View Full Version : There is an actual guide for gun control advocates to follow when debating.
boutons_deux
08-20-2013, 01:33 PM
Gun Registration Paper Trail Is Long And Convoluted
http://www.npr.org/2013/04/11/176954637/gun-registration-paper-trail-is-long-and-convoluted
any law enforcement officer ought to be able to trace any gun from his smartphone or car computer or anywhere, instantly.
You rolling around with a gun that isn't registered to you, the cop should confiscate the gun and arrest you, for a fine.
Then the registered owner needs to be found and queried, under threat of arrest and fine, why his gun was in somebody else's possession.
Th'Pusher
08-20-2013, 01:38 PM
What do you think this has affected concerning the research you want to see done?
You can't be serious. It's a wildly cumbersome hurdle to criminal investigations And frequently prevents the traceability of weapons used in crimes back to owners/purchasers hindering all types of research. This is base level data much research is built on.
as DMC proved by his inwillingness to answer dirct questions, this NRA implemented roadblock is completely unnecessary.
You can't be serious. It's a wildly cumbersome hurdle to criminal investigations And frequently prevents the traceability of weapons used in crimes back to owners/purchasers hindering all types of research. This is base level data much research is built on.
as DMC proved by his inwillingness to answer dirct questions, this NRA implemented roadblock is completely unnecessary.
I understand this. What I'm trying to figure out is what you think this data will do to influence policy decisions regarding gun control.
boutons_deux
08-20-2013, 03:01 PM
Creepy Christian Preacher Wanders Around Texas Town Armed With Assault Rifle to Protest Strictness of Texas Gun Laws
If you go shopping in Huntsville, Texas, you’re likely to run into a local preacher with an assault rifle slung across his back. Beginning last week, Pastor Terry Holcomb started posting videos of himself wandering into local businesses with an AR-15 Bushmaster rifle (http://www.youtube.com/user/tlholcomb1?feature=watch) — the same weapon used to kill 20 children and six adults (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/04/27/1931041/tennes) in the Newtown, Connecticut school shooting.
In one video, Holcomb wanders about a Walmart for several minutes before he is approached by two store employees and asked to leave. He argues briefly with those two employees until a manager approaches and threatens to call the police if he does not exit the store. Although Holcomb then agrees to leave the store, he refuses a request to stop videoing the engagement — at one point, his camera man claims the recording is for Holcomb’s “safety.”
Holcomb told a local news station that the purpose of his conspicuously armed visits to Huntsville businesses is to protest a Texas law which permits gun owners to openly carry long rifles but not handguns, which must be concealed and can only be carried by individuals with valid concealed carry permits.
http://www.alternet.org/creepy-christian-preacher-wanders-around-texas-town-armed-assault-rifle-protest-strictness-texas-gun?akid=10829.187590.e4wOE0&rd=1&src=newsletter885078&t=13
East Texas! :lol
Christian preachers! :lol
Th'Pusher
08-20-2013, 03:32 PM
I understand this. What I'm trying to figure out is what you think this data will do to influence policy decisions regarding gun control.
Look up the definition of source or core data. There are literally hundreds of analytics to be applied and studies to be executed to educate ourselves on the effect of guns on our society.
Look up the definition of source or core data. There are literally hundreds of analytics to be applied and studies to be executed to educate ourselves on the effect of guns on our society.
What do you think will be revealed with this new data?
boutons_deux
08-20-2013, 04:34 PM
What do you think will be revealed with this new data?
stuff the gun industry doesn't want us to know, and apparently the gun industry knows what that stuff is
stuff the gun industry doesn't want us to know, and apparently the gun industry knows what that stuff is
Like what? I'm honestly curious.
there are laws/legal precedent that frame the BoR and subsequent amendments to the constitution.
You mean like the law against a national firearm database? Other laws are interpretations by the states. That's why you can open carry in Vermont and you cannot even concealed carry in other states.
Might I suggest you choose your words more carefully next time...
You may suggest anything you wish.
It was a question, not a strawman. Would you like me to provide examples of where the 2nd amendment has been limited through law?
It was a strawman. I wasn't the one who brought up limitations. That was you. I know the playbook better than you (i.e. what about nuclear weapons? and i.e. what about yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?)
There is no limitation in "shall not be infringed upon". There are laws that limit our freedoms, but they do not remove our Constitutional rights, they just infringe upon them. That's what most USSC case law is about. Then again, only an emotional person would say the federal government is corrupt.
boutons_deux
08-20-2013, 04:56 PM
The NRA’s war on gun science (http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_nras_war_on_gun_science/)
In addition to fighting gun laws, the gun lobby has spent the past 20 years fighting research into gun safety
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_nras_war_on_gun_science/
Federal Law 18 U.S.C. 926
No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary’s authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation.
That's a law. If it's unconstitutional, start a petition and see where it goes.
If you think the US Constitution isn't a valid benchmark for laws affecting rights, you're in the wrong country.
Th'Pusher
08-20-2013, 08:16 PM
You mean like the law against a national firearm database?
Sure that, which I would argue is a law that has detrimental effects, or just about any law that is enforced by the ATF relating to firearms. The point is, and this has been consistently upheld by SCOTUS, the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited.
I personally take issue with the gun lobby writing laws to supress the collection of data and perform valuable research.
Th'Pusher
08-20-2013, 08:18 PM
It was a strawman. I wasn't the one who brought up limitations. That was you. I know the playbook better than you (i.e. what about nuclear weapons? and i.e. what about yelling "fire" in a crowded theater?)
There is no limitation in "shall not be infringed upon". There are laws that limit our freedoms, but they do not remove our Constitutional rights, they just infringe upon them. That's what most USSC case law is about. Then again, only an emotional person would say the federal government is corrupt.
the SCOTUs has consistently upheld that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited. Sorry, you may want to familiarize yourself with the law.
Th'Pusher
08-20-2013, 08:20 PM
That's a law. If it's unconstitutional, start a petition and see where it goes.
If you think the US Constitution isn't a valid benchmark for laws affecting rights, you're in the wrong country.
Now that's a straw man. I never suggested the law is unconstitutional, I just the the practice of suppressing data and defunding research through legislation is bad law/policy. Quite frankly I'm nit sure how any intellectually honest person would disagree.
Sure that, which I would argue is a law that has detrimental effects, or just about any law that is enforced by the ATF relating to firearms. The point is, and this has been consistently upheld by SCOTUS, the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited.
I personally take issue with the gun lobby writing laws to supress the collection of data and perform valuable research.
Not sure you know how a bill becomes a law, but here's a hint: Lobbyists don't write bills. Generally staffers write them. I know it makes you feel better to toe the party line with that type of nonsensical rhetoric but you're speaking to an adult. Act like you have at least a basic understanding of the federal government if you're going to bitch about how things are done, or is this just me focusing on words again?
the SCOTUs has consistently upheld that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited. Sorry, you may want to familiarize yourself with the law.
That's not what I asked. Pay closer attention and stop meandering off course. Where is the limitation in "shall not be infringed upon"? While a person cannot own a nuclear bomb, a person can keep and bear arms. Attempting to change the meaning of the term "arms" will not get you where you want to be. Telling someone they have to share data with the entire world if they want to keep and bear arms is infringing upon that right, the same as telling someone they have to share their personal data with the world if they want due process.
Now that's a straw man. I never suggested the law is unconstitutional, I just ? the the practice of suppressing data and defunding research through legislation is bad law/policy. Quite frankly I'm nit sure how any intellectually honest person would disagree.
Ergo if someone disagrees with you, they must be intellectually dishonest. Basically a bastardized form of argument by ridicule.
Example: Should the taxpayers pay for research into termite farts? Shouldn't you and I be forced to open our homes to people who come in and monitor termite farts? Anyone who doesn't is suppressing data and "defunding" research. How intellectually dishonest.
In fact, anything that can be researched that any group of people feels could bolster their political positions should be funded and completed. Anything else would be intellectually dishonest.
The NRA’s war on gun science (http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_nras_war_on_gun_science/)
In addition to fighting gun laws, the gun lobby has spent the past 20 years fighting research into gun safety
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/25/the_nras_war_on_gun_science/
You should lobby congress to stop the production of all these fully automatic revolvers.
Chief Brody
08-20-2013, 08:59 PM
boutons, nobody is going to read your links...you should have figured this out years ago
Th'Pusher
08-20-2013, 09:17 PM
Not sure you know how a bill becomes a law, but here's a hint: Lobbyists don't write bills. Generally staffers write them. I know it makes you feel better to toe the party line with that type of nonsensical rhetoric but you're speaking to an adult. Act like you have at least a basic understanding of the federal government if you're going to bitch about how things are done, or is this just me focusing on words again?
I am we'll aware the lobbyists don't actually write laws, although organizations like ALEC will in fact provide template for lawmakers that have been successful in other states, but generally at a state level. So yes, it's you focusing on words again. You understood the point.
That's not what I asked. Pay closer attention and stop meandering off course. Where is the limitation in "shall not be infringed upon"? While a person cannot own a nuclear bomb, a person can keep and bear arms. Attempting to change the meaning of the term "arms" will not get you where you want to be. Telling someone they have to share data with the entire world if they want to keep and bear arms is infringing upon that right, the same as telling someone they have to share their personal data with the world if they want due process.
I'm not attempting to change the meaning of arms to make my point. Can someone committed to a mental institution keep and bear arms? Is that not an infringement on that person's right? Again, it's not an unlimited right. And no one is suggesting they have to share data with the entire world to own a firearm. Another straw man. Safeguards can be put into place to protect the data from the public.
Ergo if someone disagrees with you, they must be intellectually dishonest. Basically a bastardized form of argument by ridicule.
Example: Should the taxpayers pay for research into termite farts? Shouldn't you and I be forced to open our homes to people who come in and monitor termite farts? Anyone who doesn't is suppressing data and "defunding" research. How intellectually dishonest.
In fact, anything that can be researched that any group of people feels could bolster their political positions should be funded and completed. Anything else would be intellectually dishonest.
We need to separate the conversation of gun ownership and safety from politics. that's where you use cost benefit analysis to determine how federal research funds are directed.
I personally take issue with the gun lobby writing laws to supress the collection of data and perform valuable research.
I am we'll aware the lobbyists don't actually write laws,
Dog in hunt/dog not in hunt
although organizations like ALEC will in fact provide template for lawmakers that have been successful in other states, but generally at a state level. So yes, it's you focusing on words again. You understood the point.
