Reply With Quote
I've sufficiently pointed out how you're here to run interference for your cause instead of putting forth a valid counter argument. You're only demonstrating that further.demands
Poor job of paraphrasing.
Actually I said this:
"I happen to think no amendment is obsolete." (I did not give a reason why) "If someone here wishes to infer that the 2nd is obsolete due to the "militia" term being used, or because simple arms are not sufficient to suppress military firepower, then you'd have to consider the 1st Amendment in the same light, that simple words are not enough to suppress tyranny." (This statement explains why the two are tied together and if one is obsolete for those reasons, so is the other)
It certainly has an intent, does it not? What do you suppose that is?Strawman. I've already said the 1st Amendment isn't about effectiveness, and that would include suppressing tyranny.
I've sufficiently pointed out how you're here to run interference for your cause instead of putting forth a valid counter argument. You're only demonstrating that further.
Tell us your idea that is better than rocks, or keep waving that white flag high.
They already have armed security.Tell us your idea that is better than rocks, or keep waving that white flag high.
You didn't know that.
Then why do they feel the need to arm themselves with rocks?
Ask them.
Oh, they actually answered that question.
Did you read any of this thread or the linked story at all?
Oh, so you're a fan of capitulating to the students' wills? Does that mean you'll be in favor of gun-carrying students in places in which this is what they want?Ask them.
Oh, they actually answered that question.
Did you read any of this thread or the linked story at all?
Also,
Also, you said you had a better plan than rocks; what is it? You're just naming stuff that was "already" there.
I'm fine with the kids' not having guns.Oh, so you're a fan of capitulating to the students' wills? Does that mean you'll be in favor of gun-carrying students in places in which this is what they want?
Also,
Do want the kids to have guns?
Yes or no.
Quote where I said I had a better plan.Exactly.You're just naming stuff that was "already" there.
You said you had a plan that was better than rocks. Do you not claim this now?
Also, if you're fine with rocks, then you are fine with weapons in the classroom.
Give me the quote.
Bio classes have scalpels in them. Shop classes have hammers and saws. Home Ec classes have knives. Are you going to clutch your pearls at those?Also, if you're fine with rocks, then you are fine with weapons in the classroom.
Yes or no.
Look at the killing fields on the grounds of this Austin school!
So many weapons!
Okay, now we've established that you're fine with responsible (and possibly irresponsible) students handling weaponry.
OK, now we've established that you're clutching your pearls at hammers in shop class.
You like students to have random murder weapons; but you're against proper self-defense weapons. This pretty much sums up the utter stupidity of the liberal ideology to which you subscribe.
Do you want the kids to have guns?
Yes or no.
I think they would have a case that their second amendment rights are being infringed regardless of whether I would want them to have them.
You didn't answer the question.
Do you want the kids to have guns?
Yes or no.
I think they have second amendment rights that you are treading on.
You didn't answer the question.
Do you want the kids to have guns?
I regarded the crux of the matter. You'd rather get lost in the weeds. Par.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
