The Conundrum

4est_4est_Gump

Run Forrest! RUN!
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Posts
89,007
The BLUE team says you cannot blame Islam. Their “terrorism” is the act of a few individuals who are not true Muslims. The odds are very low that it will ever affect you. Your overreaction allows the government to interfere with my freedom.

The RED team says you cannot blame shooters. Their “terrorism” is the act of a few individuals who are not true conservatives/libertarians. The odds are very low that it will ever affect you. Your overreaction allows the government to interfere with my freedom.

The BLUE team says that you do not need guns to protect you from animal predators, since it is very rare. It never happens where we live and we are unarmed. (Unless, of course you still allow people to own pit bulls or chihuahuas. Personally I would shoot the latter on sight just because their are obnoxious little shits. :D )

The RED team says that you do not need guns to protect yourselves from human predators since it rarely happens here even pretty much because we are armed. Ditto with the animal predators that we coexist with.

:)

The BLUE team says, the only reason we have to fear gun violence is because of the RED* team.

The RED team says, the only reason we/you have to fear gun violence is because the (unassailable victim**) players on the BLUE team…

;) ;)


In short, why is it that we are supposed to forgive Islamic terrorism as the act of a few individuals not indicative of their group, but rather as aberrants, but every single time an aberrant uses a gun then we condemn all gun owners, the NRA and the Second Amendment (even if the shooter is with Bernie or Jihad)?


[Caveat: And yes, I am a gun(s) owner. I have no desire whatsoever to make gun ownership compulsory anymore than I have a desire to go out and try to kill BLUE team members.]






* The NRA, Trump, Republicans, Neo-Nazis, White Nationalists, the Mets, the Post, Breitbart. American Thinker….,

** Those whom cannot be named because the BLUE team will label you as a Racist, Islamophobe or Xenophobe.
 
The BLUE team says you cannot blame Islam. Their “terrorism” is the act of a few individuals who are not true Muslims. The odds are very low that it will ever affect you. Your overreaction allows the government to interfere with my freedom.

The RED team says you cannot blame shooters. Their “terrorism” is the act of a few individuals who are not true conservatives/libertarians. The odds are very low that it will ever affect you. Your overreaction allows the government to interfere with my freedom.

The BLUE team says that you do not need guns to protect you from animal predators, since it is very rare. It never happens where we live and we are unarmed. (Unless, of course you still allow people to own pit bulls or chihuahuas. Personally I would shoot the latter on sight just because their are obnoxious little shits. :D )

The RED team says that you do not need guns to protect yourselves from human predators since it rarely happens here even pretty much because we are armed. Ditto with the animal predators that we coexist with.

:)

The BLUE team says, the only reason we have to fear gun violence is because of the RED* team.

The RED team says, the only reason we/you have to fear gun violence is because the (unassailable victim**) players on the BLUE team…

;) ;)


In short, why is it that we are supposed to forgive Islamic terrorism as the act of a few individuals not indicative of their group, but rather as aberrants, but every single time an aberrant uses a gun then we condemn all gun owners, the NRA and the Second Amendment (even if the shooter is with Bernie or Jihad)?


[Caveat: And yes, I am a gun(s) owner. I have no desire whatsoever to make gun ownership compulsory anymore than I have a desire to go out and try to kill BLUE team members.]






* The NRA, Trump, Republicans, Neo-Nazis, White Nationalists, the Mets, the Post, Breitbart. American Thinker….,

** Those whom cannot be named because the BLUE team will label you as a Racist, Islamophobe or Xenophobe.

Who ever said you need to forgive terrorism? Nobody, you fucking stupid prairie nigger. For a self proclaimed smart guy you are really dumb.
 
Who ever said you need to forgive terrorism? Nobody, you fucking stupid prairie nigger. For a self proclaimed smart guy you are really dumb.

the conundrum is that he is still breathing while murder is still a capital offense.
 
It's never the time to talk about guns on Planet AJ.
Never.

But, hai, how bout them bump stocks! Tee hee!
 
the conundrum is that he is still breathing while murder is still a capital offense.

There isn't much of a conundrum involved in separating your pretense of intellectual relevancy from the brutal truth.:rolleyes:
 
The BLUE team says you cannot blame Islam. Their “terrorism” is the act of a few individuals who are not true Muslims. The odds are very low that it will ever affect you. Your overreaction allows the government to interfere with my freedom.

The RED team says you cannot blame shooters. Their “terrorism” is the act of a few individuals who are not true conservatives/libertarians. The odds are very low that it will ever affect you. Your overreaction allows the government to interfere with my freedom.

The BLUE team says that you do not need guns to protect you from animal predators, since it is very rare. It never happens where we live and we are unarmed. (Unless, of course you still allow people to own pit bulls or chihuahuas. Personally I would shoot the latter on sight just because their are obnoxious little shits. :D )

The RED team says that you do not need guns to protect yourselves from human predators since it rarely happens here even pretty much because we are armed. Ditto with the animal predators that we coexist with.

:)

The BLUE team says, the only reason we have to fear gun violence is because of the RED* team.

The RED team says, the only reason we/you have to fear gun violence is because the (unassailable victim**) players on the BLUE team…

;) ;)


In short, why is it that we are supposed to forgive Islamic terrorism as the act of a few individuals not indicative of their group, but rather as aberrants, but every single time an aberrant uses a gun then we condemn all gun owners, the NRA and the Second Amendment (even if the shooter is with Bernie or Jihad)?


