Hide Your Gun In Plain Sight
- Thread starter Ringo
- Start date
- Status
J
jeanramar
Guest
nicee 
Link Removed
Link Removed
Rhino
New member
I find your lack of any substantive argument boring. I find your belief that your opinion constitutes fact to be laughable.
.
I find it hilarious that you consider it a fallacy to rely on the Constitution and our founding fathers when it comes to the tenets upon which this nation was founded. I also find it a little sad that you're so limited that you can't realize how tragically wrong you are. Sad both for you and for our country if your complete lack of understanding is any indication of how horribly our educational system is failing us today. If they taught you the Constitution is just something "some people wrote something down one day", losing their job should be the least of their punishment.
.
But when all is said and done, I mostly find your broken record boring. You can talk all you want and claim to have proof all you want, but you aren't going to change the fact that this nation was founded on principles that aren't defined by you. You can disagree with them until doomsday, but that won't change them. You can claim superiority because you say you have proof, but that just makes me laugh. Karl Marx had proof too. But you and Karl didn't found the United States of America. So stop wasting your time trying to claim facts that are nothing but your own opinion. You don't establish the facts here. If you want to establish what rights are and how they're recognized, go start your own country. But you don't get to decide those things here. You don't get to set the definitions here. You don't get to look up someone else's definition, say that looks good to you, and then claim that's how rights are in the US now. You seem completely unable to understand some very simple facts. YOU AREN'T IN CHARGE. YOU DON'T GET TO DECIDE HOW RIGHTS ARE DEFINED. YOU DON'T GET TO DECIDE HOW RIGHTS ARE RECOGNIZED. YOU DON'T GET TO DECIDE HOW RIGHTS CAN BE LIMITED. Those facts are very simple, but you seem totally unable to comprehend them. Nobody died and made you dictator. Nobody gave you the right to decide the Constitution was wrong and America has to operate according to your rules now. There is no way to make those facts more plain. If you can't understand that then you're seriously delusional.
.
So unless you can find a way to come back to reality and stop re-posting your 'I am omnipotent', 'I have proof' nonsense over and over again, this conversation is over. Quite frankly I should have ended it long ago because you haven't said anything original for about 20 posts, but I stupidly allowed myself to get amused at your complete refusal to even acknowledge the existence of fact. But I'm no longer amused. Don't respond with a 37th reiteration of your interpretation of what rights are, because it's irrelevant and nobody here cares about your opinion of them anyway. Don't respond with anything about a safe storage law which I've now told you at least three times I wasn't addressing. And DON'T respond with yet another chapter of 'I know better that the Constitution and the founding fathers'. If you want to play God and try to tell someone that nothing on earth is true unless you say it is, say it to your nearest mental health professional. That's really who you should be talking to anyway with this narcissistic 'I know better than everybody' crap. You're a legend in your own mind.
Blueshell
Banned
You find me guilty of consistency. I'm good with that.
I'm not the one who brought Natural Rights up in the first place so if you don't want to talk about it then quit bringing it back up. We can conclusively prove that Natural Rights do not exist so that's not up for debate. You can keep denying it but I'll just keep restating it.
I'm not the one who brought gun laws up in the first place so if you don't want to talk about it then quit bringing it back up. The RKBA is a Civil Right created by social contracts going back thousands of years. At no time has any social contract defined the RKBA in a way that includes negligence resulting in harm to others. That's why you all conveniently forget to prove the RKBA does cover such; it doesn't, and you hate that. A minimal safe-storage law falls outside the RKBA and thus would survive Strict Scrutiny and therefore would not be an infringement.
The product in OP facilitates negligence, that's how kids get unauthorized access to firearms.
Irresponsable gun owners like yourself serve gun control through your stupidity. You are a usefull idiot.
B
Bikenut
Guest
There is a difference between having a right and being restricted from exercising it.
You have not proven that natural rights do not exist conclusively or otherwise. What you have argued for is that the ability to exercise those rights can and should be restricted. You have been unable to understand that there is a difference between having the right and restricting the ability to use that right with laws like what you consider to be "minimal" safe storage laws.
Any restriction upon the ability to exercise a right is an infringement. A safe storage law restricts how the right to "keep" an arm is exercised and is an infringement. Doesn't matter if that restriction is "minimal" or even maximal nor does it matter if that restriction meets some government invented standard of scrutiny that justifies imposing restrictions since a restriction of any kind is still an infringement. I cannot fathom why anyone would engage in the circular reasoning of looking to the standard of restricting invented by the one who is doing the restricting as being a valid reason for restricting.
And what you have consistently argued for is having the government infringe upon the right to keep arms by using the government's own invention of strict scrutiny to justify passing safe storage laws that restrict the ability to exercise the right to keep an arm, including keeping an arm in a tissue box, simply because you agree with safe storage laws. (you want to have other people be required to do it your way) And it is painfully obvious by all your postings on the subject that you are willing to engage in a remarkable amount of mental masturbation, including redefining the meaning of the Constitution, in order to justify your desire to have Daddy government enforce your interpretation of what the "keep" part of "keep and bear arms" means.
Everyone has the right to keep arms. Your contention that safe storage laws do not infringe upon the right to keep arms is the same argument that anti gunners use when they say gun control laws do not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.