If I don't read your words, it does start to make more sense so you could have a point. Or do you want me to see the emotional side of it?
I'm not attempting to change the meaning of arms to make my point. Can someone committed to a mental institution keep and bear arms? Is that not an infringement on that person's right? Again, it's not an unlimited right. And no one is suggesting they have to share data with the entire world to own a firearm. Another straw man. Safeguards can be put into place to protect the data from the public.
lol Snowden says hi.
Once someone is committed, they give up that right. Maybe you need to do a bit more research on these talking points.
There is a foolproof safeguard in place now. It's called the law against a federal firearms database.
We need to separate the conversation of gun ownership and safety from politics. that's where you use cost benefit analysis to determine how federal research funds are directed.
That's impossible. The 2nd Amendment will always be a political talking point. You cannot separate that from politics. Should the 1st Amendment be removed from politics as well? How about the 4th?
Once you direct federal research funds to studying gun related crime, you're targeting guns. Like it or not. Every funded research program has a desired outcome, almost never an open ended discovery process but a specific finding is what fuels funding in the first place. Colleges get funded to find things that the private sector can profit from. They aren't being paid to see what happens when... but to find this or that marker. It's the hunt for Noah's Ark and anything you find that you can somehow call a remnant of the Ark you will call that for more funding.
So no, no federal funding to see how best to remove our 2nd Amendment rights. I'm not paying to have my rights removed.
Th'Pusher
08-20-2013, 10:18 PM
Dog in hunt/dog not in hunt
If I don't read your words, it does start to make more sense so you could have a point. Or do you want me to see the emotional side of it?
I'm not sure why you keep going back to my dog in the hunt comment. I've clearly stated what my dog in the hunt is.
lol Snowden says hi.
The Patriot Act is a highly flawed law and should hardly be used as a model for protecting personal data.
Once someone is committed, they give up that right. Maybe you need to do a bit more research on these talking points.
How about requiring an age limit to purchase a long gun or pistol? Is that not infringing on the right to bear arms based on arbitrary criteria?
There is a foolproof safeguard in place now. It's called the law against a federal firearms database.
There is a better safeguard which would not prevent the collection of data.
That's impossible. The 2nd Amendment will always be a political talking point. You cannot separate that from politics. Should the 1st Amendment be removed from politics as well? How about the 4th?
Once you direct federal research funds to studying gun related crime, you're targeting guns. Like it or not. Every funded research program has a desired outcome, almost never an open ended discovery process but a specific finding is what fuels funding in the first place. Colleges get funded to find things that the private sector can profit from. They aren't being paid to see what happens when... but to find this or that marker. It's the hunt for Noah's Ark and anything you find that you can somehow call a remnant of the Ark you will call that for more funding.
What you've described is bad science and nothing I'd recommend. Good science is perfectly apolitical and very well may result in recommended policy changes that loosen gun control laws. we need to collect the raw data to identify causal relationships.
I'm not sure why you keep going back to my dog in the hunt comment. I've clearly stated what my dog in the hunt is.
Because you keep contradicting yourself. Say what you mean and squelch the senseless doublespeak.
The Patriot Act is a highly flawed law and should hardly be used as a model for protecting personal data.
Same government.
How about requiring an age limit to purchase a long gun or pistol? Is that not infringing on the right to bear arms based on arbitrary criteria?
Children are not autonomous entities.
There is a better safeguard which would not prevent the collection of data.
Then it's not better (see Patriot Act response above). Give us your credit card information and we can find you good deals. Your data is safe with us. It's better than not having a credit card data collection process.
What you've described is bad science and nothing I'd recommend. Good science is perfectly apolitical and very well may result in recommended policy changes that loosen gun control laws. we need to collect the raw data to identify causal relationships.
There's no such as "apolitical" except in concept. It's like saying "good socialism works". We live in reality, and in reality everything the federal government does is for political reasons. There's no pressing need to research gun crime. It's been done already. What you're suggesting is a national firearm database that's "secret". It's not going to happen. You can can the "apolitical" crap now, especially in the "Political" forum.
With that I'm drawing our discussion to a close because I'm not getting anything from it.
Th'Pusher
08-21-2013, 07:40 AM
With that I'm drawing our discussion to a close because I'm not getting anything from it.
:tu
btw - Federal law prevents hand guns from being sold to people under the age of 21. INFRINGED!!!!!!
Clipper Nation
08-21-2013, 09:57 AM
It's inacurate and shows decision making based on emotion to say the government always abuses its power.
How many times does our government have to go sliding down the slippery slope on every issue before people like you accept that they can't be trusted with too much power? :lol
boutons_deux
08-21-2013, 10:24 AM
"they can't be trusted with too much power"
but you trust the power of the NRA and the gun industry.
The gun industry doesn't hold executive power. Financial power is part of a capitalistic society.
:tu
btw - Federal law prevents hand guns from being sold to people under the age of 21. INFRINGED!!!!!!
That affects the seller. The individual can still own the firearm. You lack capacity for critical thought which is why a debate with you is tedious.
Th'Pusher
08-21-2013, 11:12 AM
That affects the seller. The individual can still own the firearm. You lack capacity for critical thought which is why a debate with you is tedious.
Since the age appears to be set arbitrarily, what if the government set the age at 80 to legally buy a handgun from a licenced dealer? Would that be an infringement upon the right to bear arms if you could still legally own one at he ripe old age of 79?
Th'Pusher
08-21-2013, 11:14 AM
How many times does our government have to go sliding down the slippery slope on every issue before people like you accept that they can't be trusted with too much power? :lol
Limit power through law and prosecute when the law is broken.
Since the age appears to be set arbitrarily, what if the government set the age at 80 to legally buy a handgun from a licenced dealer? Would that be an infringement upon the right to bear arms if you could still legally own one at he ripe old age of 79?
There are infringements on the 2nd Amendment in some laws, if that's what you're asking. I don't see any reason for speculation based on hypothetical situations. The thing about Amendments is that states must ratify them, and then the states reserve the right to impose restrictions and individuals may challenge those at a higher level, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. Gay marriage is a good example of that. Abortion is yet another.
Limit power through law and prosecute when the law is broken.
You're saying that the government should regulate itself. Isn't that already happening? Who would create the laws? The government.. and who would prosecute? The same government. Could you see the US AG prosecuting the POTUS? No. That only happens in partisan cases.
Th'Pusher
08-21-2013, 03:21 PM
There are infringements on the 2nd Amendment in some laws, if that's what you're asking. I don't see any reason for speculation based on hypothetical situations.
:lol I did ask that (are the rights provided in the BoR unlimited), which you proceeded to call a staw man. You're a silly old man.
Th'Pusher
08-21-2013, 03:24 PM
You're saying that the government should regulate itself. Isn't that already happening? Who would create the laws? The government.. and who would prosecute? The same government. Could you see the US AG prosecuting the POTUS? No. That only happens in partisan cases.
If you don't like the checks and balances put in place by the founding fathers in the us constitution, take it up with them. :lol
:lol I did ask that (are the rights provided in the BoR unlimited), which you proceeded to call a staw man. You're a silly old man.
Why did you equivocate "infringements" to "unlimited"?
Unlimited is the right. Infringement is the violation of that right. I don't know what a "staw man" actually is.
If you don't like the checks and balances put in place by the founding fathers in the us constitution, take it up with them. :lol
Par per etc... you're shit is pushed in ergo your comedy defense mechanism (honk honk I'm a clown look at me) kicks in.
Th'Pusher
08-21-2013, 06:55 PM
Why did you equivocate "infringements" to "unlimited"?
Unlimited is the right. Infringement is the violation of that right. I don't know what a "staw man" actually is.
No. I equated limiting the right to keep and bear arms with infringing on your right to keep and bear arms and I did that about 30 posts ago. Glad you're finally coming around to the fact that regardless of the text 'shall not be infringed', the constitutional right to keep in bear arms is in fact limited (I.e. has been infringed upon), without an amendment to the constitution I might add. Fuck you're dense as shit.
Th'Pusher
08-21-2013, 06:56 PM
Par per etc... you're shit is pushed in ergo your comedy defense mechanism (honk honk I'm a clown look at me) kicks in.
Your shits getting pushed here old man...tell me how 'shall not be infringed' is an unlimited right to keep and bear arms again...
Th'Pusher
08-21-2013, 06:59 PM
Strawman. You deal with it.
Consider though: shall not be infringed upon
Find the limitations in that.
Glad you finally got around to finding those limitations you old goat. :lol
Your shits getting pushed here old man...tell me how 'shall not be infringed' is an unlimited right to keep and bear arms again...
No, I asked you to show me in that phrase where limitations exist. So far you haven't.
No. I equated limiting the right to keep and bear arms with infringing on your right to keep and bear arms and I did that about 30 posts ago. Glad you're finally coming around to the fact that regardless of the text 'shall not be infringed', the constitutional right to keep in bear arms is in fact limited (I.e. has been infringed upon), without an amendment to the constitution I might add. Fuck you're dense as shit.
I never said it's not been infringed upon. I said the phrase doesn't invoke a limitation. What's been done since has nothing to do with the phrase "shall not be infringed".
Glad you finally got around to finding those limitations you old goat. :lol
You keep using that word "old" but here you are, perhaps 20 years my junior, arguing with an old man on an internet message forum about the Bill of Rights and trying to debate politics. I certainly wasn't doing that 20 years ago.
Th'Pusher
08-21-2013, 07:06 PM
No, I asked you to show me in that phrase where limitations exist. So far you haven't.
they exist in law. Remember, we live in reality.
Th'Pusher
08-21-2013, 07:06 PM
I never said it's not been infringed upon. I said the phrase doesn't invoke a limitation. What's been done since has nothing to do with the phrase "shall not be infringed".
Except that's not reality.
Th'Pusher
08-21-2013, 07:07 PM
You keep using that word "old" but here you are, perhaps 20 years my junior, arguing with an old man on an internet message forum about the Bill of Rights and trying to debate politics. I certainly wasn't doing that 20 years ago.
Ah, the old I have no life b/c I post on the Internet bit. Fresh.
they exist in law. Remember, we live in reality.
Except that's not reality.
Ah, the old I have no life b/c I post on the Internet bit. Fresh.
1. So?
2. Sure it is.
3. cart before horse (you have no life ergo you post all day).
