Unlimited "Guns, Fuck Yeah!" Thread

[The Good Reverend Roger]

And this may not be about your ex-wife, but it gives a certain insight into why she dumped you.

Are you kidding, she's a bleeding heart liberal.  She'd go further than what I'm talking about.

I wasn't thinking about the position she'd have taken, I was thinking about your utter lack of anything resembling integrity, and the fact that you're a control freak.

I particularly like how you tried to paint your ex has having left the kids alone, but then backtracked and said that the kids weren't alone, it was just that the ex wasn't there.  If that's the way you act, then she's well shut of you in the first place.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

This is where you get frustrated and start calling me names, or make a comment about by job, or my experience, or, OH, how this is all just about my ex-wife.  That one makes me giggle.   

I was frustrated yesterday.  Now I just hate you, in the same manner that I hated Dead Kennedy.

Wow, do you hate everyone who has a different opinion than you?

Nope.  Just the dishonest ones.  You know, like you.

[AFK]

I notice that you are dodging certain elements of what I'm asking and commenting on. 

It's more that I'm ignoring them.  After yesterday, you don't rate a proper conversation.  Nor do you rate anything resembling respect or common courtesy.

This is what you demanded.  Well, now you have it.

Because I disagree with you.  Fuck, the heresy!  How dare I disagree with Mr. TGRR!

Nope.  Lots of people disagree with me.  This has more to do with you ignoring me stating my case, and then taking half of an unrelated post, and presenting it as my argument.  You're basically a dishonest scumbag, and yesterday finally proved that beyond a reasonable doubt.

But you knew that, RWHN, because you did it deliberately.  Now you're just continuing to be dishonest, which is really all I expect from you.

Dude, you've done that to me on numerous occassions, but I haven't let it fester like that,

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I notice that you are dodging certain elements of what I'm asking and commenting on. 

It's more that I'm ignoring them.  After yesterday, you don't rate a proper conversation.  Nor do you rate anything resembling respect or common courtesy.

This is what you demanded.  Well, now you have it.

Because I disagree with you.  Fuck, the heresy!  How dare I disagree with Mr. TGRR!

Nope.  Lots of people disagree with me.  This has more to do with you ignoring me stating my case, and then taking half of an unrelated post, and presenting it as my argument.  You're basically a dishonest scumbag, and yesterday finally proved that beyond a reasonable doubt.

But you knew that, RWHN, because you did it deliberately.  Now you're just continuing to be dishonest, which is really all I expect from you.

Dude, you've done that to me on numerous occassions, but I haven't let it fester like that,

So you say.  Haven't seen an example yet. 

Let's see an example of me taking one sentence out of context from a completely unrelated post, and then treating that as your argument, at the expense of your actual argument.

And it's not a question of festering, Sparky.  I've written you off entirely.  There isn't any festering.  If there was, that boil popped yesterday afternoon.

Now you're just another yahoo, fit only for mockery.

[Elder Iptuous]

But I suppose that's a case where you are right and all of the other policy experts are wrong, right?

Well, you're certainly wrong.  You've expressed both your contempt for and your utter inability to read and understand the document.

I notice that you are dodging certain elements of what I'm asking and commenting on.  So, I'll try again, is everyone else wrong?  All of the people who proposed, and passed gun control policies in the past?  The legislators and others who didn't raise Constitutional objections?  The judges who didn't strike down gun control?  They are ALL wrong and YOU are right, is that it?

There is a great deal of precedent to indicate that this is possible.  That's why we've had some horrible laws on the books in the past that were struck down as unconstitutional.
Also, you make it sound like Roger is all alone in his claim, but that it certainly far from the truth.

[P3nT4gR4m]

A tangentially related observation. Whenever I find myself arguing a position alone, against a multitude of other people* who keep telling me "I don't get it" I take a good, hard look at their position, just on the off-chance that there's something I've missed. More often than not there is.

* I seldom find myself arguing against, christians, new agers, neopagans or other forms of bugfuck-mental but, if and when, this rule doesn't really apply, for reasons that should be obvious.

[AFK]

How about when you are apparently arguing against a religion?

[East Coast Hustle]

How about when you are apparently arguing against a religion?

Yes, well, that's why we've all decided to stop treating you as someone who has a serious argument to make, isn't it?

Now run along, grownups are talking.

