Liberals Bring Rocks To A Gun Fight

[Spurminator]

Tell the kids in that Florida school that the shooter wasn't real. The grizzly doesn't need to be the federal government. Your strawman regarding fighting the government is just a fart in the wind.

The kids aren't the ones arming themselves with rocks (or guns.) And it's not a strawman, it's a common 2A argument.

If it "won't matter" why do you care if they try?

I do care that paranoid morons thinking they can save America from the liberals by stocking up weapons are driving demand for an archaic and dangerous industry and making those weapons cheap and easy to obtain on the secondary market.

[Spurtacular]

The kids aren't the ones arming themselves with rocks (or guns.) And it's not a strawman, it's a common 2A argument.



I do care that paranoid morons thinking they can save America from the liberals by stocking up weapons are driving demand for an archaic and dangerous industry and making those weapons cheap and easy to obtain on the secondary market.

Crying about capitalism. Typical liberal.

[rmt]

The kids aren't the ones arming themselves with rocks (or guns.) And it's not a strawman, it's a common 2A argument.



I do care that paranoid morons thinking they can save America from the liberals by stocking up weapons are driving demand for an archaic and dangerous industry and making those weapons cheap and easy to obtain on the secondary market.

I am confused. If less and less companies are selling firearms and people are hoarding them, how does that make those weapons cheap and easy to obtain in any market?

[Spurminator]

If less and less companies are selling firearms and people are hoarding them, how does that make those weapons cheap and easy to obtain in any market?

I don't know if fewer companies are making them, but gun sales continue to increase year-over-year despite fewer people owning them.

I would prefer they were hoarded, generally, and I think cutting off the supply hose can help facilitate that. Hoarders are currently pulling from a supply that continues to be replenished.

[Chris]

Spurm talking out of his ass again

[Pavlov]

You never debate either. Where's your stance on why kids having rocks is the best idea? You haven't listed it, "chicken ".

Straw man.

[Pavlov]

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Insists on asking questions than refuses to directly answer others had been your go to move for years.......

Sorry, you never answered mine.

[Nathan89]

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Insists on asking questions than refuses to directly answer others had been your go to move for years.......

I don't come on here often but that's pretty much what I've seen from him.

[Pavlov]

I don't come on here often but that's pretty much what I've seen from him.

lol bomb show

[Spurtacular]

Straw man.

Saying you haven't put forth an argument for the main debate is a straw man, according to you.
That pretty much says it all (for every thread you ever post in).

[Expert]

The kids aren't the ones arming themselves with rocks (or guns.) And it's not a strawman, it's a common 2A argument.

Same for the 1st. It's about having the freedom to speak out against your own government. Do you think you can overwhelm them by speaking on a corner? If not, is the 1st Amendment obsolete?

I do care that paranoid morons thinking they can save America from the liberals by stocking up weapons are driving demand for an archaic and dangerous industry and making those weapons cheap and easy to obtain on the secondary market.

Why do you care?

[Expert]

I don't know if fewer companies are making them, but gun sales continue to increase year-over-year despite fewer people owning them.

I would prefer they were hoarded, generally, and I think cutting off the supply hose can help facilitate that. Hoarders are currently pulling from a supply that continues to be replenished.

I still don't get the entire gist of this complaint. Someone showed a poll that said 90% of respondents were in favor of gun restrictions/laws. Why don't those people simply get rid of their guns, then only 10% of the population would possibly be armed?

Someone explain this.

[pgardn]

I still don't get the entire gist of this complaint. Someone showed a poll that said 90% of respondents were in favor of gun restrictions/laws. Why don't those people simply get rid of their guns, then only 10% of the population would possibly be armed?

Someone explain this.

Nice math work there...

[Spurminator]

Same for the 1st. It's about having the freedom to speak out against your own government. Do you think you can overwhelm them by speaking on a corner? If not, is the 1st Amendment obsolete?

The scenario where one feels compelled to speak out against the government is far more common than the scenario where someone needs to fight government intervention with a gun. It's about being able to freely criticize. Plus, ideas are more powerful against tyranny than an AR.

So, no, the 1A is not obsolete. And I don't recall saying the 2A was obsolete, so that's a strawman from you.

Why do you care?

Why do I care about weapons of mass murder being too affordable and readily available with limited accountability on who can own them? How can anyone not care? I get that caring about stuff isn't cool here.

