Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Noxx79]

You keep harping on this, but you're just making points with yourself. There are conflicting reports of how peaceful the protest/riot was, cops say objects were thrown, folks deny things were thrown, there is no proof either way. Cops gave an order to disperse and then followed with non-lethal force. No government tyranny, no wide spread arrests even, an unpeaceful assembly was dispersed.

You are a child, throwing a tantrum because you didn't get your way and calling it tyranny. If you want to advocate lethal force against such a thing, go for it, but it's been discussed before and your attempt to cherry pick and misrepresent doesn't prove anything or lead anywhere. Yet you just keep going with it, thinking you're doing anything to prove a point?


The difference between standing in protest and intimidation is an odd one at time. I don't like the open carry protest stuff, nor the going to peoples houses (or non-government location) for the protest, but since it's their right it doesn't matter what I like or don't. They are not harming anyone, and are certainly a good degree less than the protesters going down random streets targeting lights and noise at random sleeping people at 3am.



DC has rather strict gun laws, so it would be inadvisable to violate laws in an attempt to riot. There are many answers other than "yes". If these people are anti-gun, then I'd say they should definitely not bring firearms to a protest since they maintain they don't need them. Likewise since they believe the police are not needed, they should do a better job of policing themselves of those that are inciting violence, assaulting people and destroying property.

- - - Updated - - -


I thought violence was the voice of the unheard?


They didn't try to kidnap, they discussed and possibly planned. And it was a group of 6 people, with 1 plant and multiple paid informants, that were somewhere in a protest of what, thousands? The folks should be punished, sure, but let's not pretend this was a grand conspiracy rather than what it was. All signs point to the FBI goading the group along so they could try to involve that other group and it leading no where after months of surveillance so charges got filed on what they could get.




Just looking for coverage and internet fame it seems to me, they didn't cause any damage as far as I know. Just pointless really, but like a lot in life folks don't understand the difference between negative attention and useful attention.

Why did the cops give the order to disperse? That’s in direct violation of the constitution.

What is hard to understand about that?

The government doesn’t get to tell you to “shut up”.

All I’m doing is proving that you don’t believe in the second amendment for protection from the government, as you let the government run all over you with nary a peep.

It’s because you’re a coward. Just admit it.

[Svifnymr]

Why did the cops give the order to disperse? That’s in direct violation of the constitution.

Peaceable assembly is protected, violence is not. Throw things, lose rights.

What is hard to understand about that?

Not sure why you can't understand it, indeed.

The government doesn’t get to tell you to “shut up”.

You should write a book, your wisdom deserves a wider audience.

All I’m doing is proving that you don’t believe in the second amendment for protection from the government, as you let the government run all over you with nary a peep.

You're not proving anything, because you're just spouting nonsense and thinking that repeating it often enough is proof. You think when people don't reply to you it's because you've won, but in reality folks just got tired of your willful ignorance.

It’s because you’re a coward. Just admit it.

That doesn't even make any sense, you don't know anything about me or what I have or have not done. You can channel all the willful ignorance you like into thinking you're winning some grand battle, but it's all in your head.

[Noxx79]

Peaceable assembly is protected, violence is not. Throw things, lose rights.


Not sure why you can't understand it, indeed.


You should write a book, your wisdom deserves a wider audience.


You're not proving anything, because you're just spouting nonsense and thinking that repeating it often enough is proof. You think when people don't reply to you it's because you've won, but in reality folks just got tired of your willful ignorance.



That doesn't even make any sense, you don't know anything about me or what I have or have not done. You can channel all the willful ignorance you like into thinking you're winning some grand battle, but it's all in your head.

Great, as I’ve asked multiple times, prove there was violence at Lafayette square.

Nobody has done so.

All you’re doing is parroting taking points with no evidence.

Prove there was violence at Lafayette square or you admit all you’re doing is spouting bullshit because you ca t defend your position.

