RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment

RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Drakvampire -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/12/2017 3:48:48 PM)
Your President has many mental health problems and should be locked up in an asylum like all liars galore on here – or according to that lot anyone honest like me, kinda you, honest to a no faults, thence and in need of a handsome lobotomy I will ask this one more time. Who exercised his second Trump LA shooter. perha[ps hoi motive qwas the second? Trmps death tally exceed the shooter btw have any of you considered that?

Drakvampire -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/12/2017 3:49:55 PM)
Your alternative is? begin and i am being hnest

BamaD -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/12/2017 3:55:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Drakvampire Your President has many mental health problems and should be locked up in an asylum like all liars galore on here – or according to that lot anyone honest like me, kinda you, honest to a no faults, thence and in need of a handsome lobotomy I will ask this one more time. Who exercised his second Trump LA shooter. perha[ps hoi motive qwas the second? Trmps death tally exceed the shooter btw have any of you considered that? Try saying something rational and people will take you more seriously. If it wasn't because he was basically a nice guy why did he only kill about 6% of the people you claim would have been so easy to do. Give us a reason. I didn't lie because I never claimed you said he was a nice guy, I said you must thinkthat because you insist that he could have easily killed 1000 but only killed 6% of that number.

Drakvampire -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/12/2017 3:59:13 PM)
fact check ever utterance from trump on twitter to me and to the population of America. Begin.

bounty44 -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/12/2017 4:43:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Try saying something rational and people will take you more seriously. bama, while I appreciate your gentleness, he's well beyond that for me. he's been banned and caught at least a half dozen times trying to escape moderation and in the process engaging in vulgar and schizophrenic behavior. he's incapable of being rational. why the "drakvampire" incarnation has yet to be removed is beyond me. what he needs most of all is to get off the forum and get the help he seriously needs.

BamaD -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/12/2017 5:02:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Try saying something rational and people will take you more seriously. bama, while I appreciate your gentleness, he's well beyond that for me. he's been banned and caught at least a half dozen times trying to escape moderation and in the process engaging in vulgar and schizophrenic behavior. he's incapable of being rational. why the "drakvampire" incarnation has yet to me removed is beyond me. what he needs most of all is to get off the forum and get the help he seriously needs. I am afraid you are correct.

Drakvampire -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/12/2017 5:06:57 PM)
look at them both sick heads pukes

Drakvampire -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/12/2017 9:13:27 PM)
You infer I am a bit of a handsome loon with 3 cats? I went to a bit of a bother with your value of scant worth A test, If you like. And you chose ruination of me. You are a big man A Trump man. I stand up and applaud you, And your cowardice lies, You are the many on here on here. No I asked you a fucking question Did he exercise his 2nd?

DesideriScuri -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/13/2017 8:47:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 What I and others are trying to get people to understand is a very simple concept, fix the problems with the old regulations first and see how well it works. Hell the results should be clear within the first six months of implementation. Clearly you don't understand how life works. What you're proposing is a logical approach to an emotional issue. It's your biggest character flaw, imo. [/sarcasm] quote: Funny thing is that people and elected lawmakers never seem to grasp the concept of fixing a problem, they are quick to blame someone for the problem. It's better for there to be a problem a politician can blame on someone else; at least for the politician.

heavyblinker -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/13/2017 8:50:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 The second amendment will become obsolete when humanity as a whole stops trying to fuck each other over in the name of progress. Humanity as a whole? So all of the nations that have better gun control than the US are full of people who are constantly getting fucked over?

heavyblinker -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/13/2017 8:54:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 What I and others are trying to get people to understand is a very simple concept, fix the problems with the old regulations first and see how well it works. Hell the results should be clear within the first six months of implementation. Clearly you don't understand how life works. What you're proposing is a logical approach to an emotional issue. It's your biggest character flaw, imo. [/sarcasm] quote: Funny thing is that people and elected lawmakers never seem to grasp the concept of fixing a problem, they are quick to blame someone for the problem. It's better for there to be a problem a politician can blame on someone else; at least for the politician. Except you really need to be open to the possibility that the regulations can't be fixed because they are either designed to fail or simply not the best option. The regulations aren't the problem-- the regulations are just an attempt to solve the problem of people constantly using guns to kill each other. Whether you realize it or not, jlf's 'solution' is rooted in his very emotional relationship with his guns, not logic.

