NBA LGBT Pride Month Tshirts

[Obstructed_View]

Apologies to everyone else on ST. I thought this thread was in the political forum for some reason, or I likely wouldn't have responded to it in the first place. I won't post further in it.

[z0sa]

The NBA just wants to make money.

You could just stop right there. The second half of your quote along with everything else in this thread, for or against, can be traced directly back to ^

[z0sa]

Also, the 2nd amendment is not just for safe guarding the rights of the states from overreach of the federal armies, but also against invasion from foreign countries or dare I say, other states. Have to remember, when the Bill of Rights was passed, there was a lot more continent than colony.

[Obstructed_View]

Also, the 2nd amendment is not just for safe guarding the rights of the states from overreach of the federal armies, but also against invasion from foreign countries or dare I say, other states. Have to remember, when the Bill of Rights was passed, there was a lot more continent than colony.

Excellent point. It's actually not for safeguarding the rights of the states at all, but for safeguarding the rights of the people above all else, including states and foreign invaders.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Actually it does. Go read it. It says that because the federal government will require a military to provide for the common defense, the federal government will not abridge the right of the people to keep and bear arms to any degree they feel necessary to feel protected from the federal government's army. It's the reason the president is the commander in chief of the military. It's very simple. Changing it would change absolutely nothing in our world, but would likely endanger the country going forward.


Actually you tried to move the goalposts, but I already defeated your argument. The word gun is indeed nowhere in the second amendment. The second amendment does not refer to guns. The second amendment is to protect the people from the government. It has nothing to do with anything else. There are other government agencies that deal with other things, as I'll list below.


No, actually the only reason I posted was because you misquoted the second amendment, which has nothing to do with gun control. You're the one who wants to talk about gun control. I say that someone could kill 49 hostages with a claw hammer in three hours, so bringing up gun control is just as stupid as trying to change the second amendment because someone killed someone with a legal gun.


I've taken on literally every point you've made, and I've eviscerated every single one of them. You want to use a tragic attack to gain political points. You show a complete ignorance of how the cons ution works, as well as ignorance about existing laws, though you think that making more laws will somehow make people who intend to break the law suddenly stop what they're doing. Then, when faced with irrefutable logic that explains why your point of view is misguided, mistaken and illogical, you claim that I'm dodging the conversation. That makes you willfully ignorant. That means that you are so dug in to your political view that you will still act stupidly when faced with logic that is impossible to refute. You're a pigeon on a chessboard, dude. Why that doesn't embarrass the out of you is the only mystery that remains.


Actually, you mentioned automatic weapons, mortars, grenades, tanks and nuclear weapons. Automatic weapons manufactured before 1987 can be owned if you have the right license, which requires a large fee, an extensive background check, and is heavily regulated. Mortars and grenades, and even large fireworks, regulated by the ATF and the consumer product safety commission, are illegal to own. Nuclear weapons also count as explosives and are regulated. A tank can be owned, so long as it is demilitarized.

So the fact is that everything that you mentioned are already banned, so you're standing here waving your arms around for no reason. If that's not a textbook example of someone ignorantly calling for change on the back of a tragedy without full possession of the facts, I don't know what is.


The only thing you've proven is how little you know. Hardly surprising, since you can't seem to learn anything despite the education I've provided for you in this thread.


So you post the preamble to the cons ution. I'm sure you think you're making some striking point, but there's nothing in the preamble that goes against the amendment. Further, do you understand how amendments work? They would supersede the preamble if there were actually a conflict.


No idea what this means. Whoever you stole it from probably thought they were frightfully clever.


Always nice to throw a strawman out there when you're getting your ass handed to you. I already said that we have laws against murder. You have yet to explain why you think passing a law against guns will stop someone intent on committing murder.


I ignored this the first time you used it, because I didn't want to embarrass you, but you're just such a blithering idiot that I don't give a anymore.

The term is "prima facie" and it means "at first look". It means an assumption that looks correct before delving into details. It's a legal term with no relevance whatsoever in this conversation, and you've now used it twice. It only makes you look smart to people stupider than you. I'm sure they're both very impressed.

Here endeth the lesson. Plonk.

