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

[Tiberius]

Just now, LeviF91 said:

 

Interestingly enough, Hamilton was essentially a monarchist.  He later praised the four-year term for the greater good, but was desirous of a lifetime term.

He was a contradiction in many ways. Not big on voting rights, but all for economic freedoms.

[LA Grant]

6 hours ago, LA Grant said:

 

Oh hey jmc! Well, I already know you're trash from your posts on TSW but speaking of Amendments... Let's hear it from Thomas Jefferson. (Apologies he doesn't write in message board style for you, jmc, but it's worth it to read through the full excerpt, or even more!)

 

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the arc of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment. I knew that age well; I belonged to it, and labored with it. It deserved well of its country. It was very like the present, but without the experience of the present; and forty years of experience in government is worth a century of book-reading; and this they would say themselves, were they to rise from the dead. I am certainly not an advocate for frequent and untried changes in laws and constitutions. I think moderate imperfections had better be borne with; because, when once known, we accommodate ourselves to them, and find practical means of correcting their ill effects. But I know also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times." 

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/letter-to-samuel-kercheval/

 

"Can one generation bind another, and all others, in succession forever? I think not. The Creator has made the earth for the living, not the dead. Rights and powers can only belong to persons, not to things, not to mere matter, unendowed with will."

https://thefederalistpapers.org/founders/jefferson/the-creator-has-made-the-earth-for-the-living-not-the-dead

 

"A generation may bind itself as long as its majority continues in life; when that has disappeared, another majority is in place, holds all the rights and powers their predecessors once held, and may change their laws and institutions to suit themselves. Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and inalienable rights of man."

 

^

Congrats on being the binding generation, you selfish lazy old useless farts.

 

 

Bumping this quote YET AGAIN for Tasker/LABillz who seem very hung up on the idea that somehow the Second Amendment and Guns are as unchangeable as the wind or the ground.

 

IT IS A DOCUMENT INTENDED TO BE CHANGED.

 

The reason it is not changed is because.... Well, that's a good question. Suppose it would take some ugly people with ugly thoughts to do something they're very uncomfortable with: look in a mirror. 

[LeviF]

1 minute ago, LA Grant said:

 

Bumping this quote YET AGAIN for Tasker/LABillz who seem very hung up on the idea that somehow the Second Amendment and Guns are as unchangeable as the wind or the ground.

 

IT IS A DOCUMENT INTENDED TO BE CHANGED.

 

The reason it is not changed is because.... Well, that's a good question. Suppose it would take some ugly people with ugly thoughts to do something they're very uncomfortable with: look in a mirror. 

 

Then go for it bro, amend the Constitution.  It's been done 27 times before.

 

Until then, shove it, kitty.

[LA Grant]

6 hours ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

An truly convincing argument:  "I can't dispute a single fact presented, and I'm an emotional and self-righteous dickhead, so I'll call names instead."

 

I am convinced.  Where should I turn over my firearms?

 

I do thank you for your asshattery, however, because while your particular brand of howling into your facebook echo chamber won't do a thing to take a single gun off the street, prevent a single gun death, or help a mentally ill child, what it does do, very effectively, is put gun owners on the further defensive.

 

And that's fine, stupid as it may be to pick a fight with the people with all the guns.

 

 

No one wants your stupid firearms. No one is coming for your guns, you knob. No one is scared of "the people with all the guns." 

 

I don't know how this idea just won't pass through your doughy mind. NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOUR LOSER HOBBY SHOOTING BEER CANS IN THE WOODS. It is a false equivalency.

 

Guns are NOT PROTECTING YOU from some evil government dystopia. Good lord.  Legal Gun Owners are the softest people alive. Not just in the mid-section. In the brain.

Just now, LeviF91 said:

 

Then go for it bro, amend the Constitution.  It's been done 27 times before.

 

Until then, shove it, kitty.

 

Aw I'm sorry you're being mildly inconvenienced with message board posts you don't prefer! Life is so hard for you!

