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

[Nanker]

If we're going to limit things, why don't we limit the number of abortions a woman can have, limit the number of times Muslims can pray a day, limit the number of weeks of unemployment benefits people can claim, limit the number of liberal news reporters a TV station can have, limit the amount of high fructose corn syrup drinks one can buy, limit the number of times Catholics can attend mass in a year, limit the amount of farm subsidies we have, limit the amount we pay for Internet service... 

[DC Tom]

8 minutes ago, Nanker said:

If we're going to limit things, why don't we limit the number of abortions a woman can have, limit the number of times Muslims can pray a day, limit the number of weeks of unemployment benefits people can claim, limit the number of liberal news reporters a TV station can have, limit the amount of high fructose corn syrup drinks one can buy, limit the number of times Catholics can attend mass in a year, limit the amount of farm subsidies we have, limit the amount we pay for Internet service... 

 

...the number of times one can vote in a single election.

[Nanker]

Boy, you sure want to get those NYC snowbirds that winter in Miami really hot under the collar. 

[3rdnlng]

I suggest we limit how many posts certain blowhards can make in a day. "None" being an option.

[LA Grant]

3 hours ago, LABillzFan said:

Unfortunately, this is the flaw in your entire post. 

 

You want to make concessions, but you also admit it really won't do anything. Everyone knows this. Even the left. They don't want to restrict more guns to save lives. They want to restrict more guns because they trust the government over the individual. They must have the government in charge of everything because they are unable to take care of themselves. This is why they piss on ideas of self-accountability and self-responsibility.

 

They NEED the government to run all things.

 

Subsequently, you don't make concessions just to make them stop crying. You fight back with options that WILL make a difference. The problem, as LA Grant repeatedly states, is that they are not interested in your ideas. Only their own. As he stated, and most leftists agree, there is no argument against more gun control, so just shut up and give them the guns.

 

Oh sweetie, as LA Grant has repeatedly stated — if you have any solutions you'd like to propose, we're all ears.

 

In this thread we have heard, aside from gun control, approximately.... 0 solutions. 25 pages. Countless illogical counter arguments of why we simply can't, we simply musn't do anything! anything! we can't! think of the guns! That, and nonstop crybaby whining that I'm being too mean. Zero solutions. 

 

In all likelihood, to this post, like the others before it, where I specifically invite you to suggest a solution, you will suggest approximately 0.

 

Because when you decide to go "mental health" you have no actual policy to follow up, as that would necessitate some version of higher taxes. Unless you say "mental health AND personal responsibility" in which case, I'd love to see some proof that you, personally, are taking some responsibility and helping in some way. This would be extremely surprising,  but it would be welcome. It would be surprising because you can't even take personal responsibility for gun violence in America. Not your kids. Not your problem. Don't restrict your guns. Not your responsibility. Such it is with conservatives across the board. A feint. A joke.

 

It quite literally doesn't matter if a neighbor says to you — "Would you be willing to take a background check & renew a license to buy a gun, if it helps prevent gun violence?" — with supporting data & evidence. You're such a ridiculous shell that, somehow, your response is a choked out NRA talking point — "no! guns! freedom! Hillary!" But then when it's pointed out to you that you are valuing products over people, you overload, shut-down, and reboot back to the usual supplied talking points.

 

You even brought up climate change earlier, as though that somehow serves your point, and the Women's March. Absolutely hilarious. If you ever had any ability to think for yourself, you have clearly surrendered it for the comfort of tribalism. 

 

Or — let's hear it.

 

PS: You seemed to have questions about climate change earlier, getting frustrated by the terminology and the 'science being settled'. Here ya go. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/climate/what-is-climate-change.html

2 hours ago, Nanker said:

If we're going to limit things, why don't we limit the number of abortions a woman can have, limit the number of times Muslims can pray a day, limit the number of weeks of unemployment benefits people can claim, limit the number of liberal news reporters a TV station can have, limit the amount of high fructose corn syrup drinks one can buy, limit the number of times Catholics can attend mass in a year, limit the amount of farm subsidies we have, limit the amount we pay for Internet service... 

 

Great point. Go ahead and list all of the school shootings these things have caused, since those are all the same thing as guns.

 

The other thing is that we do limit things when they make sense, and we're all quite happy to do so. We limit the amount of alcohol you can have in your system before driving a car, for example.

[3rdnlng]

4 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Oh sweetie, as LA Grant has repeatedly stated — if you have any solutions you'd like to propose, we're all ears.

