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

[keepthefaith]

10 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.

 

 

 

That's a fair criticism of my post.  My feeling is this:  Guns that can shoot 40+ rounds a minute are not necessary for people to protect themselves or their property.  A very small percentage of those that buy these weapons do so to kill others and these weapons allow them to be very destructive very quickly.  Are we better as a society with weapons such as this available or not?  I say not.  People can enjoy guns, hunting and protection with a little less.  Just maybe a change in the law might slow down one of these terrorists and make it easier to take them out in the act.  I'm with Colonel Peters on this one.   

 

I get that much of the left's end game is the total removal (or nearly so) of guns in the hands of civilians and that events such as Parkland and Vegas help them push public opinion in their direction. 

 

I'm all for new ways to keep weapons out of the hands of those with bad intentions that don't impede the rights of the responsible.  Tough to do but maybe there are things in the areas of training and background review that will make a difference. 

 

We have to realize that we are a free society and that we can't be protected from nuts everywhere.  We should probably deploy more protection in schools, at concerts and other venues where large groups are present that aren't protected.

 

 

Edited March 3, 2018 by keepthefaith

[Cinga]

5 hours ago, Nanker said:

we need to ban these fully automatic bolt action shotgun machine gun magazine clips!

[Paulus]

Seriously, this is the gun topic shitposting thread. Look at the title/OP. 

 

The other thread is for serious talk. 

 

 

 

[Ol Dirty B]

On 2/24/2018 at 11:31 AM, row_33 said:

Bob, do you enter bars where you don’t know anyone and express your raw emotions like you do on here?

 

 

 

What loser goes into a bar that they don't know anyone?

 

Sounds like a problem.

On 3/2/2018 at 4:06 PM, LA Grant said:

 

Actually, I literally copy & pasted the dictionary definition of "disease" for you, and even connected the definition to how gun violence fits said definition. IIRC, you were also the one who brought forth the "what about opioids" argument before the topic of "why can't the CDC research gun violence" so there's a number of contradictions here. Your selective understanding whirrrr'd and cliccccck'd that out, I guess.

 

 

It gets even worse, Tasker — I'm a soooooooocialist! <ghost noises> If nothing else, we would agree that "nothing exists in a vacuum." Better go hide under your bed and turn up Glenn as loud as ya can, 'cuz society's comin' for ya, for yer guns and yer fedoras.

 

 

Go back and read my response to you, darling, and try to actually respond to to the content within it.

 

Btw, this is also why I have no interest in playing the rabbit hole games with Tasker or anyone else — I gave you a full response with supporting evidence, and even graciously pulled relevant quotes so you didn't need to trouble yourself with too much reading — and your responses ever since are just angrily misunderstanding what we were even discussing.

 

We can't have any kind of honest discussion if you won't engage in the same reality. "Define store" was where you started with this, you silly boy.

 

I wouldn't bother. Anyone who doesn't show red white and blue GOP rhetoric is labelled a liberal or some **** and attacked.

 

I wouldn't worry about it, I've said it many times. I love the Bills, but not their fans. I've been to Orchard Park enough on a Sunday to know I wouldn't give a **** about most of their opinions. 

Edited March 6, 2018 by Ol Dirty B

[row_33]

25 minutes ago, Ol Dirty B said:

 

What loser goes into a bar that they don't know anyone?

 

Sounds like a problem.

 

I wouldn't bother. Anyone who doesn't show red white and blue GOP rhetoric is labelled a liberal or some **** and attacked.

 

I wouldn't worry about it, I've said it many times. I love the Bills, but not their fans. I've been to Orchard Park enough on a Sunday to know I wouldn't give a **** about most of their opinions. 

 

I watch a game in a sports bar a few times a year, usually when on the road for travel or business.

 

you judge there is something horribly wrong with this?

 

it’s what men who watch sports do, maybe you can be one when you grow up?

 

[TtownBillsFan]

On 2/25/2018 at 1:32 PM, LA Grant said:

 

Or you, my friend.  As Tasker once said, it takes a village.

 

 

How do you not see that you're just looking for any distraction to avoid talking guns? The sheriff/deputy/police incompetence should be clear evidence that adding MORE guards & guns to schools is not the solution. It does not work. You are not hearing from teachers or veterans in support of this madness. Look who you're agreeing with, you are only hearing this idiocy from crazy people like JMC, Trump, Fox, InfoWars, and the NRA. You seem too otherwise rational to be this thick.

