- 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: Say what you want, but this is hilariously ironic.
Posted on 5/4/18 at 11:32 am to Swoopin
Posted on 5/4/18 at 11:32 am to Swoopin
quote:
Question though- what is, in your opinion, an example of a natural born right?
There isn't a natural born right. There are only the things that man has learned through experience to protect from the experience of being human.
quote:
And on your 2nd point, it's not a niche view that many people view the bill of rights not as creating rights but acknowledging those that already exist.
I understand that, but that belief is also born to some extent from rights deemed to be granted by God upon mankind. That's not a realistic argument, especially for one who doesn't believe in a God.
Like I said, "natural born rights" are just constructs man has placed importance on after hundreds and thousands of years of dealing with other people.
0
Posted on 5/4/18 at 11:34 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
The discussion is only "serious" if everyone agrees.
No, it's serious when more than 50% of the people in here are actually trying to have a discussion without name calling or being childish. You of the Taliban promotion should know better.
Posted on 5/4/18 at 11:39 am to Taxing Authority
quote:
His position is that people having too much freedom is the cause of violence. That's not liberal. It's the worst form of authoritarianism there is.
No, that's not my argument. A balance between the two is necessary. You're not going to sign up to live in a dictatorship anymore than you are anarchy. We are arguing from the comfort of the middle ground and playing a game of rugby because, mostly, we are getting it right.
This post was edited on 5/4/18 at 11:41 am
Posted on 5/4/18 at 11:40 am to CollegeFBRules
quote:
I would be happy with that level. The problem is that we can't even HAVE that level because it's too juicy of a red meat for politicians to get approval from the NRA when they remove it.
So. For clarity.
If you got this level, you'd be happy as in, we would never hear from your type again wanting more gun laws after any future shootings?
quote:You seemed to think that me supporting some restriction was some gotcha. Like it helps rationalize MASSIVE restrictions.
Not dodging this, I just legit don't know what you're saying.
quote:
What would be fair triggers in your mind then? If someone is increasingly aggressive beyond their normal way of being and that can't be counted, then where is acceptable and not acceptable?
I live in the U.S. in 2018 where I'm told by the left that I can be "violent" with a Tweet about someone's hair color.
So, using MY definition of excessive aggressiveness, yeah, I'm OK with it. Using whatever the Pelosi's of the world would use as a definition? I'm gonna need specifics.
quote:
No, I am not familiar. Talk to me and let's actually stop name calling each other. Explain where you're coming from with this.
TROs are absurdly easy to get and have become a weapon unto themselves.
I know a man in Maryland who has, in the last 10 years, requested AND RECEIVED TROs on 23 separate individuals. How do I know this? Check it out.
He's my ex-s ex. He has a daughter who is my oldest's half sis. He's a violent man himself which is why my ex ran. Literally ran.
His daughter, at like age 13, posted on FB about how bad her dad was. My daughter, responded by saying she understood and wished someone like me was her dad(and tagged me). My daughter's hubby "liked" that post. I "liked" that post.
A month later, I was served a TRO from the state of Maryland as was my daugther and my son in law to keep away from the 13 year old and not contact her because we were "contributing to the delinquency".
Side note. I lived 500 miles from her. As did my daughter and son in law was in fricking Afghanistan.
Best part. I called. Maryland tells me that they issue based 100% on the filing of the complainant. They also tell me that in order to overturn it, I MUST show up in person.
So, I research. Well guess what. You can look up these filing. So, that's how I discover he's done it to 23 people total. And Maryland isn't unique.
Lawmakers are scared frickless that someone will reject a TRO when a woman is really in danger so none of them will touch this shite with a 10 foot pole.
And, assholes like this dude have learned to USE them to harass.
They would be EXACTLY the same with a similar gun approach.
Oh. One last part. I could have sued him over it they said. But, there's no actual damages to speak of and best part.............even if I won..........even if 10 people won against him.........it would have ZERO bearing were he to file ANOTHER TRO........even against the people who won!!!
Posted on 5/4/18 at 11:40 am to CollegeFBRules
quote:Dude. Did you see your first response to me? Name calling? YOu're gonna run with that?
No, it's serious when more than 50% of the people in here are actually trying to have a discussion without name calling or being childish
Self reflection man.
Posted on 5/4/18 at 11:45 am to ShortyRob
I should add. My story on TROs isn't unique. You can read a lot about TRO abuse out there. It's rampant. A classic case of people finding the hole and exploiting it(we are good at that over time in collective groups).
I don't trust my fellow man with such power into their neighbors as far as I can throw them.
I don't trust my fellow man with such power into their neighbors as far as I can throw them.