 

In this thread we have heard, aside from gun control, approximately.... 0 solutions. 25 pages. Countless illogical counter arguments of why we simply can't, we simply musn't do anything! anything! we can't! think of the guns! That, and nonstop crybaby whining that I'm being too mean. Zero solutions. 

 

In all likelihood, to this post, like the others before it, where I specifically invite you to suggest a solution, you will suggest approximately 0.

 

Because when you decide to go "mental health" you have no actual policy to follow up, as that would necessitate some version of higher taxes. Unless you say "mental health AND personal responsibility" in which case, I'd love to see some proof that you, personally, are taking some responsibility and helping in some way. This would be extremely surprising,  but it would be welcome. It would be surprising because you can't even take personal responsibility for gun violence in America. Not your kids. Not your problem. Don't restrict your guns. Not your responsibility. Such it is with conservatives across the board. A feint. A joke.

 

It quite literally doesn't matter if a neighbor says to you — "Would you be willing to take a background check & renew a license to buy a gun, if it helps prevent gun violence?" — with supporting data & evidence. You're such a ridiculous shell that, somehow, your response is a choked out NRA talking point — "no! guns! freedom! Hillary!" But then when it's pointed out to you that you are valuing products over people, you overload, shut-down, and reboot back to the usual supplied talking points.

 

You even brought up climate change earlier, as though that somehow serves your point, and the Women's March. Absolutely hilarious. If you ever had any ability to think for yourself, you have clearly surrendered it for the comfort of tribalism. 

 

Or — let's hear it.

 

PS: You seemed to have questions about climate change earlier, getting frustrated by the terminology and the 'science being settled'. Here ya go. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/climate/what-is-climate-change.html

 

Great point. Go ahead and list all of the school shootings these things have caused, since those are all the same thing as guns.

 

The other thing is that we do limit things when they make sense, and we're all quite happy to do so. We limit the amount of alcohol you can have in your system before driving a car, for example.

No, you're all mouth and very boring.

[Nanker]

In 2014, 652,639 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC from 49 reporting areas. The abortion rate for 2014 was 12.1 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years, and the abortion ratio was 186 abortions per 1,000 live births.Nov 16, 2017

Abortion | Data and Statistics | Reproductive Health | CDC

https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm

 

652,639 > 17 if my arithmetic is correct. 

 

Drinking too much can harm your health. Excessive alcohol use led to approximately 88,000 deaths and 2.5 million years of potential life lost (YPLL) each year in the United States from 2006 – 2010, shortening the lives of those who died by an average of 30 years. 1,2.Jan 3, 2018

CDC - Fact Sheets-Alcohol Use And Health - Alcohol

https://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm

 

88,000 > 17 

 

In 2015, 10,265 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (29%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States. Of the 1, 1,132 traffic deaths among children ages 0 to 14 years in 2015, 209 (16%) involved an alcohol-impaired driver.Jun 16, 2017

Impaired Driving: Get the Facts | Motor Vehicle Safety | CDC Injury ...

https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.htm

 

1,132 > 17 in my book. Oh right, but "we limit the amount of alcohol you can have in your system before driving a car. My mistake. So those 1,132 children under the age of 14 don't count. You win. 

 

[IDBillzFan]

32 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Oh sweetie, as LA Grant has repeatedly stated — if you have any solutions you'd like to propose, we're all ears.

 

You've already poisoned the well by explaining that there is no counter argument to your beliefs. If you won't hear counter arguments, then how to do expect to find solutions that are different from your own?

 

Simply put, you can't.

 

 

Or as you stated earlier...

 

18 hours ago, LA Grant said:

 As has been demonstrated repeatedly, no logically sound counter-argument exists against "there should be stronger gun control in the US."

 

But hey, you keep pretending you are willing to listen. You've managed to get Tasker this far.

Edited March 2, 2018 by LABillzFan

[Nanker]

Why don't they just pass a law that makes it illegal to kill another person with a gun.

We already limit how much alcohol you can drink and drive. Sounds like that's a winner solution to me! 

[LA Grant]

Just now, LABillzFan said:

You've already poisoned the well by explaining that there is no counter argument to your beliefs. If you won't hear counter arguments, then how to do expect to find solutions that are different what your own?

 

Simply put, you can't.

 

Or as you stated earlier...

 

But hey, you keep pretending you are willing to listen. You've managed to get Tasker this far.

 

So sensitive!!

 

"Sorry, kids, there's simply nothing we can do to solve this. We were close, once. LABillzFan actually had the perfect idea. Unfortunately, LA Grant was rude online, that LABillzFan had no choice but to pocket the solution. Anyway, here's your books and your kevlar, welcome to middle school."