[Caveat: And yes, I am a gun(s) owner. I have no desire whatsoever to make gun ownership compulsory anymore than I have a desire to go out and try to kill BLUE team members.]






* The NRA, Trump, Republicans, Neo-Nazis, White Nationalists, the Mets, the Post, Breitbart. American Thinker….,

** Those whom cannot be named because the BLUE team will label you as a Racist, Islamophobe or Xenophobe.

Here, imho, is an even better question.

Why do we waste so much goddamned time arguing about the "need" for firearms with respect to specific applications, as if the "winner" of the argument had a dispositive basis for ignoring the clear meaning of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution? Why not just follow the law until public opinion is sufficient to persuade legislators to repeal or amend the 2nd Amendment itself in the specific manner by which the Constitution allows for such amendment?
 
so this isn't a thread about countdown? that's fucking bullshit.

on multiple levels.
 
Here, imho, is an even better question.

Why do we waste so much goddamned time arguing about the "need" for firearms with respect to specific applications, as if the "winner" of the argument had a dispositive basis for ignoring the clear meaning of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution? Why not just follow the law until public opinion is sufficient to persuade legislators to repeal or amend the 2nd Amendment itself in the specific manner by which the Constitution allows for such amendment?

You'd have to admit the clear language of the Second has been amended by 243 pages of federal gun laws:

https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/docs/atf-p-5300-4pdf/download
:D
 
Here, imho, is an even better question.

Why do we waste so much goddamned time arguing about the "need" for firearms with respect to specific applications, as if the "winner" of the argument had a dispositive basis for ignoring the clear meaning of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution? Why not just follow the law until public opinion is sufficient to persuade legislators to repeal or amend the 2nd Amendment itself in the specific manner by which the Constitution allows for such amendment?

Because that would make too much fucking sense..

Can't have any of that you know..
 
Here, imho, is an even better question.

Why do we waste so much goddamned time arguing about the "need" for firearms with respect to specific applications, as if the "winner" of the argument had a dispositive basis for ignoring the clear meaning of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution? Why not just follow the law until public opinion is sufficient to persuade legislators to repeal or amend the 2nd Amendment itself in the specific manner by which the Constitution allows for such amendment?

Because by taking control of the narrative you can ignore the inconvenient.

The problem is that when we say self-defense meaning all aspects from natural predators to governmental predators and everything in between, the gun control side of the aspects limits the "definition" of self-defense to only mean a bag guy (who is most certainly not a minority, they assume we just shoot them on sight, especially if we're in law enforcement). They just think that it's too rare an occurrence, or you won't get to your gun on time and, well, gosh-darn it, it hasn't happened to them and they don't own guns...
 
Here, imho, is an even better question.

Why do we waste so much goddamned time arguing about the "need" for firearms with respect to specific applications, as if the "winner" of the argument had a dispositive basis for ignoring the clear meaning of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution? Why not just follow the law until public opinion is sufficient to persuade legislators to repeal or amend the 2nd Amendment itself in the specific manner by which the Constitution allows for such amendment?

Why in God's name would you wanna do that?

And who's gonna decide what that specific manner is? you?

Given what you wrote before that, you don't qualify to specify that manner.

White privilege?

https://68.media.tumblr.com/dad0df1738f1c867618003d80b0ac7e2/tumblr_inline_ounlsbzXUr1v46wve_540.gif
 
Why in God's name would you wanna do that?

And who's gonna decide what that specific manner is? you?

Given what you wrote before that, you don't qualify to specify that manner.



https://68.media.tumblr.com/dad0df1738f1c867618003d80b0ac7e2/tumblr_inline_ounlsbzXUr1v46wve_540.gif

The "specific manner" for amending the Constitution, including outright repeal of prior amendments, is specifically specified in the Constitution itself. Neither I nor anyone else is authorized to substitute for a process already specified. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
The "specific manner" for amending the Constitution, including outright repeal of prior amendments, is specifically specified in the Constitution itself. Neither I nor anyone else is authorized to substitute for a process already specified. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

I didn't understand what you wrote.

Had to re-read it twice.


So, what is the clear meaning of the 2nd in your opinion?
 
Sometimes you feel like a nut.


Sometimes you don't.
 
You got chocolate in my peanut butter!!


You got peanut butter on my chocolate!!
 
I didn't understand what you wrote.

Had to re-read it twice.


So, what is the clear meaning of the 2nd in your opinion?

That the government's protection and codification of a pre-existing right;

for the very purpose of empowering a citizens militia;

in order to BOTH defend the nation from enemies AND defend the citizenry from the potential of tyranny imposed by a standing army answerable only to the government;

was in no way designed to limit other lawful but unspecified uses of those same arms.
 
That the government's protection and codification of a pre-existing right;

for the very purpose of empowering a citizens militia;

in order to BOTH defend the nation from enemies AND defend the citizenry from the potential of tyranny imposed by a standing army answerable only to the government;

was in no way designed to limit other lawful but unspecified uses of those same arms.

You know, I read the other one twice. this here I read thrice. No dice.

Elab?
 
Back
Top