Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Mother Cocanuts

Gun Control III: the Hedge Knight Rises.

248 posts in this topic

Please don't use the word "retarded"  when discussing the validity of any argument.  You are misusing it at best, and being rather insulting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Pebble said:

Please don't use the word "retarded"  when discussing the validity of any argument.  You are misusing it at best, and being rather insulting.

I'm not "misusing" it. I'm using it colloquially. (That's the reason you insinuate that I'm being "rather insulting.") And don't police my words. I haven't used it to describe any particular person, so I don't imagine who, other than you, would take it as an insult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

I'm not "misusing" it. I'm using it colloquially. (That's the reason you insinuate that I'm being "rather insulting.") And don't police my words. I haven't used it to describe any particular person, so I don't imagine who, other than you, would take it as an insult.

are you really this condescending in real life? 

you killed this conversation because of your inability to debate in any sort of a manner that allows actual discourse. all you care about is believing you have won the topic.

in reality all you have done is turned off anyone who would have engaged you. may i kindly suggest you work on your approach if you really want to have conversations.

but,  if this is just an excersize in quasi-intellectual masturbation, happy wanking!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MercurialCannibal said:

are you really this condescending in real life? 

you killed this conversation because of your inability to debate in any sort of a manner that allows actual discourse. all you care about is believing you have won the topic.

in reality all you have done is turned off anyone who would have engaged you. may i kindly suggest you work on your approach if you really want to have conversations.

but,  if this is just an excersize in quasi-intellectual masturbation, happy wanking!

https://postimg.org/image/im8chc7ih/

 

/Obligatory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MercurialCannibal said:

are you really this condescending in real life?

No.

1 hour ago, MercurialCannibal said:

you killed this conversation because of your inability to debate in any sort of a manner that allows actual discourse. all you care about is believing you have won the topic.

No, this conversation was killed by what I assume are adults that cannot control their emotions, who instead of arguing on the merits and logic of their statements, demand concession, compromise, and a more "gentile" approach. Like I've stated, I don't care how you feel. You care about how you feel. This is the reason I've been the target of relentless emotional projection. Case in point, my approach and arguments have not been any different toward Ser Scot A Ellison than it has been toward anyone else. Yet, he has not once attempted to insult me. I presume this is because he's an emotionally stable adult. Furthermore, the statements he has submitted have been germane to the subject matter, not specious characterizations informed by delusion. And that's because he understands debate in the manner that I do: not a contest over our personalities, but one over the intellectual integritiy of our arguments.

If you take issue with the manner in which I argue, I don't care. Your emotions are irrelevant to me. Only you can determine the amount of time for which you're willing to waste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, back on track...
With that one poster distracting everyone, I don't think I've even seen the study about waiting periods mentioned:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/16/us/waiting-periods-guns.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/10/16/health/waiting-period-firearms-study/index.html
This could be an interesting idea, as even the most hardcore gun rights advocates will find it difficult to claim waiting is an infringement of their right to bear arms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, in case anyone was wondering, now is officially still not the time to have this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, James Arryn said:

So, in case anyone was wondering, now is officially still not the time to have this discussion.

Unsurprisingly, the upside for 2nd amendment loonies in declaring discussion out of line is that near weekly mass shootings prevent the discussion from ever actually happening. In their mind at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Loonies shooting shit up and killing 25 or so people, is now below the queen stashing away a few quid and MPs feeling people up as a headline on the BBC. Nobody gives a shit anymore. 

Not to worry though, the governor is sending 'thoughts and prayers' and Trump is 'monitoring the situation'.

Edited by BigFatCoward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/4/2017 at 0:57 PM, Mother Cocanuts said:

The logic of this rationale is borderline retarded. It would be like my saying "the right to free speech is 'borne' by the individual; therefore, all public forums and discussions are not protected by the express terms of the first amendment." If Scalia did in fact support that interpretation, that's not only retarded, but also deceitful.

No.  The specific words used in the Second Amendment are "keep and bear" arms.  The point is that not all arms may be "borne" by one person.  To operate such weapons you need more than one person and that they, therefore, cannot be among those arms protected because they cannot be "borne" by a single person. 

Further, that under the concept of "militia" those people appearing to serve in the militia were expected to keep and bear their own small arms, pistols and rifles, they were not expected to keep and bear heavy weapons such as artillery and those that have been created since the time of the writing of the Second Amendment.  As such is is a long way from foolish to claim that the team based weapons like artillery, missiles, tanks, and nuclear weapons are not among those protected by the express terms of the second amendment.  

And, for the record, the word "retarded" when used to describe either an individual or their argument has long been frowned upon in this forum.  We would all appreciate it if you refrained from that particular term. Pebble has the right of it. 

Edited by Ser Scot A Ellison

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Week said:

Holy shit.  I've been out of pocket all weekend.  This is the first I've heard of this.  Wow.  How many people have to die before people agree that real regulation of the right to keep and bear arms is proper?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Holy shit.  I've been out of pocket all weekend.  This is the first I've heard of this.  Wow.  How many people have to die before people agree that real regulation of the right to keep and bear arms is proper?

All the people, apparently. As Mother C stated in an earlier installment of this thread, as long as these acts are the deed of a minority of gun owners, (s)he won't agree to any regulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We probably shouldn't do anything about murder, theft, or other crimes unless a majority of the population is committing them *lolsob* *rolls beautiful eyes*.  C'mon, gang, we can do better than that!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just learned of this by turning on the NPR news.

Yet another mass murder by a massively armed and armored man.

Many children -- all together about half the church's congregation.

Interviews on the ground have brought up the shock and horror, "that this could happen here.  Because -- this is a community that is heavily armed.  Everybody has guns."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thoughts and prayers, guys. Never mind that Sutherland Springs lost about 7% of their population today. There's just nothing to be done about it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0