The Second Amendment

[Static_Martyr]

That shocks me. I get shit from you for not using sources, and then, when I offer to bring in sources, you say I'm a sheep.

Doesn't take much to shock you. Anyway, I don't recall using the word "sheep," that word is more the terrain of libertarians. All I asked was that you express your view in your own words, instead of blindly saying things like, "so-and-so said so, so you know it's true."

Do you want sources or not? I tell you, I need to take a break from this Politics thing. I can't take the double-dealing.

Sources are appreciated, yes.

[Godxilla]

Recall that I didn't say that just because Business week said it, it must be true.

But keep in mind, I can read a source and agree with it. Just because I can't summarize the article doesn't mean I don't have a clue. It was about a year ago, after all. Alright, I will compile some sources that reflect my opinions, and maybe some that don't, to further the debate. But not now. Someone just PM'd me.

[Static_Martyr]

But keep in mind, I can read a source and agree with it.

Nobody said you couldn't. That's not the point.

Just because I can't summarize the article doesn't mean I don't have a clue.

Maybe not, but it does mean that you can't explain your position, which likely means that you don't fully understand it. Which is why I don't take it 100% seriously.

Alright, I will compile some sources that reflect my opinions, and maybe some that don't, to further the debate. But not now. Someone just PM'd me.

Couldn't you just wait until you've worked out a coherent explanation of your views and then post it? You don't have to post me updates in real-time as to your progress, you know.

[Llamas]

Drug dealers would be broke if drugs were legalized because they charge extra for the extra costs they have to shoulder to smuggle their product into the country, plus the risk they take on to do it. By that logic, a legalization of murder would result in hit men going broke, since they can no longer charge exorbitant amounts to cover the risk of catching a capital case. And everyone would be dead.

On top of it all, this is a big straw man. And not only because no one is arguing for the straight legalization of drugs but rather the legalization *and regulation* of drugs, meaning that if pot were legalized, you'd still have to pay taxes on it and someone would be able to tell you when, where, and under what circumstances that pot may be consumed. Legal murder would necessitate regulation on whom can be murdered when and under what circumstances.

Exactly. Legalization with limitations and restrictions and regulations - and as Justin said, killing people is already legal in certain circumstances and heavily "regulated". Point is, the argument that "laws against murder/rape/drugs don't stop people from doing these things!" is a stupid one and quite flawed, considering the people who use that argument are generally not in favor of lifting laws and restrictions against these things.

PS:

[Static_Martyr]

Yeah, I always like to point out that maybe, if only someone at Fort Hood had had a gun, then maybe that shooting wouldn't have happened.

[Baldwin]

Then maybe you should stop pointing that out, since the soldiers at Fort Hood didn't have guns, and the base police who did actually ended up using them to stop the guy. So aside from the fact that you're wrong on every point you're trying to make, seriously, how much of a self-righteous cunt do you have to be to go around saying that to people in the first place? You just ruined a perfectly hilarious screencap with your self-righteous cuntery. Good job.

[Static_Martyr]

Then maybe you should stop pointing that out, since the soldiers at Fort Hood didn't have guns, and the base police who did actually ended up using them to stop the guy. So aside from the fact that you're wrong on every point you're trying to make, seriously, how much of a self-righteous cunt do you have to be to go around saying that to people in the first place? You just ruined a perfectly hilarious screencap with your self-righteous cuntery. Good job.

I just think it's funny how emotionally attached to guns some people get. So much that they completely lose their shit if you even talk about it; it's just something snarky to say to piss off overzealous defenders of guns when they've already demonstrated that they don't give a shit about what laws are actually being proposed, and instead want to just run around screaming, "DERNT TERK MER GUNS!!"

Also, lol@ "self-righteous;" the criticism of people who can't think of anything better to say.

[bronc_28]

I just think it's funny how emotionally attached to guns some people get. So much that they completely lose their shit if you even talk about it; it's just something snarky to say to piss off overzealous defenders of guns when they've already demonstrated that they don't give a shit about what laws are actually being proposed, and instead want to just run around screaming, "DERNT TERK MER GUNS!!"

Also, lol@ "self-righteous;" the criticism of people who can't think of anything better to say.

Unfortunately, I don't find it funny how many people

1- think it would have any effect going forward
2- give a shit that you are advocating taking away the rights of the many, because of the actions of the very, very, few.

[Static_Martyr]

1- think it would have any effect going forward

What are we talking about, exactly? Who thinks what would have any effect going forward? A weapons ban? Responsible regulation of firearms?

2- give a shit that you are advocating taking away the rights of the many, because of the actions of the very, very, few.

Taking what rights away? Seriously. What right do you believe is being "taken away" based on the actions of anyone?

Regardless of what you or I think, the 2008 case established an individual right to own. That said, are you making the case that any attempt to regulate this right is "taking your rights away?" Do you feel that a law against shouting "fire" in a crowded theater would be "taking away" your right to free speech?

Or are you part of the crowd that thinks the government is somehow banning all guns? If so, I'm curious why you think that.

[Baldwin]

I just think it's funny how emotionally attached to guns some people get. So much that they completely lose their shit if you even talk about it; it's just something snarky to say to piss off overzealous defenders of guns when they've already demonstrated that they don't give a shit about what laws are actually being proposed, and instead want to just run around screaming, "DERNT TERK MER GUNS!!"

Is this honestly how you see yourself? A detached, rational guy who's trollin' the republicans into shitfits? Your endless, pointless diatribes have overwhelmed this forum to the point that 9/10ths of all it's recent activity is you, giving politics lectures and reusing political soundbytes and jumping on every single comment posted to launch a page-long thesis on why it's incorrect. You are the overzealous defender of your beliefs, you are the one running around screaming "TERK ALL THE GUNS", and just because you can spell correctly and punctuate doesn't change that.

And neither does claiming that you're only trollin', and you don't really care. Everyone can see that you care. We see it in the sheer volume of effort you're putting in.

Also, lol@ "self-righteous;" the criticism of people who can't think of anything better to say.

I thought of something better. You're a smug, self-righteous cunt.