If only there was something we could do...

[leroy jenkins]

leeroy: haha - ad hominem attacks are used when a person has nothing

Me: well here’s numerous instances just from the past few pages where you resorted to ad hominem attacks

leeroy:

You know what, I guess you do have a point. I argued with idiots and they dragged me down to their level.



But still, theres a pretty big difference. I just make some snarky insults for funsies. You guys really legit try to accuse me of being a racist, a terrible person, and fantasizing about violence because i disagree with you about something. None of which are remotely true, even insufferale username unicorn bitch's obsessive quest to find one single post of mine in my entire history here that said if the majority of people in a country are in resistence to their government they probably have a good reason. Like thats the closest you got.


So maybe, ya know, stick with the possibly entertaining insults, and don't actually try to convince yourselves this character assassination is remotely true?

But you all just NEED to to be. Anyone who disagrees with me is a racist narcissist terrible person and loves violence.


You know what, you guys in your infinite wisdom have convinced me. I'm not anti gun. Fuck those gun owners. One ofthe biggest obstacles to gun control is the fact people can still vote on state laws that are different than federal laws. We need to abolish the whole concept of people directly voting for anything. This is not a democracy!


If you think I'm trolling with hyperbole, I encountered this exact argument spoken sincerely today. This is how crazy anti gunners are.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

You know what, you do have a point. I guess I have argued with idiots, who have dragged me down to their level.

Is this what a brilliant rebuttal looks like?

I have done any searching for posts you’ve made about this topic, by now I think we’re all clear about your stance btw. I would think someone with your intellect would understand that everyone posting in this thread disagrees with your opinions and leave it at that.

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[leroy jenkins]

Is this what a brilliant rebuttal looks like?

I have done any searching for posts you’ve made about this topic, by now I think we’re all clear about your stance btw. I would think someone with your intellect would understand that everyone posting in this thread disagrees with your opinions and leave it at that.

Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

I thought you were going to prove where I fantasized about violence and civil war right?

And no, every once in a while someone else wanders in and exclaims, holy shit you guys are fucking nuts.


You sure you don't want to baselessly accuse me of narcissism, racisms, fascisms, and fantasizing about violence when you have nothing to back these claims?


This kind of gaslighting isn't something sane people do.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

I thought you were going to prove where I fantasized about violence and civil war right?

And no, every once in a while someone else wanders in and exclaims, holy shit you guys are fucking nuts.


You sure you don't want to baselessly accuse me of narcissism, racisms, fascisms, and fantasizing about violence when you have nothing to back these claims?


This kind of gaslighting isn't something sane people do.

I’ve never made any of those claims about you you delusional moron. Talk about gaslighting. You must be confused from huffing CLP.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[leroy jenkins]

I’ve never made any of those claims about you you delusional moron. Talk about gaslighting. You must be confused from huffing CLP.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

OK, how about when are you going to prove I made posts fantasizing about violence? Thats a pretty serious accusation, and you said you'd demonstrate it to be true. Making a strawman out of a post of mine years ago, and still being obsessed with that same strawman doesnt count. Theres nothing fantasizing about violence in that post of any other of mine.

And i was lumping you in with some other mental midgets. Should be obvious. Nothing gaslighting about it.


So go ahead. Find this supposed quote, cus the one you've got isn't what say it is you gaslighting fucktard. See thats what gaslighting is, when you try to distort reality. Which is most of what you do.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

You’ve got me confused with someone else, you’re unhinged and triggered


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[MultiVerse]

Scary to contemplate how many incel gravy seals may be out there with a gun on their person, an aggrandized self image in their head and fear in their heart thinking they are captain America saving the nation.

Many of these incel morons think the Second Amendment is about armed insurrection. For them it's more than a fantasy, it's real to them. They believe it's part of the 'checks and balances,' even though the exact opposite is true. The Second Amendment was meant as a way to maintain public order, not undermine it.

Patrick Henry and George Mason along with other anti-Federalists didn't trust a federal government would put down slave revolts. At the time there were a number of violent slave revolts in the Americas and Southern populations were especially concerned about gun restrictions making it difficult to put down slave rebellions.

So Federalists, who didn't trust standing armies in general, like Alexander Hamilton thought a well-regulated militia was “the most natural defense of a free country,” and anti-Federalists who didn't trust a federal government to protect their interests compromised by creating the Second Amendment as a way to police and control society.

None of the modern debates about individual rights let alone 'check and balances' were part of the Founders’ Second Amendment thinking.

[exsparky]

The Second Amendment was meant to leave citizens with the ability to defend themselves against threats from tyranny. "Slave revolts," crime or personal safety, wildlife or what ever were not the primary concern. It was the British, the French, maybe some Indians, feathers not dots that was fresh on everybody's minds at the time.

Guys like Henry and Mason were there, yeah they did stuff. But they weren't pulling the weight the others were, it was a small percentage. There were small roving slave patrols but real Forts with cannons were being built and manned. Boston didn't fund a police force for another 50 years.