Drakvampire -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/13/2017 9:01:31 AM)
They have failed to answer and they have been afforded 18 pages to do so. I do not know about you but I believe that was more than fair. Futhermore none of them have answered the motive- perhaps he was exercising his 2nd? They lack the capacity to be responsible. I would therefore take their guns off them and wall the animals off from civil lands.

DesideriScuri -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/13/2017 9:23:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker Except you really need to be open to the possibility that the regulations can't be fixed because they are either designed to fail or simply not the best option. The regulations aren't the problem-- the regulations are just an attempt to solve the problem of people constantly using guns to kill each other. Whether you realize it or not, jlf's 'solution' is rooted in his very emotional relationship with his guns, not logic. Actually, if you applied logic to Jeff's solution, you'd see that there already is an acknowledgement that it's possible the regulations can't be fixed. How are you to know if they can or can't if you don't try? You're an idiot if you think the problem is that people are constantly using guns to kill each other. That's just a symptom to the actual problem: people are constantly trying to kill each other. There's the real problem.

heavyblinker -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/13/2017 10:32:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker Except you really need to be open to the possibility that the regulations can't be fixed because they are either designed to fail or simply not the best option. The regulations aren't the problem-- the regulations are just an attempt to solve the problem of people constantly using guns to kill each other. Whether you realize it or not, jlf's 'solution' is rooted in his very emotional relationship with his guns, not logic. Actually, if you applied logic to Jeff's solution, you'd see that there already is an acknowledgement that it's possible the regulations can't be fixed. How are you to know if they can or can't if you don't try? You're an idiot if you think the problem is that people are constantly using guns to kill each other. That's just a symptom to the actual problem: people are constantly trying to kill each other. There's the real problem. It has nothing to do with applying logic, stop pretending that this is about logic instead of about what you personally believe. The current system doesn't require people to prove that they are responsible enough to own a gun, and for that reason is doomed to fail. The states don't submit the info... not just blue states like jlf wants to believe-- MOST OF THEM. This has been going on for 19 years! At what point do we admit that it just won't work and it no longer matters why? So hey, yes, people want to kill each other-- which is why I'm pretty sure that there are already laws against people killing each other... just not against making it much much easier for them to succeed. So you can seriously argue that all of these 'defense against tyranny' arguments are about rational people facing the truth? Please.

WhoreMods -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/13/2017 10:40:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Actually, if you applied logic to Jeff's solution, you'd see that there already is an acknowledgement that it's possible the regulations can't be fixed. How are you to know if they can or can't if you don't try? Really? The impression I always get is that a lot of the gun bunnies are insisting that regulation just wouldn't work, so any talk about gun control has to be talking about an outright ban and crossing out the second amendment. It's like somebody's complaining about their Doctor wanting to treat an ingrowing toenail by amputating their leg, and trying to spin it as their GP being a surgery-happy freak rather than a refusal to remove their shoe so part of the nail can be cut off and filed down making things difficult. The regulations could be fixed fairly simply and quickly, but some are claiming that the regulations can't possibly be fixed in order to insist that the other side want to take extreme measures. It's a pretty crude form of sophistry, but it seems to be working.

heavyblinker -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/13/2017 10:49:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Actually, if you applied logic to Jeff's solution, you'd see that there already is an acknowledgement that it's possible the regulations can't be fixed. How are you to know if they can or can't if you don't try? Really? The impression I always get is that a lot of the gun bunnies are insisting that regulation just wouldn't work, so any talk about gun control has to be talking about an outright ban and crossing out the second amendment. It's like somebody's complaining about their Doctor wanting to treat an ingrowing toenail by amputating their leg, and trying to spin it as their GP being a surgery-happy freak rather than a refusal to remove their shoe so part of the nail can be cut off and filed down making things difficult. The regulations could be fixed fairly simply and quickly, but some are claiming that the regulations can't possibly be fixed in order to insist that the other side want to take extreme measures. It's a pretty crude form of sophistry, but it seems to be working. The moment I hear someone bring up the second amendment, I know they are incapable of being rational, and any challenges to their dogma are just going to be met with mindless patriotism. The entire 'second amendment' defense against gun control relies exclusively on a completely uncritical worship of history (more accurately, what they think it means). Inevitably the same person will have paranoid visions of being attacked by unknown assailants, the government, the military, a foreign power, etc. It's like the gun nuts seriously think that people in 1791 knew so much more about how modern society should function than anyone alive today.