I'm giving you my attention for one moment, just one moment, to give me your, I was going to say fix or solution, but I won't even do that, as there isn't one.  I'm giving you my attention for a moment for you to tell me how you would make the situation better.  I'm listening.  Go.

3 minutes ago, TtownBillsFan said:

I'm giving you my attention for one moment, just one moment, to give me your, I was going to say fix or solution, but I won't even do that, as there isn't one.  I'm giving you my attention for a moment for you to tell me how you would make the situation better.  I'm listening.  Go.

I don't think there'll be a suggestion, as we'd have already done it if there was an 'easy' fix.  There's not.  There's the thing lefties jump to always and quickly, which is get rid of x/y/z gun.  It won't change a damn thing, but that's the jump-to spot.  And for people like me, who are defenders of the constitution, that's a proposal I cannot agree with.  It's those very guns that defend his ability to make his "LA Grant" posts on this board.  But I bet LA won't agree with that position.  Just give me your best, non-gun-grabbing proposal on how to fix things.  I bet we can agree on some things that might help, but gun-grabbing isn't going to work.

[LA Grant]

14 hours ago, TtownBillsFan said:

I'm giving you my attention for one moment, just one moment, to give me your, I was going to say fix or solution, but I won't even do that, as there isn't one.  I'm giving you my attention for a moment for you to tell me how you would make the situation better.  I'm listening.  Go.

 

I don't think there'll be a suggestion, as we'd have already done it if there was an 'easy' fix.  There's not.  There's the thing lefties jump to always and quickly, which is get rid of x/y/z gun.  It won't change a damn thing, but that's the jump-to spot.  And for people like me, who are defenders of the constitution, that's a proposal I cannot agree with.  It's those very guns that defend his ability to make his "LA Grant" posts on this board.  But I bet LA won't agree with that position.  Just give me your best, non-gun-grabbing proposal on how to fix things.  I bet we can agree on some things that might help, but gun-grabbing isn't going to work.

 

You're lucky that, unlike other posters, I'm willing to repeat things for your benefit. The suggestions have been laid out in this thread multiple times — sarcastically in the first post, and more earnestly several times thereafter. So, if you want data to back up what I'm about to tell you, they are available in many places on the Internet, including within this very thread. I'm giving you just one moment, for your individual benefit, and putting up with the lazy defensive posturing because of the very slim chance that your mind is open, even just a crack, to hear solutions, as you say. OK?

 

There is an easy fix, and it's Universal Background Checks for all firearms sales in the United States. This would be a process in which a non-military/law enforcement citizen can still easily buy a gun for defense/hunting, while weeding out the mentally ill. This process would work in a similar manner to the DMV — classes, annual registration, and competency tests. For the "good guys" this is the same inconvenience we all face to maintain a driver's license; a mild one. For the Parkland shooter, and other mass shooters before him, this simple fix would have prevented a tragedy where the criminal had tons of warning signs. UBC provides a strong last defense when other preventive measures fail. For the Parkland shooter, he had tons of red flags — but because he didn't have a criminal record & hadn't been institutionalized, in the eyes of the law, he was still fit to own a gun. That. Does. Not. Make. Sense. The laws should make sense. Right?

 

Again — Universal Background Checks is not banning xyz gun. Specific bans are half-measures. Look at Chicago, for instance. The handgun ban has not prevented criminals from simply driving a few hours to Indiana to easily buy whatever they need. This is why the easy fix, the obvious fix, is a national UBC system for all firearm sales — stores, gun shows, craigslist person-to-person, whatever. 

 

Every other comparably developed nation has a similar process in place, and they do not have NEARLY the rate of mass shootings that the US endures. 

 

The argument that we can't pass stronger restrictions because "2A can not be infringed" is illogical for several reasons. For one, it's already infringed. You can't own ANY arm. You can't easily buy a grenade launcher (though it is actually legal to do so in some places, there are just heavy restrictions). For another, we can agree that restrictions on Amendments are necessary even without passing additional Amendments. There are a host of restrictions on 1A that we all agree are necessary — for libel, slander, and child pornography. These clarifications on what is & isn't "free speech" still provide us all with our basic inalienable freedoms, while also guarding against those who would exploit those freedoms for destruction. Therefore, if it is insisted that all Amendments must be followed to the letter of the law, then we are also making the lives of pedophiles easier. None of us want that, and though technically a restriction on free speech, it doesn't affect most of us, because we were never going to use free speech that way. Similarly, restricting firearms with regulations would not affect most legal gun owners (aside from DMV-like inconveniences), because most legal gun owners don't have a bunch of warning signs that they're going to be mass shooters. For those that do have those warning signs, they can't get a gun. If the warning signs are unfounded, the individual can have a process to appeal. 