Posted on 5/4/18 at 11:46 am to CollegeFBRules
quote:
quote:
The national convention "brings together our nation's top Second Amendment leaders in government, the media, and the entertainment industry," according to the NRA. It is expected to draw 80,000 members to explore more than 20 acres of firearm exhibits over three days.
Fred Guttenberg, whose daughter, Jaime, was among the 17 people killed in the [Parkland, Fla.] massacre, noted the irony in the policies concerning the vice president's welfare and those of the general public.
"On so many levels, this is enlightening. According to the NRA, we should want everyone to have weapons when we are in public. But when they put on a convention, the weapons are a concern? I thought giving everyone a gun was to enhance safety. Am I missing something?" he asked on Twitter.
quote:
Members of a Texas gun rights advocacy group called Texas CHL posted concerns to an online forum.
"If I was a [Democrat], I'd have a field day with this," one member wrote. "Obviously even republicans and so called leaders don't trust the 'good guys.' I realize it's the VP, but still makes our whole argument look foolish. You may disagree...but in my opinion the very people that claim to protect the 2A should never host an event that requires disarming the good guys. Sad. No excuses for this...it makes us look stupid."
LINK
Oh, I know, “It’s the Secret Service that demands this, they’re protecting the Vice President,” blah, blah, blah. We don’t need to limit guns anywhere, except around the politicians that pander to gun advocates at every chance they get.
Now, to keep this from being a thread where I completely laugh at you guys twist yourselves up in knots to try and make this not hypocritical, the question should be asked, “Why does the Secret Service do this?” The answer is obviously because there are crazy people out there who will do crazy shite. The problem this poses for both political ideologies is to find a sensible middle ground between honestly saying people should be able to own guns (which they should), but society should have the right to impose limits that prevent those owners from doing maximum harm with them if they snap.
Let me save you guys the trouble while I’m at it, since I know what’s coming.
Seriously, you gun control nuts really believe what you write? Please, get over your selves. People do not take anything you say seriously, when you are so juvinile in your comments.
Posted on 5/4/18 at 11:54 am to ShortyRob
quote:
If you got this level, you'd be happy as in, we would never hear from your type again wanting more gun laws after any future shootings?
Stop the "from your type" shite. You're not even trying to be legit in discussing this.
quote:
You seemed to think that me supporting some restriction was some gotcha. Like it helps rationalize MASSIVE restrictions.
No, what I'm saying is that if you started a thread and you proposed restrictions of any kind, you are going to have some get on here and say, "Why are you trying to take my guns????!!!!"
quote:
I live in the U.S. in 2018 where I'm told by the left that I can be "violent" with a Tweet about someone's hair color.
Because those people are fricking morons. I don't care what some fool wants to say about be nice with your words. frick them and their bullshite gender identity nonsense.
quote:
So, using MY definition of excessive aggressiveness, yeah, I'm OK with it. Using whatever the Pelosi's of the world would use as a definition? I'm gonna need specifics.
Fair enough.
As to your story about TROs, I'm with you on the entire thing being bullshite. Like you said earlier, no system managing human beings is perfectible.
Look, you want honesty? Here's the fear. It's not ShortyRob (I don't think) owning his gun and keeping it on him to protect him and his family. Not in any way. I don't worry that you're going to pull it out in the middle of a crowd and start going gunsmoke on those going about mundanely shopping.
What is my fear? My kids at their school. I fear some person having some issues in their world and, completely unrelated to my kids or anyone at their school, walking in and deciding the best call for attention is to kill some kids. I fear my kids being caught in the crossfire.
Do I want YOUR gun? No, I don't. I want the gun of every questionable sonofabitch with mental issues guns. How do we weed those people out? I don't know. Is some of this thread gotcha bullshite? Some. Some of it it frick you for all the flaming that happens in a tsunami. We got sideways in some of this discussion that always happens on here.
The problem is, and it doesn't matter what we say to each other, I don't know how to pluck the ones that are going to break from the rest that never will. I don't care what anyone says, it's not wrong to WANT to pluck them out. And if it means the rest of you have to jump through more hoops to have your guns, then so be it. If if means that much to you, you can cuss me out and do your psych evals, but in the end, trying to figure out a way to keep my kids as safe as possible is going to weigh heavier on me than the inconvenience someone may face in proving they are stable enough to own a gun.