Th'Pusher
08-21-2013, 07:58 PM
:sleep
Rogue
08-21-2013, 07:59 PM
Why did you equivocate "infringements" to "unlimited"?
Unlimited is the right. Infringement is the violation of that right. I don't know what a "staw man" actually is.
Didn't know people were using "equivocate" this way 20 years ago tbh, thanks for the knowledge bro, you never disappoints me.
Didn't know people were using "equivocate" this way 20 years ago tbh, thanks for the knowledge bro, you never disappoints me.
It's my pleasure. Whatever I can do to assist in your endeavors to put to pen and paper your lucid stories of your travels, I'm at your disposal.
boutons_deux
08-22-2013, 04:53 PM
Tennessee 5-year-old detained after firing handgun in school cafeteria
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/kidwithgun-shutterstock.jpg
A 5-year-old kindergartener has reportedly been detained at a school in Tennessee after a handgun discharged in the cafeteria.
Shawn Pachucki with Shelby County Schools told WMCT (http://www.wmctv.com/story/23229636/5-year-old-fires-gun-in-school-cafeteria) that police were called to Westside Elementary School following a gunshot that happened in the cafeteria at around 7:30 a.m. Pachucki said that the child brought the gun to school in a backpack and it accidentally discharged.
“This morning at Westside Elementary School, a Kindergarten student brought a firearm to school in his backpack,” a statement from Shelby County Schools said. “While waiting for the opening bell in the cafeteria, the firearm discharged accidentally inside the child’s backpack. Nobody was injured, and staff immediately took possession of the backpack.”
The statement added: “SCS Security and the Memphis Police Department responded quickly, and the matter is now under investigation. There is no evidence at this time of harmful intent; however, weapons of any kind are prohibited on campuses, and this student will be disciplined in accordance with the state’s zero tolerance policy.”
Reports said that the child was being held inside the principal’s office.
While Westside Elementary remained in session on Thursday, many parents who heard the news came to take their children home early.
“We’re gonna have to get together to see what we should do from this moment on because you know what you can do when you’re sitting back watching it on the news but when it’s happening right in your face, that’s a lot,” parent Preston Warmley told WMCT.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/22/tennessee-5-year-old-detained-after-firing-handgun-in-school-cafeteria/
When The Great Boutons becomes divine right King of the USA, he will pass an edict that all guns and ammo in the home of this child will be confiscated and destroyed, and the registered gun owner fined $10K and forbidden gun ownership until no children live in his house.
When The Great Boutons becomes divine right King of the USA, he will pass an edict that all guns and ammo in the home of this child will be confiscated and destroyed, and the registered gun owner fined $10K and forbidden gun ownership until no children live in his house.
Stupid kid should have had the safety on.
J/K
I actually agree with you on the punishment you'd hand out.
Spurtacular
02-06-2019, 12:48 AM
I was waiting for your answer before I continued.
Don't get mad. Just answer the question, baby.
:lmao Spirited Chump
:lmao Minus ten dignity now.
Reminder to anyone who forgot
Th'Pusher
02-07-2019, 10:19 PM
Reminder to anyone who forgot
What is it that you think was accomplished Itt? Honest question.
Cold dead hands crew was pretty funny.
What is it that you think was accomplished Itt? Honest question.
Cold dead hands crew was pretty funny.
You look like a fucking retard.
Th'Pusher
02-09-2019, 08:59 AM
You look like a fucking retard.
Sure I could have been more clear. I did myself no favors by saying I had no dog in the hunt, then contradicting my position.
El Nono was able to clearly articulate the distinction. I was mocking the paranoid gun nut (read TSA) for his conspiratorial confiscation theory. My point was that there should be no federal restriction on researching the effects of guns on society so that we can make better informed decisions on gun control.
And I fully understand what the BoR is. You’ve already conceded that scotus has upheld limits on those rights. It’s just a matter of degree.
Sure I could have been more clear. I did myself no favors by saying I had no dog in the hunt, then contradicting my position.
El Nono was able to clearly articulate the distinction. I was mocking the paranoid gun nut (read TSA) for his conspiratorial confiscation theory. My point was that there should be no federal restriction on researching the effects of guns on society so that we can make better informed decisions on gun control.
And I fully understand what the BoR is. You’ve already conceded that scotus has upheld limits on those rights. It’s just a matter of degree.
No you looked like a retard.
Th'Pusher
02-09-2019, 06:53 PM
No you looked like a retard.
Low value post.
Low value post.
So many of your responses are non sequitur that any follow-up becomes a tedious exercise to get you back on the right path. Yet you continue to insist that you have an answer for something. Most of the time you don't even know the question.
:tu
btw - Federal law prevents hand guns from being sold to people under the age of 21. INFRINGED!!!!!!
That affects the seller. The individual can still own the firearm. You lack capacity for critical thought which is why a debate with you is tedious.
Since the age appears to be set arbitrarily, what if the government set the age at 80 to legally buy a handgun from a licenced dealer? Would that be an infringement upon the right to bear arms if you could still legally own one at he ripe old age of 79?
This is the kind of stuff I am talking about. You throw out something so obviously wrong and when I point that out, instead of acknowledging that you just throw out something else to see what sticks. I don't know why anyone would want to have a conversation with you to be honest when keep throwing these shit darts.
Th'Pusher
02-09-2019, 08:46 PM
This is the kind of stuff I am talking about. You throw out something so obviously wrong and when I point that out, instead of acknowledging that you just throw out something else to see what sticks. I don't know why anyone would want to have a conversation with you to be honest when keep throwing these shit darts.
The point is the right is not unlimited. It is just a matter of degree to which the right is limited which is done through legislation.
You keep going back to the “what part of shall not be infringed don’t you understand” argument while disregarding the fact that scotus has upheld limitations on the 2A.
Winehole23
02-09-2019, 09:04 PM
Ab initio, gun possession was regulated in no small number of ways. The right to bear arms and gun control arose together.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/country-s-founders-balanced-gun-237079
Blake
02-10-2019, 12:56 AM
That affects the seller. The individual can still own the firearm. You lack capacity for critical thought which is why a debate with you is tedious.
A 21 year old buying a gun and then legally giving it to an 18 year old is retarded.
Blake
02-10-2019, 12:58 AM
:lmao Minus ten dignity now.
Says a derp that grudge bumped a 5 year old thread for some derpy reason
The point is the right is not unlimited. It is just a matter of degree to which the right is limited which is done through legislation.
You keep going back to the “what part of shall not be infringed don’t you understand” argument while disregarding the fact that scotus has upheld limitations on the 2A.
You argue what's happened since the 2nd Amendment was written instead of the 2nd Amendment itself. It's like arguing that child molesting isn't a sin since the Catholic church seems to have endorsed those who do it.
A 21 year old buying a gun and then legally giving it to an 18 year old is retarded.
It's illegal. It's called a straw purchase. If you weren't so fucking stupid you'd know that. This is why debating these things is tedious with you low information posters.
Ab initio, gun possession was regulated in no small number of ways. The right to bear arms and gun control arose together.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/country-s-founders-balanced-gun-237079
Did you just discover this fact?
Winehole23
02-10-2019, 02:32 AM
Not at all.
Please catch up, Mr. 2nd Amendment absolutist.
Not at all.
Please catch up, Mr. 2nd Amendment absolutist.
Do you really want to consider the concept of slaves being denied 2nd Amendment rights as built in gun control? If so you need to consider they also couldn't vote or do a lot of things. Was that built in control as well?
Again, you don't really have a grasp of this debate, you just fling shit to see what sticks. Spend a few years on it and get back to me when you have a point you can illustrate in one post.
Winehole23
02-10-2019, 04:12 AM
Touched a nerve, would seem.
ElNono
02-10-2019, 08:38 AM
The fact that the Constitution provided the ability to change itself inherently means that was was written then wouldn't be the the last word on the matter.
That's a feature, not a bug.
boutons_deux
02-10-2019, 09:25 AM
The fact that the Constitution provided the ability to change itself inherently means that was was written then wouldn't be the the last word on the matter.
That's a feature, not a bug.
the Constitution is not amendable in practice, which is a feature, not a bug. Should be trashed totally for a new Constitution.
Th'Pusher
02-10-2019, 10:51 AM
You argue what's happened since the 2nd Amendment was written instead of the 2nd Amendment itself.
While in another thread, this discussion originated from your suggestion that a Bill introducing a 50% tax increase on ammunition was unconstitutional. Why would we limit our discussion to the original text and not what has happened since the second amendment? If the bill were to pass and be challenged in court, wouldn’t established case law be used to determine if the law was unconstitutional?
Blake
02-10-2019, 12:36 PM
It's illegal. It's called a straw purchase. If you weren't so fucking stupid you'd know that. This is why debating these things is tedious with you low information posters.
'An individual between 18 and 21 years of age may acquire a handgun from an unlicensed individual who resides in the same State, provided the person acquiring the handgun is not otherwise prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. "
https://www.atf.gov/questions-and-answers/qa/may-individual-between-ages-18-and-21-years-age-acquire-handgun-unlicensed
Lol low information poster
boutons_deux
02-10-2019, 01:03 PM
gun-fellators get their so-called arguments from NRA, GOA, BigGun
While in another thread, this discussion originated from your suggestion that a Bill introducing a 50% tax increase on ammunition was unconstitutional. Why would we limit our discussion to the original text and not what has happened since the second amendment? If the bill were to pass and be challenged in court, wouldn’t established case law be used to determine if the law was unconstitutional?
Show me where I said it was unconstitutional.
'An individual between 18 and 21 years of age may acquire a handgun from an unlicensed individual who resides in the same State, provided the person acquiring the handgun is not otherwise prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law. "
https://www.atf.gov/questions-and-answers/qa/may-individual-between-ages-18-and-21-years-age-acquire-handgun-unlicensed
Lol low information poster
You moved the goalposts again. You said a 21 year old can buy a firearm and give it to a person who cannot legally purchase it. The question you asked though in your link is can the 18-year-old legally acquire the firearm from the 21 year old. This is about intent. The law that affects the 18-year-old isn't the same law that affects the 21 year old. An 18-year-old cannot be prosecuted for straw purchase. The 21 year old can. You spoke about the 21 year old and now you're speaking about the 18-year-old.