[Faust]

RWHN isn't alone per say, I've merely written off the topic completely. I've seen nothing to change my mind about my stance that guns should first be regulated, then criminalised.
I'm not remotely convinced in the argument that they are a useful tool,
or that they in any way defend civil liberty, or in any way make the government somehow scared and kept in check.

The only conceivable argument that sways me in any way is the HONEST one; "They are fun", people don't want fun taken away and that is a valid argument.

But otherwise I wasted far too much time thinking about the issue, it doesn't apply to my country and it seems to be a giant honey-pot of attention so fuck that.

[East Coast Hustle]

RWHN isn't alone per say, I've merely written off the topic completely. I've seen nothing to change my mind about my stance that guns should first be regulated, then criminalised.
I'm not remotely convinced in the argument that they are a useful tool,
or that they in any way defend civil liberty, or in any way make the government somehow scared and kept in check.

The only conceivable argument that sways me in any way is the HONEST one; "They are fun", people don't want fun taken away and that is a valid argument.

But otherwise I wasted far too much time thinking about the issue, it doesn't apply to my country and it seems to be a giant honey-pot of attention so fuck that.

And that's the thing, this is a COMPLETELY American-centric argument, and it would be unreasonable to expect anyone who doesn't or hasn't lived in the states to understand the cultural framework of the argument.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

RWHN isn't alone per say, I've merely written off the topic completely. I've seen nothing to change my mind about my stance that guns should first be regulated, then criminalised.
I'm not remotely convinced in the argument that they are a useful tool,
or that they in any way defend civil liberty, or in any way make the government somehow scared and kept in check.

The only conceivable argument that sways me in any way is the HONEST one; "They are fun", people don't want fun taken away and that is a valid argument.

But otherwise I wasted far too much time thinking about the issue, it doesn't apply to my country and it seems to be a giant honey-pot of attention so fuck that.

And that's the thing, this is a COMPLETELY American-centric argument, and it would be unreasonable to expect anyone who doesn't or hasn't lived in the states to understand the cultural framework of the argument.

And that's just it.  I don't expect folks from other countries to adopt our insanity, or even agree in principle with it.  Their cultures are different, and seem to have their own unique problems.

Nor would I, unlike a couple of GOP legislators, assume that firearm ownership is a human right.  It isn't.  It's an American right.  Nor would I agree with them that an American should be able to carry firearms in another country simply by virtue of being an American.  When you are in someone else's country, you have to live by their laws.

[Elder Iptuous]

wait....
there's GOP leaders saying that we need to pressure other countries to comply with the second amendment, and allow US citizens to pack heat on their turf?!

[The Good Reverend Roger]

wait....
there's GOP leaders saying that we need to pressure other countries to comply with the second amendment, and allow US citizens to pack heat on their turf?!

Yep.  Good old Newt gave them the idea.

https://www.gingrichproductions.com/2012/04/the-right-to-bear-arms-is-a-human-right/

And then there's THIS guy, who seems a little confused:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/18/tim-donnelly-god-guns-essential-republican_n_2505537.html

[Elder Iptuous]

wait....
there's GOP leaders saying that we need to pressure other countries to comply with the second amendment, and allow US citizens to pack heat on their turf?!

Yep.  Good old Newt gave them the idea.

https://www.gingrichproductions.com/2012/04/the-right-to-bear-arms-is-a-human-right/

And then there's THIS guy, who seems a little confused:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/18/tim-donnelly-god-guns-essential-republican_n_2505537.html

aaaaand, now my mind has newt gingrich in red loincloth receiving guns from the giant stone godhead indelibly etched onto it....
THANKS, IRL! 

[The Good Reverend Roger]

wait....
there's GOP leaders saying that we need to pressure other countries to comply with the second amendment, and allow US citizens to pack heat on their turf?!

Yep.  Good old Newt gave them the idea.

https://www.gingrichproductions.com/2012/04/the-right-to-bear-arms-is-a-human-right/

And then there's THIS guy, who seems a little confused:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/18/tim-donnelly-god-guns-essential-republican_n_2505537.html

aaaaand, now my mind has newt gingrich in red loincloth receiving guns from the giant stone godhead indelibly etched onto it....
THANKS, IRL! 

God wanted everyone to have guns.  That's why he gave them to us.  Jesus talks about it all the time in the New Testament.