All Things Second Amendment

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
Sounds like something you'd confuse with an argument. :chuckle:

You've a whole lot of declarations and a whole lot of poorly thought through statistics
The only difference between this and the first bit is the number of words.

and when called on it you make out like my heritage means that my opinion has no value
Only noting a context. You don't know the law and you don't really know the country.

In short, you declare that other people declare. And that's about it.
Not really. By way of example:

Declaration isn't argument or proof, but it's mostly what constitutes your output.
It's funny on three levels. First, because the most cogent points you make tend to be you parroting others. Second, because you never attribute the source. Lastly, because you always misapply and never support your use.

For everyone else, here was the quote/response Polly tried to slap that on: "The tool you use to kill matters. Some are just too dangerous for the public to own."

First sentence: the tool you use to kill matters. Prima facie, which is why people killing from a distance choose weapons more accurate at a distance and why people who want to kill a lot of people chose rapid fire semi-automatics here with large capacity magazines.

Second sentence: some are just too dangerous for the public to own. It's not an argument so much as a note of the established precedent in law.

Maybe that's just another instance where Stripe being a foreigner and not understanding the Court's rulings on point ends up with him looking foolish...well more so, because of the whole unattributed misuse thing. You get the idea...which is usually more than I can say for Stipe.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
When you're done with your declarations, are you going to leave like you said? :up:
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
Great video. Mr. Robinson's statement was clear, concise, and right on target. These socialists love to punish the innocent majority for the actions of less than 1/10 of 1% of the population.
Only the right wing could consider giving up a material possession to save lives as punishment, or having to use a different weapon as taking away a right. Because at the end of the day with this crowd, it's all about the the "real victim"...them. Not the children scattered across playgrounds and schoolrooms, not concert goers lying near the stage, not parishioners bleeding in their pews. No, the real victims are people who have to give up the weapon best suited for accomplishing this end.

Meanwhile, even with a couple of highly trained good guys with guns on scene, an evil man with an AR killed 9 people and wounded dozens more in fewer than 30 seconds. And most of the people who kill like this aren't gang bangers, aren't home invaders. They're just twisted, angry, crazy, or insane people who want the best instrument they can easily obtain to do their butchery. They mostly can't be distinguished from anyone else until they open fire.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Great video. Mr. Robinson's statement was clear, concise, and right on target. These socialists love to punish the innocent majority for the actions of less than 1/10 of 1% of the population.

Well, socialists, being liberals, are suffering from a mental disorder


Reasoning and logic are foreign to them
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Only the right wing could consider giving up a material possession to save lives as punishment.

You didn't listen to a single thing that was said in the video, did you?

Because at the end of the day with this crowd, it's all about the the "real victim"...them. Not the children scattered across playgrounds and schoolrooms, not concert goers lying near the stage, not parishioners bleeding in their pews. No, the real victims are people who have to give up the weapon best suited for accomplishing this end.

Emotionalism.

Try tempering with rationality.

Meanwhile, even with a couple of highly trained good guys with guns on scene, an evil man with an AR killed 9 people and wounded dozens more in fewer than 30 seconds. And most of the people who kill like this aren't gang bangers, aren't home invaders. They're just twisted, angry, crazy, or insane people who want the best instrument they can easily obtain to do their butchery. They mostly can't be distinguished from anyone else until they open fire.

Wait. Did you say the way to stop them was to have armed people on site?
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Meanwhile, even with a couple of highly trained good guys with guns on scene, an evil man with an AR killed 9 people and wounded dozens more in fewer than 30 seconds. And most of the people who kill like this aren't gang bangers, aren't home invaders. They're just twisted, angry, crazy, or insane people who want the best instrument they can easily obtain to do their butchery. They mostly can't be distinguished from anyone else until they open fire.
Is that true? I've heard and seen lots of examples where these mass murderers commit the crime of threatening, intimidation, or menacing, sometime before they massacre innocent people. Perhaps our society is a bit too quick to 'turn a blind eye' to these crimes when they're committed, perhaps reasoning that since there's no physical harm done during the commission of this crime, then it's justified to 'look the other way,' and just hope things get better.