After 300 pages you don't even know that.

[MultiVerse]

Uprisings against the government were never conceptually part of the Second Amendment. Boston in 1786, for example, along with a majority of other major early American cities enacted gun control laws because they were more concerned about anarchy, not government tyranny.

Insurrectionary groups like the Shay’s Rebellion in 1787 or the Whiskey Rebellion in 1791 or the Carolina Regulators along with many other vigilante groups were an ongoing problem for early state and federal governments. They were all put down. When early American politics routinely turned violent the government had to step in and restore order, culminating with the American Civil War in 1861.

[leroy jenkins]

Uprisings against the government were never conceptually part of the Second Amendment. Boston in 1786, for example, along with a majority of other major early American cities enacted gun control laws because they were more concerned about anarchy, not government tyranny.

Insurrectionary groups like the Shay’s Rebellion in 1787 or the Whiskey Rebellion in 1791 or the Carolina Regulators along with many other vigilante groups were an ongoing problem for early state and federal governments. They were all put down. When early American politics routinely turned violent the government had to step in and restore order, culminating with the American Civil War in 1861.

So when are you going to post this quote showing me fantasizing about violence and civil war?

[leroy jenkins]

The Second Amendment was meant to leave citizens with the ability to defend themselves against threats from tyranny. "Slave revolts," crime or personal safety, wildlife or what ever were not the primary concern. It was the British, the French, maybe some Indians, feathers not dots that was fresh on everybody's minds at the time.

Guys like Henry and Mason were there, yeah they did stuff. But they weren't pulling the weight the others were, it was a small percentage. There were small roving slave patrols but real Forts with cannons were being built and manned. Boston didn't fund a police force for another 50 years.

After 300 pages you don't even know that.

Well, its also the Rockafellers and Pinkertons. Everyone always acts like its just about gubmints, and possibly debate foreign vs domestic. Its also about the people who the government lacks the ability to protect you from. Sometimes thats just ruffians. Sometimes its non governmental tyranny.

[MultiVerse]

So when are you going to post this quote showing me fantasizing about violence and civil war?

I already did. Several times in fact. Leroy corrected the record and said it wasn't a fantasy for him, instead it is his reality saying, "Its definitly not a fantasy" if insurrection or civil war broke out "they're probably on the right side of history anyways, and I do view that as part of our system of checks and balecnes."

[leroy jenkins]

Many of these incel morons think the Second Amendment is about armed insurrection. For them it's more than a fantasy, it's real to them. They believe it's part of the 'checks and balances,' even though the exact opposite is true. The Second Amendment was meant as a way to maintain public order, not undermine it.

Patrick Henry and George Mason along with other anti-Federalists didn't trust a federal government would put down slave revolts. At the time there were a number of violent slave revolts in the Americas and Southern populations were especially concerned about gun restrictions making it difficult to put down slave rebellions.

So Federalists, who didn't trust standing armies in general, like Alexander Hamilton thought a well-regulated militia was “the most natural defense of a free country,” and anti-Federalists who didn't trust a federal government to protect their interests compromised by creating the Second Amendment as a way to police and control society.

None of the modern debates about individual rights let alone 'check and balances' were part of the Founders’ Second Amendment thinking.

So you don't understand even the basic concept of a deterrent, or of checks and balances.


I guess I've been too generous by saying you're making a strawman out of my post. I think you're just so fucking stupid you can't tell the difference between, well, anything.

[leroy jenkins]

I already did. Leroy corrected the record and said it wasn't a fantasy for him, instead it is reality for him saying, " I do view that as part of our system of checks and balecnes."

No, its you making a strawman and being a melodrama insufferable little bootlicking cunt.


The quote doesn't say what you says it does,. You just made up some crazy shit because you're a crazy person.

I;'m really glad with how nuts the anti gunners are, that most of you don't own guns.

[MultiVerse]

This is a direct quote, Leroy: "Its definitly not a fantasy" if insurrection or civil war broke out "they're probably on the right side of history anyways, and I do view that as part of our system of checks and balecnes."

None of the modern debates about individual rights let alone 'check and balances' were part of the Founders’ Second Amendment thinking.

[exsparky]

Except it happened again in

1946 during the McMinn County War.

San Juan Nationalist revolt in 1950.

The Glenville Shootout in 1969.

Occupation of Alcatraz 1969-1971.

More recent cases could be made but I think they are a little thin. IE the capital attack.

[MultiVerse]

Oh yeah, it kept happening. Don't forget about reconstruction era KKK or the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre. That's why the federal government had to step in during the Civil Rights Movement, albeit not to the extent of the Civil War insurrection. Given our history, it should be clear to everyone by now that the idea of insurrection or revolution represents a serious misunderstanding of the Second Amendment.