I am done with you and you may have the last word, and even declare an internet victory, since it is painfully obvious your self admitted OCD also extends to an obsession to prove your version of the Constitution/Bill of Rights is the one true grail.
Have a nice day.
Blueshell
Banned
With most rights, yes.
Natural rights are unique in that they are inalienable. If it can be restricted, it has been alienated, which is proof that it's not a Natural Right.
I'm not sure why the topic of rights was brought up in the first place since this thread is about an object, not a right.
Blueshell
Banned
That a right CAN be infringed at all in the first place proves the right is alienable and thus not Natural.
A poisonous frog might be said to have a Natural RKBA because you literally can't disarm it. Even if you kill the frog, it's still poisonous.
It might be argued that humans have a Natural RKBA since any healthy human can punch or kick. However, humans can decide not to throw that punch or kick, while the frog cannot choose to withold it's poison.
Stengun
New member
Howdy,
OMG!!! Time to add hatchetman to my ID ten t list.
I believe that most of the members of this forum are +40yo SMW w/out kids (think God!) that live with their mom , have a "Command Post" in the basement and have never owned, fired or even touch a real firearm. ( No your airsoft pistol isn't a real gun, sorry.).
Hopefully hatchetman falls into this category and has NOT procreated.
Paul
OMG!!! Time to add hatchetman to my ID ten t list.
I believe that most of the members of this forum are +40yo SMW w/out kids (think God!) that live with their mom , have a "Command Post" in the basement and have never owned, fired or even touch a real firearm. ( No your airsoft pistol isn't a real gun, sorry.).
Hopefully hatchetman falls into this category and has NOT procreated.
Paul
Hatchetman
New member
So, when someone writes the absolute truth of what "Rights" actually are, they way they were intended, the way the founders who wrote about them meant them to be, YOU go all batchit crazy and go straight to ignoring facts, and attack me with belittling comments that have nothing but insults and name calling to bolster your argument? good job there 'spanky.....
Blueshell
Banned
The only fact you can prove is that the founders wrote something down. You can't prove what they wrote down is actually real. That's the difference.
Blueshell
Banned
Apparently I'm not the only person interested in continuing this conversation. I came to this thread to express an opinion of a product. There is no 'victory', there's just you being an ass and me not taking your ****.
Rhino
New member
Apparently in the minds of some, the people who actually founded this country and established the principles it would operate by, are now idiots who knew nothing at all, and we must listen to new definitions established by new people who are correct simply because they say they know better and we are required to take them at their word. Makes perfect sense.
.
In la-la land. But you knew that already.
Blueshell
Banned
No one on this thread created the definition of Natural Right. Non of us are responsible for asserting a Natural Right is inalienable.
Any right you can name, you can give up or can be taken from you. Therefor you have no Natural Rights.
maine04619
New member
It is right there but unless you look real hard you will never see it.
Link Removed
Link Removed
Rhino
New member
A perfect example of my point. The la-la land redefinition. Thanks.
Blueshell
Banned
No one has redefined anything.
Rhino
New member
And no one has given you the authority to substitute your definition for that which the founders gave us. That's the thing you can't understand. You can come up with all the definitions you want. But until you are in a position to establish what this country adheres to, anything you espouse is simply invalid. That's where the la-la land part comes in. You have some kind of god complex that has you thinking you have the power to invalidate the Constitution and the precepts of the founders. You're a legend in your own mind. Seek the help of a mental health professional. We can't help you here, and we're tired of you going in endless circles with the same old narcissistic mantra over and over again.
.
EDIT: And I should apologize. I said I was going to leave this alone and I didn't. I had intended to address Hatchetman and ended up getting drawn into another repetitive and pointless exchange with you. Sorry to everyone else for that.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
There was a poster who used to frequent this site that placed the "Banned" label under his user-name within his Profile options just to trick someone into celebrating his banishment so he could come back later and call them a liar. That someone was me, but the trickster wasn't near as smart as he thought he was because I took a screenshot of one of his posts before taking notice of his "ban" and outed him as the actual liar instead. He has never posted since that day, at least not under the name he was using at the time.
For that reason, I'm always suspicious of bans now, so I'm posting this only as a question to Luke or the other mod (sorry, don't recall his name) if Blueshell has really been banned or not? If no one in the know wishes to answer that question, that's fine because the above screenshot will serve the same purpose as the one in the link above served in that instance if Blueshell is trying to trick someone.
If it's no trick though, adios Blueshell. I pray you get the help you need.
Blues
Rhino
New member
Sorry I didn't see that when I replied to him, but that's something I'm just not in the habit of checking. I admit I'm somewhat surprised to see this. Although I considered Blueshell horribly misguided and even delusional, he wasn't nearly as abusive as some other members have been around here lately. There's been some seriously deep loathing and hostility of the type that would make Heinrich Himmler proud in some threads around here of late. It's not exactly a revelation to see that in internet forums, but I confess I'm a little surprised to see it tolerated here. Or at least so far anyway.
- Status
New Threads
-
Hunter Constantine or Phlster Enigma, for running?
- Started by sigsag1
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
Members online
No members online now.