 

Don't worry. Go take gun from safe. Look at gun. Gun won't judge you. Gun thinks you're smart and cool.

Edited February 22, 2018 by LA Grant

[DC Tom]

6 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Bumping this quote YET AGAIN for Tasker/LABillz who seem very hung up on the idea that somehow the Second Amendment and Guns are as unchangeable as the wind or the ground.

 

IT IS A DOCUMENT INTENDED TO BE CHANGED.

 

The reason it is not changed is because.... Well, that's a good question. Suppose it would take some ugly people with ugly thoughts to do something they're very uncomfortable with: look in a mirror. 

 

If you think that's what Tasker and LA are saying, you are more retarded than I thought.  And I thought you were seriously impaired to begin with.

[B-Man]

21 minutes ago, thebug said:

Trump? 

 

Nope, just acknowledging that gator had (again) set his stupidity up on a tee for our board's history majors.

 

 

 

 

.

 

[thebug]

2 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

Nope, just acknowledging that gator had (again) set his stupidity up on a tee for our board's history majors.

 

 

 

 

.

 

I thought it meant T'd off. 

[DC Tom]

3 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

Nope, just acknowledging that gator had (again) set his stupidity up on a tee for our board's history majors.

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

I wasn't going to bother, since he made it damn clear he didn't read anything anyone else posted.

[LA Grant]

3 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

If you think that's what Tasker and LA are saying, you are more retarded than I thought.  And I thought you were seriously impaired to begin with.

 

You (or Tasker) do not have a point. You have "gun control doesn't work," "b-b-but the Second Amendment," and any number of distractions/excuses like "what about prayer" or "what about fatherlessness" or "what about opiods" or "what about spoons" or whatever.

 

You are not "sniping retards from the balcony." You are not clever. You're just pissy, evasive, and petulant on a Bills message board. Somehow you think of yourself as a hero, a man out of a time, a cowboy born in the wrong age. It's really amazing, but it's not surprising, because it's this whole idiotic debate writ small. You're not some useless lazy old fart, you're like those charming balcony Muppets! Yeah, that's the ticket....  Like the NRA, you are delusional, cynical, and useless. GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS! The only thing protecting us from EVIL TYRANNY is a bunch of chubbos with a stupid hobby. Therefore AR-15s should be legal everywhere. 

 

Once again: you have no point, no argument. 

 

 

[DC Tom]

1 minute ago, LA Grant said:

 

You (or Tasker) do not have a point. You have "gun control doesn't work," "b-b-but the Second Amendment," and any number of distractions/excuses like "what about prayer" or "what about fatherlessness" or "what about opiods" or "what about spoons" or whatever.

 

You are not "sniping retards from the balcony." You are not clever. You're just pissy, evasive, and petulant on a Bills message board. Somehow you think of yourself as a hero, a man out of a time, a cowboy born in the wrong age. It's really amazing, but it's not surprising, because it's this whole idiotic debate writ small. You're not some useless lazy old fart, you're like those charming balcony Muppets! Yeah, that's the ticket....  Like the NRA, you are delusional, cynical, and useless. GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS! The only thing protecting us from EVIL TYRANNY is a bunch of chubbos with a stupid hobby. Therefore AR-15s should be legal everywhere. 

 

Once again: you have no point, no argument. 

 

 

 

Like I said...I don't have a point, I just deconstruct stupidity.  

 

Not yours, though.  You're doing a bang-up job deconstructing yourself.  Where ever DID you get the above lunacy?

[KW95 - JA17]

2 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

You (or Tasker) do not have a point. You have "gun control doesn't work," "b-b-but the Second Amendment," and any number of distractions/excuses like "what about prayer" or "what about fatherlessness" or "what about opiods" or "what about spoons" or whatever.