[leroy jenkins]

This is a direct quote, Leroy: "Its definitly not a fantasy" if insurrection or civil war broke out "they're probably on the right side of history anyways, and I do view that as part of our system of checks and balecnes."

None of the modern debates about individual rights let alone 'check and balances' were part of the Founders’ Second Amendment thinking.

lol you say direct quote then you take it completely out of context, chopping my sentence in half and inserting in something that changes its meaning fundamentally.

That is NOT what I said.

are you this crazy, or this stupid?


I saidif a majority of people were opposed to the government THEN they're probably on the right side of history. That was the key point of that post, is if its just a few radicals, they'll be easily put down. If its 70% of the population, well that doesn't just happen by accident or for no reason.

I NEVER said that simply if an uprising takes place, its on the right side of history.


Are you this stupid or this crazy?



The craziest part is, you don't need to try to distort reality to still have a point about gun control. but your outright lack of grasp on reality alienates moderates extremely effectively. Keep it up I love it.

[MultiVerse]

This is the context, Leroy, you argued in a purely theoretical context, "If its half the population and a signifigant portion of the military, well then, they're probably on the right side of history anyways, and I do view that as part of our system of checks and balecnes."

That's why I only half jokingly call you Teton Gravity’s incredibly dumb Confederate Uncle. Although, of course, irony is lost on you 'anyways.'

[leroy jenkins]

That is the context, Leroy. You argued in a purely theoretical context, "If its half the population and a signifigant portion of the military, well then, they're probably on the right side of history anyways, and I do view that as part of our system of checks and balecnes." That's why I only half jokingly call you Teton Gravity’s incredibly dumb Confederate Uncle. Although, of course, irony is lost on you 'anyways.'

yea, thats the context. That is not the context you presented in your last post. Your last post deliberaly manipulated what I said to change the meaning because you're a manipulative crazy controlling person. Thats you.

and yea now that you've got the actual quote, its hardly radical. If a majority of a country is opposed to their government, they probably have a good reason and didn't just get bored or forget to take their meds or watch one too many action movies.

Shocking.


In no whatsoever, is this fantasizing about civil war or violence. There's nothing fantasizing about it at all.

You want people who disagree with you to be gravy seals with violence boners with a desire to force their will onto others, but the truth is, that's close to your own self than to me.

Despite being absolutely obsessed with me for years, and ad nauseum asserting that I 'fantasize about violence' this is the closest you can find and its like a 10,000 mile stretch.

You are a crazy person. The shit you say is made up.

[MultiVerse]

and yea now that you've got the actual quote, its hardly radical. If a majority of a country is opposed to their government, they probably have a good reason and didn't just get bored or forget to take their meds or watch one too many action movies.

lol, Leroy says "NO UNION! yeah, long live the Confederacy!"

[leroy jenkins]

and there was absolutly nothing ironic about all the times you've asserted that I've been 'proven' to fantasize about violence. That wasn't some ironic little chuckle or satire or anything else. it was you just saying that shit trying to pretend like its true. Because you're a weird crazy manipulative psycho. You're inherently performative, trying to create the appearance of having proven something, rather than actually proving anything. Its super wierd.

No you try to play it off like "I was just being ironic and meh its just lost on you cus you're not smart enough" The word you're looking for is facetious. Ironic doesn't fit here.


Nope, you're a crazy person, acting like a crazy person.

[MultiVerse]

lol, Leroy thinks irony is something with metal in it. He’s a Full Metal Douchebag.

[leroy jenkins]

Oh yes now its all light hearted banter. When you're trying to falsely paint me as a violent extremist, which could actually end up having real consequences, you're totaly super serial, but now, once you've shown yourself to obviously be a crazy manipulative weirdo, well its all fun and games right?

youre pathetic.


And again, the word you're looking for is facetious you dumbass. It would only be ironic if you were calling me that because you think I'm very much NOT that. Like calling a giant named John Little John.

You mean faceteous. Unless of course, you actually were making that joke because you were really saying you know I'm very much not someone who fantasizes about violence, in which case, well thats even crazier of you because you've also just plainly asserted this about me, and even stated it as 'proven'.

Nope, you're just a manipulative crazy person. and this isn't even about guns. You don't do this to win an argument because the argument is important. You do it because you're a manipulative crazy weirdo who doesn't know facetious from ironic.

[MultiVerse]

When you're trying to falsely paint me as a violent extremist, which could actually end up having real consequences, you're totaly super serial

.... facetious from ironic.

Civil War is violent and extreme, Leroy. That's why Leroy's quote in context, "If its half the population and a signifigant portion of the military, well then, they're probably on the right side of history anyways, and I do view that as part of our system of checks and balecnes," is ironic.

Because half the country and a significant portion of the military did wage war on the federal government. They were definitely on the wrong side of history. And no, it was not part of our "system of checks and balecnes." It was treason. It's problematic when people with no more self-awareness than a ceramic floor believe their guns exist to fight against other Americans in a war.