[Zan15]

Why did the cops give the order to disperse? That’s in direct violation of the constitution.

What is hard to understand about that?

The government doesn’t get to tell you to “shut up”.

All I’m doing is proving that you don’t believe in the second amendment for protection from the government, as you let the government run all over you with nary a peep.

It’s because you’re a coward. Just admit it.

Oh people like that will "believe in the second amendment" once it happens under a Biden administration or by a democratic leader/pol.

For most realistically its never been about protection from the tyrannical govt, you know the whole point if you are a "constitutionalist" "Originalism".
“constitutional text means what it did at the time it was ratified and that this original public meaning is authoritative.”


of course we would also have to start abolishing things like child labor laws.....yikes

[Mayhem]

No, the rioters are definitely worse. No I do not support disarming these people.

Rioters are worse than people threatening elected officials?

You are not very fond of democracy, are you?

[postman1782]

You keep harping on this, but you're just making points with yourself. There are conflicting reports of how peaceful the protest/riot was, cops say objects were thrown, folks deny things were thrown, there is no proof either way. Cops gave an order to disperse and then followed with non-lethal force. No government tyranny, no wide spread arrests even, an unpeaceful assembly was dispersed.

No there is no conflicting reports on how peaceful it was, WE SAW IT ON LIVE TV. And there was no order, AGAIN, we know this because there was recordings of it.

And again, it wasn't unpeaceful and we saw that the troops were literally assaulting REPORTERS that were filming the action.

[Svifnymr]

Great, as I’ve asked multiple times, prove there was violence at Lafayette square.

Prove there was no violence, you made the claim. Prove there was no violence anywhere at the protest that sparked the events.

Nobody has done so.

Nobody has to, nobody owes you anything.

All you’re doing is parroting taking points with no evidence.

Prove there was violence at Lafayette square or you admit all you’re doing is spouting bullshit because you ca t defend your position.

What is my position? All you're doing is spouting bullshit to try for some "gotcha!" moment, because you are unable to separate crowd control from tyrannical oppression. Your entire argument is based on you taking the side that the Square was a peaceful protest that never did anything wrong and was violently suppressed, so if they didn't have the right to fire on their oppressors, then the 2nd amendment is pointless, but you are unable to see what is wrong with the strawman you've set up.

[postman1782]

Prove there was no violence, you made the claim. Prove there was no violence anywhere at the protest that sparked the events.


Nobody has to, nobody owes you anything.


What is my position? All you're doing is spouting bullshit to try for some "gotcha!" moment, because you are unable to separate crowd control from tyrannical oppression. Your entire argument is based on you taking the side that the Square was a peaceful protest that never did anything wrong and was violently suppressed, so if they didn't have the right to fire on their oppressors, then the 2nd amendment is pointless, but you are unable to see what is wrong with the strawman you've set up.

We have all the video evidence. You have nothing.

[Zython]

You never asked yourself if you are not the issue ? Maybe the way you behave ? Just a tip.

I have. Which is why I've changed my approach numerous times. For example, in the thread I linked earlier, you'll see I did absolutely nothing to warrant the hostility I received.

- - - Updated - - -

Prove there was no violence, you made the claim. Prove there was no violence anywhere at the protest that sparked the events.


Nobody has to, nobody owes you anything.


What is my position? All you're doing is spouting bullshit to try for some "gotcha!" moment, because you are unable to separate crowd control from tyrannical oppression. Your entire argument is based on you taking the side that the Square was a peaceful protest that never did anything wrong and was violently suppressed, so if they didn't have the right to fire on their oppressors, then the 2nd amendment is pointless, but you are unable to see what is wrong with the strawman you've set up.

Why should anyone believe you if you refuse to back up your claims?

[Noxx79]

Prove there was no violence, you made the claim. Prove there was no violence anywhere at the protest that sparked the events.


Nobody has to, nobody owes you anything.