 

You are not "sniping retards from the balcony." You are not clever. You're just pissy, evasive, and petulant on a Bills message board. Somehow you think of yourself as a hero, a man out of a time, a cowboy born in the wrong age. It's really amazing, but it's not surprising, because it's this whole idiotic debate writ small. You're not some useless lazy old fart, you're like those charming balcony Muppets! Yeah, that's the ticket....  Like the NRA, you are delusional, cynical, and useless. GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS! The only thing protecting us from EVIL TYRANNY is a bunch of chubbos with a stupid hobby. Therefore AR-15s should be legal everywhere. 

 

Once again: you have no point, no argument. 

 

 

 

I just take it for what it is LAGrant. Everyone knows he's got the good one liners.  That is all he brings to the boards.  If he feels good about it, that is what counts. He makes me smile and laugh as well. in regards to opinions and points of views on anything,  He is vanilla. no flavor....but again, his one liners are funny!

[Nanker]

3 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

If any single image better perfectly captures pure evil, I don't want to see it.

Will this do?

 

 

[thebug]

8 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

I wasn't going to bother, since he made it damn clear he didn't read anything anyone else posted.

Zip it. 

[LA Grant]

4 minutes ago, KW95 said:

I just take it for what it is LAGrant. Everyone knows he's got the good one liners.  That is all he brings to the boards.  If he feels good about it, that is what counts. He makes me smile and laugh as well. in regards to opinions and points of views on anything,  He is vanilla. no flavor....but again, his one liners are funny!

 

Yes, Tom is funny sometimes on TSW. It's clearly gone to his head down here.

 

7 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

Like I said...I don't have a point, I just deconstruct stupidity.  

 

Not yours, though.  You're doing a bang-up job deconstructing yourself.  Where ever DID you get the above lunacy?

 

If you were good at deconstructing stupidity, you'd realize you're stupidly wasting all this valuable social satire toiling in PPP. 

 

Looks like a handy delusion to me. "Hey, not me, I don't have a point, I go after all sides. I'm an Equal Opportunity Offender. I snipe retards from the balcony with a Muppets avatar. I have a mug with funny words on it and several funny bumper stickers." 

[thebug]

2 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Yes, Tom is funny sometimes on TSW. It's clearly gone to his head down here.

 

 

If you were good at deconstructing stupidity, you'd realize you're stupidly wasting all this valuable social satire toiling in PPP. 

 

Looks like a handy delusion to me. "Hey, not me, I don't have a point, I go after all sides. I'm an Equal Opportunity Offender. I snipe retards from the balcony with a Muppets avatar. I have a mug with funny words on it and several funny bumper stickers." 

Don't worry, it's 4:30 so dinner time for Tommy. 

[Chandemonium]

30 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

7 hours ago, LA Grant said:

"A generation may bind itself as long as its majority continues in life; when that has disappeared, another majority is in place, holds all the rights and powers their predecessors once held, and may change their laws and institutions to suit themselves. Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and inalienable rights of man."

 

^

Congrats on being the binding generation, you selfish lazy old useless farts.

 

 

Bumping this quote YET AGAIN for Tasker/LABillz who seem very hung up on the idea that somehow the Second Amendment and Guns are as unchangeable as the wind or the ground.

 

IT IS A DOCUMENT INTENDED TO BE CHANGED.

 

 

The right to bear arms falls under the unchangeable bit mentioned in the bolded section. The right to freedom is inherent and inalienable. By extension the right to protect said freedom against those who would take it  away by force is also inherent and inalienable. Ergo, since those who would take this right by force have guns and will continue to do so, we the people get them too.

[TakeYouToTasker]

1 minute ago, LA Grant said:

 

Bumping this quote YET AGAIN for Tasker/LABillz who seem very hung up on the idea that somehow the Second Amendment and Guns are as unchangeable as the wind or the ground.

 

IT IS A DOCUMENT INTENDED TO BE CHANGED.

 

The reason it is not changed is because.... Well, that's a good question. Suppose it would take some ugly people with ugly thoughts to do something they're very uncomfortable with: look in a mirror. 

The Document is permitted to be changed, not intended to be changed.  Intended changes would have made at the time of ratification.  Intended changes like, for instance, adding the Bill or Rights.

