressive thus far. If an argument is worth making, then it's worth testing it's integrity. That you won't simply state yours and allow it to be tested says everything I need to know about it. Or, you could simply state your argument.

 

You previously supplied us all with an air-tight argument in favor of pedophile rights, so I can't wait to see where your brain is taking you this time. Use your own words, if possible.

Edited March 2, 2018 by LA Grant

[TakeYouToTasker]

10 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

It's really not a cop out, I'm just not going to make your ridiculous point for you. You've once again set yourself up for a fall here.

 

Your question is — "What priori are you appealing to when you declare slavery to be wrong?" Now, Tasker, as you must surely realize, there are only a limited number of reasonable answers to this question. I encourage you to explore those you think would be relevant to this discussion, then relate it back to the topic of guns, the stated topic. In other words: make a point or STFU. 

 

If you refuse to make a point, you are free to award yourself victory while saving yourself the trouble of having your ideas vetted for merit through argument and the process of logic. But your style isn't impressive thus far. If an argument is worth making, then it's worth testing it's integrity. That you won't simply state yours and allow it to be tested says everything I need to know about it. Or, you could simply state your argument.

Grant:

 

You've stated, many times in this thread, that this thread is about your argument.  That there is no other argument.  That all other arguments have been thoroughly deconstructed.

 

I'm willing to believe you.  I'm simply asking that you demonstrate your claims.

 

If they stand up to intellectual rigor, you'll have won the day, and have recruited many individuals who enjoy argument as sport to take up your argument as their own.  This is your chance to make a difference in the world for your cause.

 

In order that you demonstrate your claim, I am asking you a simple and direct question which requires answering:  What priori are you appealing to when you declare slavery to be wrong?  Or, if you'd prefer it, and want to stay narrowly focused on guns:  I believe that both you and I agree that the murder of the students at Stoneman Douglas was wrong.  What priori are you appealing to when you judge it's wrongness?

Edited March 2, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[3rdnlng]

2 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

Commas and sentence structure matter. A 'well-regulated militia', and the right of the people to bear arms' are two separate ideas within the Amendment.

 

Just like the rest of our Constitutional rights, the comma separating ideas in the second amendment isn't there only if you 'feel' like it.

 

 

In fairness, no counter-argument can exist when you put your fingers in your year and loudly sing "lalalalalalalalalalala, I can't hear you, lalalalalalalalalala!!!!!"

Maybe they typed up the Constitution on their phones and didn't really mean that.

[LA Grant]

28 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

Grant:

 

You've stated, many times in this thread, that this thread is about your argument.  That there is no other argument.  That all other arguments have been thoroughly deconstructed.

 

I'm willing to believe you.  I'm simply asking that you demonstrate your claims.

 

If they stand up to intellectual rigor, you'll have won the day, and have recruited many individuals who enjoy argument as sport to take up your argument as their own.  This is your chance to make a difference in the world for your cause.

 

In order that you demonstrate your claim, I am asking you a simple and direct question which requires answering:  What priori are you appealing to when you declare slavery to be wrong?  Or, if you'd prefer it, and want to stay narrowly focused on guns:  I believe that both you and I agree that the murder of the students at Stoneman Douglas was wrong.  What priori are you appealing to when you judge it's wrongness?

 

Tasker: I've stated, many times in this thread, that it's about restricting guns. That there is no argument against doing so in the US. Indeed, all other arguments have been thoroughly deconstructed.

 

I can see through your sh*t here, dude, I can see where you're going with this. I do not trust, or frankly, respect you enough to go down a useless path of debating what is a priori, or a posteriori, or what "is" is, for one thing. For another, I want you to make the point I think you're trying to make on your own. If you're looking to earnestly explore the question you pose, then by all means explore it, here, in the grand marketplace of ideas. There are only a few possible answers to that, from anyone, so it shouldn't be so hard for you to explore on your own.

 

Why are you afraid of doing this? Because if you state it plainly, then you won't be able to pretend "I didn't say that," as you tried before?
 

Stop playing "chicken," be a big boy, and use your own words. Or, don't. My bet is you won't, but will try to claim "winning!" anyway. You may not be able to prove the facts wrong but you do have an opportunity to prove me wrong about your character.

Edited March 2, 2018 by LA Grant

[BringBackOrton]

16 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Tasker: I've stated, many times in this thread, that it's about restricting guns. That there is no argument against doing so in the US. Indeed, all other arguments have been thoroughly deconstructed.

 

I can see through your sh*t here, dude, I can see where you're going with this. I do not trust, or frankly, respect you enough to go down a useless path of debating what is a priori, or a posteriori, or what "is" is, for one thing. For another, I want you to make the point I think you're trying to make on your own. If you're looking to earnestly explore the question you pose, then by all means explore it, here, in the grand marketplace of ideas. There are only a few possible answers to that, from anyone, so it shouldn't be so hard for you to explore on your own.

 

Why are you afraid of doing this? Because if you state it plainly, then you won't be able to pretend "I didn't say that," as you tried before?
 

Stop playing "chicken," be a big boy, and use your own words. Or, don't. My bet is you won't, but will try to claim "winning!" anyway. You may not be able to prove the facts wrong but you do have an opportunity to prove me wrong about your character.

Oh lord, the irony.

 

LA Grant is a master troll.  We've been had.

Edited March 2, 2018 by jmc12290

[LA Grant]

1 minute ago, jmc12290 said:

Oh lord, the irony.

 

LA Grant is a master troll.  We've been had.

 

You're correct in detecting irony there, but it is by design. I am intentionally using the same "answer the question!" intimidation tactic Tasker was employing back at him. 

[BringBackOrton]

1 minute ago, LA Grant said:

 

You're correct in detecting irony there, but it is by design. I am intentionally using the same "answer the question!" intimidation tactic Tasker was employing back at him. 

Do you remember when you asked questions about the First Amendment to make points about the Second Amendment?

 

Why can't you extend a courtesy you were already given pages ago?

[LA Grant]

5 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:

Do you remember when you asked questions about the First Amendment to make points about the Second Amendment?

 

Why can't you extend a courtesy you were already given pages ago?

 

Actually, all I'm asking for is the same courtesy I've shown to be returned. Questions on 1A to make a point on 2A were rhetorical, plus I explained my point. I've made the case with tons of links, data, supporting evidence — almost none of which has been engaged with. And I've gone down virtually every rabbit hole or tangent thrown at me to show that the argument has depth. If someone has a valid counter-argument, the least they could do is make their case with that same courtesy, rather than simply saying "here's yet another rabbit hole, but if you go down it, I promise this time I will reward you with an actual case," as Tasker is currently doing.

 

It's not asking for much. Then again, the common sense reforms proposed aren't asking for much either, and here we are.

Edited March 2, 2018 by LA Grant

[BringBackOrton]

2 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Actually, all I'm asking for is the same courtesy I've shown to be returned. Questions on 1A to make a point on 2A were rhetorical, plus I explained my point. I've made the case with tons of links, data, supporting evidence — almost none of which has been engaged with. And I've gone down virtually every rabbit hole or tangent thrown at me to show that the argument has depth. If someone has a valid counter-argument, the least they could do is make their case with that same courtesy.

 

It's not asking for much. Then again, the common sense reforms proposed aren't asking for much either, and here we are.

That's because several posters, most notably Tasker, has stated that even if you proved "common sense" gun laws worked in reducing school shooting, it wouldn't make a difference..

 

You refuse to go down rabbit holes that you yourself don't manufacture.  Follow Tasker's.  It'll be fun.

Edited March 2, 2018 by jmc12290