What is my position? All you're doing is spouting bullshit to try for some "gotcha!" moment, because you are unable to separate crowd control from tyrannical oppression. Your entire argument is based on you taking the side that the Square was a peaceful protest that never did anything wrong and was violently suppressed, so if they didn't have the right to fire on their oppressors, then the 2nd amendment is pointless, but you are unable to see what is wrong with the strawman you've set up.

First, nobody owes you a goddamn thing.

Second, How can I prove the absence of something?

Prove there was violence.
All you’re doing is saying there was violence with no proof.

And no, it’s not a straw man. We’ve had people in this thread say the 2nd amendment is for protection against a tyrannical government, yet when a government takes tyrannical actions (gassing a legally assembled, non-violent, first amendment guaranteed protest) they are silent.

Just like they are silent when people of color use their second amendment rights to defend themselves or just own a gun (Breonna Taylor’s boyfriend, Philandro Castille)

https://www.aclufl.org/en/news/sound...ave-gun-rights

[Svifnymr]

Why should anyone believe you if you refuse to back up your claims?

Not my claim, nothing to prove, so what are you trying to believe?

[edit] I should have gone for a Listen & Believe joke, but I just got home from work so I messed it up. Sorry!

- - - Updated - - -

First, nobody owes you a goddamn thing.

Cool, that's what I said!

Second, How can I prove the absence of something?

Dunno, it's not my problem, you made the claim that there was no violence and no reason for a police response, so prove the negative.

Prove there was violence.

Nobody owes you a goddamn thing.

All you’re doing is saying there was violence with no proof.

Nope, the cops said it and responded with nonlethal crowd control. Maybe someone should investigate them if you have proof there was no violence anywhere that night. Otherwise, it's just internet supposition.

And no, it’s not a straw man. We’ve had people in this thread say the 2nd amendment is for protection against a tyrannical government, yet when a government takes tyrannical actions (gassing a legally assembled, non-violent, first amendment guaranteed protest) they are silent.

It's not silence when folks disagree with you and you try to twist crowd control in isolated instances into government tyranny that disproves that the second amendment protects against tyranny. It's a straw man that you constantly troll with here, when there is no answer you'd accept anyway. It's the classic "have you stopped beating your wife" loop.

The fact that you think the first option for countering government over reach is murderous violence says more about you than the people you're harassing.

Just like they are silent when people of color use their second amendment rights to defend themselves or just own a gun (Breonna Taylor’s boyfriend, Philandro Castille)

https://www.aclufl.org/en/news/sound...ave-gun-rights

There was a lot of discussion around Philandro Castille, maybe you missed it because it didn't happen on this board or in the MSM? Taylor's Boyfriend (Walker? or was that the ex?) was a topic of discussion as well, but of course was more divided given he fired. I won't ask you to prove a negative though, since as I said these discussions generally are not common in many of the areas you hang in. Certainly the NRA didn't comment officially, but the NRA doesn't comment on most such cases, though some of their spokespeople did offer opinions unofficially.

[Mayhem]

Dunno, it's not my problem, you made the claim that there was no violence and no reason for a police response, so prove the negative.

Go to bed, or reread that one, you're acting stupid.

[Noxx79]

Not my claim, nothing to prove, so what are you trying to believe?

[edit] I should have gone for a Listen & Believe joke, but I just got home from work so I messed it up. Sorry!

- - - Updated - - -


Cool, that's what I said!


Dunno, it's not my problem, you made the claim that there was no violence and no reason for a police response, so prove the negative.


Nobody owes you a goddamn thing.

Nope, the cops said it and responded with nonlethal crowd control. Maybe someone should investigate them if you have proof there was no violence anywhere that night. Otherwise, it's just internet supposition.


It's not silence when folks disagree with you and you try to twist crowd control in isolated instances into government tyranny that disproves that the second amendment protects against tyranny. It's a straw man that you constantly troll with here, when there is no answer you'd accept anyway. It's the classic "have you stopped beating your wife" loop.