Not only are you a low information poster, you don't know how to use critical thinking. Do you think all of these concepts are the same?
koriwhat
02-10-2019, 03:27 PM
You moved the goalposts again. You said a 21 year old can buy a firearm and give it to a person who cannot legally purchase it. The question you asked though in your link is can the 18-year-old legally acquire the firearm from the 21 year old. This is about intent. The law that affects the 18-year-old isn't the same law that affects the 21 year old. An 18-year-old cannot be prosecuted for straw purchase. The 21 year old can. You spoke about the 21 year old and now you're speaking about the 18-year-old.
Not only are you a low information poster, you don't know how to use critical thinking. Do you think all of these concepts are the same?
lmao :tu
tear that paper thin knowitall apart DMC
Touched a nerve, would seem.
You're not very astute. I don't believe that's a revelation to anyone on the forum.
The fact that the Constitution provided the ability to change itself inherently means that was was written then wouldn't be the the last word on the matter.
That's a feature, not a bug.
However the wording still says shall not be infringed to this very day. Until that changes it still says that.
I think most of the discussion is about how to to interpret the Bill of Rights not necessarily with Bill of Rights per se. If you change the verbiage of the Bill of Rights then obviously the interpretation can change because the meaning changes. Since we are sticking with the exact same verbiage then it's only about interpretation and the Supreme Court has made their position relatively clear. Hundreds of years later we still have the right to keep and bear arms.
Blake
02-10-2019, 04:17 PM
lmao :tu
:cheer :cheer
tear that paper thin knowitall apart DMC :cheer :cheer
Blake
02-10-2019, 04:21 PM
You moved the goalposts again. You said a 21 year old can buy a firearm and give it to a person who cannot legally purchase it. The question you asked though in your link is can the 18-year-old legally acquire the firearm from the 21 year old. This is about intent. The law that affects the 18-year-old isn't the same law that affects the 21 year old. An 18-year-old cannot be prosecuted for straw purchase. The 21 year old can. You spoke about the 21 year old and now you're speaking about the 18-year-old.
Not only are you a low information poster, you don't know how to use critical thinking. Do you think all of these concepts are the same?
I didn't move anything. A 21 year old can buy a handgun and give it to an 18 year old. Verified and link posted. That's it.
But hey who could have guessed you'd go with the ad hominem wall of gibberish? No way didn't see that coming
Th'Pusher
02-10-2019, 04:41 PM
Show me where I said it was unconstitutional.
You seemed to imply a 50% increase in taxes on ammunition would infringe on a persons right to bear arms. Is that not your position? Are you reverting to your pedantic parsing?
boutons_deux
02-10-2019, 05:18 PM
Study: Half Of Licensed U.S. Gun Dealers Depend On Weapons Trafficking To Mexico
https://thinkprogress.org/study-half-of-licensed-u-s-gun-dealers-depend-on-weapons-trafficking-to-mexico-c2760694db96/
... but ATF gun walking was a huge scandal for Repugs and righwingnutjob gun fellators.
Spurtacular
02-10-2019, 05:29 PM
Says a derp that grudge bumped a 5 year old thread for some derpy reason
:lmao Cucksults
Spurtacular
02-10-2019, 05:29 PM
You're not very astute. I don't believe that's a revelation to anyone on the forum.
He names himself for that fact.
:lmao Whine Hole
You seemed to imply a 50% increase in taxes on ammunition would infringe on a persons right to bear arms. Is that not your position? Are you reverting to your pedantic parsing?
Me: It's 82 degrees outside
Someone else: DMC says its hot outside
You: DMC thinks 82 degrees is hot
Me: where did I say that?
You: You said 82 degrees is hot.
Me: where?
You: You seemed to imply that it was hot, are you reverting to you're pedantic parsing?
You just browse posts and fling out a response without actually reading the post in context. When I said that I was giving an example of someone else's approach of considering 0.1% tax to be the same as 50% tax. However if it does infringe at 0.1% then then it absolutely does at 50%. I don't believe either infinges on the second amendment because ammunition is not covered under the second amendment. However that particular Bill would indeed disenfranchise low income vs higher income earners so it would not necessarily be a fair lever for gun control.
Right now it's legal to make your own ammunition whereas is completely illegal to build your own firearm unless you have a class 2 licence.
I didn't move anything. A 21 year old can buy a handgun and give it to an 18 year old. Verified and link posted. That's it.
But hey who could have guessed you'd go with the ad hominem wall of gibberish? No way didn't see that coming
No you just made this a mistake again. Maybe ask someone here who has a legal background. An 18 year old can legally acquire a firearm from a 21 year old but the 21 year old cannot buy a firearm with the intent of giving it to the 18-year-old. So what you're really saying is that you don't think 18-year-old should be able to own firearms. Do you also believe that an 18-year-old should not be able to join the military? What about voting?
Because you're using emotive language to suggest kids are giving other kids guns but in reality a 50 year old can give a gun to the 18 year old son, it's no different than a 21 year old doing it if it's done under legal means. If you want to raise the age for firearm ownership you have to completely do away with the concept that 18 year olds are adults.
Th'Pusher
02-10-2019, 06:10 PM
Me: It's 82 degrees outside
Someone else: DMC says its hot outside
You: DMC thinks 82 degrees is hot
Me: where did I say that?
You: You said 82 degrees is hot.
Me: where?
You: You seemed to imply that it was hot, are you reverting to you're pedantic parsing?
You just browse posts and fling out a response without actually reading the post in context. When I said that I was giving an example of someone else's approach of considering 0.1% tax to be the same as 50% tax. However if it does infringe at 0.1% then then it absolutely does at 50%. I don't believe either infinges on the second amendment because ammunition is not covered under the second amendment. However that particular Bill would indeed disenfranchise low income vs higher income earners so it would not necessarily be a fair lever for gun control.
Right now it's legal to make your own ammunition whereas is completely illegal to build your own firearm unless you have a class 2 licence.
So why was your first post in that thread a reference to “shall not be infringed” in the BoR?
Never mind. I honestly don’t care.
Your positions evolve to whatever argument suits you at the time.
:lol scalp collector.
Pavlov
02-10-2019, 06:22 PM
https://i.imgflip.com/2tckxu.jpg
Th'Pusher
02-10-2019, 06:28 PM
Me: It's 82 degrees outside
Someone else: DMC says its hot outside
You: DMC thinks 82 degrees is hot
Me: where did I say that?
You: You said 82 degrees is hot.
Me: where?
You: You seemed to imply that it was hot, are you reverting to you're pedantic parsing?
You just browse posts and fling out a response without actually reading the post in context. When I said that I was giving an example of someone else's approach of considering 0.1% tax to be the same as 50% tax. However if it does infringe at 0.1% then then it absolutely does at 50%. I don't believe either infinges on the second amendment because ammunition is not covered under the second amendment. However that particular Bill would indeed disenfranchise low income vs higher income earners so it would not necessarily be a fair lever for gun control.
Right now it's legal to make your own ammunition whereas is completely illegal to build your own firearm unless you have a class 2 licence.
You can probably get chucho to suck on your dick though tbh.
ElNono
02-10-2019, 07:57 PM
the Constitution is not amendable in practice, which is a feature, not a bug. Should be trashed totally for a new Constitution.
There's 27 amendments to the Constitution ratified and in place. That's very much in practice and not in theory. That the political climate du jour isn't amenable to amendments, isn't an indictment to the Constitution, but of politicos.
ElNono
02-10-2019, 08:17 PM
However the wording still says shall not be infringed to this very day. Until that changes it still says that.
I think most of the discussion is about how to to interpret the Bill of Rights not necessarily with Bill of Rights per se. If you change the verbiage of the Bill of Rights then obviously the interpretation can change because the meaning changes. Since we are sticking with the exact same verbiage then it's only about interpretation and the Supreme Court has made their position relatively clear. Hundreds of years later we still have the right to keep and bear arms.
You're touching on a topic that's certainly not new (which doesn't make it any less important or relevant) and that has to do with interpretation of the Constitution in spirit or as written. This is something that has justices split for a long time, and it's unlikely to disappear.
I mean, if there's *one* thing about the 2nd amendment that doesn't really translate well to modern days is indeed the wording. While the part you highlight (shall not be infringed) is very clear, other parts like the whole militia part is much less clear. Not to mention that what "arms" should be construed as is also very unclear (does lack of specificity means all, or something that should be left to Congress or the States to define?). Does the right also protects access to guns (that is, shields government from taxing them in such a way that it becomes a per-se ban?).
None of that is really defined in the 2nd amendment, and so it opens itself up to interpretation.
It should also be noted that while the SCOTUS affirmed the right, it also conceded it's not outside the scope of the Government to regulate it (from DC vs Heller):
In regard to the scope of the right, the Court wrote, in an obiter dictum, "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."[50]
The Court also added dicta regarding the private ownership of machine guns. In doing so, it suggested the elevation of the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision, which by itself protects handguns, over the first prong (protecting arms that "have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"), which may not by itself protect machine guns: "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M16 rifles and the like – may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home."[51]
Blake
02-10-2019, 08:59 PM
Maybe ask someone here who has a legal background. An 18 year old can legally acquire a firearm from a 21 year old but.....
The rest of your post is irrelevant after this. Thanks for concurring.
So why was your first post in that thread a reference to “shall not be infringed” in the BoR?
Never mind. I honestly don’t care.
Your positions evolve to whatever argument suits you at the time.
:lol scalp collector.
It never ends with you.
just like smoking it's not like there aren't substantial social costs associated with using guns as they're designed. tens of thousands thousands of trauma injuries yearly
why would it unreasonable to require gun users to pay a portion for the socialized costs?
Where is the bill that says "the right to smoke shall not be infringed"?
Some of you act like you're from another country (some are) and don't understand we have a Bill of Rights.
Here you can see Winehole was comparing gun owners to smokers. Smoking isn't protected under the BoR. Gun ownership is.
You honestly do care, but you're too fucking intellectually lazy to mount a decent rebuttal. You're a low information poster. In fact you're a low information poster poster child.
You're touching on a topic that's certainly not new (which doesn't make it any less important or relevant) and that has to do with interpretation of the Constitution in spirit or as written. This is something that has justices split for a long time, and it's unlikely to disappear.
I mean, if there's *one* thing about the 2nd amendment that doesn't really translate well to modern days is indeed the wording. While the part you highlight (shall not be infringed) is very clear, other parts like the whole militia part is much less clear. Not to mention that what "arms" should be construed as is also very unclear (does lack of specificity means all, or something that should be left to Congress or the States to define?). Does the right also protects access to guns (that is, shields government from taxing them in such a way that it becomes a per-se ban?).