 

The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution because it could not have been ratified without it.  It was understood by all in attendance of the Convention that the right to self-defense and the defense of rights against oppressors was the absolute sacred right of the People.  Those opposed to adding the Bill of Rights asserted that what we now deem to be "Second Amendment rights" were so obvious and intrinsic that their protection need not be encoded, as the body of the Document itself did not permit the federal government the power to infringe on that obvious natural right (and all other rights enumerated in the BoR), and knowing the despotism of the Leviathan, feared a possible future in which the People enjoyed only the rights specifically enumerated which went against their intentions.  Those who did insist on it for ratification did so because they also knew the despotism of the Leviathan, and foresaw a possible future in which the government recognized no rights not specifically enumerated.  Both fears wound up being valid, with the advantage of hindsight.  The compromise was the 10th Amendment.

 

The purpose of the Amendment process was not to eliminate of modify the rights of Americans.  The purpose, in relation to the natural rights, is carefully spelled out in the Document's pre-amble.  The first words of the Document, which tell's you of their importance to those writing it:  "...to...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." 

 

This "Liberty" outlined in the Declaration of Independence is defined as not coming from government, but instead being inborn, intrinsic, and inalienable (meaning inseparable from the holder).

 

The Founders never intended the Amendment process to remove rights from it's citizens.  They quite clearly didn't believe that any just form of government even had that authority.  The had, in fact, just fought a war for the very purpose of establishing that fact.

 

The Amendment process was included for three reasons: 1) the compromise over slavery was untenable, and they knew they needed to leave room for changes as liberty grew,  2)  the were creating a new form of government structurally, and had the desire to make if possible to reform roles, duties, and checks and balances as became necessary, and 3)  they feared the expansion of government over the People it intended to govern, and wished to leave the ability to add to the list of enumerated rights in the likely even that government grew to bold.

 

24 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

You (or Tasker) do not have a point. You have "gun control doesn't work," "b-b-but the Second Amendment," and any number of distractions/excuses like "what about prayer" or "what about fatherlessness" or "what about opiods" or "what about spoons" or whatever.

 

You are not "sniping retards from the balcony." You are not clever. You're just pissy, evasive, and petulant on a Bills message board. Somehow you think of yourself as a hero, a man out of a time, a cowboy born in the wrong age. It's really amazing, but it's not surprising, because it's this whole idiotic debate writ small. You're not some useless lazy old fart, you're like those charming balcony Muppets! Yeah, that's the ticket....  Like the NRA, you are delusional, cynical, and useless. GOOD GUYS WITH GUNS! The only thing protecting us from EVIL TYRANNY is a bunch of chubbos with a stupid hobby. Therefore AR-15s should be legal everywhere. 

 

Once again: you have no point, no argument. 

 

 

That's not a factual counter argument addressing any of the points or concerns raised, it's a fiat declaration based on nothing more than your own feelings.  And it's not very bright. 

 

I'm going to go ahead and stick with my argument, because yours isn't very impressive.

[Koko78]

26 minutes ago, Nanker said:

Will this do?

 

 

 

Not acceptable. The reference was to pure evil from a SJW perspective.

 

Goddess-Queen Hillary is not pure evil, she is the victim of the misogynistic, racist, bigoted, hateful patriarchy that just exists to keep the poor liberal woman down.

[Cinga]

30 minutes ago, LA Grant said:

 

Bumping this quote YET AGAIN for Tasker/LABillz who seem very hung up on the idea that somehow the Second Amendment and Guns are as unchangeable as the wind or the ground.

 

IT IS A DOCUMENT INTENDED TO BE CHANGED.

 

The reason it is not changed is because.... Well, that's a good question. Suppose it would take some ugly people with ugly thoughts to do something they're very uncomfortable with: look in a mirror. 