The fact that you think the first option for countering government over reach is murderous violence says more about you than the people you're harassing.



There was a lot of discussion around Philandro Castille, maybe you missed it because it didn't happen on this board or in the MSM? Taylor's Boyfriend (Walker? or was that the ex?) was a topic of discussion as well, but of course was more divided given he fired. I won't ask you to prove a negative though, since as I said these discussions generally are not common in many of the areas you hang in. Certainly the NRA didn't comment officially, but the NRA doesn't comment on most such cases, though some of their spokespeople did offer opinions unofficially.

Fine, prove you’re not a child molester, child molester.


In the meantime,

https://www.npr.org/2020/12/10/94501...eriff-s-deputy

PoC exercising his second amendment right to be armed on his own property and is extrajudicially executed: silence from our 2nd amendment zealots.

Where @Ghostpanther running in here crying about this? Or does he only care when others defend their homes, just not
PoC?

[Svifnymr]

Go to bed, or reread that one, you're acting stupid.

Nyah, just mocking the stupidity here every day. If you can't see it, not my fault. The forum literati always say you have to prove every claim you make, but somehow it doesn't apply to Noxx's idiocy.

- - - Updated - - -

Fine, prove you’re not a child molester, child molester.

Still not smart enough to figure it out? If you make the claim, you prove the claim. You made a claim that there was no violence anywhere that night, but feel I should have to disprove you. Now, likewise, you want to make a baseless offhand claim to try to prove some point, thus again confirming that you believe you don't need to back up your claims, just other people. The fact you're not smart enough to understand how you've proved my point is no reflection on me.

In the meantime,

https://www.npr.org/2020/12/10/94501...eriff-s-deputy

PoC exercising his second amendment right to be armed on his own property and is extrajudicially executed: silence from our 2nd amendment zealots.

Where @Ghostpanther running in here crying about this? Or does he only care when others defend their homes, just not
PoC?

I saw that story a couple days ago, but it didn't really seem to blow up. Lots of odd stuff there, so I figured I'd wait to see if anything else came out. Initial story I saw, the family said he didn't have a gun, he had a sandwich, then they said they recovered the gun and the family said yeah, he's a legal gun owner. Cop claimed he waved the gun at the cop driving by, which makes no sense.

Unfortunately, without body cam/ car cam, hard to tell who is telling the truth, especially when some of the people giving the guys side weren't there and don't know what happened first hand. The idea that it has anything to do with race or racism is a stretch though, it happens often enough across races. Did we even discuss the Ryan Whitaker here? I see they just paid the family $3mil and no charges or discipline for the officers involved.

[the game]

judge kicked kim Gardner off the mcCloskey case

https://www.kmov.com/news/st-louis-c...ccff8cdce.html

The McCloskeys had previously filed a motion to remove Gardner and her office from the case, citing fundraising emails Gardner sent during her re-election campaign that mentioned the McCloskeys.

In those emails, Gardner mentioned the criticisms of her office made by President Donald Trump and Governor Mike Parson, saying they were “fighting for the two who pointed guns at citizens during the Black Lives Matter protests.”

The McCloskeys were indicted on one count each of unlawful use of a weapon for pointing guns at protestors June 28 when a crowd marched down Portland Place, a private street in the Central West End, on their way to demonstrate against St. Louis Mayor Lyda Krewson.

[Mayhem]

Nyah, just mocking the stupidity here every day. If you can't see it, not my fault. The forum literati always say you have to prove every claim you make, but somehow it doesn't apply to Noxx's idiocy.

You're basically asking the innocent to prove their innocence.

[Zan15]

Nyah, just mocking the stupidity here every day. If you can't see it, not my fault. The forum literati always say you have to prove every claim you make, but somehow it doesn't apply to Noxx's idiocy.