 

Correct, as Tasker has shown, you will not find any logical counter-argument to gun control. The question of it is "how & when." The questions "does the problem exist? should there be a solution" — there is no arguing that any longer. Now, if you have a better idea than UBC, instead of some garbled excuse of why we can't do it — I'm all ears for that. 

 

Similarly, the same applies for climate change. The science is settle; the only questions are "what can be done, how, and when?" (I bring up climate change only because you've brought it up twice now.)

 

What's it like to be part of the worst generation in American history, btw? Assuming you're somewhere around the Boomer/Gen X age, you inherit a country of massive wealth and utterly, selfishly blow it...  I'm sure you'll tell me how none of it is your fault specifically, or your generation's fault, or your party's fault. Where is this "personal responsibility" from conservatives & Republicans for getting so many social issues wrong over the years and selling us out? 

 

We're seeing teenagers, the same generation that eat Tide Pods, articulating more coherent arguments for social policy than the recliner right. Whaaaaaaaat a country.

17 minutes ago, Nanker said:

Why don't they just pass a law that makes it illegal to kill another person with a gun.

We already limit how much alcohol you can drink and drive. Sounds like that's a winner solution to me! 

 

Regulating guns like we regulate cars does make a lot of sense, actually. Good idea!

[TakeYouToTasker]

17 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

But hey, you keep pretending you are willing to listen. You've managed to get Tasker this far.

I'm not arguing with Grant.  I'm dismantling his argument and exposing the underlying value system it's pinned to for the benefit of the board in general.

 

Grant is a neo-Marxist.  He is aligned ideologically with people like this:

 

It's the reason he won't engage on the underpinning of his belief system, and is focusing exclusively on gun control. 

[3rdnlng]

3 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

 

Regulating guns like we regulate cars does make a lot of sense, actually. Good idea!

That's not what was said. How far will you go to twist things to make your (false) case? Should we limit how fast a car can go? Limit the capacity of the gas tank? We try to limit drunk driving. We are completely against shooting people. Dumbass.

[LA Grant]

3 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

I'm not arguing with Grant.  I'm dismantling his argument and exposing the underlying value system it's pinned to for the benefit of the board in general.

 

Grant is a neo-Marxist.  He is aligned ideologically with people like this:

 

It's the reason he won't engage on the underpinning of his belief system, and is focusing exclusively on gun control. 

 

HAHAHAHAHAHA

 

You might as well just post a photo of you in your Glenn Beck fedora at this point, Tasker. It's becoming unbearably clear exactly what kind of loser you are.

 

[LA Grant]

1 minute ago, 3rdnlng said:

That's not what was said. How far will you go to twist things to make your (false) case? Should we limit how fast a car can go? Limit the capacity of the gas tank? We try to limit drunk driving. We are completely against shooting people. Dumbass.

 

hahahahahhahaha.... dude....   I'm sure you get this a lot, but you are dumb as f***.

 

—we regulate cars, because they are dangerous but necessary

—the regulations & standardizations provably make roads, drivers safer

—guns are more dangerous, and less necessary (go ahead and try to argue that a gun is more necessary than a car, in your own individual life, bc of 2A & freedom)

—we do not regulate guns, even though it is a virtual certainty that doing so would make society safer from gun violence

 

Btw, just in the week or so that you've been unsuccessfully arguing an unwinnable position, the outside world continues to burst your fantasy with real life.

 

 

 

[IDBillzFan]

14 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

That's not what was said. How far will you go to twist things to make your (false) case? 

 

The only way his rhetoric works is by comparing it to how he twisted your rhetoric to be not what you said.

[TakeYouToTasker]

14 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

HAHAHAHAHAHA

 

You might as well just post a photo of you in your Glenn Beck fedora at this point, Tasker. It's becoming unbearably clear exactly what kind of loser you are.

 

If I don't post a picture, are you going to hit me in the head with a bike lock after you're done vandalizing Berkley?

 

Or, Grant, if you don't like people using your exact style of argument against you, you could instead take a shot at intellectual honesty, engage people who are attempting to argue with you in good faith, answer questions posed to you, and have the totality of your ideas vetted through the rigors of debate.

 

But you won't, because I'm right.  I see who you are, Grant.

[3rdnlng]

4 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

hahahahahhahaha.... dude....   I'm sure you get this a lot, but you are dumb as f***.

