If only there was something we could do...

[leroy jenkins]

Well, the constitution protects the right to bear arms, but "arms" isn't a defined term. Therefore, the general public needs access to *all* arms - anything less is unconstitutional.

Think of how safe women would be if they could mask up and deploy sarin gas against any would-be attackers! And if a good guy with a handgun is a deterrent to crime, think of how much *more* crime could be deterred if the good guys had RPG's. Better yet, if the good guys had some truly large armaments, we could effectuate a cold war on crime since the criminals would need to acknowledge the downsides of mutually assured destruction. We'd all be so safe!

(It always strikes me that the whole gun control debate is kind of silly. More or less everyone agrees that the majority of arms aren't appropriate for civilian ownership. Gun control advocates want to move the line of what's appropriate for civilians one small notch to the left. The gun nuts all cry constitutional foul, while ignoring that the vast majority of arms are already disallowed, apparently without infringing on the 2A.)

Yea shall not be infringed is pretty specific. You guys ALWAYS want to move that line though. Always have and always will. You'll never solve the problem, you'll always just want more.

[leroy jenkins]

It's at least as much a fear of domestic powers which is the real magic.

Where did we get our modern labor laws? Ever hear of the ludlow massacre? The term 'massacre' is a bit of hyperbole, but would not have been if not for the miners being armed. The outcry after that resulted in much of our modern labor laws.

Domestic powers doesn't always mean the government. This wasn't even that long ago either.

[Cisco Kid]

And what would have happened if the miners had been armed to fight the militia? Never mind. I don't know either.

[leroy jenkins]

And what would have happened if the miners had been armed to fight the militia? Never mind. I don't know either.

What are you talking about? The miners were armed. And there wasn't any militia involved?. Do you mean the national guard? Can you make your question make a small amount of sense?

As ol Guthrie said

"Our women from Trinidad they hauled some potatoes
Up to Walsenburg in a little cart
They sold their potatoes and brought some guns back
And put a gun in every hand
The state soldiers jumped us in a wire fence corner
They did not know that we had these guns
And the red neck miners mowed down them troopers
You should have seen those poor boys run
We took some cement and walled that cave up
Where you killed those thirteen children inside
I said, "God bless the Mine Workers' Union"
And then I hung my head and cried"

[::: :::]

Why are you ok with someone stabbing someone to death in self defense, but not ok with them using a gun? How is getting stabbed to death better? Its just more dangerous to the person defending themselves.

I get you have an emotional attachment to just, anything other than guns, but besides your feelings, what are you really getting at here? That people don't have the right to self defense? If so, we're just going to have to disagree on that one. I have the right to self defense. So do you.

Some of this shit is just rediculous. Handful of dirt to the eyes? Ok dale gribble. Thanks for the laugh.

There are 500 million guns in the USA in private hands. THere are 20k gun murders a year, 80% of which are drug related. Empirically, gun owners are trustworthy as a whole.

Your reading skills are poor. And you keep trying to put words in my mouth that I’m not saying.

I fully support any person’s right to defend themselves. I just posted a whole list of possible strategies. The point you are missing is that self-defense is possible WITHOUT KILLING SOMEBODY. Not only that, it is preferable in any and all situations to killing someone.

So, yeah, get your krav maga on and distract/delay the problem with some dirt in the eyes or whatever is available. As long as ridiculous works, it works.

Why?
Life is precious.
Mistakes are made, and death is final / undoable.
Extrajudicial killing is not moral, rarely righteous, and removes the right-to-life of another human.
Civil justice isn’t served.

I am not afraid of my fellows being armed.

LOL. I don’t believe you at all. I don’t think you believe you. Your insistence on lethality as the only option for self-preservation belies your fear of all the people around you. The fascination with killing instead of self-defense is fucking weird.
The conspiracy notion of defending against government is pure fantasy. The way you defend against tyrannical government is to support life liberty and happiness by not voting in fascists who are intent on serving themselves or their small religious race-centric xenophobic or gun toting faction. You vote for the greater good of all people. By the time you need to pick up a gun, you’ve already lost.

[UkBCyeti]

Not everyone who is pro 2a has been brainwashed by the media. What an infantilizing masturbatory fart sniffing ridiculousness. Some people just disagree with you.