None of that is really defined in the 2nd amendment, and so it opens itself up to interpretation.
It should also be noted that while the SCOTUS affirmed the right, it also conceded it's not outside the scope of the Government to regulate it (from DC vs Heller):
In regard to the scope of the right, the Court wrote, in an obiter dictum, "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."[50]
The Court also added dicta regarding the private ownership of machine guns. In doing so, it suggested the elevation of the "in common use at the time" prong of the Miller decision, which by itself protects handguns, over the first prong (protecting arms that "have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"), which may not by itself protect machine guns: "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M16 rifles and the like – may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home."[51]
That's a pointless argument because it's not outside the scope of the government to completely change any aspect of the constitution. Sure, mountains would have to be moved, blood in the streets etc... but the government holds the power. No one else does. This is why the 2nd Amendment exists.
The rest of your post is irrelevant after this. Thanks for concurring.
Because you lack capacity for abstract thought.
Here's what you actually said:
"A 21 year old can buy a handgun and give it to an 18 year old."
straw purchase
a criminal act in which something, especially a firearm, is bought by one person on behalf of another who is legally unable to make the purchase themselves.
the Constitution is not amendable in practice, which is a feature, not a bug. Should be trashed totally for a new Constitution.
You could just move to a country more to your liking.
https://i.imgflip.com/2tckxu.jpg
Chumpy crying out for company again. :lol
H867PyLT5TU
You can probably get chucho to suck on your dick though tbh.
:lol Doesn't care, responds to same post twice
:lol owned again
Th'Pusher
02-10-2019, 09:32 PM
It never ends with you.
Here you can see Winehole was comparing gun owners to smokers. Smoking isn't protected under the BoR. Gun ownership is.
You honestly do care, but you're too fucking intellectually lazy to mount a decent rebuttal. You're a low information poster. In fact you're a low information poster poster child.
You then went on to whine about how this tax would disenfranchise gun ownership. There’s nothing to rebut as we’re in agreement. Increasing taxes on ammo by 50% isn’t unconstitutional.
:tu
Pavlov
02-10-2019, 09:33 PM
Chumpy crying out for company again. :lolSorry, dude. Det right has been infringed from the start and you have done fuck all about it. :lol
Gonna fight det mean ol' gubmit!
Th'Pusher
02-10-2019, 09:34 PM
:lol Doesn't care, responds to same post twice
:lol owned again
That one was for chucho, not you.
Blake
02-10-2019, 11:44 PM
Because you lack capacity for abstract thought.
Here's what you actually said:
"A 21 year old can buy a handgun and give it to an 18 year old."
straw purchase
a criminal act in which something, especially a firearm, is bought by one person on behalf of another who is legally unable to make the purchase themselves.
And then here's what you said:
An 18 year old can legally acquire a firearm from a 21 year old
You concur but then somehow trying to argue against it still.
Weird.
That one was for chucho, not you.
You quoted me and you spoke to me.
You then went on to whine about how this tax would disenfranchise gun ownership. There’s nothing to rebut as we’re in agreement. Increasing taxes on ammo by 50% isn’t unconstitutional.
:tu
You can be disenfranchised without having your constitutional rights violated. Once again though you were sloppy and lazy and created your own narrative. Now you have a mess to clean up again.
Multiple times you said I claimed it was unconstitutional but I never once said that.
And then here's what you said:
You concur but then somehow trying to argue against it still.
Weird.
Because straw purchase doesn't affect the 18-year-old legally. Are you completely daft?
The 18 year old can... is different than saying the 21 one year old can where legality is concerned.
Sorry, dude. Det right has been infringed from the start and you have done fuck all about it. :lol
Gonna fight det mean ol' gubmit!
Yet I still own firearms and even have a concealed carry permit. I know you said you own a firearm but you're afraid to have it in your house because you know firearms in the home are so dangerous. You might get depressed and blow your brains out.
But you and your ilk have done nothing but lampoon Trump since he took office and for some reason now you're lampooning the concept that the government is bad.
Chucho
02-11-2019, 12:07 AM
That one was for chucho, not you.
LOL mad you're "Argument" was shit and DMC took a piece of your ass. :lol
Chucho
02-11-2019, 12:10 AM
You can probably get chucho to suck on your dick though tbh.
Really, really mad that your "arguments" are getting shat all over by chunky digits. :lmao
Pavlov
02-11-2019, 12:13 AM
Yet I still own firearms and even have a concealed carry permit. I know you said you own a firearm but you're afraid to have it in your house because you know firearms in the home are so dangerous. You might get depressed and blow your brains out.:lol another DMC narrative.
Why do you have to lie, tough guy?
But you and your ilk have done nothing but lampoon Trump since he took office and for some reason now you're lampooning the concept that the government is bad.The government that lets you have firearms, tough guy?
The government you're going to shoot with those firearms they let you have?:lol
I'm lampooning you, tough guy. Get it straight.
Th'Pusher
02-11-2019, 12:38 AM
You can be disenfranchised without having your constitutional rights violated. Once again though you were sloppy and lazy and created your own narrative. Now you have a mess to clean up again.
Multiple times you said I claimed it was unconstitutional but I never once said that.
Show me where I said it was unconstitutional multiple times.
:lol
ElNono
02-11-2019, 01:05 AM
That's a pointless argument because it's not outside the scope of the government to completely change any aspect of the constitution. Sure, mountains would have to be moved, blood in the streets etc... but the government holds the power. No one else does. This is why the 2nd Amendment exists.
I disagree, it's a crucial argument, despite the ability to amend the Constitution The Constitution set up the Judicial as a line of last resort, and thus delegated to interpret the law, including what's Constitutional or not (After all, the Constitution itself is a set of laws with a heightened bar for changing). The SCOTUS, which is the last line of defense in the Judicial, has plenty of latitude to adjudicate such disputes. This is largely aided by the lack of clarity in all sorts of areas of the Constitution and an ever evolving environment.
Glossing over such power, and the many instances where the composition of such tribunal reshaped the Constitutional umbrella (too many to cite, but things like "separate but equal" or sexual orientation as a protected class come to mind) is at the very least disingenuous, and certainly disconnected from how the government was setup and operates.
I disagree, it's a crucial argument, despite the ability to amend the Constitution The Constitution set up the Judicial as a line of last resort, and thus delegated to interpret the law, including what's Constitutional or not (After all, the Constitution itself is a set of laws with a heightened bar for changing). The SCOTUS, which is the last line of defense in the Judicial, has plenty of latitude to adjudicate such disputes. This is largely aided by the lack of clarity in all sorts of areas of the Constitution and an ever evolving environment.
Glossing over such power, and the many instances where the composition of such tribunal reshaped the Constitutional umbrella (too many to cite, but things like "separate but equal" or sexual orientation as a protected class come to mind) is at the very least disingenuous, and certainly disconnected from how the government was setup and operates.
What you're saying is what probably would happen. Since all three branches comprise the federal government, then if all three branches agreed, they could absolutely change the constitution or even abolish it. The likelihood of that happening is small, but it's within their power to do so.
There are instances in history where this kind of thing has happened. It could happen in the US. Otherwise the watchdogs would be nuts for sounding out when these rights get violated by new bills, and some that have even been made into laws that later get overturned.
Show me where I said it was unconstitutional multiple times.
:lol
in response to this that you even quoted:
"Multiple times you said I claimed it was unconstitutional but I never once said that.
Again, you look like a fucking retard.
:lol another DMC narrative.
Why do you have to lie, tough guy?
It's here for anyone who cares to look.
:lol "tough guy" shtick again with zero bites
The government that lets you have firearms, tough guy?
Not your president
The government you're going to shoot with those firearms they let you have?:lol
More narrative from old lonely man. Create a story and run with it, marathon man :lol
I'm lampooning you, tough guy. Get it straight.
With a false narrative? Ok, if you say so lonely man.
LOL mad you're "Argument" was shit and DMC took a piece of your ass. :lol
It's like playing chess against a Downs syndrome kid.
Pavlov
02-11-2019, 03:16 AM
It's here for anyone who cares to look.Where?
Link to it.
You lied, dude.
You don't "bite" on tough guy because you're not a tough guy. That's what I'm lampooning.
Where?
Link to it.
You lied, dude.
You don't "bite" on tough guy because you're not a tough guy. That's what I'm lampooning.
Lonely man up at 2:20 AM on Monday morning still posting under his alt.. :lol
Pavlov
02-11-2019, 03:24 AM
LonelyNarrative.
Where?
Link to it.
You lied, dude.
Narrative.
Where?
Link to it.
You lied, dude.
Time in Austin: 2:32am
:lol
Pavlov
02-11-2019, 03:36 AM
Time in Austin: 2:32am
:lolAnd here you are, lying about me.
:lol
Where's that link, tough guy?
And here you are, lying about me.
:lol
Where's that link, tough guy?
But it's only 7:20pm here.
I didn't realize until recently that you were severely injured by a car. I realize now that you could be crippled and perhaps even a bit unstable mentally. It makes sense that you are up all hours of the day and night as you perhaps cannot do anything else. I should stop conversing with you, don't want to be responsible for your seizure.
Pavlov
02-11-2019, 04:11 AM
But it's only 7:20pm here.
I didn't realize until recently that you were severely injured by a car. I realize now that you could be crippled and perhaps even a bit unstable mentally. It makes sense that you are up all hours of the day and night as you perhaps cannot do anything else. I should stop conversing with you, don't want to be responsible for your seizure.:lol more narrative and no link
:lol tough guy
:lol more narrative and no link
:lol tough guy
I was severely injured by a car.
And I don't plan on killing any drivers.
Why are you so concerned about being raped that you lost it as a reason to prepare to kill someone every night?
How wheelchair accessable is that place?
Just saying. No hard feelings, hope you cope ok.
Pavlov
02-11-2019, 05:10 AM
Just saying. No hard feelings, hope you cope ok.:lol I broke my leg and arm in a car wreck when I was six and healed up in a body cast over the summer.
Jesus, tough guy, your information collection program just feeds your narrative creation addiction.
Now where's the link to the gun narrative you lied about?
ElNono
02-11-2019, 05:26 AM
What you're saying is what probably would happen. Since all three branches comprise the federal government, then if all three branches agreed, they could absolutely change the constitution or even abolish it. The likelihood of that happening is small, but it's within their power to do so.