Will that be perfect? frick no, I know that. But the system we have now isn't working. Would it if all the rules in place were used...perhaps. But we don't use them. Hell, none of us even know what they all are. And the fricking NRA wants to dilute as many of them as possible and Trump is going along with it because people hear guns and their antennae spike. Doesn't mean all the rules are right, but it's too easy to get a gun now - legally and illegally. The penalties need to be stiffer, the regulations tougher, and the hurdles more aggravating. Why? Because frick the unstable fricks that have a gun.
Posted on 5/4/18 at 11:55 am to ShortyRob
quote:
Dude. Did you see your first response to me? Name calling? YOu're gonna run with that?
Self reflection man.
That's fair, brother. I owe you an apology. I screwed the pooch on that. My apologies.
Posted on 5/4/18 at 12:10 pm to CollegeFBRules
quote:
Stop the "from your type" shite. You're not even trying to be legit in discussing this.
OK.
Would YOU never ask again?
quote:Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but you've actually said you want to take them. So, no interpretation needed.
No, what I'm saying is that if you started a thread and you proposed restrictions of any kind, you are going to have some get on here and say, "Why are you trying to take my guns????!!!!"
quote:I don't see how anything we're talking about prevents that possibility.
What is my fear? My kids at their school. I fear some person having some issues in their world and, completely unrelated to my kids or anyone at their school, walking in and deciding the best call for attention is to kill some kids. I fear my kids being caught in the crossfire.
quote:Well, I don't think you have much opposition on that. But, you can't go Stalin on us trying to find them all. You have to accept that you will NOT find ALL of them.
Do I want YOUR gun? No, I don't. I want the gun of every questionable sonofabitch with mental issues guns.
quote:Gun violence has cratered in the last 30 years. Just sayin.
But the system we have now isn't working.
And, I don't happen to think it's an accident that the ONE area of gun violence on the rise(mass shootings), has largely occurred in places that we've announced to the world there will be no one armed.
There will never be ZERO incidents. This is why I always ask the question about when the anti-gun people will be satisfied.
You're not going to get people like me on board if we know you're NEVER going to be satisfied unless you achieve zero.
Posted on 5/4/18 at 12:10 pm to CollegeFBRules
quote:
That's fair, brother. I owe you an apology. I screwed the pooch on that. My apologies.
Accepted.
Posted on 5/4/18 at 12:40 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Would YOU never ask again?
I would be satisfied.
quote:
But, you can't go Stalin on us trying to find them all. You have to accept that you will NOT find ALL of them.
True, but we could do better than seemingly trying to find none of them as Trump is facilitating.
quote:
Gun violence has cratered in the last 30 years. Just sayin.
Point me to your source. I’m truly interested.
quote:
largely occurred in places that we've announced to the world there will be no one armed.
Vegas? Military bases?
But I’m also not advocating for not having anyone armed in places of vulnerability.
quote:
There will never be ZERO incidents. This is why I always ask the question about when the anti-gun people will be satisfied.
Actually, I think it should much easier to identify these people via social media postings and monitoring those companies do at any time in our past.
quote:
You're not going to get people like me on board if we know you're NEVER going to be satisfied unless you achieve zero.
I think the goal should be zero. Otherwise, what are we aiming for?
Posted on 5/4/18 at 12:52 pm to CollegeFBRules
quote:So if you got
I would be satisfied.
quote:and 5 months later, some dude walks into a school and shoots 20, I won't see any further requests for gun laws from you?
Now, this board is all about the Donald, so the question is, is that wrong? Should mental instability as flagged currently by the system preclude gun ownership until a further evaluation can be made?
quote:Well this is just an overstatement. The government is EXCEEDINGLY notorious for over reaching when requirements are vague.
True, but we could do better than seemingly trying to find none of them as Trump is facilitating.
quote:The word "largely" matters.
Vegas? Military bases?
But I’m also not advocating for not having anyone armed in places of vulnerability.
Oh, and I know it's absurd........but you might be interested to know that other than police, military bases are in fact, gun free zones. I'm typing this from one right now.
quote:The last thing we need is mental health professionals trying to remote diagnose people. This may sound good in your head, but it's a shitty idea in reality.
Actually, I think it should much easier to identify these people via social media postings and monitoring those companies do at any time in our past.
quote:This is a fundamental problem on the left. You want to achieve the impossible and failure to achieve the impossible allows you to justify continually imposing upon your fellow man. This applies to almost every political issue out there.
I think the goal should be zero. Otherwise, what are we aiming for?
In addition, looking for 0 is single variable thinking. Another liberal problem. IE.......it assumes that there are ZERO benefits to an armed populace.
A position I categorically reject.
This post was edited on 5/4/18 at 12:53 pm
Posted on 5/4/18 at 1:03 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
and 5 months later, some dude walks into a school and shoots 20, I won't see any further requests for gun laws from you?