If this is true then we need the same vigilance as we also need to address the epidemic of child sexual abuse. We can't 'look the other way' or 'turn a blind eye' anymore, we have to take these signals seriously. If it means that a lot of people who will not go on to commit mass murder, or child sexual abuse, are 'inconvenienced' by putting them through the ringer of our criminal justice system, then so be it. Perhaps we need to learn a hard lesson, that this crime of intimidation, or menacing, or threatening (i.e., the old fashioned crime called 'assault,' when it used to be coupled with and contrasted against the crime of 'battery'), cannot be tolerated lightly, and those guilty of this crime must be penalized more severely, in order to dissuade them from going any further, and also generally to dissuade anyone who hasn't committed the crime of menacing, threatening, or intimidation, to not do so.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
You didn't listen to a single thing that was said in the video, did you?
I listened to all of it. It pretty much reduced to: "Lookie here, I don't have a prepared, fancy man speechification ready, like that egghead English, I mean leftist teacher over there, but it's time you understood who the real victim here is---me, and I'm the majority!"

Emotionalism.
Exactly my point. They create a victim status from the majority position because they're emotionally invested in the mentality and can't stand it when anyone has anything they don't, apparently. See, even a right wing member of a minority has to be able to claim majority status.

Try tempering with rationality.
I do, but you can't move people from a position that they arrived at by another means. And I keep running into people who don't know what they're talking about a good deal of the time, or how to talk about what they do without leaning on the former.

It's peculiar.

Wait. Did you say the way to stop them was to have armed people on site?
So the first question was the set up and that was the punch line...not bad. Loopy, but not bad.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I listened to all of it.

Oh. So you're just out to misrepresent then.

Got it.

Exactly my point.

:darwinsm:

You think that emoting like a little girl is making a point about others?

Grow up.

They create a victim status from the majority position because they're emotionally invested in the mentality and can't stand it when anyone has anything they don't, apparently. See, even a right wing member of a minority has to be able to claim majority status.

Perhaps you should stop looking at majorities and minorities and analyze things through the lens of right and wrong.

That way, you're unlikely to be credibly accused of being a racist.

Tempting, huh?


Not any time in the past few months. :idunno:

We can't move people from a position that they arrived at by another means. And we keep running into people who don't know what they're talking about a good deal of the time, or how to talk about what they do without leaning on the former.

It's peculiar.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
Oh. So you're just out to misrepresent then.

Got it.
That'll be the day (either). :eek:

You think that emoting like a little girl is making a point about others?
Gender bias noted. That must have slain in the third grade...or is that a sore point?

You foreigners sure can be a touchy bunch (anticipating your inevitable pluralization).

Perhaps you should stop looking at majorities and minorities and analyze things through the lens of right and wrong.
Translation: if you don't get to pull everything into a subjective judgment you're in trouble. That kind of self awareness will get you somewhere. And won't that be a change?

That way, you're unlikely to be credibly accused of being a racist.
I can't be credibly accused of that in any way, so I suppose that means it's up to you.

Not any time in the past few months.
You are to rational distinction what Hawkins was to line dancing.

We can't move people from a position that they arrived at by another means...
You're like a guy with a flashlight at noon. You know what it is, but that's about it.

Meanwhile, good guys with guns can't manage what good laws can.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
That'llbe theday(either).:eekGenderbiasnoted.That musthaveslaininthethirdgrade...oristhata sorepointYouforeignerssurecanbeatouchy bunch(anticipatingyourinevitable pluralization).Translation:ifyoudon'tgetto pulleverythingintoasubjectivejudgment you'reintrouble.Thatkindofselfawareness willgetyousomewhere.Andwon'tthatbea change?Ican'tbecrediblyaccusedofthatin anyway,soIsupposethatmeansit'supto you.Youaretorationaldistinctionwhat Hawkinswastolinedancing.You'relikeaguy withaflashlightatnoon.Youknowwhatitis, butthat'saboutit.
:yawn:

Good guys with guns can't manage what good laws can.
Literally debunked every time there is a shooting.