WhoreMods -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/13/2017 10:54:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri Actually, if you applied logic to Jeff's solution, you'd see that there already is an acknowledgement that it's possible the regulations can't be fixed. How are you to know if they can or can't if you don't try? Really? The impression I always get is that a lot of the gun bunnies are insisting that regulation just wouldn't work, so any talk about gun control has to be talking about an outright ban and crossing out the second amendment. It's like somebody's complaining about their Doctor wanting to treat an ingrowing toenail by amputating their leg, and trying to spin it as their GP being a surgery-happy freak rather than a refusal to remove their shoe so part of the nail can be cut off and filed down making things difficult. The regulations could be fixed fairly simply and quickly, but some are claiming that the regulations can't possibly be fixed in order to insist that the other side want to take extreme measures. It's a pretty crude form of sophistry, but it seems to be working. The moment I hear someone bring up the second amendment, I know they are incapable of being rational, and any challenges to their dogma are just going to be met with mindless patriotism. The entire 'second amendment' defense against gun control relies exclusively on a completely uncritical worship of history (more accurately, what they think it means). Inevitably the same person will have paranoid visions of being attacked by unknown assailants, the government, the military, a foreign power, etc. It's like the gun nuts seriously think that people in 1791 knew so much more about how modern society should function than anyone alive today. Not to mention that your country has had a fairly respectable military set up since the end of the ~~American rebellion~~war of independence which would seem to make having an armed civilian militia redundant. (Though to be fair, that was still going on when the bill of rights was drafted...)

jlf1961 -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/13/2017 11:55:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: heavyblinker Except you really need to be open to the possibility that the regulations can't be fixed because they are either designed to fail or simply not the best option. The regulations aren't the problem-- the regulations are just an attempt to solve the problem of people constantly using guns to kill each other. Whether you realize it or not, jlf's 'solution' is rooted in his very emotional relationship with his guns, not logic. that is the biggest load of anti gun/more regulation bullshit that has ever been posted to this fucking board concerning this particular issue. Once more since you are clearly too damn dense to understand: If the following is true: The Gun Control Act (GCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person: convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; who is a fugitive from justice; who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 802); who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution; who is an illegal alien; who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions; who has renounced his or her United States citizenship; who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. And the National Criminal Information system is not mandatory for all those who have access to that information which would prevent the persons that the above applies to is not mandatory for them to place that information into the data base, how in the fuck are more strict back ground checks or any other measure introduced to make it so these particular groups cannot buy a gun possibly work?

heavyblinker -> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment (10/13/2017 12:03:13 PM)
WTF jlf, I already responded that a licensing system like the one in Canada would solve all of these problems. So what, am I obligated to defend the position you keep telling me I have? I am supposed to prove to you that a lot of shit I don't believe in is going to work because the Democrats want it? You do know that most of the Dem proposals are mostly about sucking up to the fanatics in the GOP, who will cry 'fascism' every time anyone makes it harder to get a gun, right? Why don't you listen to what I'm saying instead of calling me dense and whining about problems to which you haven't even tried to imagine a solution (because you actively WANT it to be hopeless)? You call me dense, slow, etc... and keep repeating your ridiculous whining and moaning about the background checks, yet you refuse to accept that I am way way way ahead of you here. You haven't even entertained the idea that maybe gun ownership should be a privilege not a right and that people should be proving that they ARE worthy of owning a gun instead of it being the state's responsibility to let everyone know that they AREN'T.

Page: << < prev 16 17 [18] 19 20 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875