 

The idea that any regulations = taking away your guns is nonsense. That's not the suggestion. That is a fear-based tactic used by the NRA to keep the discussion emotional rather than rational, as it is in their best interest to keep gun access completely unregulated, because that means more guns are sold. Right? Most legal gun owners agree that UBC would be helpful and necessary. The reason this easy simple fix hasn't been done already is because of, specifically, the NRA, which is part of the broader problem of money in politics and corporate lobbying.

 

Lastly, the idea that citizens owning weapons keeps us free is also nonsense. Lawful Gun Owners defend no freedoms for others, only themselves. They defend the right to hunt and to use a gun for self-defense. That has no bearing on anyone else's free speech, or anything else. If you want to challenge this claim, please provide any example of a time where someone's freedom was in danger and was protected by an ordinary citizen with a gun. It doesn't exist. The best justifications Lawful Gun Owners have is "what if I need to shoot a burglar who wants to rape my family." You'll find plenty of examples of guns used for self-defense, but that is not the same as defending the rights of others. 

 

You could perhaps argue that the military defends freedom using guns. Sure. But again. Nobody's saying take away guns from the military. We're saying, keep them away from suicidal psychos who have decided life is not worth the pain and want to make a nihilistic point in a dramatic fashion. These people almost always have warning signs. 

 

There you go. Thanks for reading.

Edited March 7, 2018 by LA Grant

[DC Tom]

10 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

There you go. Thanks for reading.

 

Yeah, right. 

[LA Grant]

Just now, DC Tom said:

Yeah, right. 

As always, thank you for ably personifying ignorance, Sir Thomas.

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, LA Grant said:

 

As always, thank you for ably personifying ignorance, Sir Thomas.

 

You think anyone other than the ignorant reads your drivel?  Why are you even still here, isn't it past time for you to disappear for another year or so?

[LA Grant]

4 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

You think anyone other than the ignorant reads your drivel?  Why are you even still here, isn't it past time for you to disappear for another year or so?

 

What I've seen is most of PPP barely reads, period, and what they do read is plainly wrong. I don't intend to stay, so don't worry too much; you'll soon be able to return to your protective bubble, your safe space.

[Joe Miner]

2 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

What I've seen is most of PPP barely reads, period, and what they do read is plainly wrong. I don't intend to stay, so don't worry too much; you'll soon be able to return to your protective bubble, your safe space.

 

 

That's a pretty accurate summation of your posts and the reactions to them.

[LA Grant]

2 minutes ago, Joe Miner said:

That's a pretty accurate summation of your posts and the reactions to them.

 

Well, no. Even a cursory glance through my posts show that I'm a reader. Unlike some other posters, I'm able to distinguish fact from fiction, and the differences between the Federalist and the NY Times. 

 

The reactions to them have mostly been the usual conservative approach to information that doesn't fit their entrenched worldview: "lalalaala i can't heeaaaaaar yoooou" or attempts to scream away the facts. The neat thing about message boards is the words are there. In real life, the conservative approach is to literally shout down the opposing argument, or to simply shut it out, as broadcast nightly on Fox News.

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Well, no. Even a cursory glance through my posts show that I'm a reader. 

 

 False.

[LA Grant]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 False.

 

Still waiting for your defense of The Federalist, y'know, the standard of journalistic ethics that you posted then doubled-down on!

[Deranged Rhino]

3 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Still waiting for your defense of The Federalist, y'know, the standard of journalistic ethics that you posted then doubled-down on!

 

Still waiting for you to stop putting words in people's mouths and arguing against positions no one ever took. 

 

But that requires you to have more than a two cylinder brain in your skull. You've proven you lack in that department for weeks now. 

[DC Tom]

17 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Well, no. Even a cursory glance through my posts show that I'm a reader.

 

Comprehender, not so much.

[Azalin]

24 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

In real life, the conservative approach is to literally shout down the opposing argument, or to simply shut it out, as broadcast nightly on Fox News.

 

That you actually say this about others while not seeing it in yourself is both amazing and hysterically funny. 

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Azalin said:

 

That you actually say this about others while not seeing it in yourself is both amazing and hysterically funny. 

[B-Man]