- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Has anyone asked the Dems
Posted on 6/3/22 at 4:29 pm to oyr89
Posted on 6/3/22 at 4:29 pm to oyr89
quote:
I'm just pointing out that it's a dumb argument because you're essentially arguing for the removal of laws altogether.
No dumbass, I’m arguing against laws that violate the constitutional rights of millions of Americans. Especially when those laws do nothing whatsoever to address the problem.
quote:
But then why have them?
Really? Maybe because if there was no law against it, I could just murder you for trolling?
I’m not avoiding anything. You are avoiding the fact that laws only affect the law abiding. Just like locks on doors only stop honest people. You avoid the fact that any new gun law violates the rights of Americans.
This post was edited on 6/3/22 at 4:30 pm
1
Posted on 6/3/22 at 4:39 pm to troyt37
quote:
No dumbass, I’m arguing against laws that violate the constitutional rights of millions of Americans. Especially when those laws do nothing whatsoever to address the problem.
Which is a completely different argument to suggesting laws don't work (which would suggest that we should scrap all laws in the first place).
quote:
Maybe because if there was no law against it, I could just murder you for trolling?
So laws do work then at preventing murder? Or don't they?
quote:
Just like locks on doors only stop honest people.
So we shouldn't lock doors then at all. Think about what you're arguing then - if locks don't work, why should we lock our houses?
Posted on 6/3/22 at 4:55 pm to oyr89
quote:
Which is a completely different argument to suggesting laws don't work (which would suggest that we should scrap all laws in the first place).
It’s a given for most sane people that the lawless ignore or disregard the law, regardless. Making constitutional laws (that will be ignored by the lawless) serves the public in establishing what actions cross the line in a civil society. Making unconstitutional laws (that will be ignored by the lawless) only serves to make criminals of the law abiding.
quote:
So laws do work then at preventing murder? Or don't they?
I guess you’d have to know whether I’m lawless, or law abiding, wouldn’t you?
quote:
So we shouldn't lock doors then at all. Think about what you're arguing then - if locks don't work, why should we lock our houses?
Is everyone honest?
That’s about enough idiocy for me today, thanks.
Posted on 6/3/22 at 5:01 pm to oyr89
quote:
Let's start simple - this is your argument.
A) We have laws
B) Criminals don't follow laws.
Then why have laws in the first place?
To prosecute criminals.
This gun legislation would allow for the prosecution of law abiding citizens (if you believe in the Constitution).
They are not the same...apples / oranges.
Posted on 6/3/22 at 5:04 pm to oyr89
quote:
So laws do work then at preventing murder? Or don't they?
Who knows. You can’t state that they don’t.
However, I would imagine that those laws have influenced some people.
I mean, a leftist didn’t kill the MAGA King.
Posted on 6/3/22 at 5:06 pm to oyr89
quote:Laws must be balanced against the harm to law abiding citizens. Anyone capable of rational thought understands this but you are just a troll so enjoy your jerkfest
Instead of giving me a non-answer about imprisoning the entire population, just answer the question.
Posted on 6/3/22 at 5:12 pm to RoosterCogburn585
It's easier to pass a law than actually address the problems they created with LBJs great society and a refusal to place blame on anything but a firearm despite the obvious mental illness that was present.
They don't have solutions or want to face the hard things.
Having to admit things like bribing people to stay single and without a father as well as admitting the importance of a father in a household... especially the need for them to be a strong male influence to guide a lot of these broken people.
Broken single parent families without a father do not fair well regardless of things the rabid feminist (i don't need a man) would espouse.
Their narratives are full of holes.
They don't have solutions or want to face the hard things.
Having to admit things like bribing people to stay single and without a father as well as admitting the importance of a father in a household... especially the need for them to be a strong male influence to guide a lot of these broken people.
Broken single parent families without a father do not fair well regardless of things the rabid feminist (i don't need a man) would espouse.
Their narratives are full of holes.
This post was edited on 6/3/22 at 5:15 pm
Posted on 6/3/22 at 5:15 pm to oyr89
Where did you go?
No response?
No response?
Posted on 6/3/22 at 5:19 pm to troyt37
quote:
That’s about enough idiocy for me today, thanks.
Well, the only idiocy here is that I've clearly pointed out a clear flaw in the logic.
quote:
Making constitutional laws (that will be ignored by the lawless) serves the public in establishing what actions cross the line in a civil society. Making unconstitutional laws (that will be ignored by the lawless) only serves to make criminals of the law abiding.
So gun control advocates could then argue that they believe gun ownership or gun ownership without regulation crosses a line in a civil society and it would be exactly akin to the argument for having murder on the books i.e. serving the public in establishing what type of gun ownership crosses the line.
That would completely defeat your logic because it's a dumb position to be arguing from. You've justified having murder as a law on the books in the exact same way a gun control advocate would justify to themselves about guns or gun regulation.
quote:
I guess you’d have to know whether I’m lawless, or law abiding, wouldn’t you?
