Gotta go. You’ll have to occupy yourself with using the threat of violence to stamp out more stuff you don’t like. Even though, ultimately, both parties were free to go their own ways.
I never mentioned my views on the 2A. I certainly never mentioned confiscating guns. Yet you already assumed that much. You are already in an us and them mode. That’s being divisive. You view gays as lesser citizens. Again, divisive. You have brought up defending yourself, or rather your views, with violence. You are exactly the kind of person dictators use. The ease with which you circle the wagons and the willingness to marginalize your fellow Americans is very tyrant friendly behavior.
Isn’t that the purpose of the 2A?
Says the guy who can’t let people freely associate. Mini-tyrant gonna tyrant. Seriously, got to go. Bye. For now.
Before I go…Geeze almighty. Now, I go.
Gun policy in the USA, turns to cake… Damn I love PWI!
I tried to tie it back to the 2nd. I tried to turn it back by pointing out he and his nanny state can’t even give people elbow room any more. And now we’re suppose to trust them to do, and continue to do, the right thing with the 2nd? Again, trying to turn it back. I did. He wants to focus on my reasoning about the other topic and I couldn’t completely keep myself from touching on it a little bit. I won’t bite from here on out. Sorry, thread.
1 Like
First off, you brought up the baker so that’s on you.
Second, I’d like you to quote where I said I was against the 2A or wanted there to be gun confiscation.
You are the problem in this country. You have put me in a group (divisiveness) and attacked me for being in that group. But, I haven’t even said I agree with that group on this issue. You obviously have some intellectual shortcomings to assume that because I believe the idea of taking up arms against the government is romanticized folly that I must not want Americans to have the right to own guns. Your intellect can’t overcome your tribalism.
1 Like
Edit: Nope, no more. Have fun…
Bwop bwop bwopppp
Nevermind, I don’t want to perpetuate this any longer.
I would take that bet and raise you 100 fold. The only way this could get in front of the Supreme Court in the future is if Congress passes new legislation making discrimination against age in public accommodations illegal. Until then, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to hear it.
I wasn’t mocking you or anybody. Just observing. We had a conversation about the Trump memo turn into a conversation about the Civil War… You know I like you… We all do the same thing.
In any event, I’m actually for amending the 2nd to reflect modern realities. I’m just not for creative interpretation. Or, belittling people for wanting to be able to maintain a right their founders spelled out. Or, belittling them for simply using the very argument used in the second. It clearly wanted citizens to be able to keep and bear arms capable of meeting enemy soldiers on a battle-field (be it foreign or domestic…). Not just to bag a deer or shoot some cans with a neighbor. But damn, amend the thing. Back ground checks, some restrictive language on weapon systems (front yard artillery argument), WHILE strengthening and reaffirming the right of the people to keep and bear arms otherwise. Who knows, maybe there could be some actual agreement.
No, I’m sorry, don’t apologize. I actually didn’t take offense. I’d even have to go back to see what I said that gave that impression. But, no, I didn’t take anything as mocking. I am just going to walk away from that part of the conversation now.
You have nothing to apologize for… peace.
Maybe there’s no need to clarify, but I’ll clarify anyway.
Again, if the 2A crowd is right about the 2A, it means there must be parity between the oppressors and the oppressed - otherwise, there’s no real “check”.
So, in pro basketball terms, the 2A is supposed to ensure any such contest is the Golden State Warriors versus the Houston Rockets. Right?
But despite this, the 2A crowd is content with the reality of the contest being the Warriors versus a junior high team - in effect saying the 2A requires only that there is some remote chance that the oppressed have a shot at defeating the oppressor. Parity no longer matters - as long as the 2A gives everyone a nonzero chance of winning - but only a nonzero chance - well, then, ok.
That makes no sense.
If the 2A crowd wants people to believe the threat of tyranny is real and we have rights to resist, then they have to logically believe:
-
We need legal access to any and all weapons that would give us parity to combat the heavily armed government, and/or
-
We need to reduce the size/scope of the standing army.
But they aren’t. They’re content to say parity doesn’t matter.
Point being, if the 2A crowd has conceded that parity doesn’t matter, so some restrictions on keeping/bearing is tolerable (for whatever reason), ans they have, then that’s a very, very important concession - it means everyone agrees restrictions are ok, it’s just a matter of line drawing where the restrictions are.
That’s fine. That’s where we are realistically. So the 2A crowd needs to be honest about it.
3 Likes
If you didn’t make stuff up in the first place you wouldn’t have to abandon ship.
He doesn’t. @Sloth is smart and a good guy and he’s been around for a long time.
He doesn’t ‘suffer fools gladly’. He’s typically a ‘to the point’ person.
It’s a saying not an insult, so don’t take it all personal.
Really? So when he accused me of wanting gun confiscation and being against the 2A he based that on me actually saying that instead of pulling it out of his ass? Is he a liar or just a moron?