Less guns doesn't equal less deaths. LIke, your logic is sound less guns, less deaths, great, if we exist inside a little box, but if you acutally read history, the death tolls when unarmed populations are victimized by governments jumps into the hundreds of millions really quickly when shit goes that way, absolutely eclipsing the total numbers of all gun murders in democratic nations in the last hundred years.

But yea, the media lol. Cus the media is so pro gun? The largely anti gun media is brainwashing people? Or do you mean hollywood by the media? Their contradictory hard on for guns while being anti gun is odd, but really the media as a whole is anti gun.

Morning Leroy!
Let me start with your attempted insult. Quite happy that people disagree with me, I'm just trying to understand the thought process. As far as I can see it the justification you have for the amount of arms available is that the government of certain countries has slaughtered it's citizens at some point in history, and you feel you need to be able to defend yourself because of it. That's the media selling you a story, that the citizens of your country will end up being slaughtered. It's scaremongering, and it's working.
I won't go into the history of strikes and revolutions against the powers that be in my country and those others we've poked our noses into, because we'd be here all year. Gun control is seen as a positive thing by citizens of all western countries except the US, and that confuses me. I genuinely want to understand as a curious person, why you feel the way you do about something that makes no sense to me.
If it's just insults and bluster, that's pretty boring , so I'll bow out.

[toast2266]

Yea shall not be infringed is pretty specific. You guys ALWAYS want to move that line though. Always have and always will. You'll never solve the problem, you'll always just want more.

My point isn't that the line should (or shouldn't) be moved. It's that the constitutional arguments are essentially irrelevant. The fact that you can own an AR-15, can't own anti-aircraft missiles, and have to deal with a lot of red tape to own an AK-47 has almost nothing to do with what the 2A actually says. The current state of gun control has almost no basis in the language of the constitution. The firearms that are legal vs. illegal right now just comes down to the whims of politicians.

So acting like additional gun control measures are an infringement on constitutional rights is bullshit. Just call it for what it is: part of the country wants more guns, and part of the country wants less guns. There are fairly obvious upsides and downsides for each. It's not really any different than any of the other arguments for more/less taxes, more/less environmental restrictions, etc. The right focuses on short term pleasure at the expense of long term benefits, while the left wants short term sacrifice for long term gain. But those are practical arguments, not constitutional ones. When it comes to guns, the right loves to wrap their arguments in the flag to make them seem more important, but that's a pile of shit.

[leroy jenkins]

Morning Leroy!
Let me start with your attempted insult. Quite happy that people disagree with me, I'm just trying to understand the thought process. As far as I can see it the justification you have for the amount of arms available is that the government of certain countries has slaughtered it's citizens at some point in history, and you feel you need to be able to defend yourself because of it. That's the media selling you a story, that the citizens of your country will end up being slaughtered. It's scaremongering, and it's working.
I won't go into the history of strikes and revolutions against the powers that be in my country and those others we've poked our noses into, because we'd be here all year. Gun control is seen as a positive thing by citizens of all western countries except the US, and that confuses me. I genuinely want to understand as a curious person, why you feel the way you do about something that makes no sense to me.
If it's just insults and bluster, that's pretty boring , so I'll bow out.

How is it the media selling me a story? Thats the infantilizing part. and no I didn't insult you directly, I critiqued your argument. You just get to decide, no these people who disagree with me don't just disagree with me, they have been brainwashed by the media, or else they wouldn't disagree with me.

Gun control is seen as a positive by short sighted people.

Again, I didn't insult you, and your infantilizing is far more insulting and disrespectful than me accurately describing your infantilizing masturbatory imitation of critical thought. You assert I cannot be pro 2a without being brainwashed by the media. No, I just read history.

[leroy jenkins]

My point isn't that the line should (or shouldn't) be moved. It's that the constitutional arguments are essentially irrelevant. The fact that you can own an AR-15, can't own anti-aircraft missiles, and have to deal with a lot of red tape to own an AK-47 has almost nothing to do with what the 2A actually says. The current state of gun control has almost no basis in the language of the constitution. The firearms that are legal vs. illegal right now just comes down to the whims of politicians.