I would but clearly, as you've put it, you are aware that killing me would cross the line in a civil society. A gun control advocate may suggest the same thing.
quote:
Is everyone honest?
I'm not sure how that answers the question.
If we've established that locks don't work as criminals will ignore them, we should not lock our doors.
I actually rather like your analogy of a lock = gun control.
If locks don't work, let's not lock our doors.
Do you lock your door?
Or are locks barriers or a psychological comfort?
And I don't think gun control to any significant extent will work when there are 400 million guns in the US. I'm not arguing for it, I'm just pointing out the flaws in the logic here.
This post was edited on 6/3/22 at 5:20 pm
Posted on 6/3/22 at 5:22 pm to oyr89
quote:
Well, the only idiocy here is that I've clearly pointed out a clear flaw in the logic.
Posted on 6/3/22 at 5:23 pm to UncleFestersLegs
quote:
Laws must be balanced against the harm to law abiding citizens. Anyone capable of rational thought understands this but you are just a troll so enjoy your jerkfest
Which is a different argument to the one presented in the original comment.
Anyone capable of rational thought wouldn't try and change the argument half way through.
You can argue that gun control laws violate the 2nd amendment or won't work. I won't disagree on the 'it won't work' argument to a large extent considering how many guns there are in the US.
That's different to arguing that laws don't work in general, which is the gist of the above logic - if you want to live somewhere without laws (because after all, laws don't stop criminals according to the original comment), you're free to move to a lawless society.
This post was edited on 6/3/22 at 5:24 pm
Posted on 6/3/22 at 5:23 pm to oyr89
quote:
I actually rather like your analogy of a lock = gun control. If locks don't work, let's not lock our doors. Do you lock your door?
Not all of the time, but then again, I have the ability to defend myself and my family.
As such, your point is moot.
This post was edited on 6/3/22 at 5:26 pm
Posted on 6/3/22 at 5:25 pm to oyr89
quote:
Number of Posts: 16
Registered on: 6/3/2022
Posted on 6/3/22 at 5:30 pm to RoosterCogburn585
Logic is too advanced for Democrats. The only reason they want to regulate guns is to attempt to exercise power and control over gun owners who they see as a potential threat to their power.
Posted on 6/3/22 at 5:38 pm to LRB1967
quote:
Logic is too advanced for Democrats.
For their average voter - yes.
For the goose-stepping communazis running their party...logic is applied.
This:
quote:
The only reason they want to regulate guns is to attempt to exercise power and control over gun owners who they see as a potential threat to their power.
IS logical if you want to implement an authoritarian state that wants to use intimidation and coercion as tools of oppression and tyranny.
Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and the other totalitarian dictators of history would be quite proud of the Machiavellian machine the Dems have installed.
This post was edited on 6/3/22 at 5:39 pm
Posted on 6/3/22 at 6:04 pm to oyr89
quote:
So gun control advocates could then argue that they believe gun ownership or gun ownership without regulation crosses a line in a civil society and it would be exactly akin to the argument for having murder on the books i.e. serving the public in establishing what type of gun ownership crosses the line.
Well they could, but they would be dismissed as idiotic, just you are being dismissed by several here. The law of the land says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”
quote:
That would completely defeat your logic because it's a dumb position to be arguing from. You've justified having murder as a law on the books in the exact same way a gun control advocate would justify to themselves about guns or gun regulation.
See above, idiot. Anything in the Constitution about the right of the people to murder other people? No? Well I’ll be damned.
quote:
nd I don't think gun control to any significant extent will work when there are 400 million guns in the US. I'm not arguing for it, I'm just pointing out the flaws in the logic here.
You may think you are, but you are comparing apples to cowboy boots, and studiously ignoring the flaws in your own logic.
Posted on 6/3/22 at 6:32 pm to troyt37
You're shifting your argument and now you're calling me idiotic?
It's one thing to argue that something is constitutional or not. It's another to argue that laws don't work and hence why we shouldn't have them.
Why are you this disingenuous?
I mean:
Something that is constitutional can be made unconstitutional.
I'm fairly sure gun control advocates would be advocating for that, hence they could just as well argue that gun ownership crosses a line in a civil society.
See above. You've now changed your argument and I'm not sure you're smart enough to realize it.
A gun control advocate would probably say:
a) Constitutions can change
b) The constitution should change
c) Hence, having laws against gun ownership would show that gun ownership crosses a line in a civil society
You're now invoking the constitution into an argument about whether laws work or whether laws don't work. And if we really want to go there, I'm sure gun control advocates would be advocating for changing the constitution as well.
But that's besides the point. You've now shifted your argument yet again. Do you not hear yourself?
First, you argued that laws don't work.
I pointed out then why don't we scrap laws.
You then argued that laws serve as a warning about behavior that crosses the line in civil society to the public.
I pointed out that a gun control advocate would argue that gun ownership is behavior that crosses the line in civil society.
