EPTNo one believes that women aren't equal under the constitution already. It's a non-issue that's just there to waste time and attention. It has nothing to do with gun control.
If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14048 Posts
No one believes that women aren't equal under the constitution already. It's a non-issue that's just there to waste time and attention. It has nothing to do with gun control. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
|
Excludos
Norway8188 Posts
On June 11 2019 06:47 Sermokala wrote: Look if you really want to go down every party position on things and see how consistent they are with the next thing you're going to be able to make a lot of equally hot takes like you posted. I mean we get it you're not from America and don't understand the political structure so you see the first 5 minutes of John Oliver and thing you've found the perfect argument to go "checkmate opponents of gun control". No one believes that women aren't equal under the constitution already. It's a non-issue that's just there to waste time and attention. It has nothing to do with gun control. This is a very long winded way of saying "Yes, I agree that we're flaming hypocrites", just with some ad hominem, false equivalence, subject change and american exceptionalism thrown in for good measure. On June 11 2019 07:20 Danglars wrote: Well, Sermo beat me to it. It's just as well for that aside. The dem primary debates aren't too far away, and gun control policy will definitely come up. And this is just a long winded way of saying "+1". I don't know why/if I ever expected an honest discourse from you guys in the first place. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14048 Posts
On June 11 2019 12:25 Excludos wrote: This is a very long winded way of saying "Yes, I agree that we're flaming hypocrites", just with some ad hominem, false equivalence, subject change and american exceptionalism thrown in for good measure. And this is just a long winded way of saying "+1". I don't know why/if I ever expected an honest discourse from you guys in the first place. Its not American exceptionalism to point out that America has a two-party system and how that makes things different than multi-party systems in Europe. Derp derp murica bad is just you being ignorant. You get out what you put in. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8188 Posts
On June 11 2019 12:46 Sermokala wrote: Its not American exceptionalism to point out that America has a two-party system and how that makes things different than multi-party systems in Europe. Derp derp murica bad is just you being ignorant. You get out what you put in. Can't quite connect what the (agreeably bad) two party system has to do with hypocracy among members of this forum (as well as the gun rights community in general, as they're mostly the same arguments). I never stated herp derp America is bad or anything equivalent of it, that is what you stated. Don't straw man that on me. Let's calm the fallacies down a few notches shall we? | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
|
Excludos
Norway8188 Posts
On June 11 2019 14:30 Danglars wrote: Derp derp murica bad is pretty accurate when somebody's stating that unequal women's rights is sustained by people that think the constitution is gods word. Literally, not even a parody of what you wrote. It's like late night comedy routine showed up, and acts like it wants a response above some rant from a fox news opinion host. You get out what you put in. I'll have to ask Drone if that passes for exposing hypocrisy in Norwegian standards. Til that when you call someone's argument bad, you're calling America bad. This is laughable. You have zero interests in holding an honest discussion. You haven't even touched my original point, and is instead busy arguing against my qualifications for holding it and making petty straw man arguments. If that is the extent of your ability to defend your position and view, then it's high time to take a step back and reconsider your stance | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14048 Posts
Furthermore we already touched on your argument, you responded to my post about it and his agreement with my take on it. Either keep your shit straight or stop bothering people. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14048 Posts
Hes not critizeing overemphasis of static constitutionalism (thanks for calling me a fanatic by proxy btw) he's criticizing the people themselves for having arguments that don't line up with each other on two different electoral issues. Then when confronted on his faults he decided to hide behind tired accusation of fallacies instead of addressing any actual points raised against him. Hes the one hideing beind his own ignorance like its a virtue. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18839 Posts
| ||
|
Sermokala
United States14048 Posts
You complain how I'm the one that veered the conversation into the inane and then say how excludos was the one that couldn't handle a single response to his post before resorting to dismissal buzzwords. You then cap this off by putting the burden of being extraordinarily reasonable on me alone. I didn't realize consistency and coherency was so much to ask for but I guess it is. | ||
|
Pangpootata
1838 Posts
On June 11 2019 19:17 farvacola wrote: His argument is clear and no amount of hiding behind this strange America facade will change that. Criticizing overemphasis on static constitutionalism of the sort oftentimes utilized by 2nd Amendment fanatics by bringing up times where the Constitution was changed or updated in accord with evolving norms is a valid way to suggest that something similar may need to occur with regard to guns. The constitution can be changed (the amendments exist for a reason), but it needs a super majority - 2/3 of the senate and house. This is to prevent any one party who manages to get a simple majority to change the constitution at their whim. For gun rights where the split in opinion is about 50-50, the status quo should remain. And it will for the foreseeable future. But if a day ever comes where public opinion changes and a large majority tries to take away guns from the small minority, I expect the minority to use their firearms to defend their rights (which was what the Christchurch shooter said he was trying to encourage in his manifesto). Whether this will be a good or bad thing is a matter of value judgement. | ||
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/22/us/sacramento-officer-shooting-osullivan/index.html Above is an example of someone who might have never died, or could have been rescued if weapons of war were not in civilian hands. Part of the reasons police are often hyper-vigilant is because anyone can have rifles like these, leaving police initially outgunned. | ||
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/08/us/alabama-road-rage-trnd/index.html In an incident of road rage, a women attempts to shoot another party and accidentally shoots her husband in the head. | ||
|
f0xteam
79 Posts
On July 09 2019 13:26 ShambhalaWar wrote: Here is a really sad story in which two peoples' lives are ruined from guns, in a very needless way. For me this story is a metaphor for the impact and suffering guns have on our country. https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/08/us/alabama-road-rage-trnd/index.html In an incident of road rage, a women attempts to shoot another party and accidentally shoots her husband in the head. accidentally shot her husband in the head. ooooook | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Bleak
Turkey3059 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
| ||
| ||