So acting like additional gun control measures are an infringement on constitutional rights is bullshit. Just call it for what it is: part of the country wants more guns, and part of the country wants less guns. There are fairly obvious upsides and downsides for each. It's not really any different than any of the other arguments for more/less taxes, more/less environmental restrictions, etc. The right focuses on short term pleasure at the expense of long term benefits, while the left wants short term sacrifice for long term gain. But those are practical arguments, not constitutional ones. When it comes to guns, the right loves to wrap their arguments in the flag to make them seem more important, but that's a pile of shit.

You're right, the 2a says shall not be infringed.

How is the right short sighted on this? BTW, I'm far left in almost every besides the 2a. Seems to me like the perspective to look at yearly murder rates vs rarer events that have death tolls in the hundreds of millions is very short sighted.

You're always trying to move that line too. And you're always gaslighting pro gun people by saying oh its just a little shift int he line but its a perpetual movement towards total disarmament.

The flags a pile of shit? Weird rant dude.

[leroy jenkins]

Your reading skills are poor. And you keep trying to put words in my mouth that I’m not saying.

I fully support any person’s right to defend themselves. I just posted a whole list of possible strategies. The point you are missing is that self-defense is possible WITHOUT KILLING SOMEBODY. Not only that, it is preferable in any and all situations to killing someone.

So, yeah, get your krav maga on and distract/delay the problem with some dirt in the eyes or whatever is available. As long as ridiculous works, it works.

Why?
Life is precious.
Mistakes are made, and death is final / undoable.
Extrajudicial killing is not moral, rarely righteous, and removes the right-to-life of another human.
Civil justice isn’t served.


LOL. I don’t believe you at all. I don’t think you believe you. Your insistence on lethality as the only option for self-preservation belies your fear of all the people around you. The fascination with killing instead of self-defense is fucking weird.
The conspiracy notion of defending against government is pure fantasy. The way you defend against tyrannical government is to support life liberty and happiness by not voting in fascists who are intent on serving themselves or their small religious race-centric xenophobic or gun toting faction. You vote for the greater good of all people. By the time you need to pick up a gun, you’ve already lost.

I think I'm way less scared than you. I don't carry and I don't try to disarm others.

Life is precious. Those that seek to put others lives in danger waive their right to the preciousness of their life being respected. Everyones life gets to be respected till you force others to make an either or choice, at which point the more innocent persons life is more precious.

Which people do we vote in that aren't fascists? Every president we have had in my life has been a criminal, domestically and abroad.

I believe people have a right to self defense. But thanks for infantilizing me as just being scared. Yes, you're sooooo fucking special no one but you could possible believe anything for any other reason than fear.

I am unafraid of my fellows owning guns.

[Cisco Kid]

ok sure.

[UkBCyeti]

Hello again Leroy!
I feel that you're not reading my words correctly. Let me rephrase.
Again, I am well aware that people disagree with me on many things, and enjoy finding out why, as I'm open minded enough to be swayed by new ideas, mostly.

I never asserted the above. I said your media was scaremongering and it was working, it has been for years, it's almost as if the US cannot exist without an enemy to bring you all together. That doesn't mean you have to be pro 2a in the slightest. You inferred that because you're feeling I'm attacking you.
My question to you is do you feel that you need guns to defend yourself, and if so, who from?

As for reading history, again, you're reading a version of history written with biases. The winner writes the history.

Interesting that you say gun control is seen as a positive by short sighted people. Can you elaborate?

[skaredshtles]

Hello again Leroy!
<snip>
My question to you is do you feel that you need guns to defend yourself, and if so, who from?

Spoiler: it's the brown people.

[::: :::]

Spoiler: it's the brown people.

and his own government, the one he votes for

[::: :::]

You're right, the 2a says shall not be infringed.

along with a lot of other words that don't assert personal defense by firearm

[jackstraw]

How is the right short sighted on this? BTW, I'm far left in almost every besides the 2a.

So that means you're voting for Biden.

I'd like to see the list of your FAR left leaning issues you're in favor of.

[Conundrum]

Life is precious. Those that seek to put others lives in danger waive their right to the preciousness of their life being respected. Everyones life gets to be respected till you force others to make an either or choice, at which point the more innocent persons life is more precious.