You then tried to bring in the constitution when it wasn't your original point in the first place.
Either laws work or they don't work.
If laws don't work, then we should scrap them.
If laws serve as warning about what is acceptable in public society, gun control advocates can advocate for gun laws because they would see it as unacceptable in civil society.
You may argue that it's unconstitutional or whatever but this isn't your argument in the first place. That's a different argument altogether but I think you knew that.
The fact that you call me an idiot when you've been called out on your flawed logic and then tried to shift your argument to constitutionality
It's one thing to argue that something is constitutional or not. It's another to argue that laws don't work and hence why we shouldn't have them.
Why are you this disingenuous?
quote:
Well they could, but they would be dismissed as idiotic, just you are being dismissed by several here. The law of the land says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”
I mean:
Something that is constitutional can be made unconstitutional.
I'm fairly sure gun control advocates would be advocating for that, hence they could just as well argue that gun ownership crosses a line in a civil society.
quote:
See above, idiot. Anything in the Constitution about the right of the people to murder other people? No? Well I’ll be damned.
See above. You've now changed your argument and I'm not sure you're smart enough to realize it.
A gun control advocate would probably say:
a) Constitutions can change
b) The constitution should change
c) Hence, having laws against gun ownership would show that gun ownership crosses a line in a civil society
You're now invoking the constitution into an argument about whether laws work or whether laws don't work. And if we really want to go there, I'm sure gun control advocates would be advocating for changing the constitution as well.
But that's besides the point. You've now shifted your argument yet again. Do you not hear yourself?
First, you argued that laws don't work.
I pointed out then why don't we scrap laws.
You then argued that laws serve as a warning about behavior that crosses the line in civil society to the public.
I pointed out that a gun control advocate would argue that gun ownership is behavior that crosses the line in civil society.
You then tried to bring in the constitution when it wasn't your original point in the first place.
Either laws work or they don't work.
If laws don't work, then we should scrap them.
If laws serve as warning about what is acceptable in public society, gun control advocates can advocate for gun laws because they would see it as unacceptable in civil society.
You may argue that it's unconstitutional or whatever but this isn't your argument in the first place. That's a different argument altogether but I think you knew that.
The fact that you call me an idiot when you've been called out on your flawed logic and then tried to shift your argument to constitutionality
This post was edited on 6/3/22 at 6:33 pm
Posted on 6/3/22 at 6:36 pm to oyr89
Go back to DU with your weak assed shite.
Posted on 6/3/22 at 7:38 pm to oyr89
quote:
It's one thing to argue that something is constitutional or not. It's another to argue that laws don't work and hence why we shouldn't have them.
You’re the only one trying to make that argument, dumbfrick.
quote:
Something that is constitutional can be made unconstitutional. I'm fairly sure gun control advocates would be advocating for that, hence they could just as well argue that gun ownership crosses a line in a civil society.
Yep, sure can. Tell me, who among the “we must do something” crowd have you heard utter one peep about a constitutional amendment, outside of Michael Moore. Anyone? Then your whole statement is more of the same ignorance. You’ve convinced us already.
Posted on 6/3/22 at 7:56 pm to troyt37
quote:
You’re the only one trying to make that argument, dumbfrick.
Can you read?
That's exactly the argument of the OP.
He's arguing that criminals don't follow laws so gun laws won't work. But that would imply no laws work and so we shouldn't have them.
quote:
Yep, sure can. Tell me, who among the “we must do something” crowd have you heard utter one peep about a constitutional amendment, outside of Michael Moore. Anyone? Then your whole statement is more of the same ignorance. You’ve convinced us already.
So you've named someone that is advocating for a constitutional amendment? Defeating your own point in the first place (not to mention that it was dumb in the first place for reasons explained below).
So we've now moved on to debating the constitution rather than your original logic which is that laws don't work.
Can you deflect any harder?
You seriously tried to argue that laws don't work and indirectly argued for getting rid of laws and then tried to backtrack.
You then changed your argument to whether one thing is constitutional or not which is not what we were debating.
And the fact that you've not heard about it doesn't mean it's not being talked about. I'm not the one who is ignorant here.
Biden literally said that the 2nd amendment is not absolute - the idea that you've not heard one peep about constitutional amendments is a fabrication.
LINK
A former liberal supreme court justice even advocated for repealing the 2nd amendment. It's been talked about in multiple articles so get out of here with this 'nobody has talked about it' nonsense.
Dude, you've managed to wrap yourself in a pretzel. You've argued yourself into a paper bag and you know it.
Your argument has now changed yet again: you're now arguing that because you've *personally* not heard a pepp about a constitutional amendment means that the logic makes sense.
Jesus dude, I'm not the one who's ignorant here. I could have argued your point more strongly than you did - you flip flopped from point to point and somehow have ended up with the moronic take that because you've not seen it means it didn't happen.
How.. how do you get dressed in the morning with these kind of debate skills?!
This post was edited on 6/3/22 at 7:57 pm
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News