Yup. But if Trump and the NRA keep trying to water down and eviscerate the laws that exist, I’m going to want more laws since they keep defanging what we have.
quote:
Well this is just an overstatement. The government is EXCEEDINGLY notorious for over reaching when requirements are vague
Not on this. You can buy guns everywhere. The government isn’t really trying, no matter how much lip service they pay gun laws.
quote:
military bases are in fact, gun free zones.
I know that, BUT there are still MPs there. They’re not really gun free.
quote:
The last thing we need is mental health professionals trying to remote diagnose people. This may sound good in your head, but it's a shitty idea in reality.
Not arguing that, but if you start showing a progressively intense shift in your attitudes that can be detected by algorithms, then I’m not opposed to making someone subject to in person evaluations. Yes, it’s Orwellian. I don’t care.
quote:
This is a fundamental problem on the left. You want to achieve the impossible and failure to achieve the impossible allows you to justify continually imposing upon your fellow man. This applies to almost every political issue out there.
There you go with your big brush again. Zero can be a goal. It doesn’t matter that you don’t like that goal because you have it set in your head, but it can be a goal. Zero deaths on the road can be a goal, especially with self-driving cars. Just because you can’t see the solution right now doesn’t mean that aiming for ZERO deaths is somehow categorically wrong. I would make the argument that you saying it’s impossible is the problem rather than me aiming for it.
Posted on 5/4/18 at 1:12 pm to CollegeFBRules
quote:
trying to figure out a way to keep my kids as safe as possible
The most unsafe thing they do about every day is getting into a vehicle. We can't guarantee their safety as much as we want to do so.
Posted on 5/4/18 at 1:15 pm to roadGator
quote:
The most unsafe thing they do about every day is getting into a vehicle. We can't guarantee their safety as much as we want to do so.
I’m not asking for guarantees, I’m asking for attempts at being better than we are now.
Posted on 5/4/18 at 1:26 pm to CollegeFBRules
quote:Well. Gun violence has in fact cratered in the last 30 years. Just sayin....
Not on this. You can buy guns everywhere. The government isn’t really trying, no matter how much lip service they pay gun laws.
quote:Well that's like saying the school's aren't gun free because there are cops. Hell, that's like saying there's no such thing as a gun free zone because there are cops.
I know that, BUT there are still MPs there. They’re not really gun free.
quote:Well, that's because you're single variable thinking. Basically, you aren't calculating ANY of the costs(not monetary) of your ideas. Only the benefits.
Not arguing that, but if you start showing a progressively intense shift in your attitudes that can be detected by algorithms, then I’m not opposed to making someone subject to in person evaluations. Yes, it’s Orwellian. I don’t care.
quote:No, it really can't.
There you go with your big brush again. Zero can be a goal.
quote:
It doesn’t matter that you don’t like that goal because you have it set in your head, but it can be a goal. Zero deaths on the road can be a goal, especially with self-driving cars. Just because you can’t see the solution right now doesn’t mean that aiming for ZERO deaths is somehow categorically wrong. I
Of course it means it's categorically wrong. Humans don't do perfect. Trying to achieve it is pretty much a guaranteed route to tyranny because as you continually fail to achieve it, you go further and further down that road.
quote:Saying human endeavors can't achieve perfection is literally irrefutable fact. It can't be a problem because it's unassailable as true.
would make the argument that you saying it’s impossible is the problem rather than me aiming for it.
Posted on 5/4/18 at 1:27 pm to CollegeFBRules
quote:If you say that failure to achieve 0 means you will continually seek more remedies, then you are in fact asking for guarantees. I'm not sure how that's not obvious to you.
I’m not asking for guarantees, I’m asking for attempts at being better than we are now.
Posted on 5/4/18 at 2:00 pm to roadGator
quote:TOUGH!
The ACLU disagrees with you
Posted on 5/4/18 at 2:08 pm to roadGator
quote:Everyone has concerns.
And their concerns are valid.
Why stop with the ACLU's?
PETA has concerns.
Should we honor those?
NAMBLA has concerns.
Should we declare those valid too?
Every time you embark on airtravel, you are extraordinarily inconvenienced despite concerns. The inconvenience is deemed obligatory to ensure your safety. The same principle is at play here. If you are found to be a driving concern -- poor vision, seizure disorder, limited mental capacity -- you are not allowed licensure. The same principle is at play in restricting guns from crazies.
If a medicated psychotic expresses interest in harming himself or others, and you see no problem with arming him and enabling him to do so, then you are the problem.
This post was edited on 5/4/18 at 2:13 pm
Page 11 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News