User Tag List

Page 27 of 31 FirstFirst ... 1724252627282930 ... LastLast
Results 391 to 405 of 461

Thread: All Things Second Amendment

  1. #391
    Toxic Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    19,131
    Thanks
    542
    Thanked 12,992 Times in 9,134 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147853
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    I listened to all of it.
    Oh. So you're just out to misrepresent then.

    Got it.

    Exactly my point.


    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?

    I do.
    Not any time in the past few months.

    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.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  2. #392
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    21,037
    Thanks
    3,922
    Thanked 8,441 Times in 4,930 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147840
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    Oh. So you're just out to misrepresent then.

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

    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?

    Grow up.
    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.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Town Heretic For Your Post:

    annabenedetti (August 13th, 2019)

  4. #393
    Toxic Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    19,131
    Thanks
    542
    Thanked 12,992 Times in 9,134 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147853
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    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.


    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).
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 12th, 2019),ok doser (August 12th, 2019)

  6. #394
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    25,998
    Thanks
    4,422
    Thanked 10,016 Times in 7,467 Posts

    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147791
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    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.

    This ^

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to ok doser For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 12th, 2019)

  8. #395
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    21,037
    Thanks
    3,922
    Thanked 8,441 Times in 4,930 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147840
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    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.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Town Heretic For Your Post:

    annabenedetti (August 13th, 2019)

  10. #396
    Toxic Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    19,131
    Thanks
    542
    Thanked 12,992 Times in 9,134 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147853
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    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.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 13th, 2019)

  12. #397
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    21,037
    Thanks
    3,922
    Thanked 8,441 Times in 4,930 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147840
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    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.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Town Heretic For Your Post:

    annabenedetti (August 13th, 2019)

  14. #398
    Toxic Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    19,131
    Thanks
    542
    Thanked 12,992 Times in 9,134 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147853
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    No.
    Yes.

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

    Such as?
    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.

    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).
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  15. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 13th, 2019),Right Divider (August 13th, 2019),Yorzhik (August 13th, 2019)

  16. #399
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    21,037
    Thanks
    3,922
    Thanked 8,441 Times in 4,930 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147840
    Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
    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.
    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. 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 by Town Heretic; August 13th, 2019 at 04:05 PM.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Town Heretic For Your Post:

    annabenedetti (August 13th, 2019)

  18. #400
    Over 2000 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Mass
    Posts
    2,143
    Thanks
    238
    Thanked 449 Times in 376 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    36305
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    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.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  19. #401
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    21,037
    Thanks
    3,922
    Thanked 8,441 Times in 4,930 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147840
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    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.
    That was a steaming pile of subjective valuation and characterization signifying nada.

    Meanwhile, every nation with the laws I support does a markedly, dramatically better job at limiting the impact of gun violence and safeguarding its citizens. And that doesn't depend on me for its existence.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  20. The Following User Says Thank You to Town Heretic For Your Post:

    annabenedetti (August 13th, 2019)

  21. #402
    Over 2000 post club Idolater's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Mass
    Posts
    2,143
    Thanks
    238
    Thanked 449 Times in 376 Posts

    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    36305
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    That was a steaming pile of subjective valuation and characterization signifying nada.
    And that, was a declaration.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    Meanwhile, every nation with the laws I support does a markedly, dramatically better job at limiting the impact of gun violence and safeguarding its citizens.
    As a classical liberal who believes that the purpose of law and of government is not primarily to protect citizens bodily but to protect human rights first and foremost, and that among those human rights is the right to bear arms (my "God," not yours; supra http://theologyonline.com/showthread...61#post5349261), all you're saying is that negotiating with terrorists works. If we do what they want, they'll stop. Look at all the other countries who negotiated with their terrorists, after all.
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    And that doesn't depend on me for its existence.
    OK.
    "Those who believe in Christ" are all the Christians, Catholic or not.

    @Nee_Nihilo

  22. #403
    Out of Order Town Heretic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Within a whisper of rivers...
    Posts
    21,037
    Thanks
    3,922
    Thanked 8,441 Times in 4,930 Posts

    Blog Entries
    15
    Mentioned
    49 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147840
    Quote Originally Posted by Idolater View Post
    And that, was a declaration.
    Sure, though how you'd defend it as something other than a prima facie case made by anyone reading it. The terms and how you divide them are neither inherently descriptive or necessary as an operation of logic.

    As a classical liberal who believes that the purpose of law and of government is not primarily to protect citizens bodily but to protect human rights first and foremost
    The idea that it's an either/or is a false dichotomy in no part dictated by reason. That is, you are not reduced to a position by logical necessity that government may protect rights OR the people who exercise them as a primary end. If fact, if you held the position that the people are subordinate to the rights that are only meaningful when exercised by the people, you have the same problem the priests who confused the point of the Sabbath had, for the reason set in the earlier part of this response.

    Or, if that is too difficult for anyone, rights are meaningless without people and so demonstrably exist to serve them and their interests, not the other way round.

    all you're saying is that negotiating with terrorists works.
    I'm not in any way saying that because I don't in any sense accept that your above is reasonable as descriptions go.

    Rather, it is precisely and only what I set out without ambiguity, your attempt at reinvention notwithstanding.

    So, we can eliminate a gun that is dangerous and unusual from the stream of commerce to promote a similar atmosphere found in our Western cousins, whose loss of life is markedly less than our own from gun violence, or we can continue to fail to protect our children, parishioners, neighbors, and give the gun lobby more time to attempt to normalize possession of the weapon.
    You aren't what you eat, but you're always what you swallow.

    Pro-Life







  23. #404
    Toxic Adaptive Ninja Turtle Stripe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    19,131
    Thanks
    542
    Thanked 12,992 Times in 9,134 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147853
    Quote Originally Posted by Town Heretic View Post
    You self-evidently don't have much of a grasp of the law on point and are equally unfamiliar with the nation.
    You have no idea what the law is or what it is for. You think the regulations that the US implemented are the law.

    That's not exactly a great position from which to opine meaningfully.

    It's not your heritage, it's that you proffer from ignorance.
    But you won't quote me addressing a topic. You'll just pretend that when I speak of the law, I'm referring to US regulations.

    You have no idea what the law is or what it's for.

    Hint: It does not require one to be in the US or have attended school.

    You disparage those who don't.
    You deserve it.

    Guess what? This isn't one of those.
    Coward.

    You need a new hobby. Preferably one where you learn how to do a thing before you try to do it.

    The ones you neither know nor understand, along with the caselaw, etc. Right. I can see how you'd have to do that.
    You have no idea what the law is or what it is for.

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

    This is just something Town does when he can't think to do much else.

    I've corrected him a couple of times.


    So, that was Town claiming a prima facie case without pointing to what makes it inarguably true. Instead, he just throws another unsupported declaration 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.
    And you want to reduce the ability of good people to respond.

    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.
    When you ban cars, traffic fatalities fall.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to Stripe For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 13th, 2019)

  25. #405
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    25,998
    Thanks
    4,422
    Thanked 10,016 Times in 7,467 Posts

    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147791
    3000 people died because some guys got their hands on boxcutters

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to ok doser For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (August 13th, 2019)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us