There are instances in history where this kind of thing has happened. It could happen in the US. Otherwise the watchdogs would be nuts for sounding out when these rights get violated by new bills, and some that have even been made into laws that later get overturned.
The real question is if the lack of specificity has to do with a lack of foresight (which seems unlikely, the lack of clarity is so widespread), or the actual foresight was that the Constitution itself is a basic framework of reserved rights, which can be tuned as needed (including the framework itself, through amendments). This is what the actual "in spirit vs textualism" debate hinges on, and it's really central to the matter. I would even go as far as arguing that's the entire challenge.
I'm still talking democracy and the current Constitutional process here. Things like a military coup would throw all that out of the window.
boutons_deux
02-11-2019, 09:17 AM
"Things like a military coup would throw all that out of the window."
that's the only solution available to Americans to overthrow the govt by corrupt oligarchy.
Blake
02-11-2019, 09:36 AM
Because straw purchase doesn't affect the 18-year-old legally. Are you completely daft?
The 18 year old can... is different than saying the 21 one year old can where legality is concerned.
I don't give a shit about straw purchases. I never brought it up. You did. Then you agreed with me.
You're completely daft.
Blake
02-11-2019, 09:38 AM
LOL mad you're "Argument" was shit and DMC took a piece of your ass. :lol
Really, really mad that your "arguments" are getting shat all over by chunky digits. :lmao
This is the guy that whines about other posters not adding anything.
Lol chucho
Blake
02-11-2019, 09:42 AM
But it's only 7:20pm here.
because posting at 7:20pm is so much less lonely than posting at 2am.
Lol dmc
Winehole23
02-11-2019, 10:12 AM
You're not very astute. I don't believe that's a revelation to anyone on the forum.biting ankles angrily throughout the thread.
it's a good look for you.
boutons_deux
02-11-2019, 11:31 AM
2nd Amendment was a bone thrown to slave holders to assure them that their "militias" (runaway slave hunting gangs) could keep their arms, because the FFs didn't trust the general populace with guns.
The SCOTUS whores, 100% fake originalists/textualists, overrode the historical/"originalist" meaning of the 2nd Amendment, to detach, in Heller, the right to hold guns from slave hunting.
because posting at 7:20pm is so much less lonely than posting at 2am.
Lol dmc
Well yes actually it is.
"Things like a military coup would throw all that out of the window."
that's the only solution available to Americans to overthrow the govt by corrupt oligarchy.
Will get behind you booty hole, haul ass
Blake
02-11-2019, 01:33 PM
Well yes actually it is.
Lol no. I'm usually with people at 720. Not so much at 2am.
I don't give a shit about straw purchases. I never brought it up. You did. Then you agreed with me.
You're completely daft.
No you just use the concept of a straw purchase and said it was legal. I know you are what am I ?
Lol no. I'm usually with people at 720. Not so much at 2am.
Well I think everyone on the forum knows why you're alone at 2 am. You're not the best example to give.
Chucho
02-11-2019, 02:25 PM
This is the guy that whines about other posters not adding anything.
Lol chucho
You don't add anything. Don't be upset about it.
LOL worn punching bag.
Chucho
02-11-2019, 02:36 PM
You're not very astute. I don't believe that's a revelation to anyone on the forum.
'Hole is one the best posters down here. He, Spurm, Nono and a very few others like SR21 and yourself are the people who hold together what little discussion occurs here together.
The Judge has ruled.
Blake
02-11-2019, 04:00 PM
You don't add anything. Don't be upset about it.
LOL worn punching bag.
I don't have to add anything if I don't want to.
I'm just loling at you whining about others not adding anything while not adding anything yourself.
Lol whiny chucho
Blake
02-11-2019, 04:03 PM
Well I think everyone on the forum knows why you're alone at 2 am. You're not the best example to give.
Why are you alone at 720pm?
Blake
02-11-2019, 04:06 PM
No you just use the concept of a straw purchase and said it was legal. I know you are what am I ?
You also said it was legal. I know you're dumb what else are you.
Why are you alone at 720pm?
Because I am on a business trip in Australia.
Chucho
02-11-2019, 04:06 PM
I don't have to add anything if I don't want to.
I'm just loling at you whining about others not adding anything while not adding anything yourself.
Lol whiny chucho
LOL Add Nothing Punching Bag justifying why he adds nothing.
Blake
02-11-2019, 04:07 PM
LOL Add Nothing Punching Bag justifying why he adds nothing.
Lol message board judge
Chucho
02-11-2019, 04:09 PM
Lol message board judge
LOL, message board punching bag mad.
Blake
02-11-2019, 04:13 PM
LOL, message board punching bag mad.
Lol making stuff up now.
Lol making stuff up now.
You're perpetually giving off salty vibes here and you have been for years.
Every time you try to weigh in on relationship matters or anything that has to do with being a loser you are already at a severe disadvantage. You know that but you're a glutton for punishment. That's the cuck lifestyle though.
You also said it was legal. I know you're dumb what else are you.
Intentional obtuseness must be a cuck trait.
Blake
02-11-2019, 05:31 PM
You're perpetually giving off salty vibes here and you have been for years.
Every time you try to weigh in on relationship matters or anything that has to do with being a loser you are already at a severe disadvantage. You know that but you're a glutton for punishment. That's the cuck lifestyle though.
Dmc wall of narrative
Blake
02-11-2019, 05:31 PM
Intentional obtuseness must be a cuck trait.
You said it. The quote is here in the thread. You're the obtuse one.
Dmc wall of narrative
3 lines :lol
You didn't disagree :lol
You said it. The quote is here in the thread. You're the obtuse one.
Law pertaining to 18 year old... ok to be given a gun. Not ok to buy a gun.
Law pertaining to 21 year old ... ok to buy a gun. Not ok to buy a gun for the purpose of giving to someone who cannot legally purchase one.
If you said a 21 year old can give a gun to an 18 year old you'd have been correct but you wanted to conflate legal transactions with illegal ones, so you instead said the 21 year old can buy the gun and give it to the 18 year old. While the 21 year old could buy a gun for himself, and eventually give it away, he cannot buy it with the intent of giving it to the 18 year old IF the 18 year old cannot legally purchase a firearm. If the 18 year old can legally purchase the firearm himself it's a moot point.
These are not subtle nuances, they are the backbone of gun laws.
In the legal transaction, why does the age of the legal purchaser matter?
In the illegal transaction, why does the age of the illegal purchaser matter?
why did you say "21 year old" instead of "legal purchaser"?
I suggest it's because you wanted to parrot emotive jargon and give the impression that people between the ages of 21 and 18 are irresponsible kids.
Your misleading statement is easily debunked. Perhaps you should research it yourself instead of parroting talking points from partisan websites.
Blake
02-11-2019, 07:12 PM
If you said a 21 year old can give a gun to an 18 year old you'd have been correct
A 21 year old buying a gun and then legally giving it to an 18 year old is retarded.
I already knew I was correct, no DMCwallofgibberish®️ was needed thanks
I already knew I was correct, no DMCwallofgibberish®️ was needed thanks
Bob and weave, cuck... bob and weave.
Blake
02-11-2019, 07:27 PM
Bob and weave, cuck... bob and weave.
If a 21 can give a gun to an 18 year old then it's legal. That's all I need to know. I don't know why you're building text walls thinking I'm going to pay for them.
If a 21 can give a gun to an 18 year old then it's legal. That's all I need to know. I don't know why you're building text walls thinking I'm going to pay for them.
tl;dr
Pavlov
02-11-2019, 07:38 PM
Still no link, DMC?
lol
Blake
02-11-2019, 08:20 PM
tl;dr
Cliff notes: there is no argument.
Nother Level
02-11-2019, 08:23 PM
You're perpetually giving off salty vibes here and you have been for years.
Every time you try to weigh in on relationship matters or anything that has to do with being a loser you are already at a severe disadvantage. You know that but you're a glutton for punishment. That's the cuck lifestyle though.
:lol Cuck body slammed and he doesn't even know it.
Still no link, DMC?
lol
Between you and homosexuality? perhaps. I haven't investigated.
Pavlov
02-11-2019, 09:10 PM
Between you and homosexuality? perhaps. I haven't investigated.:lmao moar narrative
Why do you feel the need to make shit up after your investigations?
Blake
02-11-2019, 09:56 PM
:cheer Cuck body slammed and he doesn't even know it :cheer :cheer.
Derrrp
:lmao moar narrative
Why do you feel the need to make shit up after your investigations?
You seem overly concerned with everyone else's feelings here. Are you the camp counselor?
Derrrp
Chumpdumper's + 1 :lol
Pavlov
02-11-2019, 10:19 PM
You seem overly concerned with everyone else's feelings here. Are you the camp counselor?You seem completely unable to back up your claim. Are you just that afraid to admit you lied?
:lol DMC
You seem completely unable to back up your claim. Are you just that afraid to admit you lied?
:lol DMC
Do you own a gun? Yes or no
Is the gun in your home? Yes or no
Chumpy deleting posts then using an alt :lol
Pavlov
02-11-2019, 10:44 PM
Do you own a gun? Yes or no
Is the gun in your home? Yes or no
Chumpy deleting posts then using an alt :lol:lol your narrative
I left the gun I got as a child in my hometown because I went to college and had no use for it.
Still don't.
You got yours to fight "the government."
And you make shit up when you're angry.
:lol
:lol your narrative
I left the gun I got as a child in my hometown because I went to college and had no use for it.
Still don't.
You got yours to fight "the government."
And you make shit up when you're angry.
:lol
Why did you have a gun as a child? According to Blake you're retarded.
As a child you were going to fight the government. Then you got scared of the gun because you thought you might shoot yourself and you ran from it so you do own a gun it's just not with you. That's basically what I said. I mean did you just leave the gun on the street or sell it or give it away?
:lol knows nothing about guns
:lol talks about guns all the time online
:lol Afraid of guns
:lol claims gun savvy people are afraid
:lmao
Pavlov
02-11-2019, 11:02 PM
Why did you have a gun as a child?A gift.
As a child you were going to fight the government. Then you got scared of the gun because you thought you might shoot yourself and you ran from it so you do own a gun it's just not with you. That's basically what I said. I mean did you just leave the gun on the street or sell it or give it away?:lmao moar narrative.
Why to you feel the need to lie when you're threatened?
You simply aren't as smart or as badass as you want to portray yourself here.