Hint: People don't think about laws when bullets start flying. They reach for their holster. If they don't have a gun, they seek someone who does.

You want to limit their options in response to threats using a mindset that has no end to its reach. You justify the confiscation of specific weapons citing rare, dramatic events that use them. That same rationale applied to more pressing problems would see every weapon taken (by armed government personnel).
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
You might have a concentration problem.


Literally debunked every time there is a shooting.
To the contrary, just the other day we had trained professionals, real good guys with guns, stop a fellow with an assault rifle in around 30 seconds. The fellow still managed to kill nine people and wound dozens more.

Meanwhile, in Australia, a fellow who couldn't legally obtain one of those weapons took a knife into the street. His body count? One dead and one wounded before pedestrians, unarmed, brought him to heel and held him for police.

You want to limit their options in response to threats using a mindset that has no end to its reach.
Wow. You know when you put it like that it sounds really ominous. And by "put it like that" I mean advance an idea completely unconnected to any rational process I'm actually advancing.

You justify the confiscation of specific weapons citing rare, dramatic events that use them
Actually, I'm using the standard of a court you don't have familiarity with in a nation you have even less concerning on a topic you couldn't be more wrong about.

So that's something right there. Unusually dangerous weapons that provoke public horror can and have been denied to citizenry at large. I've actually had a debate with someone who knows the law on point and who tried his best to convince everyone that the weapons don't meet that definition. Of course, they do, both by design and by response to them, but that's another and more rational story.

Back to your narrative...

That same rationale applied to more pressing problems would see every weapon taken (by armed government personnel).
Well, at least you used the word rationale, even if you haven't really evidenced it. The paranoid domino theory is a decent go-to in lieu of reason applicable to the actual proposition, but not much more.

Well, you have a good nap and let me know when you come up with something that's genuinely responsive while I and the rest of the civilized West spend a few more generations with your scenario not playing out.
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
To the contrary, just the other day we had trained professionals, real good guys with guns, stop a fellow with an assault rifle in around 30 seconds. The fellow still managed to kill nine people and wound dozens more.
And you want the number of good guys with specific types of weapons reduced.

Wow. You know when you put it like that it sounds really ominous. And by "put it like that" I mean advance an idea completely unconnected to any rational process I'm actually advancing.
Absolutely connected. Your beef is with body counts. What is going to happen when you've banned the weapons you're on about now and another (extant) problem takes your fancy?

You going to advocate people keep their handguns when mass murderers start "succeeding" with those?

I'm using the standard of a court you don't have familiarity with in a nation you have even less concerning on a topic you couldn't be more wrong about.
And I advocate liberty and justice, which are universal values that do not require us to live in a special place or study at a special school.

You do not know what the law is or what it is for, specifically because you would deny it to people — "foreigners" — like me.

And also, I'm as conversant as anyone else if the regulations you hold in such high regard are explained. So pull your head in, if it will fit through the window.

So that's something right there.

I've actually had a debate with someone who knows the law on point and who tried his best to convince everyone that the weapons don't meet that definition.
So you've debated a moron. Great.

The weapons you speak of are designed to kill people.

Back to your narrative:

Well, at least you understand the word "rationale," even if you haven't really evidenced it.

The paranoid domino theory is a decent go-to in lieu of reason applicable to the actual proposition, but not much more.
The poisoning the well fallacy is a useless go-to in lieu of reason applicable to the actual proposition, but not much more.

You have a good nap and let me know when you come up with something that's genuinely responsive while I and the rest of the civilized East spend a few more generations with your scenario playing out.
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
And you want the number of good guys with specific types of weapons reduced.
No. I want a particular sort of weapon eliminated within the civilian population for the reasons set out prior.

Your beef is with body counts.
I am concerned with public safety and how ARs needlessly compromise it.