We need to arm more children apparently.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/darreon...h=4a1ad73b609e

Firearm fatalities increased by 87.1% over a 10-year period, from 1,311 deaths in 2011 to 2,590 deaths in 2021, the AAP found, beating out car accidents as the leading cause of death of children and teenagers in the U.S.

[Meadow Skipper]

…When it comes to guns, the right loves to wrap their arguments in the flag to make them seem more important, but that's a pile of shit.

…The flags a pile of shit? Weird rant dude.

I’m kind of impressed here Leroy. You have an incredibly long history in this thread of inconceivably and ridiculously laughable, ludicrous, and outright stupid takes and comebacks to peoples’ cogent, persuasive, and compelling observations and perceptions. But this one stands head and shoulders above your previous idiocy and inanity.

I’d say take a rest, a long rest.

[Ted Striker]

Your reading skills are poor.

It's not his reading...

[Ted Striker]

Gun control is seen as a positive thing by citizens of all western countries except the US, and that confuses me.

This is something non-Americans don't really get (probably) because the USA advertises itself as this shining beacon of democracy, complete with Martin Sheen and Kiefer Sutherland delivering inspirational speeches to millions - some of whom actually believed them to be presidents - but the US is minority rule.

The majority want gun control, are pro choice, pro separation of church and state, pro universal healthcare, pro immigration, etc, etc... But are hamstringed by concessions made to swing states, the outsized power granted to the few by the Electoral College, gerrymandering, suppression of non-white voters, and the Supreme Court legislating from the bench (this current gun mess can be traced back to DC v. Heller).

Additionally, this is a country where a great many don't suffer the consequences of their actions. Just ask the kids who get sent off to foreign conflicts (then ask the sons of wealth & power). Or families that filed for bankruptcy due to medical bills. Or just read the police thread on this forum.

If it's just insults and bluster, that's pretty boring , so I'll bow out.

It is.

[leroy jenkins]

Hello again Leroy!
I feel that you're not reading my words correctly. Let me rephrase.
Again, I am well aware that people disagree with me on many things, and enjoy finding out why, as I'm open minded enough to be swayed by new ideas, mostly.

I never asserted the above. I said your media was scaremongering and it was working, it has been for years, it's almost as if the US cannot exist without an enemy to bring you all together. That doesn't mean you have to be pro 2a in the slightest. You inferred that because you're feeling I'm attacking you.
My question to you is do you feel that you need guns to defend yourself, and if so, who from?

As for reading history, again, you're reading a version of history written with biases. The winner writes the history.

Interesting that you say gun control is seen as a positive by short sighted people. Can you elaborate?

I already toldyou, stop infantilizing me. i'm not scared. i trust my fellows to be armed and I don't feel the need to carry. I believe in the right to self defense.

And ok reeducate me about history from the losers perspective supporting gun control. Cus it seems like the hundreds of millions of dead at the hands of authoritarian governments probably aren't winners.

And this "i never said' is bullshit. You are saying people who disagree with you do so because the media tells them to. The media is anti gun too, and you can't describe how they aren't.

[leroy jenkins]

We need to arm more children apparently.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/darreon...h=4a1ad73b609e

Oh we've done this before. You're taking a single year high during the pandemic, when lockdowns prevented people from driving as much, and auto deaths went down, and you're also including 19 year old gang bangers as children.

You're allowed to have your views without distorting reality.

[leroy jenkins]

So that means you're voting for Biden.

I'd like to see the list of your FAR left leaning issues you're in favor of.

Probably RFK. Biden is shameful. Risk of mortality skyrockets every year after 80, and the blood on his hands with israel is just unforgiveable. But yea I voted for him last time.

[leroy jenkins]

Spoiler: it's the brown people.

You dumb fuck, Point to one single racist thing I have ever said. Sincerely, fuck you, fuck your mother. Just going around throwing around this racist accusation with no basis. You shouldn't have to resort to this.

I go shooting with brown people. Brown people and brown women are the fastest growing demographics of new gun owners you racist fuck.

[mrkbrnblm]

Which people do we vote in that aren't fascists? Every president we have had in my life has been a criminal, domestically and abroad.

This is such a stupid argument. Yes, all imperfect. But not all the same or equally bad. I know you know that… you’re just making excuses for the ass hole you like.




Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums