*sighs, turns over "DAYS SINCE LAST MASS SHOOTING IN AMERICA" sign to 0*
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
GasBandit
Staff member
And yet it would be less work and upheaval to fix that than to eliminate guns.
figmentPez
Staff member
OH! So you admit that the definition of "need" has varying degrees, and that you actually "need" to provide proof that subsistence hunting isn't a need for people?
The Same People said:
GasBandit
Staff member
Well, I guess that means they were wrong about that whole freedom of speech thing, too, as well as freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, the right to a speedy trial by your peers, etc... Guess it's back to a good ol' divine-right monarchy for us!
I can defend all of those without bringing the founding fathers into it.
GasBandit
Staff member
Funny, I've done the same with the 2nd amendment. It is, after all, the one that makes all the others anything more than just words on paper.
What?
ADMIN EDIT (Dave): Posting bad idea is bad and potentially illegal. And since I could be held liable, it ain't gonna be posted here. Have a nice day.
Last edited by a moderator:
GasBandit
Staff member
Again, policy decisions you disagree with, enacted through legitimate channels, and that can be undone in a subsequent election, are not grounds for assassination.
Define "legitimate."
Loljk you wouldn't do shit ever. Just give up your guns. They do you no good.
GasBandit
Staff member
GasBandit
Staff member
STFU Charlie.
Yes you were right to laugh before my edit. He'll never really live it out.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of high school students.
GasBandit
Staff member
Believe it or not, I really hope you're right. Because it's not a fantasy - it's just an insurance policy that is slightly less awful than the alternative.
GasBandit
Staff member
lol no
And the premium on that insurance policy is dead children. Would you rather I use that phrasing instead of "acceptable losses"?
GasBandit
Staff member
The cost of not having that insurance policy is a lot *more* dead children, and dead adults. The difference is there is other things we can do, which I and others in this thread have brought up, to mitigate the current problem. The difference is, you're merely interested in leveraging dead children to strip rights away from your fellow citizenry because of your irrational, all-consuming phobia.
Or, in charlie talk, lol no
Would you like to buy some volcano insurance? I hear Texas is overdue.
GasBandit
Staff member
Actually..
Unfortunately, there's no insurance policy against that. When it blows, we're all pretty much hosed.
We shoot the volcano with an assault rifle. That'll stop it.
Dang it, now I’m going to have that song in my head.
...and this is an attempt to get us to do what you propose by trying to publicly shame us for our beliefs. In other words, it is an appeal to emotion, and an attempt at peer pressure.
—Patrick
Last edited:
You new to the internet? That’s what it will always come down to. Since you don’t believe in responsible gun ownership just gun ownership.
GasBandit
Staff member
I do believe in gun owners being held responsible. But that's a reactive position, not a prohibitive one.
As for being "new to the internet," you know better. And you've also been around long enough to know that it USED to be that if your position was different than mine, I'd never stop. That's what's changed.
Sorry. I don't mean to make anyone feel bad for supporting policies that cause children to die just so they can feel like they will be able to take down the most powerful military in the world.
So you all give up your guns, @Emrys finally puts The Scampering into action & rules over America as it's new Queen? (Hey natural born citizen applies to the office of President - not to the monarchy)
figmentPez
Staff member
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion
You're putting up a smoke screen by insisting that any view other than your own is advocating the death of children. You're completely failing to address that Gas, and many other posters, have pointed out that there are more effective ways to reduce child deaths than trying to take guns away from everyone.
sure, blotsfan may not ever be able to understand the usefulness of guns, but can’t we simply be happy he, and millions of other Americans, live in such a state of peace and security that they believe guns have no valid purpose?
We’ve come a long way in the last few centuries. I don’t want to lose these rights, but it’s testament to our progress that so many no longer feel the need to have such weapons, even if it’s to the degree that they cannot comprehend their utility to others.
We’ve come a long way in the last few centuries. I don’t want to lose these rights, but it’s testament to our progress that so many no longer feel the need to have such weapons, even if it’s to the degree that they cannot comprehend their utility to others.
figmentPez
Staff member
You know what, protecting children from guns isn't enough. We should give all children personal force fields. Belts they can wear that will project a protective envelope around them that can deflect bullets, but also protect them from bullying, dangerous weather, automobile accidents, and so much more! If you're against giving children personal force fields, then their blood is on your hands! Anyone who doesn't immediately go out and tell their representatives to initiate a personal force field program for school children is obviously someone who wants dead children. They clearly view all the lifeless bodies as acceptable losses in the name of saving money by not providing the personal force field belts that children so desperately need to be safe.
No, I don't actually think such devices exist, but I also realize the concept is just as feasible as eliminating all gun ownership.