What is going to happen when you've banned the weapons you're on about now and another (extant) problem takes your fancy?
Such as? Because if you're going back to the domino board you need what that thing is, the darn near inevitable happening you aren't setting out.

My concern is over a rational approach to the exercise of the right to bear arms and what constitutes it. The Court recognizes that dangerous and unusual weapons aren't protected. The NRA and the gun lobby they serve understand that as well, which is why they've cheapened the cost of the weapon and done their best to saturate the market in a race against the clock attempt to normalize it before an argument to end it can reach the Court.

You going to advocate people keep their handguns when mass murderers start "succeeding" with those?
I've spoken to this as well. First, if we eliminate the AR and large magazines, pistols aren't going to reproduce those results. Would semi-automatic weapon bans be a better course? Sure, but they run afoul of precedent and won't work absent a Constitutional amendment.

And I advocate liberty and justice, which are universal values that do not require us to live in a special place or study at a special school.
That's not actually a contrary position, but it reads well.

You do not know what the law is or...
Yeah, I already understood your whole "I can be the expert if I say I am without any empirical validation and you know nothing" approach a while back. It's still just as impressive as it was the first time you trotted it out.

what it is for, specifically because you would deny it to people — "foreigners" — like me.
I like foreigners. Especially your accents. But you remind me of the old ugly American idea, blundering into cultures and moments without a solid understanding and insisting everyone listen to you, that you know better.

And also, I'm as conversant as anyone else if the regulations you hold in such high regard are explained.
Then read them BEFORE you start speaking to them. There's an idea.

So you've debated a moron. Great.
No, not a moron, just a guy trying to make a pro AR position work with precedent, trying to resolve Scalia's notice. See: District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

The weapons you speak of are designed to kill people.
Most guns are designed to kill something. AR's are problematic in terms of how many people and how quickly. It's what makes them horrible to contemplate and unusually dangerous to put into the stream of commerce.

Well, at least you understand the word "rationale," even if you haven't really evidenced it.
For the casual reader, whenever Stripe sounds quotable it's safe to assume he's quoting someone else's unattributed work.

The poisoning the well fallacy is a useless go-to in lieu of reason applicable to the actual proposition, but not much more.
He also confuses his willingness to declare a fallacy out of what I can only presume was a Christmas pamphlet or listing with an established argument of parts. To contrast this, I note his reliance on domino theory, which is actually established prima facie as he routinely goes to the, "What next?" approach that is that very thing repackaged (see: his pistol note above).

You have a good nap and let me know when you come up with something that's genuinely responsive while I and the rest of the civilized East spend a few more generations with your scenario playing out.
That's the quoting without attribution thing again. Or, flattery, when you think on it. :eek:
 

Stripe

Teenage Adaptive Ninja Turtle
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Yes.

I am concerned with public safety and how ARs needlessly compromise it.
They don't, of course.

Such as what I explained.

Pistols aren't going to reproduce those results.
Except for every weekend.

That's not actually a contrary position.
Nope. You just got finished trying to exclude me from the discussion. If you're talking about liberty and justice, those are universal concepts to be understood regardless of location and education. It's contrary to your elitist stance that I have to be in the US and have gone through a particular schooling to be able to contribute. Utterly contrary.

Yeah, I already understood your whole "I can be the expert if I say I am without any empirical validation and you know nothing" approach a while back. It's still just as impressive as it was the first time you trotted it out.
Except you still do not comprehend. Liberty and justice are universal values. They are not tied to a location or an educational background. The sooner you stop attempting to sideline people because of their heritage, the sooner you can look like a well-adjusted member of the human race.

I like foreigners.
I don't care.

You remind me of the old ugly American idea, blundering into cultures and moments without a solid understanding and insisting everyone listen to you, that you know better.
Well, guess what? I've acclimatized to multiple cultures, lived in them, learned the language, succeeded and added to them.

