ehh, It's the last post on the previous page. It belongs to you lol.
Have you already forgotten it?
Ad hominen might be your new fallacy for a few pages now. I forsee much anger in your future as you come to realize how utterly shit your posts are.
Gun control
- Thread starter Saladus
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Have you already forgotten it?
Ad hominen might be your new fallacy for a few pages now. I forsee much anger in your future as you come to realize how utterly shit your posts are.
I see you enjoy the ad hominen over responding to the argument posted before. Here I'll requote it for you and see if you are able to make a counter point.
Cliffs notes version: A guarantee in the constitution to bear arms = the government must give justification for taking your guns. BUT, if NO CONSTITUTION existed, ie. the position he advocated, there would be no right to bear arms, and thus no need to give a justification to take a right you never had in the first place. If you agree that he is a dumbass for ignoring the constitution, THEN NOTHING ELSE YOU SAID NEEDED TO BE SAID, because if a constitution exists, THEN THE GOVERNMENTDOESHAVE TO GIVE A JUSTIFICATION.ME_sl said:
Do you even know why you are arguing with me?
I feel like the reason you're so fucking confused is because you really don't know what I'm saying, or you don't know what position you yourself are taking, as evidenced in your nonsensical posts that contradict each other. Figure it out and get back to me.
Again, I didn't advocate that no constitution should exist. Also, you should really learn the difference between legal and ethical justifications and the philosophical foundations of rights. Here's a helpful hint: the reason we could tell that slavery was bad and abolition was good was because we have a conception of rights that exists outside of whatever the law currently says.
Ill throw you a bone. I honestly don't care about the philosophical reasons for gun ownership or the right to own guns. Really, I don't. I've met people who were "philosophers", who were genuinely nice people, but discussing the philosophy of gun ownership with you outside the legal framework of our guaranteed constitutional rights would be an absolute bore. First, you tried to derail a conversation about guns to talk about government, now you're trying to bring up bullshit about what is philosophically right and wrong. If I engage you any further, then we would be defeating the purpose of this thread because god knows how far down the rabbit hole your fucked up head would drag me.
So yea, I just won't engage you. I gave u a cookie for your victory lap, now enjoy it.
It's not a derail. This is a specific instance of larger issues with its own unique particulars. The shit you are talking about is all also in our ability to change (the mutability of the constitution was one of the few things the founding fathers got right). However the mundane legal issues are decided by the supreme court, the relevant questions about gun control will remain open.
I was bringing up my agreement with him that there should be justification for banning weapons and you kept bring up some argument from a position where there is no Constitution.
Regardless, it is late and I will talk to you tomorrow.
I'm sure you will still be here sneering at people who want to own guns lol
Regardless, it is late and I will talk to you tomorrow.
I'm sure you will still be here sneering at people who want to own guns lol
541 posts on a board that's a little more than a month old (if)? That's dedication. I don't remotely doubt that most of them are in this thread! I'm hoping you guys are through with your current battle because people just arriving to this thread would go through a few pairs of boots wading through all that shit.
On thread topic in general: I'll never understand why anyone thinks they can make this a safer world by limiting the rights of law-abiding people to own guns. People using guns prevent a staggering number of violent crimes every year. A person with a gun could prevent or lessen the extent of another person's shooting spree; those sprees only cause so much damage because nobody around demonstrated the ability to defend themselves with like force. Impotence is a sin, the gubberment can't protect you. A phone call doesn't stop a bullet, and those who eschew guns can still be shot. You cannot and should not get rid of all the guns, because once you do, the last idiot left that has one becomes all-powerful.
On thread topic in general: I'll never understand why anyone thinks they can make this a safer world by limiting the rights of law-abiding people to own guns. People using guns prevent a staggering number of violent crimes every year. A person with a gun could prevent or lessen the extent of another person's shooting spree; those sprees only cause so much damage because nobody around demonstrated the ability to defend themselves with like force. Impotence is a sin, the gubberment can't protect you. A phone call doesn't stop a bullet, and those who eschew guns can still be shot. You cannot and should not get rid of all the guns, because once you do, the last idiot left that has one becomes all-powerful.
Itlan
Blackwing Lair Raider
- 4,994
- 744
Wouldn't Obama and his military eventually be the last ones?
OH SHIT! WAS THIS PLANNED?!
Sulrn
Deuces
- 2,159
- 360
No they wouldn't. The guns are out there, and will remain out there. Unless they plan on prepositioned LEOs to take guns away immediately upon their status as illegal, the large majority of weapons will never be found to be taken regardless of the penalties.
Anyone in a position of power knows this.
chaos
Buzzfeed Editor
- 17,324
- 4,839
Yes, blatant. NY state laws cross state lines? Really? Yeah, no. And I expect states to follow the law, just as I expect everyone to do the same.
All of this bullshit is beside the point. Strawmen. And contradictory, too. You want to champion the right of states to defy the law and usurp immigration authority from the federal government, but at the same time state that states can't pass laws to regulate firearms within their state? Why, because you don't happen to support gun control? Give me a fucking break with this shit.
chaos
Buzzfeed Editor
- 17,324
- 4,839
Everyone may not agree that it is not constitutional, or if it is everyone may not prioritize it the same as you. Or people just may not understand if it is or is not constitutional. Interpretations differ so widely among laymen on what the constitution actually says that I don't think each opinion could possibly bear equal weight.
I am surprised to see Obama going after the assault weapons ban. Even though people support it, he just defined the first 2 years of his term, at least. Stupid.
Straw man. I didn't mention suing or legal precedent, only precedent. Donating to the NRA or the nysrpa are just some small examples of what others can do to help a New Yorker even if you're not one.
You always resort to this attitude when you lose an argument. Maybe you should exit the thread.
My point is that if you believe in the 2A and you believe the New York law is unconstitutional, then act. Many people believe in those two points yet they're indifferent to the reality of what's happening because it's not happening in their state in the same moment. Indifference or laziness, or whatever you want to call it, is overriding people's willingness to act on their beliefs.
Gavinmad
Mr. Poopybutthole
- 43,752
- 52,324