Still not smart enough to figure it out? If you make the claim, you prove the claim. You made a claim that there was no violence anywhere that night, but feel I should have to disprove you. Now, likewise, you want to make a baseless offhand claim to try to prove some point, thus again confirming that you believe you don't need to back up your claims, just other people. The fact you're not smart enough to understand how you've proved my point is no reflection on me.

.

The lack of proof and examples of violence that night supports his claim, thus that is his proof.
It isn't rocket science you know. This is the basic principal for how substantiation of a claim goes.

"the color green is green"...and its not up to someone to prove that green is green, but the person making the claim that Green is in fact not green to provide the reasons why green is not green.



Not sure why you so gun ho on applying the opposite logic to something so basic as making claims and proving it?

Is it just your stubbornness and unwilling need to not admit you were wrong?
To support 'your guy' 'your stance' till the very end?

[Theodarzna]

judge kicked kim Gardner off the mcCloskey case

https://www.kmov.com/news/st-louis-c...ccff8cdce.html

[...]

Gardner was just going to harass this couple forever if allowed to. She probably still will. Never question the absolute ludicrous levels of pettyness of a nobody given modest morsels of power to be a petty tyrant when they can be.

[Ghostpanther]

Gardner was just going to harass this couple forever if allowed to. She probably still will. Never question the absolute ludicrous levels of pettyness of a nobody given modest morsels of power to be a petty tyrant when they can be.

Well said. Which is why the judge did the right thing.

[Svifnymr]

You're basically asking the innocent to prove their innocence.

How so? I'm not charging anybody with anything, so that's a pretty weird statement. Maybe you don't understand how this stuff works? The protesters made one claim, the police made another claim, no one was prosecuted or even had charges filed. So why would you deem one side innocent and the victim?

- - - Updated - - -

The lack of proof and examples of violence that night supports his claim, thus that is his proof.

Lack of proof is now proof of the opposite? Because all we have is some footage from some spots, and competing narratives. There's no proof of anything, so there is no support to accuse the police of attacking protesters, otherwise why haven't they been charged?

It isn't rocket science you know. This is the basic principal for how substantiation of a claim goes.

No it's not. You don't just assume one side is lying and the other is telling the truth, that's not how anything works.

"the color green is green"...and its not up to someone to prove that green is green, but the person making the claim that Green is in fact not green to provide the reasons why green is not green.

Again, that assumes the basic fact is a basic fact. "He made a right turn on this street" "no he didn't" "well, we have footage showing he didn't make a left turn, so he must have made a right turn!"

Not sure why you so gun ho on applying the opposite logic to something so basic as making claims and proving it?

I didn't make a claim, I say a claim is disputed. The cops claim people were throwing stuff. Maybe they did, maybe the cops were wrong, maybe the cops are lying as part of a grand scheme to try to take over the world. Then, to build on the unproven "fact" that the cops were suppressing the 1st amendment rights of the protesters into a grand theory that the second amendment has no basis as anti-tyranny unless you support the protesters murdering the police at that time?

So you want to keep debating about whether I need to "prove" that something was thrown that wasn't visible on one of the camera feeds, when I didn't make the initial claim and haven't been pushing any claim since then. The initial claim was that there was no provocation nor violence of any sort, so it's on that person to prove their claim and justify the negative.

Or just admit that it's a stupid discussion and he's been trolling the thread for weeks now with the stupid attempt at a "gotcha"?

Is it just your stubbornness and unwilling need to not admit you were wrong?
To support 'your guy' 'your stance' till the very end?

I don't have a guy, we're not allowed to own people. My stance is that basing entire arguments on a single disputed event to troll a thread repeatedly is a waste of time and equally a waste of time to reply to such idiocy, but since I have some time to waste at the moment, here we are. Maybe you disagree with that and want to cheer on such a thing, since I've already said I don't feel you want an actual discussion with most of your posts on this thread, but you should at least learn what you're trying to refute to support "your stance" of the moment.