So you can take your perception and shove it. :up:

Then read them BEFORE you start speaking to them. There's an idea.
I never spoke to them. I dismissed your endless regulations as useless. I prefer liberty, justice and the law. You do not know what those things are or what they are for.

No, not a moron.
I'll be the judge of that. Anyone who thinks that the primary purpose of guns is not to kill people is a moron.

AR's are problematic in terms of how many people and how quickly. It's what makes them horrible to contemplate and unusually dangerous to put into the stream of commerce.
Nope. It just makes them (generally) well designed, top-end products.

For the casual reader, whenever Stripe sounds quotable it's safe to assume he's quoting someone else's unattributed work.
For the zero people reading this, whenever Town's words get traded back to him (with the grammar, spelling and punctuation fixed), it shows that they add just as much value to the conversation regardless of the direction they travel.

He also confuses his willingness to declare a fallacy out of what I can only presume was a Christmas pamphlet or listing with an established argument of parts. To contrast this, I note his reliance on logical fallacies, which is actually established prima facie, as he routinely goes to the emotionalism approach, which is that very thing repackaged (see his pistol note above).
 

Town Heretic

Out of Order
Hall of Fame
You just got finished trying to exclude me from the discussion.
You won't actually quote me doing that. Which is funny when you think about it.

If you're talking about liberty and justice, those are universal concepts to be understood regardless of location and education.
I'm still talking about gun control in relation to the 2nd Amendment.

It's contrary to your elitist stance
In the sense that someone who knows what he's talking about is elitist. So in an unintended way you have a point.

that I have to be in the US and have gone through a particular schooling to be able to contribute.
Rather, I've noted that you self-evidently don't have much of a grasp of the law on point and are equally unfamiliar with the nation. That's not exactly a great position from which to opine meaningfully.

The sooner you stop attempting to sideline people because of their heritage, the sooner you can look like a well-adjusted member of the human race.
It's not your heritage, it's that you proffer from ignorance. Worse, you disparage those who don't.

I don't care.
To inform yourself before setting out an opinion? I noticed.

Well, guess what? I've acclimatized to multiple cultures, lived in them, learned the language, succeeded and added to them.
Sweet. Guess what? This isn't one of those.

So you can take your perception and shove it. :up:
You need a new hobby. Preferably one where you learn how to do a thing before you try to do it.

I dismissed your endless regulations as useless.
The ones you neither know nor understand, along with the caselaw, etc. Right. :plain: I can see how you'd have to do that.

Let everyone know when you go down to the seashore to command the waves. It should be entertaining.


For the zero people reading this, whenever Town's words get traded back to him (with the grammar, spelling and punctuation fixed), it shows that they add just as much value to the conversation regardless of the direction they travel.
This is just something Stripe does when he can't think to do much else. And my grammar is fine, though I'm sure everyone makes the odd error in quick and informal discourse. I've corrected him a couple of times, but only because of the occasional, "Dude, English," he'll pepper a post with when it taxes him.

He also confuses...
So, that was Stripe using more of a summary attempt/hybrid quote, but still missing the mark. For one, if you claim a prima facie case you have to then point to the thing that makes it inarguably true. Instead, he just throws another unsupported declaration about emotion on the pile.

Meanwhile, and more seriously, in Dayton, Ohio, a man with an AR was shot and killed by a trained good guy with a gun, who responded quickly, dropping the fellow in about 30 seconds. The criminal still managed to kill nine people and wound a couple of dozen more.

In Australia, yesterday, a man who couldn't legally purchase one of those or easily purchase any, took a knife and killed a person. He wounded another. Then other people along the street where he was prowling subdued him and held him for the police.

Gun laws work.
 
Last edited:

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Gun laws work.
If you take a terrorist organization as a group of people who both commit atrocities against innocent people, and then make demands, promising that they'll stop the atrocities when their demands are met, and you separate that cluster of people between those who commit the atrocities, and those who make the demands, then you've got the dispute we're dealing with here in the US wrt gun control and gun laws and the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms.

"Negotiating with terrorists works."

It doesn't.
 
Top