A militia is not a standing army. Never has been and never will be. No one is going to read all that so I don't know why you bother anyway. I got through about half of it when I realized most of it was juvenile posturing.

You argue minutiae and pretend it invalidates the entire point. Fact is that the items that I mentioned should be banned whether or not they already are. You still refuse to acknowledge it and dance around it like a coward. The term used is arms and some arms should be banned.

My argument is that they should be banned. As if it wasn't obvious to everyone that nuclear weapons were already banned. If you don't understand my argument then ask me rather then fumbling around foolishly and trying bluster your way through. The overall point is that the right to bear arms that shant be infringed is already infringed for very good reason. Same reason that speech is not universally accepted when it affects the public welfare. You're arguing ideological purity and waving your hands in opposition. Prima facie it's wrong.

I'm not calling for a ban of anything but ideological NRA nonsense like the ideas about criminals and how you're going to stop them with your guns. If you don't realizing that you are parroting the same that LaPierre, the leader of the NRA, peddles at his rallies then that is just sad. Not surprising considering groupthink and your lack of curiosity outside of what you want to hear but pathetic just the same.

[dbestpro]

Actually it does. Go read it. It says that because the federal government will require a military to provide for the common defense, the federal government will not abridge the right of the people to keep and bear arms to any degree they feel necessary to feel protected from the federal government's army. It's the reason the president is the commander in chief of the military. It's very simple. Changing it would change absolutely nothing in our world, but would likely endanger the country going forward.


Actually you tried to move the goalposts, but I already defeated your argument. The word gun is indeed nowhere in the second amendment. The second amendment does not refer to guns. The second amendment is to protect the people from the government. It has nothing to do with anything else. There are other government agencies that deal with other things, as I'll list below.


No, actually the only reason I posted was because you misquoted the second amendment, which has nothing to do with gun control. You're the one who wants to talk about gun control. I say that someone could kill 49 hostages with a claw hammer in three hours, so bringing up gun control is just as stupid as trying to change the second amendment because someone killed someone with a legal gun.


I've taken on literally every point you've made, and I've eviscerated every single one of them. You want to use a tragic attack to gain political points. You show a complete ignorance of how the cons ution works, as well as ignorance about existing laws, though you think that making more laws will somehow make people who intend to break the law suddenly stop what they're doing. Then, when faced with irrefutable logic that explains why your point of view is misguided, mistaken and illogical, you claim that I'm dodging the conversation. That makes you willfully ignorant. That means that you are so dug in to your political view that you will still act stupidly when faced with logic that is impossible to refute. You're a pigeon on a chessboard, dude. Why that doesn't embarrass the out of you is the only mystery that remains.


Actually, you mentioned automatic weapons, mortars, grenades, tanks and nuclear weapons. Automatic weapons manufactured before 1987 can be owned if you have the right license, which requires a large fee, an extensive background check, and is heavily regulated. Mortars and grenades, and even large fireworks, regulated by the ATF and the consumer product safety commission, are illegal to own. Nuclear weapons also count as explosives and are regulated. A tank can be owned, so long as it is demilitarized.

So the fact is that everything that you mentioned are already banned, so you're standing here waving your arms around for no reason. If that's not a textbook example of someone ignorantly calling for change on the back of a tragedy without full possession of the facts, I don't know what is.


The only thing you've proven is how little you know. Hardly surprising, since you can't seem to learn anything despite the education I've provided for you in this thread.


So you post the preamble to the cons ution. I'm sure you think you're making some striking point, but there's nothing in the preamble that goes against the amendment. Further, do you understand how amendments work? They would supersede the preamble if there were actually a conflict.


No idea what this means. Whoever you stole it from probably thought they were frightfully clever.


Always nice to throw a strawman out there when you're getting your ass handed to you. I already said that we have laws against murder. You have yet to explain why you think passing a law against guns will stop someone intent on committing murder.


I ignored this the first time you used it, because I didn't want to embarrass you, but you're just such a blithering idiot that I don't give a anymore.

The term is "prima facie" and it means "at first look". It means an assumption that looks correct before delving into details. It's a legal term with no relevance whatsoever in this conversation, and you've now used it twice. It only makes you look smart to people stupider than you. I'm sure they're both very impressed.

Here endeth the lesson. Plonk.