You right, the Constitution can be changed, and that very document tell you how to go about doing it.... But your quotes are based on ignorance of that document and this Nation. Let me just take this one:

 

Quote

A generation may bind itself as long as its majority continues in life; when that has disappeared, another majority is in place, holds all the rights and powers their predecessors once held, and may change their laws and institutions to suit themselves. Nothing then is unchangeable but the inherent and inalienable rights of man."

The very premise of this assumes wrongly that the United States is a Democracy which we are NOT!  It speaks of majorities which the Founder dreaded because so long as there is a rule by majority, it is ALWAYS to the detriment of the minority. I know what you have been taught in school, and I know what politician always say, but they are wrong too.

You see, an extreme of a Democracy would be making the minority give all their earnings over to the majority. Or even for the majority to exempt themselves from all laws and even take the voting rights away from the minority to assure you are forever the majority.

We are a Constitutional Republic, much different than a Democracy in that it is a limited government whose main responsibility it is to protect the rights of the smallest minority,,, The individual.

 

And if you really think any attempt to infringe on the right to bear is not a precedent for more rights taken away, you are sadly mistaken. Just look at the infringements on rights over the last couple decades. If it were not for the investigations going on now,if Hillary had won, I would have expected her to figure a way to suspend the Constitution, or try to.... We know Obama looked into that possibility

[LA Grant]

6 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

The Document is permitted to be changed, not intended to be changed.  Intended changes would have made at the time of ratification.  Intended changes like, for instance, adding the Bill or Rights.

 

The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution because it could not have been ratified without it.  It was understood by all in attendance of the Convention that the right to self-defense and the defense of rights against oppressors was the absolute sacred right of the People.  Those opposed to adding the Bill of Rights asserted that what we now deem to be "Second Amendment rights" were so obvious and intrinsic that their protection need not be encoded, as the body of the Document itself did not permit the federal government the power to infringe on that obvious natural right (and all other rights enumerated in the BoR), and knowing the despotism of the Leviathan, feared a possible future in which the People enjoyed only the rights specifically enumerated which went against their intentions.  Those who did insist on it for ratification did so because they also knew the despotism of the Leviathan, and foresaw a possible future in which the government recognized no rights not specifically enumerated.  Both fears wound up being valid, with the advantage of hindsight.  The compromise was the 10th Amendment.

 

The purpose of the Amendment process was not to eliminate of modify the rights of Americans.  The purpose, in relation to the natural rights, is carefully spelled out in the Document's pre-amble.  The first words of the Document, which tell's you of their importance to those writing it:  "...to...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..." 

 

This "Liberty" outlined in the Declaration of Independence is defined as not coming from government, but instead being inborn, intrinsic, and inalienable (meaning inseparable from the holder).

 

The Founders never intended the Amendment process to remove rights from it's citizens.  They quite clearly didn't believe that any just form of government even had that authority.  The had, in fact, just fought a war for the very purpose of establishing that fact.

 

The Amendment process was included for three reasons: 1) the compromise over slavery was untenable, and they knew they needed to leave room for changes as liberty grew,  2)  the were creating a new form of government structurally, and had the desire to make if possible to reform roles, duties, and checks and balances as became necessary, and 3)  they feared the expansion of government over the People it intended to govern, and wished to leave the ability to add to the list of enumerated rights in the likely even that government grew to bold.

 

 

You're way off. The idea, as clearly outlined in those Jefferson letters as anywhere (but not just there), is that the document evolves with society. They were aware they were not Moses coming down from the mountain, although people like yourself get completely lost and miss the forest for the trees. You, your stubbornness, your unwillingness to change or compromise — you are what they were trying to save us from.

 

Military technology is NOT a God-given inalienable right. It is not inborn. It is not intrinsic. 

 

NRA folk are clinging to this perversely warped misinterpretation of the Bill of Rights/the Second Amendment because they think Obama himself is going to come smack the rifle out of their hand or something.

 

Again — No one cares about you shooting beer cans in the woods. But AR-15s are not an inalienable right. OBVIOUSLY. It's madness that such a statement even needs to be said.