 

—we regulate cars, because they are dangerous but necessary

—the regulations & standardizations provably make roads, drivers safer

—guns are more dangerous, and less necessary (go ahead and try to argue that a gun is more necessary than a car, in your own individual life, bc of 2A & freedom)

—we do not regulate guns, even though it is a virtual certainty that doing so would make society safer from gun violence

 

Btw, just in the week or so that you've been unsuccessfully arguing an unwinnable position, the outside world continues to burst your fantasy with real life.

 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, LABillzFan said:

 

The only way his rhetoric works is by comparing it to how he twisted your rhetoric to be not what you said.

That's why I regret responding to him in the first place. "We don't regulate guns" is really, we don't regulate guns as much as he would like.

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

If I don't post a picture, are you going to hit me in the head with a bike lock after you're done vandalizing Berkley?

 

Or, Grant, if you don't like people using your exact style of argument against you, you could instead take a shot at intellectual honesty, engage people who are attempting to argue with you in good faith, answer questions posed to you, and have the totality of your ideas vetted through the rigors of debate.

 

But you won't, because I'm right.  I see who you are, Grant.

 

He can't be intellectually honest, because he's not intellectually dishonest.  He's intellectually crippled.  

[TakeYouToTasker]

9 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

He can't be intellectually honest, because he's not intellectually dishonest.  He's intellectually crippled.  

I disagree.  He's pragmatic in pursuit of his value system.  As a singular issue, in a vacuum, against the emotional backdrop of a school shooting, Grant's argument in favor of abolishing Second Amendment protections is appealing to people who are reflexively feeling rather than thinking.

 

It's the reason he won't engage when posed direct questions about the underlying philosophy directly related to his stance, and the reason he is completely dismissive of arguments in favor of rights based philosophies.

 

Because he doesn't want people to think.  He wants them to make an emotional purchase decision, without giving people the opportunity to examine the totality of the ideas he is selling, which are logically inextricable from each other.

 

People act irrational in the wake of tragedy, and can be sold on gun control.  If he attempted to sell the encompassing ideology instead... well...

 

Antifa doesn't poll particularly well.

Edited March 2, 2018 by TakeYouToTasker

[LA Grant]

15 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

 

That's why I regret responding to him in the first place. "We don't regulate guns" is really, we don't regulate guns as much as he the majority of Americans would like.

 

FTFY

 

16 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

If I don't post a picture, are you going to hit me in the head with a bike lock after you're done vandalizing Berkley?

 

Or, Grant, if you don't like people using your exact style of argument against you, you could instead take a shot at intellectual honesty, engage people who are attempting to argue with you in good faith, answer questions posed to you, and have the totality of your ideas vetted through the rigors of debate.

 

But you won't, because I'm right.  I see who you are, Grant.

 

Hahahahahahha. Oh Tasker... dammit man, I knewwwwwwwww this was you, I knewwwww it, knew it, knew it... and you just had to go and prove it, didn't you? You just couldn't be a three-dimensional human being capable of rational thought, could you? Ugh, Tasker, I had such hopes. But you had to be this ridiculous stereotype, moments away from saying "Antifa" or something. 

 

Here's the deal. You are pretending you've made a point by... not making a point. You're pretending that I haven't made a point, despite being the only one making points. You have not, in reality, put forth any argument. You have not engaged in intellectual debate. You have not tested any ideas. You have steadfastly refused to make your point about slavery, because you don't have any point. You didn't have any point when you doubled down on your 2A argument, either.

 

Would you like to know why? Because you're pretending. You can only argue semantics. You have only empty tactics, nothing of substance.

 

I told you before and will tell you again — I saw through this nonsense from the beginning. Your playbook isn't new. Ya ain't got sh*t on sh*t, and your fedora doesn't make you look smart. Just sweaty.

5 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

I disagree.  He's pragmatic in pursuit of his value system.  As a singular issue, in a vacuum, against the emotional backdrop of a school shooting, Grant's argument in favor of abolishing Second Amendment protections is appealing to people who are reflexively feeling rather than thinking.

 

It's the reason he won't engage when posed direct questions about the underlying philosophy directly related to his stance, and the reason he is completely dismissive of arguments in favor of rights based philosophies.

 

Because he doesn't want people to think.  He wants them to make an emotional purchase decision, without giving people the opportunity to examine the totality of the ideas he is selling, which are logically inextricable from each other.

 

People act irrational in the wake of tragedy, and can be sold on gun control.  If he attempted to sell the encompassing ideology instead... well...

 

Antifa doesn't poll particularly well.

 

HAHAHAHHAHA YOU WENT AND SAID "ANITFA" WHILE I WAS TYPING IT

 

YOU ARE GOLD

Edited March 2, 2018 by LA Grant