[Spurminator]

I still don't get the entire gist of this complaint. Someone showed a poll that said 90% of respondents were in favor of gun restrictions/laws. Why don't those people simply get rid of their guns, then only 10% of the population would possibly be armed?

Someone explain this.

It's been explained to you many times. Favoring gun legislation doesn't mean favoring the removal of (or giving up) one's guns. This is not a difficult nuance.

[Spurtacular]

Saying you haven't put forth an argument for the main debate is a straw man, according to you.
That pretty much says it all (for every thread you ever post in).

Pavlov Chump



Yea, you rightly walked away with your head between your legs on that note.

[Expert]

The scenario where one feels compelled to speak out against the government is far more common than the scenario where someone needs to fight government intervention with a gun. It's about being able to freely criticize. Plus, ideas are more powerful against tyranny than an AR.

The 1st Amendment isn't to placate people who want to speak out. It's to enable public dissent without legal repercussions to ensure a free society. It doesn't matter how often someone feels compelled to do it. The intent is the same. What good are words without force behind them?

So, no, the 1A is not obsolete. And I don't recall saying the 2A was obsolete, so that's a strawman from you.

That's where the entire "militia" thing is going though. Why are you denying it? Either "shall not be infringed upon" means what it says or it doesn't, and it either matters or it doesn't. Both the 1st and 2nd are in place for basically the same reason, the 2nd just enforces the 1st even if it's not that powerful.

Why do I care about weapons of mass murder being too affordable and readily available with limited accountability on who can own them? How can anyone not care? I get that caring about stuff isn't cool here.

You didn't answer the question. Why do you care?

[Expert]

Nice math work there...

If you consider the poll to be an accurate representation of the general population then it works fine. If you don't, the poll is worthless. You can't just use it when it works for you without needing to accept the facts surrounding the data.

[Spurminator]

The 1st Amendment isn't to placate people who want to speak out. It's to enable public dissent without legal repercussions to ensure a free society. It doesn't matter how often someone feels compelled to do it. The intent is the same. What good are words without force behind them?

This doesn't contradict anything I said. "Being able to freely criticize" means "enable public dissent without legal repercussions." And frequency is absolutely relevant to whether or not a Cons utional Amendment is obsolete.

But again, I'm not arguing for obsolescence. That said, if we're comparing the current-day relevance and necessity of the 1A vs. the 2A, the 1A wins easily.

That's where the entire "militia" thing is going though. Why are you denying it? Either "shall not be infringed upon" means what it says or it doesn't, and it either matters or it doesn't. Both the 1st and 2nd are in place for basically the same reason, the 2nd just enforces the 1st even if it's not that powerful.

They are two separate amendments for a reason, if they were inextricably related they'd have been included in the same amendment. There is no current scenario where the 2nd Amendment enforces the 1st. Can you name one?

You didn't answer the question. Why do you care?

I don't care about anyone's GI Joe fantasy. I do care about the easy availability of guns that can be used in mass murder because it's too easy for them to get into the wrong hands, because I care when people needlessly die at the hands of someone who should have never had that gun.

Reduce the supply, drive up prices, let the hobbyists and the wannabe militiamen buy as many as they want.

[spurraider21]

2A isn't obsolete in and of itself.

the notion that armed citizens are going to defeat a tyrannical government like the continental army did do the brits is obsolete, imo. that's just a lousy argument.

[pgardn]

If you consider the poll to be an accurate representation of the general population then it works fine. If you don't, the poll is worthless. You can't just use it when it works for you without needing to accept the facts surrounding the data.

So 100% of the population is armed...

Thats cool. Where did you pull that from?

[Pavlov]

Saying you haven't put forth an argument for the main debate is a straw man, according to you.
That pretty much says it all (for every thread you ever post in).

you still don't know what a straw man is.

[Spurtacular]

you still don't know what a straw man is.

I know what a diversion is. Fact is you haven't made the case for why rocks is better than guns.

[Expert]

2A isn't obsolete in and of itself.

the notion that armed citizens are going to defeat a tyrannical government like the continental army did do the brits is obsolete, imo. that's just a lousy argument.

Is that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment? If so, what's the purpose of the 1st, and is it also obsolete?

[Expert]

So 100% of the population is armed...

Thats cool. Where did you pull that from?

Doesn't matter if they are or not unless you think only armed people were polled.

Then again, you likely have no ing clue what I'm referring to but you have a comment just the same.