• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Ridiculous U.S. gun laws.

arg-fallbackName="Patty P"/>
Sparhafoc said:
Are you really going to go for criticism of written style as your next silly attempt to provoke something from me? That's pathetic Patty - I am sure you can do better.

Not sure quite what you intend to achieve here Patty, but I wouldn't jump on QAnonClown's coat-tails if I were you before you spend a little more time familiarizing yourself with what he's done to net disdain.
Click to expand...
I am sure you could substantiate the idea that he is q anon, but you ave opted not to. If I somehow netted a reaction from you, its already happened multiples times.
 
arg-fallbackName="BoganUSAFFLClerk"/>
hackenslash said:
To be fair, many of us are happy to have that discussion, but it's a nuanced discussion, and this thread isn't a reflection of the real views of anybody on the forum. Bogus Waffler came in confrontationally, demonstrated an unwillingness to budge and a really horrible grasp of even the most rudimentary principles of even linear logic, and proceeded to assert a dominance he doesn't possess.
Click to expand...
"Nuanced" I literally cited the law with screenshots. You literally didn't engage with said sources. If you want to deal with nuance then deal with nuance. Don't claim you want nuance and ignore the nuance.
hackenslash said:
My own views on guns are very nuanced, but I never get the chance to talk about it sensibly becase of idiots like this demanding attention and controlling the flow of discourse, which is why we give it short shrift, same as we did with anybody else, whether they agree with us on the point or not.
Click to expand...
Send me a screenshot of where you actually engaged with the topic and not just an insult or reacting to other posts without levying an argument in either dierection?
hackenslash said:
Discursive honesty is in fact more important to me than veridical value, because it allows latitude for exploration of the thought-space available, but that can't happen without nuance and nuance can't happen in the face of obstinate assertions of righteous correctness, especially when the fallibility of said purported correctness has been shown to be horribly obvious when compared to the facts about reality.
Click to expand...
Again I know of 1 person that legitimately actually engaged with specifics and that would be Greg with relevance to the original topic (bumpstocks). The rest has been trolly insults not actually engaging and rabbit holes. Send me a screenshot to disprove me.
hackenslash said:
He very much made this bed. He didn't have to, and nobody here wants it other than he who chose it as his mode of interaction.
Click to expand...
Again look at the start of the thread and tell me where it went wrong. It isn't me.
hackenslash said:
I'd be overjoyed to have a sensible conversation with you about guns. Truly. No interest in having one with this clown, though. I wouldn't trust him with a spud gun.
Click to expand...
Good thing that isn't up to you.

I am already credentialed and this is my full time job, hobby, passion, natural interests because it does go into base philosophy as well. I am the guy that certifies others to carry firearms in the U.S.. I train police officers that wish to carry off duty as a civilian if they wish to ignore their SOP. I train other people in how to shoot and how to administratively handle firearms.

I am certified multiple times for different nuances on this topic and yet you wouldn't trust me based on forum trolling? That is short sighted at best.

The irony is that you want a nuanced conversation but you are going to insult the person with the most information on firearms probably on this thread and/or this forum and derail the topic among others.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
Nuance, like laws are inside government, while executive orders are outside government... like that kind of nuance?

Well, at least you've managed to fool Patty, shame everyone else has you pegged.
 
arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 619"/>
Lying cunt. Fuck off. I'd like to have thta discussion, but it ain't happening with you here. You're too stupid, not interested in how wrong you are, and a total waste of my time.

Which I think is my last word here.
 
arg-fallbackName="Patty P"/>
hackenslash said:
I'm pro having guns. I think solid regulation is important, and that should include mandatory training, licensing and registration, with reguar requalifiers, same as for cars.
Click to expand...
So I dnt think licensing mandatory training, re qualifiers and registration is necessary. In my opinion Constitutional rights are not rights which can be severely burdened or restricted in a way that makes those constitutional rights harder to engage with. What country are you from if you dont mind me asking?
 
arg-fallbackName="Deleted member 619"/>
Sorry, not even willing to discuss it until the discussion can be had.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
Patty P said:
Asking me what I think about brown people as a brown person just seems like unnecessary bait that may be in relation to my ancestry. So, nah, not interested in engaging it.
Click to expand...

So the fact that QAnonGuy has made a litany of such claims in this actual thread is no bother to you at all, and we're all being unfair not addressing his points, but when I ask you how you feel about that - it's suddenly me baiting you? :)

Incidentally, you're not the only brown person here, and some of us are even 'third world people' - which apparently, is what serious discourse looks like today.
 
arg-fallbackName="Patty P"/>
Sparhafoc said:
So the fact that QAnonGuy has made a litany of such claims in this actual thread is no bother to you at all, and we're all being unfair not addressing his points, but when I ask you how you feel about that - it's suddenly me baiting you? :)

Incidentally, you're not the only brown person here, and some of us are even 'third world people' - which apparently, is what serious discourse looks like today.
Click to expand...
You asked me explicitly what my opinion about brown people was. If you want to obfuscate AND THEN assert that I should KNOW the opinions of another individual even though the question was specifically leveled at me, then at that point youre just being blatantly dishonest man. I explciitly asked you what claims makes them q anon, you refused to address them prior to this question.

I legit thought that you dropped this bogan q anon nonsense as you were the one who didnt want to discuss it. You are just kind of petty at this point
 
arg-fallbackName="Patty P"/>
Sparhafoc said:
Incidentally, you're not the only brown person here, and some of us are even 'third world people' - which apparently, is what serious discourse looks like today.
Click to expand...

My position as a brown person of many is irrelevant. I dont know who you are or what your ancestry is, all I know is that you went out of left field to ask me my opinion of brown people as a BA woman.
 
arg-fallbackName="Sparhafoc"/>
Patty P said:
My position as a brown person of many is irrelevant. I dont know who you are or what your ancestry is, all I know is that you went out of left field to ask me my opinion of brown people as a BA woman.
Click to expand...

No Patty, stop being evasive. You're complaining that no one is addressing QAnonClown's posts - I told you that it's because of the bullshit he's been posting. Examples of that include blaming brown people for violence in the USA, and continually referring to foreign brown people as 'Third World People'.

Are you saying I am not entitled to consider such behavior clownery and respond as I see fit to it?

You don't know what my ancestry is, and I don't know what your ancestry is - it IS indeed irrelevant, but what's not irrelevant is how this is connected to the membership's response to QAnonGuy, who you seem to think is being unfairly treated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top