Pavlov
02-11-2019, 11:03 PM
:lol knows nothing about guns
:lol talks about guns all the time online
:lol Afraid of guns
:lol claims gun savvy people are afraid
:lmao:lmao lashing out hard when I called you out on your lie.
Why do you make shit up, DerpMC? You look like an idiot.
And you just made up more shit as a distraction.
:lol tough guy
A gift.
:lmao moar narrative.
Why to you feel the need to lie when you're threatened?
You simply aren't as smart or as badass as you want to portray yourself here.
According to Blake you're retarded. Where is your gun?
Pavlov
02-11-2019, 11:07 PM
Where is your gun?You have that in my file, DerpMC.
You can look it up without lying about it.:tu
:lmao lashing out hard when I called you out on your lie.
Why do you make shit up, DerpMC? You look like an idiot.
And you just made up more shit as a distraction.
:lol tough guy
Like you telling TSA he prepares to kill someone every night because he owns a gun? This is your type of conversation you should feel right at home.
Pavlov
02-11-2019, 11:09 PM
Like you telling TSA he prepares to kill someone every night because he owns a gun? This is your type of conversation you should feel right at home.:lmao your file
Did you bring your gun with you?
Feeling vulnerable, eh?
:lol
Blake
02-11-2019, 11:12 PM
Why did you have a gun as a child? According to Blake you're retarded.
Lolwut
:lmao your file
Did you bring your gun with you?
Feeling vulnerable, eh?
:lol
What do you think the odds are of being attacked by someone with a gun in the United States?
Lolwut
An adult giving a gun to a child that's retarded
Pavlov
02-11-2019, 11:16 PM
What do you think the odds are of being attacked by someone with a gun in the United States?Not terribly high tbh.
What are the odds where you are?
Why do you feel so vulnerable you're lashing out like this?
Not terribly high tbh.
What are the odds where you are?
Why do you feel so vulnerable you're lashing out like this?
So if they aren't terribly hi why are you for gun control?
By the way you seem to think someone in every topic you get involved in is lashing out at you. You seem to have some type of insecurity issue
Pavlov
02-11-2019, 11:20 PM
So if they aren't terribly hi why are you for gun control?Sorry, question pending.
Are the odds higher or lower in the country you are right now?
Sorry, question pending.
Are the odds higher or lower in the country you are right now?
I don't know I would say not terribly high is the same in both instances.
Are you for or against gun control? If you are for gun control why? What are you afraid of?
Pavlov
02-11-2019, 11:21 PM
By the way you seem to think someone in every topic you get involved in is lashing out at you. You seem to have some type of insecurity issueI don't usually use that for you. You seem completely agitated since I proved you are a terrible liar.
Pavlov
02-11-2019, 11:22 PM
I don't knowOh, you're ignorant.
Cool.
I believe you.:tu
I don't usually use that for you. You seem completely agitated since I proved you are a terrible liar.
You haven't proven anything but that's ok. You can take whatever tact you wish. You seem to be afraid of guns which is why you abandoned yours. Oddly you think someone else being afraid of guns and choosing to prepare themselves in the event that they ever have to face one is somehow cowardly or irrational but you abandoning yours is somehow rational.
Oh, you're ignorant.
Cool.
I believe you.:tu
I don't have the statistics just like you, you said not terribly high and I said the same thing. I asked you for the odds first.
Pavlov
02-11-2019, 11:28 PM
You haven't proven anything but that's ok. You can take whatever tact you wish. You seem to be afraid of guns which is why you abandoned yours. Oddly you think someone else being afraid of guns and choosing to prepare themselves in the event that they ever have to face one is somehow cowardly or irrational but you abandoning yours is somehow rational.You deal with your fears however you need to, tough guy.
You couldn't prove your claim that your narrative was posted so you lost your shit and made up more lies.
It was hilarious.
I think your fear of being shown up on a message board could be bigger than your fear of being shot in Australia.
:lol DeludedMC
Blake
02-11-2019, 11:28 PM
An adult giving a gun to a child that's retarded
I never implied the child was retarded. I implied the law is retarded.
But I'm directly saying you are retarded. Seriously, you are an idiot.
Pavlov
02-11-2019, 11:30 PM
I don't have the statistics just like you, you said not terribly high and I said the same thing. I asked you for the odds first.I think the odds are lower where you are tbh. I could only speculate as to why.
Pavlov
02-11-2019, 11:30 PM
I never implied the child was retarded. I implied the law is retarded.
But I'm directly saying you are retarded. Seriously, you are an idiot.He's super defensive tonight and going out of his way to make up more shit than usual.:lol
You deal with your fears however you need to, tough guy.
You couldn't prove your claim that your narrative was posted so you lost your shit and made up more lies.
It was hilarious.
I think your fear of being shown up on a message board could be bigger than your fear of being shot in Australia.
:lol DeludedMC
I did prove it though. You said you had a gun and you left it. You didn't say you sold it and you didn't say you gave it away. Which house you left it in is beside the point. It's not in your house. That's what I said. I was right and once again you are left flailing for some type of an excuse. You didn't answer my questions, why are you for gun control if you're not afraid of guns? Why did you abandon your gun if you're not afraid of guns? Why are you for gun control if the odds of being attacked by gun are not very high? Because of your contradictory positions, do you have an irrational fear of guns?
I never implied the child was retarded. I implied the law is retarded.
But I'm directly saying you are retarded. Seriously, you are an idiot.
You didn't say anything about the law. Are you still waiting for your wife to get home from her teaching job?
I think the odds are lower where you are tbh. I could only speculate as to why.
so you don't know because you're ignorant. I believe that.
Is the difference statistically significant? If it is then TSA is rational to want to defend himself against those odds. If they are not then you are irrational by pushing for gun-control laws and comparing two countries whose difference is statistically insignificant.
Pavlov
02-12-2019, 12:07 AM
I did prove it though. You said you had a gun and you left it. You didn't say you sold it and you didn't say you gave it away. Which house you left it in is beside the point. It's not in your house. That's what I said. I was right and once again you are left flailing for some type of an excuse. You didn't answer my questions, why are you for gun control if you're not afraid of guns? Why did you abandon your gun if you're not afraid of guns? Why are you for gun control if the odds of being attacked by gun are not very high? Because of your contradictory positions, do you have an irrational fear of guns?:lmao narrative overload
Not afraid of guns.
Had no use for it.
Sorry I upset you so much when you're so far away from your guns.
He's super defensive tonight and going out of his way to make up more shit than usual.:lol
Blake's girlfriend getting fucked while he watches, this is Valhalla for Blake.
:lmao narrative overload
it's okay, we both know that neither one of us is getting through to the other person but anyone else who reads this thread knows you're getting your ass handed to you.
Pavlov
02-12-2019, 12:10 AM
it's okay, we both know that neither one of us is getting through to the other person but anyone else who reads this thread knows you're getting your ass handed to you.:lmao moar narrative
I've never seen you this upset.
Pavlov
02-12-2019, 12:17 AM
Seriously, you've been using the derp playbook for a full day.:lol
:lmao moar narrative
I've never seen you this upset.
The Chumpdumper surrender flag :lol
You're genuinely upset about this.
You seem upset that someone knows more than you do about this.
lol you really are upset about this. I look forward to seeing you try hard from here on.
What does this have to do about your being upset at being a bigot?
Darrin is more upset about this than the journalists who got murdered live on the air.
I just asked a question.
Don't be upset or afraid.
It's not a crime to be worse than them, but the forum has not been as good. Don't be upset by it.
So this ESPY award is important to you.
Why get upset when this is pointed out?
lol these guys are genuinely upset by this black dude.
You, on the other hand, are just upset and spamming again.
Don't expect people like Tyson to believe what you believe and don't get upset when you are told you have no evidence.
And in with the ad hominems.
You're really upset now.
Nice straw man, CC. I can tell you're upset about this..
haven't seen you this upset since the last time I got you this upset.
lol you're such a sissy for getting this upset over your own error.
Seriously, you've been using the derp playbook for a full day.:lol
You're now upset that I exposed you for the hypocrite you are.
Now you've been relegated to "hurr durr i got you to respond" type retorts. Your true forum worth is revealed.
Chumpy working on "you're stalking me" "you're upset" retort with copious amounts of emojis :lol
Blake
02-12-2019, 10:33 AM
You didn't say anything about the law. Are you still waiting for your wife to get home from her teaching job?
What do you think the "it" is in "it's retarded"?
To be clear for you, when I say "you're retarded", I mean "you=dmc".
To wit: "dmc is retarded."
What do you think the "it" is in "it's retarded"?
To be clear for you, when I say "you're retarded", I mean "you=dmc".
To wit: "dmc is retarded."
You didn't mention the law.
boutons_deux
02-12-2019, 02:38 PM
https://media.giphy.com/media/NUJZKPi2CpqpO/giphy.gif
Blake
02-12-2019, 03:00 PM
You didn't mention the law.
What do you think "legally" means?
Good Lord dude you have horrible reading comprehension skills.
What do you think "legally" means?
Good Lord dude you have horrible reading comprehension skills.
Legally riding a bike down the highway during rush hour traffic is retarded. Now am I referring to the law or to the act of riding the bike?
A 21 year old buying a gun and then legally giving it to an 18 year old is retarded.
Here you can see the subject of this sentence is the 21 year old. Therefore you're saying the 21 year old is retarded. Or you are saying that the act of buying the gun and giving it to an 18 year old is retarded. Nowhere in your sentence Did you even indicate that the law itself is retarded.
You're just low rent and sloppily stupid. That's why you're on the bottom of the cuck totem pole here.
Pavlov
02-12-2019, 03:15 PM
You're now upset that I exposed you for the hypocrite you are.
Now you've been relegated to "hurr durr i got you to respond" type retorts. Your true forum worth is revealed.After you declared victory derp-style?
You got mad. Period.
Your true forum worth is revealed.
:lol DerpMC
Blake
02-12-2019, 05:14 PM
Legally riding a bike down the highway during rush hour traffic is retarded. Now am I referring to the law or to the act of riding the bike?
If riding a bike on a highway during rush hour is a retarded act on its own, you wouldn't need to preface the statement with the word "legally".
Blake
02-12-2019, 05:15 PM
Here you can see the subject of this sentence is the 21 year old. Therefore you're saying the 21 year old is retarded. Or you are saying that the act of buying the gun and giving it to an 18 year old is retarded. Nowhere in your sentence Did you even indicate that the law itself is retarded.
You're just low rent and sloppily stupid. That's why you're on the bottom of the cuck totem pole here.
I probably could have written it clearer to make sure that all retarded posters very clearly understood my intent, but the word "legally" was in my post for a pretty obvious reason.
If it confused you, you could have just asked for clarification instead of building massive walls of legally retarded text.
If riding a bike on a highway during rush hour is a retarded act on its own, you wouldn't need to preface the statement with the word "legally".
You didn't preface your statement with "legally".
In essence, you said "A 21 year old is retarded" then gave the conditions.
If you think there's a loophole that allows a person who cannot legally purchase a firearm to acquire one legally, then say so instead of saying the 21 year old is retarded.
I probably could have written it clearer
I doubt it.
After you declared victory derp-style?
You got mad. Period.
Your true forum worth is revealed.
:lol DerpMC
https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=221233&page=16&p=9704939&viewfull=1#post9704939
:lmao
Blake
02-12-2019, 08:31 PM
You didn't preface your statement with "legally".
In essence, you said "A 21 year old is retarded" then gave the conditions.
If you think there's a loophole that allows a person who cannot legally purchase a firearm to acquire one legally, then say so instead of saying the 21 year old is retarded.
Jesus dude :lol
Just because I didn't start with the word "legally" doesn't mean it has no purpose.
If I wanted to say the 21 year old was retarded for simply giving a gun to an 18 year old, I would have not needed nor would I have used the word "legally" at all.
I've said all I'm gonna say. You're just a drooling retard from this point on.
I probably could have written it clearer
Jesus dude :lol
Just because I didn't start with the word "legally" doesn't mean it has no purpose.
If I wanted to say the 21 year old was retarded for simply giving a gun to an 18 year old, I would have not needed nor would I have used the word "legally" at all.
I've said all I'm gonna say. You're just a drooling retard from this point on.
Right now you're arguing against yourself.
Blake
02-12-2019, 09:10 PM
Right now you're arguing against yourself.
Lol no.
Just because i could have set it clearer doesn't mean it wasn't clear enough.
Drooling illiterate retard.
I've said all I'm gonna say.
Followed by
Lol no.
Just because i could have set it clearer doesn't mean it wasn't clear enough.
Drooling illiterate retard.
How many times can you use the word "retard" in a day, Blake? Is that the pinnacle of your vocabulary? You and Th'Pusher should hook up and play Scrabble, Ducks could beat both of you.
Pavlov
02-12-2019, 09:31 PM
https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=221233&page=16&p=9704939&viewfull=1#post9704939
:lmao
:lmao you lied and I called you out.
Sorry, tough guy.
Th'Pusher
02-12-2019, 09:35 PM
Followed by
How many times can you use the word "retard" in a day, Blake? Is that the pinnacle of your vocabulary? You and Th'Pusher should hook up and play Scrabble, Ducks could beat both of you.
You’re being pedantic again itt. The first time I used that word to describe you you tried to correct me saying I was misusing the word and meant semantic :lol
Btw - How’s that Hillary 2020 prediction going? I see you abandoned that bullshit pretty quickly.
:lmao you lied and I called you out.
Sorry, tough guy.
How did I lie?
:lol I didn't lie, that's why you went to the "upset you" macro.
You’re being pedantic again itt. The first time I used that word to describe you you tried to correct me saying I was misusing the word and meant semantic :lol
Btw - How’s that Hillary 2020 prediction going? I see you abandoned that bullshit pretty quickly.
You mean this?
Ham hands, the pedantic troll :tu
If it's so pedantic, why do you spend 3 pages hiding from your own words? Just fess up and be done with it.
Shit for memory too it seems. If I said you used the word wrong in a post, it's because you did.
Pavlov
02-12-2019, 09:39 PM
How did I lie?
:lol I didn't lie, that's why you went to the "upset you" macro.Of course you lied.
You got upset after I called you out, tough guy.
:lol
Th'Pusher
02-12-2019, 09:49 PM
You mean this?
No
Shit for memory too it seems. If I said you used the word wrong in a post, it's because you did.
Also no.
Blake
02-12-2019, 10:30 PM
Followed by
How many times can you use the word "retard" in a day, Blake? Is that the pinnacle of your vocabulary? You and Th'Pusher should hook up and play Scrabble, Ducks could beat both of you.
Sure, retard
No
Also no.
Show it then.
But you won't.
Of course you lied.
You got upset after I called you out, tough guy.
:lol
:lmao
He does it again!
Every time you get your shit pushed in, the other person is suddenly upset. There are literally countless examples of it here, I only showed a small snippet.
Pavlov
02-13-2019, 02:18 AM
:lmao
He does it again!
Every time you get your shit pushed in, the other person is suddenly upset. There are literally countless examples of it here, I only showed a small snippet.:rollin you declared victory again, derp. You're doing it every time now. So many examples....
You lied. I called you out. You lied even more.
You can say you weren't upset and lying is just something you have to do. I'll accept that if it's important we know that about you.
:rollin you declared victory again, derp. You're doing it every time now. So many examples....
You lied. I called you out. You lied even more.
You can say you weren't upset and lying is just something you have to do. I'll accept that if it's important we know that about you.
Your shtick is so generic.
Ask loaded question
Don't accept answer
Claim other person is upset
use "we" as if the voices in your head have autonomy
:lol
You're living the dream!
Pavlov
02-13-2019, 03:19 AM
Your shtick is so generic.
Ask loaded question
Don't accept answer
Claim other person is upset
use "we" as if the voices in your head have autonomy
:lol
You're living the dream!You lied.
You got called out on it.
You lied some more.
:lol tough guy!
You lied.
You got called out on it.
You lied some more.
:lol tough guy!
The "tough guy" shtick is just another in your limited repertoire.
Midnight Cowboy, burning the midnight oil keeping his posting career afloat. :lol
Pavlov
02-13-2019, 09:31 AM
The "tough guy" shtick is just another in your limited repertoire.
Midnight Cowboy, burning the midnight oil keeping his posting career afloat. :lol You're the one keeping all that information on me and yet you still have to make shit up. :lo
Why did you make all that shit up?
You accused me of being suicidal and permanently disabled.
I never said either.
At all.
And you seem to be gleeful to accuse someone of being suicidal and permanently disabled.
Why would that even be funny?
Why do you keep all the personal information on posters here that you keep only to make shit up?
Let me know if these questions are too difficult for you to answer honestly.
Those are lies. Why?
You're the one keeping all that information on me and yet you still have to make shit up. :lo
Why did you make all that shit up?
You accused me of being suicidal and permanently disabled.
I never said either.
At all.
And you seem to be gleeful to accuse someone of being suicidal and permanently disabled.
Why would that even be funny?
Why do you keep all the personal information on posters here that you keep only to make shit up?
Let me know if these questions are too difficult for you to answer honestly.
Those are lies. Why?
There's no reason for you to be so upset. If you are afraid of guns you're afraid of them. If you can't reconcile that with why no one else should be afraid of them then that's fine. Not everyone out there has a rational mind. Plenty of people make exceptions for themselves they don't make for others. You're not alone in the world.
Blake
02-13-2019, 10:12 PM
DMC narrative story time
DMC narrative story time
:cry
spurraider21
02-13-2019, 10:49 PM
I did prove it though. You said you had a gun and you left it. You didn't say you sold it and you didn't say you gave it away. Which house you left it in is beside the point. It's not in your house. That's what I said. I was right and once again you are left flailing for some type of an excuse. You didn't answer my questions, why are you for gun control if you're not afraid of guns? Why did you abandon your gun if you're not afraid of guns? Why are you for gun control if the odds of being attacked by gun are not very high? Because of your contradictory positions, do you have an irrational fear of guns?
is "being afraid" the only possible reason why somebody would elect not to bring their gun along with them when they move? you said you didnt bring your guns to australia. does that mean you're afraid of them?
Pavlov
02-13-2019, 10:53 PM
There's no reason for you to be so upset. If you are afraid of guns you're afraid of them. If you can't reconcile that with why no one else should be afraid of them then that's fine. Not everyone out there has a rational mind. Plenty of people make exceptions for themselves they don't make for others. You're not alone in the world.:lmao moar narrative
Why do you keep lying?
Nother Level
02-13-2019, 11:09 PM
Chumpdumper's + 1 :lol
:lmao
Blake
02-14-2019, 12:09 AM
:cheer
Derrrrrp
Pavlov
02-14-2019, 12:10 AM
DMC's + 1 :lol
is "being afraid" the only possible reason why somebody would elect not to bring their gun along with them when they move? you said you didnt bring your guns to australia. does that mean you're afraid of them?
No. It's illegal to possess a handgun in Australia without a permit.
What does that have to do with the contradictory position of "we need moar gun control" and "the odds of being attacked by someone with a gun are so low, I don't feel I need one, hell I don't even lock my door half the time"?
:lmao moar narrative
Why do you keep lying?
Talk about how upset you've made me as your post count catches mine and you once again have to start deleting posts to avoid looking like a hermit. :lol
Derrrrrp
That's probably what your wife's snatch sounded like when she sat on your bed that morning to undress.
Pavlov
02-14-2019, 12:57 AM
Talk about how upset you've made me as your post count catches mine and you once again have to start deleting posts to avoid looking like a hermit. :lol:lmao even moar narrative
Why do you keep lying?
Pavlov
02-14-2019, 12:58 AM
No. It's illegal to possess a handgun in Australia without a permit.
What does that have to do with the contradictory position of "we need moar gun control" and "the odds of being attacked by someone with a gun are so low, I don't feel I need one, hell I don't even lock my door half the time"?What specific gun control have I called for according to your file on me?
:lmao even moar narrative
Why do you keep lying?
Keep parroting me. Eventually someone might like you enough to talk to you.
Pavlov
02-14-2019, 01:01 AM
So you knew his wife? Are you a cuck also?:lmao you can't even keep track of your lies.
I wasn't talking about that one. Do you need a moment to regroup?
What specific gun control have I called for according to your file on me?
Not crying. Just saying it's too late.
You have to change the constitution one way or another to be really effective.
Now you'll say you weren't for or against it, just making a note.
You have a long history here of using the term "gun nut" and being anti-gun and anti-2nd Amendment. You hold a far left interpretation of the 2nd. Plus I gave you an opportunity to say you are not pro-gun control.
We all know you are though. So why do you care since you're so safe?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.